Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[Korpsy Knievel]

So it's an improvement to maintenance relation and kills people faster? Can it even get better?

Who are statistically recorded to die of smoking? What is the definition of a smoker death?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ted_mortality/

[Esaman]

I'm not trying to make a point. Points are made with statements, that there is a question such as the sentence: Are you able to answerit?

Sorry, that is not my style of intellectual exchange. If you don't have an opinion I can criticizes or improve on I disengage.

You want more social pressure against smoking in the form of educating the young about the dangers of the habit. Am I right?

I think social pressure is fine in Finland. Health education could be better. Education does not equal pressure.
I also think you should stop flinging shit at academia, which you apparently know little about. Reminds me of anti-intellectualism in US.

[NewBorn STAR]

Sorry, that is not my style of intellectual exchange. If you don't have an opinion I can criticizes or improve on I disengage.


I think social pressure is fine in Finland. Health education could be better. Education does not equal pressure.
I also think you should stop flinging shit at academia, which you apparently know little about. Reminds me of anti-intellectualism in US.

hhahahaha

[Aquagraph]

Sorry, that is not my style of intellectual exchange. If you don't have an opinion I can criticizes or improve on I disengage.

You won't explicate your logical structures openly? This sounds anti-intellectuelism if anything.

I think social pressure is fine in Finland. Health education could be better. Education does not equal pressure.

From what sources does this social pressure stem?

I also think you should stop flinging shit at academia, which you apparently know little about. Reminds me of anti-intellectualism in US.

Let's be civil as we can, shall we. Argumentum ad hominem in fallacious argumentation is not really 'academic'. Nor is the lack of explication.

[Esaman]

You won't explicate your logical structures openly? This sounds anti-intellectuelism if anything.

I have extensively explained my position and reasoning. You on the other hand throw some ideas around and expect other people to run with them doing your work for you and going along with your premises.

Argumentum ad hominem in fallacious argumentation is not really 'academic'.

Unsupported questioning of integrity equals ad hominem attack. So you made an ad hominem attack on the significant portion of scientific community.

[Aquagraph]

I have extensively explained my position and reasoning.

No, you have not.

Can you imagine a scenario where the cigarette companies are happy that they have the forbidden fruit you shouldn't use?

You were unable to answer this and you started asking questions of what kind of a statement it is. It is still a question. Please try answering it if you want to "extensively explain your position and reasoning".

If you don't have an opinion I can criticizes or improve on I disengage.

Why must I make a stance? Don't you give appreciation to skepticism?

Unsupported questioning of integrity equals ad hominem attack. So you made an ad hominem attack on the significant portion of scientific community.

I made an argumentum ad hominem statement by asking too many questions? I have to support my questions or they themselves start to make statements of their own?

Did I bash the scientific community for the support of my statement and, if so, where did I do that?

In short, I'm pro anything that destroys their profits.

I know what you mean.

[Esaman]

"Can you imagine a scenario where the cigarette companies are happy that they have the forbidden fruit you shouldn't use?"
I don't give a f***, whether those companies are happy or not. Their position can be fully ignored in discussion about what to do or not to do about smoking. Which I did.

All other questions are already answered by my previous posts, meaning we are done here.

[Aquagraph]

I don't give a f***, whether those companies are happy or not. Their position can be fully ignored in discussion about what to do or not to do about smoking. Which I did.

Either you don't know what forbidden fruit factor means or you don't mind if this health inquisition attack on cigarettes would improve their sales.

All other questions are already answered by my previous posts, meaning we are done here.

Yes, sadly your rigid modus operandi in intellectual exchange doesn't allow questioning without making statements. Pathetic, but fortunately there are ways to redeem yourself.

[Esaman]

I would feel sorry for hurting your feelings, if I hadn't readily appologised for not having interest in conversation you were interested in. Grow up.