- Forum
- Lounge
- Cigarettes?
- Page 3
Cigarettes?
I quit for a few years, so I guess adding temporarily would have been more accurate.
I'd sit here and try to preach the horrors and woes of tobacco, but I know that all of you already know what you're doing. If anything, you know more about the stuff than I do, so I respect your choice. I would just appreciate it if you smoked both far enough away that I don't have to smell it, and downwind so it isn't all blown into my face. I personally don't see much of an issue with it as long as you are doing the most possible to not harm others with it.
| ...harm others with it. |
Harm?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLHhk1FORz0 - 5.30 to 11.40
Possibly NSFW verbally and may contain nudity beyond those time bounds.
I'll admit I'm just blindly believing Penn and Teller, but they have built a career focused on integrity, so I'm gonna believe them.
Being a regular smoker, I agree that smokers should be responsible enough to actively not bother others with their thing. But if the environment allows it; specifically privately(I don't just mean home), you know what you're getting into and if it bothers you, tough luck.
Last edited on
| I'll admit I'm just blindly believing Penn and Teller, but they have built a career focused on integrity, so I'm gonna believe them. |
Uhhh... they're magicians. Their whole career is about deception, not integrity.
In fact, on numerous occasions Penn has said something along the lines of 'never believe a magician, we are professional liars'
Also, P&T:BS, while entertaining, is clearly biased and is not something you should take at face value.
I worded that wrong, they practice integrity in their career. Besides the career of a person isn't a measure of their character. You would think that all Priests are honorable, holy or whatever; couldn't be further from the truth.
They even mentioned numerous times that yeah, they are biased on BS. But if what they present are facts, biased or not what does it matter? But okay, maybe the facts of it are sketchy (in the sense that I think non of us could be bothered to verify it), can you say with certainty there is no truth in it at all?
They even mentioned numerous times that yeah, they are biased on BS. But if what they present are facts, biased or not what does it matter? But okay, maybe the facts of it are sketchy (in the sense that I think non of us could be bothered to verify it), can you say with certainty there is no truth in it at all?
Last edited on
P&T is indeed very biased, however i do love the show.
but biased doesnt meant they are lying.
i think thats sorta true, another reason is just how available they are.
nevertheless its been a harder time quiting this than the other more "heavy" things ive done.
i mainly smoke marb menthols, but i prefer newports. ( not worth the money for new ports, here in idaho they are 6 bucks a pack, back in washington they are 10 )
but biased doesnt meant they are lying.
| My brother claims that reason people can't quit is because they don't want to -- but rather are trying to quit because they "think they should". Though they still desire to smoke because they enjoy it. But if they actually wanted to quit, it wouldn't be that hard |
i think thats sorta true, another reason is just how available they are.
nevertheless its been a harder time quiting this than the other more "heavy" things ive done.
i mainly smoke marb menthols, but i prefer newports. ( not worth the money for new ports, here in idaho they are 6 bucks a pack, back in washington they are 10 )
closed account (N36fSL3A)
They're like 9 bucks at my local corner store. I don't smoke but my aunt does. She loves newports as well as those camel ones.
| Olysold wrote: |
|---|
| But if what they present are facts, biased or not what does it matter? |
I'm a little surprised that you have to ask why bias when spinning facts matters. It matters a great deal.
Wording things so they are deceptively misleading towards a preconceived conclusion, omitting facts which counter your argument, and mixing facts with conjecture are three very common techniques. It's surprisingly easy (and very, very common) for actual facts to be used to make someone believe something that isn't true and/or is directly contradictory to what the facts are actually saying.
Organizations like Fox News have got this down to a science. Though while educated people can usually plainly see what they're doing, they do a very good job at fooling a large percent of the population.
| Olysold wrote: |
|---|
| But okay, maybe the facts of it are sketchy (in the sense that I think non of us could be bothered to verify it), can you say with certainty there is no truth in it at all? |
Yes there's some truth to what they're saying. But again, take it with a grain of salt. They're spinning an agenda to you.
If you really want to be informed, research unbiased scientific studies on the subject. Don't let Penn & Teller be your only source.
| Paoletti301 wrote: |
|---|
| but biased doesnt meant they are lying. |
It also doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
Last edited on
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade
That talks about how the EPA shs studies were not considered scientific.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13
based of EPA findings
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-7090537.html
no sources
honestly theres no scientific basis that second hand smoke is a major threat. everything that says it is is based off the EPA
What you described doesn't sound like what they are doing at all. They would either outright call the BS-er(s) a dumb ass or start reading facts. If anything, they are distracting me from listening to them with titties.
I would like to think that they are speaking the whole truth (to the best of their ability/research/knowledge). I don't see what they have said that is untrue though, what is it that you know that I don't?
About the matter itself, I can't actually be bothered to find out on my own. If second-hand smoke may be harmful, whatever implications it has on non-smokers is simply too insignificant due to just how incredibly little they get exposed to it compared to the smokers themselves.
I would like to think that they are speaking the whole truth (to the best of their ability/research/knowledge). I don't see what they have said that is untrue though, what is it that you know that I don't?
About the matter itself, I can't actually be bothered to find out on my own. If second-hand smoke may be harmful, whatever implications it has on non-smokers is simply too insignificant due to just how incredibly little they get exposed to it compared to the smokers themselves.
@ Paoletti301: I'm not particularly interested in the topic of 2nd hand smoke so I don't care to read those now. But I'm glad to see you actually did independent research rather than just echoing a random cable entertainment show. Good work.
@Olysold:
I've only seen one or two eps of BS and I can tell you that the people they got to represent the side they didn't agree with were "loonies" whereas the people they got to represent the side they agreed with were considerably more articulate and intelligent.
They also omitted some of what I considered were the strongest selling points of the counter-argument, and nitpicked at points I thought weren't that important.
An unbiased source would do none of those things.
Well then you would like to believe a fantasy. That's not how it works. Not with that show.
Even the title is inflammatory and one-sided.
I never accused them of lying. I accused them of having an agenda and spinning the truth.
I don't know how I can clarify that more than I already have.
Well then you can't be bothered to know the truth.
Please don't be one of those assholes who spouts off crap they heard from their friend as "fact" because they "can't be bothered" to know wtf they're talking about. There's far too much of that in the world already.
I'm not saying you can't form your own opinion. Just understand the difference between opinion and fact.
Anything P&T:BS tells you is opinion. Not fact.
@Olysold:
| What you described doesn't sound like what they are doing at all. |
I've only seen one or two eps of BS and I can tell you that the people they got to represent the side they didn't agree with were "loonies" whereas the people they got to represent the side they agreed with were considerably more articulate and intelligent.
They also omitted some of what I considered were the strongest selling points of the counter-argument, and nitpicked at points I thought weren't that important.
An unbiased source would do none of those things.
| I would like to think that they are speaking the whole truth (to the best of their ability/research/knowledge). |
Well then you would like to believe a fantasy. That's not how it works. Not with that show.
Even the title is inflammatory and one-sided.
| I don't see what they have said that is untrue though, what is it that you know that I don't? |
I never accused them of lying. I accused them of having an agenda and spinning the truth.
I don't know how I can clarify that more than I already have.
| About the matter itself, I can't actually be bothered to find out on my own. |
Well then you can't be bothered to know the truth.
Please don't be one of those assholes who spouts off crap they heard from their friend as "fact" because they "can't be bothered" to know wtf they're talking about. There's far too much of that in the world already.
I'm not saying you can't form your own opinion. Just understand the difference between opinion and fact.
Anything P&T:BS tells you is opinion. Not fact.
I could personally care less about whether it causes cancer and whatnot. The point is, it is harmful- it irritates the lungs and causes me to cough. That's about as harmful as it needs to be for me to avoid being downwind of it. I would also like to point out that that smoking article on cato was written by a guy who has absolutely nothing to do with smoking:
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=509
As for Dave Hitt, I can't particularly find anything on him. Now, I am not going around denying the facts in those articles, since I will agree that the EPA tends to be a bit nuts when trying to pass regulations. However, I will also say that being around second-hand smoke, while it may not cause cancer, is incredibly unpleasant.
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=509
As for Dave Hitt, I can't particularly find anything on him. Now, I am not going around denying the facts in those articles, since I will agree that the EPA tends to be a bit nuts when trying to pass regulations. However, I will also say that being around second-hand smoke, while it may not cause cancer, is incredibly unpleasant.
Last edited on
I agree that it is unpleasant, when i was a child i used to hold my breath every time i would walk past someone who was smoking.
its when the government( talking about america, i dont know anything about other countries laws on the matter ) tells private businesses that they cant allow smoking.
i believe they should be free to make that choice on their own
its when the government( talking about america, i dont know anything about other countries laws on the matter ) tells private businesses that they cant allow smoking.
i believe they should be free to make that choice on their own
homedale, tiny little town. im from washington, came down here to be with my girlfriend
@Disch
Doesn't it occur to you that all the bias attitude (ie. calling the other side whackjobs) is simply a dressing for the show? And has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their content? If the show were shot in a documentary style, does it have more merit? If it were presented by other people (but with the same production team), is it more believable?
Imo they need to take such a biased stance as to be damned clear that the other side should not be trusted. While it may not be suitable for this particular issue, a lot of the topics covered in the series is absolute BS and nothing more. Take the episode on Vaccines for example (the opposition is against vaccines due to chance of autism), flaking on the subject and giving it a chance to speak can get people killed. I rather they be biased as hell.
Out of curiosity, could you please point out what are the strongest selling points for the counter-argument that got omitted?
I still don't see what kind of agenda a couple of rich and famous magicians, one seemingly happily married, on a show originally aired in the dead of night, have for this issue, other than trying to spread some truth.
Yes, I can't be bothered to know the absolute truth on this issue because as I mentioned, it is incredibly insignificant to the non-smoker (cancer inducing). It is just observational common sense that non-smokers would be exposed to wayyyy less cigarette smoke. Whether it is cancer inducing or not, I highly doubt the rate of exposure is enough to warrant any kind of worry.
When have I mentioned anything as fact?
For the record, when it comes to media I take the stance of "nonsense until proven true". I make exceptions when I find that the presenters seem trustworthy enough. The presentation being entertaining doesn't take away from the merit of their information. We need people like P&T in the media to make the truth much more accessible to the masses.
Doesn't it occur to you that all the bias attitude (ie. calling the other side whackjobs) is simply a dressing for the show? And has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their content? If the show were shot in a documentary style, does it have more merit? If it were presented by other people (but with the same production team), is it more believable?
Imo they need to take such a biased stance as to be damned clear that the other side should not be trusted. While it may not be suitable for this particular issue, a lot of the topics covered in the series is absolute BS and nothing more. Take the episode on Vaccines for example (the opposition is against vaccines due to chance of autism), flaking on the subject and giving it a chance to speak can get people killed. I rather they be biased as hell.
Out of curiosity, could you please point out what are the strongest selling points for the counter-argument that got omitted?
I still don't see what kind of agenda a couple of rich and famous magicians, one seemingly happily married, on a show originally aired in the dead of night, have for this issue, other than trying to spread some truth.
| Well then you can't be bothered to know the truth. Please don't be one of those assholes who spouts off crap they heard from their friend as "fact" because they "can't be bothered" to know wtf they're talking about. There's far too much of that in the world already. |
Yes, I can't be bothered to know the absolute truth on this issue because as I mentioned, it is incredibly insignificant to the non-smoker (cancer inducing). It is just observational common sense that non-smokers would be exposed to wayyyy less cigarette smoke. Whether it is cancer inducing or not, I highly doubt the rate of exposure is enough to warrant any kind of worry.
When have I mentioned anything as fact?
For the record, when it comes to media I take the stance of "nonsense until proven true". I make exceptions when I find that the presenters seem trustworthy enough. The presentation being entertaining doesn't take away from the merit of their information. We need people like P&T in the media to make the truth much more accessible to the masses.
Last edited on
| Olysold wrote: |
|---|
| Whether it is cancer inducing or not, I highly doubt the rate of exposure is enough to warrant any kind of worry. |
You're wrong, though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1984876
"These results suggest that heart disease is an important consequence of exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke]."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20681450
"Passive smoking is an important risk factor of lung cancer among non-smoking Chinese"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16165164
"The findings document a significant temporary increase in in vivo oxidation injury due to passive smoke favouring development and/or progression of vascular disease."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8124145
"Passive smoking at work is a risk factor for coronary heart disease"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23443581
"Passive smoking is a risk factor for myocardial infarction on its own"
Smart people don't listen to TV presenters. Smart people listen to peer-reviewed science journals.
Though I did find one that contradicts the rest:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001639/
"From all the available evidence, it appears that any effect of passive smoke on risk of any of the major diseases that have been associated with active smoking is at most small, and may not exist at all."