Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[Aquagraph]

If I had to pull statistics out of my ass[...]

But you don't have to. Please. She wasn't an argument as I said before. Think of her as a story feature releasing the tension, like BnD. We know that smoking kills already. Having constantly needed to be reminded of it makes me wanna light up.

Staff, obviously.

There are ways to legislate bar smoking so that the staff won't have to go to the smoking area. And that there is a non-smoking area. And so they used to do it if my memory serves me. I'm not really a hardliner here.

Placebo effects swings that way too, but effects isn't that significant. Definitely won't kill anyone, smoking will.

Have you heard about the case of this depressed patient going to ER for ODing with his depression pills. The treatment didn't help, his values were still off and no sign of dramatic improvement. They couldn't stabilize his condition in few days and then the doctor found out that he was part of the control group. He almost died but I guess his immune system was failing due to eating chalk since placebo doesn't kill anyone, right? He recovered after the doctors found out what he really took and told it to him.
There are also studies about life being prolonged by a few years with a positive attitude. In a way telling people that they are dying with their habit & lifestyle can kill people.

Everyone knows the dangers and yet people use it. Why do they start it?

What is a point you are trying to make? That it is not your fault that you were stupid as a teenager?

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?

There is no one who benefit financially from anti-smoking campaign and legislation.

So who funds them and the studies?

What?

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

A study released a year or three ago, which I can't seem to find, claimed that in the interest of reduced burdens on the medical and welfare systems, it is beneficial that tobacco consumers kill themselves prematurely through use of those carcinogenic products than it for them to live into old age where they would require more extensive attention and support for a longer period.

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?

[NewBorn STAR]

With your smoke you burn us all away

[NewBorn STAR]

Its cool like this http://alphavilleherald.com/images/2...rld_advert.jpg

[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.