It’s getting pretty damn scary! If you’re not horrendously disturbed by the level of pernicious indoctrination of youth at the hands of the anti-smoking lobby, then you’re a sick, twisted, fucking blight – plain and simple.
Here’s an essay written by a young person (presumably as part of a school project) that appeared on Yahoo Answers. Read it:
i am doing a persuasive essay on smoking, if u know anything about smoking please help me!!! this is my essay so far? do u like it? do u think it will persuade(convince)people???
Imagine a place where cigarettes were on the ground, people without jobs, and people damaging their body. Do you want to live there? Well if you don’t help prevent people from smoking, the world might turn into that place in a few years. By smoking, people spend their money on cigarettes which can lead to many dangerous things every year.
One reason why smoking is bad is that after people smoke, they put their cigarettes on the ground. It is against the law to litter and sometimes the cigarettes can cause a fire. If you get caught littering or making a fire, you have to pay about $1,000. If you weren’t smoking, you could’ve use that money for something else more useful.
Another reason why smoking is bad is that you won’t get accepted to certain jobs like being a teacher or a doctor. Some jobs, especially working with children, don’t allow smokers. If you don’t have a job, you can’t get money to take care of youself. If you were a smoker, which one is more important to you; money or cigarettes?
The most important reason why smoking is bad is that you damage your body. If you smoke you get bad breath, yellow teeth, smelly clothes, more colds and coughs, and an empty wallet. Also, you damage other people around you. When you are smoking, other people breathe the smoke and it gets into their lungs which can make lung cancer. That is called second-hand smoking.
There are many more reasons why smoking should decrease, but the most important reason is the safety. About 1,000 people gets killed every year. Although the companies who sell cigarettes get money, the hospitals pay more for all the cancer and diseases people get when smoking. Smoking can make you addicted and make it hard for you to stop, but I believe that all smokers should stop immediately.
First of all, the anti-smoker scum have done an excellent job of molding the thought processes of the young into believing that people must take it upon themselves to “convince” others to alter their lifestyle choices. You’ll remember how I recently documented another young person commenting how people should “enforce non-smoking in others” – “enforce non smoking” – not support, or persuade, but “enforce.”Newsflash! It’s none of your fucking business if I choose to smoke or not. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me. So STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS and tend to your own freaking house! Do you see me taking an audit of your life, and then “convincing” you to cease behavior which I find disagreeable? No? So FUCK OFF!
And then, of course, anti-smokers have the audacity to incessantly repeat the tired old phrase “Nobody cares if you choose to smoke or not! I just don’t want you to do it around me!” BULLSHIT! You brain-dead, moronic, lying anti-smoking TWAT! Everywhere you turn people are preaching the joys of “convincing” others to quit, or to “enforce non-smoking.” Hey, anti-smokers, here’s a question: Are you stupid? Or, just evil? A combination of both? Which is it?
But, do you see the problem with the essay above? It’s full of absolute fallacies that I would bet my bottom dollar will never be corrected by this person’s teacher. Why? Because in today’s society it’s perfectly fine to be misinformed if that misinformation is likely to result in a detriment to the evils of tobacco consumption — even if that misinformation will lead to horrible intolerance toward other individuals and people’s civil liberties by the one who holds such notions. It’s important enough to the low-life anti-smoking gestapo that they be rid of this annoyance of theirs once and for all, that they don’t mind raising irrational, frightened, misinformed, brain-washed children. They don’t mind trampling on people’s civil liberties, nor creating clones of youth that will do the same and grow up to understand that the right to be free of a personal annoyance trumps all — children that will grow to understand that the legal behavior of others, if they find it displeasing, is something that can be socially engineered away — something that can be enforced and imposed. Anti-smokers willfully indoctrinate children into believing that lies, hatred and discrimination are acceptable tools for change, because the means, no matter how heinous, are always justified by the end.
The anti-smoking movement is a dangerous, evil, infection. Anti-smokers are foul viruses. Can there be any doubt? We need to be inoculated against this vile, pernicious scourge, and QUICK!
“Imagine a place where cigarettes were on the ground, people without jobs, and people damaging their body. Do you want to live there? Well if you don’t help prevent people from smoking, the world might turn into that place in a few years.”
Read the quote above. If you don’t think that this child is the victim of brainwashing, then you’re an idiot. Did you get that? YOU’RE STUPID – unintelligent – dumb! No arguments, no debates. You’re a FUCKING moron!
Imagine a world where rape happens openly in the streets, where murder and every form of perversion is rampant. Would you want to live there? Well, if you don’t convince people not to engage in homosexual acts, the world might turn into that place in a few years.
You see the problem? Nobody in their right mind would believe either statement to be true — because neither statement is true. No matter what happens, we wont have the world the essayist describes, nor the world I warn against. Yet, no one is bothered by what the essayist wrote. Yet, I’d seem like a raving lunatic if I was serious about mine. Not one person at Yahoo Answers raised issue with that particular statement.
“One reason why smoking is bad is that after people smoke”
One reason eating potato chips is bad is because after people eat potato chips, they throw the empty bag on the ground.
Er… no they don’t. Some do. Most don’t. Littering is littering, it has nothing to do with smoking. Nobody suggests we should ban potato chips because it causes litter, why are the rules different for cigarettes? Nobody raised issue with this fallacy either.
“By smoking, people spend their money on cigarettes”
So what? It’s my business what I choose to spend MY money on. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS! I earned that money, I’ll spend it on what I like. Nobody brought this up to the essayist.
“Another reason why smoking is bad is that you won’t get accepted to certain jobs like being a teacher or a doctor. Some jobs, especially working with children, don’t allow smokers.”
This young person has been brainwashed to believe that unjust discrimination practices are an effective and justifiable means of control. Hey, if you’re being discriminated against for personal choices, there’s no problem! Just don’t make those choices and every thing will be fine! Yay! Life is simple and good! Just conform and submit and your problems will go away! The problem is you, not the discrimination! This is a wonderful thing to teach the youth.
“Although the companies who sell cigarettes get money, the hospitals pay more for all the cancer and diseases people get when smoking.”
Uhhh, wrong. Again, nobody pointed out the fact that hospitals MAKE money from treating the illnesses of smokers, just like they make money from treating the illnesses of non-smokers. Only, SMOKERS SUBSIDIZE THE HEALTH CARE OF NON-SMOKERS to a much, much, much greater degree than non-smokers subsidize the health care of smokers!!!
“I believe that all smokers should stop immediately.”
And, I believe that you’ve been horribly abused by the unscrupulous anti-smoking lobby. You have my sympathy, and my pity — you’re going to suffer some pretty horrendous psychological hardships in life, either when you figure out that you’ve been had, or if you never figure that out, when you start realizing that, for some reason, the world isn’t operating in the manner in which you were lead to believe it should by the people you trusted. When it comes to that time, remember: The anti-smokers, without conscience, did this to you for nothing but their own gain.
34 Comments
What on earth is a spasy person? Good Lord but I can’t stand this kind of writing. Is decent grammar no longer required in school?
Anyway Derek, I’d like to thank you. Reading the exchange between you and these Magoos was inspiring.
To vent a bit, I’d love to bludgeon the scum who make those fucking truth commercials. Positively despicable.
Now then, time to light a smoke.
Take care man, and good fortune to you.
yupp i hope i neva start in my life…. and 2 those peple who read this ( the spasy people) go die in a hole and have a nice life
I run a business, and I’d never hire someone who told me he’d never smoked a cigarette (or a joint). Why? Because I’ve got no time or patience for what passes as morality among the peasants, nor do I have any for people with no experience or interest in exploring all the possibilities in life. Because someone who thinks a puff of smoke will kill him isn’t just a coward, but an idiot who failed junior high biology.
So unless this kid starts smoking, there’s at least one job he won’t be able to get…
And …is there a country where you’re not permitted to be a doctor if you smoke? If so, I hope the doctors there who do smoke think twice before performing a life-saving procedure on an anti-smoker.
And, in that regard, I agree with the general public.
Not at all. in fact, I agree entirely. Congratulations on being completely misinformed regarding my stance.
Whom, exactly, is encouraging young people to smoke?
…you’re REALLY confused aren’t you?
I sincerely wonder where your heading with this. The general public agrees that smoking is bad for you.. yet you strive to go against this vision and encourage youngsters to smoke?
Hehe, take a deep breath of fresh air – while your lungs still allow you to do so.
And… Voilà!
Nobody agrees with you man…. not even on your own blog.
More mindless rhetoric from Mr. Nel. Typical.
Ever diligent about promoting the anti-smoker stereotype of “no logical argument, just brainless verbage”, Paul once again comes through with guns-a-blazin’
…and watch… wait for it! He’ll do it again too.
Do yourself a favour and give it up, Paul. You’re doing nothing but to prove my arguments for me while exposing yourself and your sick, twisted little movement for what you and it truly are.
Pssst… listen carefully for a moment. Do you hear that sound? …that’s the sound of everyone feeling sorry for you.
Derek fails at life, smoke more and die early.
So, Ben you think women who smoke put out more? You ought to
know you big whore chaser. You know you’d screw anyone who would
let you.
Barney, Barney, Barney… are you haunting my blog now with your bad, satyr self?
Hey, this is (in no small part) an anti-anti-smoking blog. Far be it from me to put a stop to anti-smokers filling it with page after page of personal testimony to just how ridiculous they are.
Are you kidding? This stuff is gold, man! GOLD I tell you!
P.S. – If memory serves, I think you actually first heard the pig wrestling analogy from me.
Derek! Why on Earth would you waste your time arguing with this imbecile after the exchange I quoted above? About two posts in he completely destroyed any possibility of ever having any credibility with that retarded comment. He admitted to you right there that he can’t debate and is only interested in throwing around completely unfounded accusations. He said he noticed fallacies in your argument and then he admitted he never read the argument. So how did he notice something in an argument he never read? He’s an admitted liar. What else has he lied about?
Didn’t you ever hear that you shouldn’t waste time wrestling with a pig? You get all wet and dirty, and the pig actually likes it! It’s a waste of time to devote so much effort to battling morons. They’re morons! They’ll take care of themselves. It’s called “thinning the herd.” Just leave them alone and sooner or later they’ll succumb to natural selection. Lol!
Yes. I wanted proof… do you have any? I’m still waiting for it.
While I admit the FANCD2 link is the closest anyone has ever come to finding a causative mechanism, it’s still far off the mark. What you have provided can be, in no reasonable scientific terms, said to be “proof” of anything. At best, it is provisional “evidence” (evidence being very different than “proof”) suggestive of a causative link. But, yes, for the time being, it seems to be the best example of such thus far presented. However, only a loon, at this point, wouldn’t be highly sceptical of the paper.
Did you even read it? Or, did you just read a speech-bite from a major media outlet and log it as fact?
I’ve just completed reading the entire study. It’s available here:
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v98/n10/pdf/6604362a.pdf
Right off the bat, the study was published in May of 2008. MAY OF 2008! As in: A FEW WEEKS AGO. Do you have any inkling of how science works? Scientific fact, or “proof” is not determined upon the completion of a single study. It requires a substantial period of critical analysis before it carries any merit whatsoever. It requires rigorous, repeated attempts at falsification. I’ve done an extensive search, and I can’t find a single critical paper, or corroborating paper on the study. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Which, of course, is not out of the ordinary for a study that is a few weeks old.
Beyond that however, the study contains a number of red-flags which raises strong suspicion that it wont stand up to scrutiny for very long. Examples:
(1) “Lung cancer is the most common malignancy in the world causing over one million deaths per year (Kamangar et al, 2006). The major causative factor is cigarette smoke, which is linked to greater than 90% of cases”
The wording is a clear indication of what’s known as “operational bias.” I.e. – the researchers are starting with a pre-conceived conclusion and going off to hunt for corroboration. This is a BIG, BIG scientific no-no. Also, with that in mind, I can find no reference in the article detailing measures taken to ensure any amount of blindness in the study. These two facts alone, taken together, almost completely invalidate the study right off the bat.
Do you see the bias? The statement they open the study with is that smoking is THE major CAUSATIVE factor of lung cancer. But, what’s the very purpose of the study they’re doing? The purpose is to attempt to finally locate a mechanism that would show smoking as a causative factor for lung cancer?!?!?!? WHAT??? That biases the study and casts serious doubt on its conclusions. This is made no better by the fact that the study seems to not have been conducted using any measure of blinding system.
(2) There are something like seven specific proteins thought to play a role in the supression of gene mutation. The fact that they, through artificial means that do not ocurr in nature, were able to show that exposure to tobacco smoke supressed one of them does nothing except to SUGGUEST that tobacco smoke MAY be causative, and IF it is, this MAY be, at least IN PART, how it’s doing it. You think that constitutes “proof” of anything?
(3)“It is widely recognised that FA proteins promote chromosomal stability, FA cells display both endogenous and DNA crosslinker-induced CIN, and monoubiquitination of FANCD2 plays key regulatory roles (reviewed in Bagby and Alter, 2006). However, the precise biochemical mechanisms by which these molecules control chromosomal stability have not been delineated. Whether the role of the proteins is direct or indirect is unclear.“
An assertion of uncertainty on the part of the researchers. Read the bolded line. What are they saying? They’re saying that their experiment (if it was even valid – which remains to be seen) did show that exposure to tobacco smoke reduced the protein in question… But they can’t be sure if such a reduction of the protein has any significance or not! I.e. – They’re saying that the protein in question SEEMS to have some role in suppressing gene mutation, but they don’t know how, or to what extent it does it. Without this information, they don’t know what other factors might be involved, if any. Ergo: STILL NO KNOWN CAUSATIVE MECHANISM BETWEEN SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER.
Again, what is the conclusion of this study? Tobacco smoke MAY be causative. It seems all they’ve done is to move mostly baseless speculation a little bit toward less baseless speculation. But, it’s STILL speculation.
(4) “The mechanism of CSC-induced protein synthesis inhibition remains enigmatic.”
That should speak for itself.
(5) “Here, we confirmed that CSC inhibited global protein synthesis in vitro in our model system of lung epithelial cells and identified downregulation of FANCD2, clearly indicating that in vivo studies are warranted.”
You get that? “IN VITRO” This was an exclusively IN VITRO experiment. Do you know what that means? It means the entire experiment was nothing but suggestive. THEY HAVE NO IDEA, WHATSOEVER, IF TOBACCO SMOKE SUPPRESSES THE FANCD2 PROTEIN IN HUMANS. What they’ve done is provided an experiment that (if valid) argues that there is at least some reason to SUSPECT that it MIGHT.
Come on! Does that sound like “proof” of a causative mechanism to you?
(6) “Whether somatic events are adaptive or arise by selection of pre-existing mutant clones is not yet known
Here they’re stating that even if tobacco smoke is present, they have no idea if the tobacco smoke alone, via the resulting suppression of the gene, is enough to be a causative mechanism. I.e. – All they’ve shown is that, in vitro, smoke suppresses the protein – BUT SUPPRESSION OF THE PROTEIN MIGHT NOT MEAN DIDDLY SQUAT. It may be that you can suppress the hell out of the protein, and no cancer will ever occur unless there are other factors at play.
So, as I suspected, yet another example of an anti-smoker attempting to pass off dubious evidence as “proof.”
You didn’t even read the study before you endorsed it, did you? You probably just read a short article somewhere, decided that it was friendly to your stance, and accepted it without the slightest scrutiny. …but, as you’ve said, we are most certainly equals in our ability to exercise independent thought![/sarcasm]
Pregant women? That’s an article about SIDS.
But, Yep! One, single study published ONE DAY (are you for real?) before the article you cite was published, and one day more than a week before today’s date, trumps all of the studys which show the exact opposite findings. The study is so new that I can’t even find it on Pubmed… in fact a search through the whole of Google scholar turns up nothing.
So, I can’t even read the thing to scrutinize it. Now I KNOW you didn’t read that one before endorsing it. Anyway, your citation is meaningless, the article is unable to be scrutinized.
Here’s an interesting letter sent to ASH (Action on Smoking and Health – rabid anti smokers) from the SIDS Alliance (non profit org. devoted to raising awareness about SIDS) Asking them to stop trying to fraudulently get people to think that smoking and SIDS are related in any significant way. Anti-smokers, it would seem, are not above praying on the lives of babies in order to further their own agenda. Working to raise awareness about this terrible condition be damned! The lives of the babies and their families be damned! The the anti-smoking movement will go out of their way to impede all of that – they’ve got an annoyance to rid themselves of. And, that’s much more important than the lives of a few babies, isn’t it?
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/cohe01.htm
And, here’s what the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles had to say about it:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/sidscig.htm
Among the myriad of already published studies that have thus far stood up to peer scrutiny:
http://www.data-yard.net/10p2/sids.htm
SIDS is associated with a physical brain-stem abnormality. (which might be caused by bacterial infection)
http://www.data-yard.net/15/cot2.htm
SIDS is a result of a bacterial infection. (Cig smoke contains no bacteria)
http://www.data-yard.net/15/cot_file/cot.htm
Another corroborative study linking SIDS to infection
http://www.data-yard.net/2/16/pneumoc.htm
Yet ANOTHER study linking it to infection
But, one single study that we can’t scrutinize and is about a week past it’s publication date just trumps all of that and more? That’s your “proof”?? Patheitc fail. Keep trying.
That refers to an NIH study. Would you accept “proof” from me that smoking was a miracle cure for cancer because I submitted a study from a tobacco company?
http://www.counterpunch.org/pringle06262006.html
Perhaps you shouldn’t have been so sure? Do you not ever get tired of being wrong?
He’s got a right to enjoy his wood fire on his own property, which is equal to your right to not enjoy his wood fire on your own property. So, if you’ve got that much of a problem with it, you should talk to him amicably and try to reach a reasonable compromise that both of you can live with. Both of you should take steps, on your own, to in some way accomodate the other. You should try and make some improvements to your ventilation system, for example, and he should take care to perhaps only burn wood that smokes less, has a more appealing odour, whatever. You can agree to put up with his smoke perhaps half of the week, if he refrains the rest of the week. Work it out so both of you can live together as comfortably as possible and neither has to completely give up their liberties in order to submit to the other’s wants. You know… just like the way reasonable humans are supposed to act toward each other.
What you shouldn’t do is start a political movement that labels all people who enjoy wood burning fires as scourges on humanity, impose discriminatory taxation on the sale of firewood, legislate an all out ban on wood fires, threaten to forcefully remove children from parents who enjoy wood fires, etc. If you want to live in a free society, you have to learn the art of compromise. You’ll have to learn give a little in order to get a little. If you can’t handle that, then, like I said before: Move to a cabin in the woods, grow a beard and befriend a grizzly bear! Because, obviously, taking part in a civilized society is just not your cup of tea.
??? You’ve never seen a gas range inside someone’s house? You’ve never eaten at a restaurant that char-broils, or wood-fires their food? That all goes on indoors. And of course, food cooked on electric ranges doesn’t smoke at all!?!?! Please!
Why are these things allowed indoors when they release all of the same dangerous chemicals that are in cigarettes, only at a much, much higher volume? Why? Because any potentially health threats are averted through the incorporation of adequate ventilation and/or air-filtration systems. Somehow though, magically, according to the antis, such systems are supposedly rendered entirely ineffective against cig. smoke. And, because of this, a total ban is the only solution.
Perplexing, isn’t it?
Do you know why that is? Because the bans WEREN’T PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE AIR QUALITY. They were put in place to make it as difficult as possible for smokers to remain being smokers. It’s documented fact that air-cleaning systems are available today,at reasonable costs, that will clean the air in a room full of smokers to standards well within the EPA’s acceptable limits, and actually make the air CLEANER in a room full of smokers than the air in a room full of non-smokers with no such system in place.
But, we didn’t get legislation requiring adherence to certain air-quality standards, or requiring the installation of such systems. No. That would have been a reasonable measure. Instead we got bans. Why? Because IT’S NOT ABOUT AIR-QUALITY. IT’S NOT ABOUT HEALTH. It’s about social-engineering — making it as difficult as possible for smokers to remain being smokers, so they’ll give up their chosen activity. Whether they want to or not.
Like I said earlier… do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Dictionaries provide the COMMON USAGE of words, not CORRECT USAGE. The words “can” and “may” are not interchangeable, even though it is common to do so. Commonality does not denote correctness.
English lesson 101 for Boob:
Question: “Can I go to the bathroom?”
Correct response: “I don’t know. Have you not yet learnt how, or do you have some sort of medical conditions that prevents you from doing so?”
Question: “May I go to the bathroom?”
Correct response: “Yes. I give you permission to go to the bathroom.”
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000200.htm
http://imgi.uibk.ac.at/mmetgroup/MMet_imgi/tools/mayfield/can-may.htm
http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/english_grammar_style/difference_between_may_can.html
“Can” refers to an ability to do something. “May” refers to the possibility of doing something.
I can bench press 500lbs – I possess the ability to bench press 500lbs.
I may bench press 500lbs – I have not yet decided whether I will bench press 500lbs or not.
Smoking can cause cancer – The act of smoking will cause cancer under certain conditions.
Smoking may cause cancer – The act of smoking might possess the ability to cause cancer.
The interchanging of “can” and “may” is a colloquialism. It’s common, and so is accepted in informal speech. But, with all such manners of speech, CONTEXT of usage must be consulted to determine meaning.
My context was clear – in fact, I explicitly explained it to you after you had made the error, and YOU STILL re-made the error!
Because YOU don’t have a firm grasp on English doesn’t mean I’m “twisting words” You likely just lack the ability to clearly comprehend fairly simple language, and you interpret your confusion as me “twisting words.” I believe I asked you for examples of my “twisting words” If I didn’t, consider this a formal request.
Good. I wasn’t done watching you expose yourself yet. Have you not figured out yet that it serves my purposes to have you keep going with this argument? Every time you post it’s just more and more and more documented, and publicly viewable examples of how the anti-smoker side has no argument, and no rational, logical, or factual legs to stand on.
“Typcal” wasn’t a rebuttle. It was an observation of fact.
I told you, before we bagan, that you’d do that, and you did it. You didn’t believe that I’d be able to predict your actions, but it’s all right above this post as public record. So, if you think you can take the “I’m right and you’re wrong, no matter what your argument, and that’s the end of it, and I’m leaving now thus eliminating the possibility of having to account for my argument. But, you still didn’t win.” road. And get to have the last word. You’ve got another thing coming.
Hey Brain-wave,
Posts that contain more than one URL are automatically held in a moderation que to guard against spam posts. Also, if you submit an identical comment, over and over and over again, they will be held in the que by the system for the same reason. They wont appear on the blog until I’ve had a chance to review them and make sure they aren’t spam. All other comments are posted straight-away to the blog. So, you may now commence with your back-peddling for the latest in a long line of your baseless and ridiculous accusations.
Oh, and, I’ve decided to approve the entire history of your commenting – with all multiple, identical posts intact – to keep a public record of your infantile, reactionary, little temper-tantrum.
Happy now?
I’ll get back to responding to the rest of your ridiculousness in a few hours when I have time. But, you’re to be commended on resorting to spam-vandalizing my blog with identical comments to multiple entries. Desperate are we?
You wanted proof that cigarettes and smoking can cause cancer?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107326.php
Or can harm a pregnant woman?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109463.php
Or this one on two particular chemicals that are culprits in cigarettes:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109059.php
Are you blocking me now? Really? Are you blocking my IP or whatnot because I noticed that somebody else posted a response and they posted after I’ve sent one post, and none of my others have shown up yet.
What are you scared of? Is this your normal tactic? To preach to anyone that listens, but if somebody starts making a dent in your theories, then you moderate them in hopes none of your loyal fanbase sees you for the hack you are?
Just curious, thats all.
Well, shit. I could have sworn I posted some responsesa already. Been waiting for your response to mine. Must have forgot to hit submit, which I am sure I did. You sure you didn’t delete my response?
You wanted proof that cigarettes and smoking can cause cancer?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107326.php
Or can harm a pregnant woman?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109463.php
Or this one on two particular chemicals that are culprits in cigarettes:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109059.php
But I’m sure all you will do is rebuttle with the usual BBQ smoke bit, or car pollution bit. Whatever, you are correct in that those have quite a bit of pollutants in them. As a matter of fact, I’m quite frustrated with a neighbor of mine who, every non-rainy day it seems, lights up this backyard firepit he has and burns massive amounts of wood. I really don’t care about his enjoyment of that, though it does bother me that he wastes so much wood just sitting there and staring at it. What does get me angry is that this smoke wafts through my windows, stinking up my house, and everybody else because his backyard sits right in the middle of a large section of housing. In fact, one day, he burned something that caused a huge plume of smoke and smelled like he just burned a pound or two of pot. Pretty fucking nasty.
I ask, is that right? Should he be allow to do this?
And you’re also right about BBQ smoke, it’s a good thing nobody does that inside a house and we have laws against that. Otherwise, more people would die from it.
And your:
bit is so very, very wrong.
Here is a couple excerpts from Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:
“c—used to indicate possibility ; sometimes used interchangeably with may”
and
c—used to indicate possibility or probability ; sometimes used interchangeably with can
Up until this point I thought you had a firm grasp of the English language. And maybe you do, and you just firmly gave yourself away as someone who DOES like to twist words, as I’ve always accused you of.
And one more thing. You’re dishonorable need to point your tongue at me on my way out only served to draw me back in. Too bad you didn’t have anything better to rebuttle than “Typical”.
I’ve attempted to read through your horrendously articulated blog and the related comments, and just want to say that I was a smoker up until I found your page but you’ve completely turned me off to smoking now. Thank you for giving me a reason to quit!
I think it’s time to move on, there is nothing to see here. A silly argument about the trace amounts of cyanide, loss of personal liberties by having “public” locations restricted based on the democratic majority. Please stop being a facist and learn what it means to be a libertarian. I am free to smoke in my house and do as I please with tabacco so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, focus on your own life and leave other’s alone. Your need to feel superior over the rest of the society you live in (as demonstrated by your innability to hold a civil discussion on discourse) really puts off those of us who are educated and responsible smokers. Please go back to school and learn the basics of persuasive arguements.
– Fellow Smoker
But, you can’t provide a single example of either that stands up to scrutiny. Typical.
Typical
But, oddly enough, you can’t provide a single example of me spreading propaganda that stands up to scrutiny. Typical.
My personal health is non of your concern. Typical of an anti-smoker to think it is. Also typical in valueing another’s health, which is none of your business, above their freedom.
Irrelevant and non-nonsensical. Argues my point. I’m being oppressed by both my neighbour (you), and my government (at your behest.) I, however, am doing nothing to oppress you, nor supporting any movement or institution that does.
Yeah… right… and, it’s not like I called that way before it happened or anything. You’re running away with your tail between your legs, in typical anti-smoker fashion, because, as I predicted, you’re surprised to find yourself with no rational or factual argument. You’re surprised to find yourself in an argument that you can’t win – because rationality, logic, reason and facts are not on your side.
So, YOU notch this up as a technical draw, or whatever you want, if it prevents your ego from being shattered, and allows you to hold on to your own oppressive beliefs that you now know are entirely baseless, damaging and fallacious.
How in ANY way imaginable is that an example of hypocrisy? I’m bewildered… The two points which you think are conflicting are (1) Smoking may be harmful to me (2) Smoking does carry a health risk.
Both statements are in perfect agreement with each other. Do you know what the word “risk” means? Smoking carries with it a risk to one’s health, therefore, smoking may be harmful to one’s health.
Skiing carries with it a health risk – if I choose to ski, I am accepting a health risk of serious injury that I wouldn’t be accepting if I never skied. So, by your logic, any claim of “Skiing may result in injury” would be a hypocritical statement? Ridiculous. Skiing DOES carry a health risk, and skiing MAY result in injury. Due to the associated risk, I MAY injure myself skiing. Most skiers don’t seriously injure themselves. Just like most smokers don’t suffer adversely from smoking.
To quote David Cross: “You don’t know what words mean, do you?”
Again, by any stretch of the imagination, how is that hypocrisy??? It’s NOT the opinion I’m angry about. The anti-smoker can have any opinion he wants to have. I don’t care. Not one iota. When he or she maliciously forces those opinions into innocent, unguarded youth for their own nefarious purposes, then I get angry.
It’s not the opinion it’s THE ACT. Can you really not see a difference there?
So, congratulations, you’ve made two accusations which you’ve failed miserably to validate, rendering them false accusations. But, you wonder why I claim such activity is typical among anti-smokers? Do you recall me saying this very thing would happen?
Am I serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? By your logic, the little toddlers of KKK racist parents who scream “Death to niggers!” are at fault! You hate those kids, huh? They’re evil, foul, racist swine? Get the hell out of here! That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. Children are not responsible for the opinions they hold. They do not have an emotional, or intellectual maturity sufficient enough to make them responsible for their opinions. Their opinions are a reflection of those that have instilled those opinions within them. That very fact makes them entirely innocent. The KKK children are without fault or blame. Their mung-head parents and the adults around them that have corrupted the innocence of the child in such a way have the fault and blame.
What are you? 10? How can an adult, or even anyone approaching adult-hood think that way?
Do you also blame rape victims for being raped? Battered wives for “asking for it”?
You were upset because you thought I was mad at a kid, yet here you are saying that children are no different than adults in the responsibility they bear for their own opinions?
I’m bewildered.
Quote it. The statement “smoking MAY cause cancer” is very different than the statement “smoking CAN cause cancer”
So, quote it. It’s not to point the subject elsewhere, it’s to keep you honest. If you submit baseless accusations and spout falsehoods, you’re going to get called on it, remember? You’ve already been sown to be guilty of doing just that. So, quote it and prove your innocence.
Says who? Another basless accusation. What do you know about what I’ve done with statistics I’ve seen? The very LAST thing I do is look the other way. I’ve spent countless hours pouring through countless epidemiological studies in order to best understand how those statistics were generated and their true meanings. Have you ever done that once before forming any opinions? Even once? Or, do you just hear a sound bite on the evening news that says: “New study today claims that 1+1=3!” and log it as fact?
You can’t be serious. Another basless accusation. How do you know what manner or amount of research I’ve done?
Oh please. Fail! Go back and read.
Because I’M NOT ATTEMPTING TO FORCEFULLY LEGISLATE MY OPINIONS ON YOU!!! I’M NOT THE ONE WITH THE DAMNED PROBLEM WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S HABITS. Are you for real??? My GOD man! If you can’t deal with something, you go away – you don’t force everybody else to adhere to your dictates.
If I have a problem with your habits, I’ll take measures to limit my exposure to you. If I have the problem, I’ll go awat. You can bet your bottom dollar I wont try to force you into giving up those habits just to appease my tastes. But, I don’t have the problem, YOU DO. So, YOU GO AWAY.
I specifically asked you how I did this.. so far, you’ve either failed or refused to answer.
Of course you do. I explained, at length, how you did. You dismissed with that “I don’t think I do.” while providing no logical or factual counter.
So, you think smokers carry their vices outside and shove it front of people’s faces? Well… “I don’t think they do.” My argument is just as valid as yours. Ergo, by your own admission, smokers are innocent of your accusation.
My views are pretty much all the same. It’s none of anyone’s business what your religion is, your sexual preference, whether you use illicit narcotics, or enjoy pornography. Ecological matters should be legislated to reasonable degree only if there is clear and present, scientifically valid evidence to justify such legislation.
Why in the hell would I do that? What in the world would give you the notion that I might? The fact that I’ve run a completely open blog for 4 years, constantly, openly engaging in discussion and fielding all manner of attacks for it? Are you a lunatic or something?
Oh my god. Do I have to spell it out??? Oh, wait a minute… I already did.
Whether drunk driving is the “drug that causes death” or not IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT!!!! Whether anyone even ever dies or not IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT!
IT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO BE DRUNK DRIVING!!! It could be any other display of statistical data!
If you have any guts at all you’ll answer these questions:
(1) Is the statistical link between the involvement of automobiles and drunk driving 100%?
(2) Do cars CAUSE drunk driving?
(3) If your answer to (1) was “yes”, and (2) “no” Explain exactly why the statement “smoking CAUSES lung cancer” is an accurate statement.
Ridiculous nonsense. For the purposes of the illustration it doesn’t even have to be drunk driving or smokers. The point was to illustrate how CAUSES CAN NOT BE DERIVED FROM STATISTICAL DATA.
It’s a SIMPLE logic demonstration – logic 101. YOU DON’T EVEN NEED REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES. Alcohol, cars, drunk-driving, smoking.. IT’S AL IRRELEVANT!!! Look:
All widgets are blue
No widgets are red
Some grappers are blue
Therefore: (according to your logic) All Grappers are red. IT MAKES NO SENSE! IT’S BLOODY ILLOGICAL!
Get it?
All cases of drunk driving include cars (some widgets are blue)
Cars do not cause drunk driving (No widgets are red)
Some cases of lung cancer involve smoking (Some grappers are blue)
Logical conclusion: Smoking causes lung cancer???
IT’S FREAKING NON-NONSENSICAL!!!
I REALLY don’t know how I can explain it more clearly than that. You obviously just have no ability to exercise basic logic.
You CAN NOT determine cause by statistical data alone. You can only speculate about cause. All we have linking smoking to lung cancer is statistical data. So explain to me how the statement “Smoking causes cancer” is a logical statement. Or, if you agree that smoking as a cause of lung cancer is only speculation, the explain how the statement, in absolute terms: “Smoking causes lung cancer” is a responsible statement to make and attempt to pass off as truth.
I’ve admitted smoking MAY cause cancer… (and I’m the one that supposedly “twists words” Jeesh!)
What? You’re injecting needless premises into the logical argument. Burning bed??? We’re talking about LUNG CANCER. That analogy doesn’t apply at all to the point being made. What has your analogy got to do with determining cause from statical data?
No, of course not. What??? Where do you come up with this stuff?
It’s ubiquitous among Antis. It’s present among pro-smokers. The anti-smoking movement is characterized by such behaviour. To say my side is “no better” is laughable. “My side” isn’t perfect. “No better”? Ridiculous!
How do you know I haven’t? In fact, I have. A number of times. My most recent was a face to face confrontation a surgeon about a year ago. He openly admited defeat.
Both.
Assumption / proclamation.
Well, for one thing, probably because nicotine absolutely DID NOT cause any such ailments in your grandparents. Nicotine is strongly suspected of causing addiction, and known to cause nausea. Other than that, it’s a completely benign substance. It’s not the nicotine in tobacco that has been linked to “smoking related illness”
I accept that smoking may very well have been responsible for your grandparent’s condition. I don’t know if it was. My I accept that it may have been.
Why can’t you accept that it may not have been?
MAY be a culprit. One of the less likely ones according to the information you provide.
How so?
So, you’ve not ruled out any other risk factors. And, in the face of the fact that the odds of an average smoker not ever contracting emphysema is around 85%, you’ve determined beyond all doubt that smoking is what did it.
And, you wonder why someone might suggest that you might be “brainwashed”? Or, completely irrational or illogical in your reasoning?
Who’s not facing that fact? You might want to go back and read where I’ve repeatedly stated exactly that.
Yet, you seem to be completely unable to explain why you know this to be a certainty… but… you’re not “brainwashed” that’s for sure!
Only known source???? Are you joking??? Do you not know that there about 40 known risk factors for lung cancer? Smoking is ONE of the 40. How did you rule out the other 39 over the expanse of a person’s entire lifetime?
You just happen to know beyond doubt that your grandfather was never exposed to asbestos, radon gas, diesel fumes, coal dust, industrial cleaning agents, insecticides, herbicides, fungal growths, EM radiation, etc., etc., You were able to rule all of these things out? Or, through your own psychic powers, know beyond doubt that if he had been exposed to such things, none of those things were responsible for his contraction of the disease?
So, how DO you know it was smoking? Because, that’s what you’ve been told. And, you accepted it without question… but, yes, your mind is your own. No brainwashing here.
I KNOW! THAT’S MY WHOLE POINT! WE’RE NO BETTER THAN EACH OTHER! We both do things that effect other people, for largely, what you would deem, unnecessary purposes. EVERYBODY DOES. But, you get to legislate away my behaviour which you find disagreeable, but I don’t get to do the same to yours. WHY?
Oh brother. Nobody knows if it can cause cancers or not. It MAY (MAY, MAY, MAY – as in MAYBE, might, perhaps, possibly) cause cancer. But, nobody knows. There is some reason to suspect. Do you really not see the huge and glaring difference between “MAY cause cancer” and “CAN cause cancer”? Is English not your first language?
You also choose activities which may cause harm. Activities to which any possibility of harm being done can be prevented. But, I don’t get to force you to stop doing those activities. But, for some reason, that you seem unable to explain, you get to force me to stop doing mine. WHY?
How does that go against what “pro-smoking” is for? You appear hopelessly mired in the anti-smoking propaganda. “pro-smokers” and smoker’s rights activists are for reasonable accommodations that both smokers and non-smokers can live comfortably with. Anti-smokers are for forcing their wants down people’s throats, moving toward all out prohibition, and forcing smokers to become non-smokers whether they want to or not.
Smoker’s rights activists DO NOT want to be able to smoke whenever and wherever we please. That’s just ridiculous anti-smoking propaganda, and you appear to have bought into it without question.
We want reasonable accommodations – that might mean non-smokers giving just a little in a few small ways, to a reasonable degree. Anti-smokers want everything to be their way or the highway. They want it all. No compromise, no negations.
My end game is reason and compromise to a degree where the interests of both sides are taken into account and respected. Their end goal is to be able choose for me whether or not I should smoke. Their end-game is to get me to be a non-smoker – no matter how I feel about it.
Are you serious? My problem is being subjected to horrendously discriminatory taxation practises, having my civil liberties stripped from me, being vilified as an individual for making personal choices about my own lifestyle, and having my right to be sovereign over myself outright stolen away from me. My problem is putting up with the spreading of wide-spread, irrational fear, hysteria, lies and intolerance at the hands of the anti smoking movement. My problem is watching children being subjected to psychological torture and abuse at the hands of the anti-smoking movement and watching people die because their lives are worth less to the anti-smoking movement than their own selfish agenda is.
Those are some of my problems.
What about them? First of all, why should they brush air away when they see a child walk by? For one thing, there’s no reason to even suspect that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful in the least to children – especially outside. And, more importantly, if someone is outside smoking, why would a child be walking by? If someone is that fanatically worried about exposure to ETS, when you notice that you are approaching a place where people are smoking – WALK AROUND THEM. You selfish bastard! Why should they have to move just because you’re coming to where they already are taking part in their activity?
It’s reasonable to ask that smokers not come to where you are and begin smoking. It’s entirely unreasonable to go to where a smoker is smoking and say “I’m here now! You must appease me!”
If you’re somewhere, enjoying yourself, and someone comes up to where you are, and begins smoking, that’s rude, unreasonable, and inconsiderate. They are out of line, and should have refrained from the activity, or moved to somewhere where unwilling parties wouldn’t be put out by their behaviour. But, if someone else is somewhere, enjoying themselves smoking, and you come up and demand they cease behaviour because you want to be there, that’s also rude, unreasonable, and inconsiderate. You’re out of line. You should refrain from complaining, or move to somewhere where you wont be bothered by the smoke.
Your self-perceived right to never have to be subjected to something you find disagreeable DOES NOT trump someone else’s right to take part in an activity which they find agreeable! Why is that so hard for anti-smokers to understand?
Why are those remarks outlandish? I want a rational counter argument to my argument – not your proclamations. Your proclamations doesn’t make it true.
You don’t think that subjecting children to psychological torture and terror tactics is abuse? You don’t think that coercing children into accepting lies as truth in order to further your own political agenda is abuse? Intentionally corrupting the minds of children isn’t abuse?
Anti-smokers are one cut above paedophiles. Paedophiles rape children’s bodies and minds. Anti-smokers just stop at the mind.
WOW! You must have a PhD in missingthepointology!
The death rate from exposure to cyanide poisoning is close to 100% The death rate from exposure to air-travel is almost nil. Exposure to both contains a risk of death, one close to a 100% risk, one close to a 0% risk. Take a second and think about it. Would you rather break a cyanide caplet in your mouth, or take a cross country flight on a jetliner?
But, something tells me you understood that perfectly well and are being purposefully obtuse in order to evade the question. Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but, I hope for your sake I’m not.
Don’t evade the question. God, I hope this is an act, and you’re not really this obtuse. Just like the car analogy IT DOESN’T DAMN WELL MATTER IF IT’S CYANIDE OR NOT!!!! Jeez! This is beyond ridiculous! Pick ANYTHING with a significantly high death rate to be apropos to the point being made! Seriously, no offence, but do you have a learning disability or something?
Switch cyanide for gun shot wounds to the head, nuclear detonations, the drinking of hemlock, injecting yourself with 6 gallons of mercury, IT DOESN’T FREAKING MATTER!!!!
It’s not a government conspiracy. IT’S JUST COMPLETELY FREAKIN’ IRRELEVANT! There’s more hydrogen cyanide in a damned apricot than there is in the smoke produced by an entire pack of cigarettes! Why don’t you speak out about apricots?
Because – THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON – there’s no substance on earth to which there isn’t a safe level of exposure. The amount of hydrogen cyanide in cigarettes is a “trace amount” Do you know what that means? It’s completely unable to cause harm. You can’t be damaged by exposure to trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide.
Do you think burning tobacco is magically the only thing on earth that produces hydrogen cyanide? It’s produced when you burn just about any plant material! Have you ever enjoyed sitting in front of a fire? How about BBQs? THEN SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT HYDROGEN CYANIDE! 1 hour of an outdoor mesquite BBQ produces as much hydrogen cyanide as a pack a day smoker will produce in 20 years.
Yes. I know. We’ve determined that you think that playing video games is a necessary evil, while smoking is an unnecessary evil. Destroying people’s health for the sake of reaching the next level in Guitar Hero II is absolutely essential to human survival. Smoking a cigarette is not.
Nobody’s FORCING YOU TO WALK INTO THAT LOCATION! BUT, YOU’RE FORCING ME TO GIVE UP A CHOSEN ACTIVITY. You see the difference? You, deciding to walk into that location, IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL CHOICE, and nobody is stopping you from making that choice. You’re free to go in or not. But you’re not giving me a choice, you’re forcing me to accept and adhere to your ideals. You’re telling me that no matter what my personal choice is, I can not smoke.
…And, did you just claim that fascism is understandable under certain circumstances?
You know, I was pointing this argument out to a friend, and without even commenting on any points, he merely reminds me of
this…
I will never convince you nor will you ever convince me. You make decent points about statistics, but you twist words and avoid topics. I, am by no means, a good debator, so I will never have convincing arguments. Therefore, I’m going away, ignoring your rebuttles.
I have life, liberty and my definition of the pursuit of happiness to work on. I credit your decision to think of others when it comes to your habit and I hope you realize, I was more concerned about your need to spread propoganda and your personal health than your freedoms. Freedom, for me, is a delicate topic. Who is more free? Those who are opprosed by their government? Or by their neighbor?
And with that, I leave. Notch this up to a win, if it feeds your ego. But know that you technically did not, for I am not leaving because of your position, but because of mine.
Laters.
man, this thing needs a preview function.
Son of a bitch, my stupid window closed. Meh, most of what I wrote previously would have been never sunk in with you anyways…
moving on!
i really hope the tags worked like I want them to this time.
and by the way, I jump around a little bit, so stay with me!
you asked for hypocrisy…
so here is one…
and here is an excerpt from another stream of blogging from this Mar 14, 2007 comment.
OR
When I brought up that you’re angry, you state:
Which then I point out many instances where it’s pretty obvious that you’re angry, you respond with…
Kind of back and forth there. Sure, you’ll state that you weren’t mad at his opinion, but it is the opinion of the anti-smoker movement that smoking is bad.
Just looking for consistency. 🙂
Are you serious? By logic, this kid has been “brainwashed” (that notion is hilarious to me) into believing the rhetoric of the anti-smoker movement. So therefore he is part of the anti-smoker movement. And therefore when you make the large statement of:
you are attacking him as well. He’s not innocent. He’s been corrupted.
Well, I’ve been told smoking is harmful. I’ve seen it harm others. I’ve experienced a lack of health in myself because of it. I’ve seen statistics. Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not healthy.
You. You’ve been fortunate to never see someone deteriorate because of cancer that was directly linked to smoking (and yes, you have admitted many times elsewhere that smoking CAN cause cancer, just not 100%, and don’t make me quote it just to point the subject elsewhere.), you’ve personally never experienced any ill effects upon yourself, but I’m wondering if you’re being 100% honest with yourself. And you’ve seen statistics and chose to look at it the other way. You’ve also chosen to site many, many other peoples research into this topic, yet done none yourself, other than quote those other people.
You have no independent thought greater than mine. You are just as manipulated as I am. Don’t fool yourself. NOBODY in this world has a truly independent mind. We’re all accosted by this philosophy or that propoganda.
Anyways, enough with the hypocritical section.
But why don’t you do that? You have just as much freedom to do this as well, and yet you expect others to accept your habits as much as they expect you to accept theirs.
I think I understand what exactly you are crying about.
You just want to be left alone. It’s not about smoking at all. It’s about freedom of choice. Thats understandable. I want to be left alone to have my vices. But I don’t carry my vices outside and shove it front of peoples faces like a lot of smokers do.
Which makes me wonder, based on your largely freedom of choice attitude (unless I’m wrong), what are your views on religion? homosexuality? illegal drug use? pornography? global warming and the movement to use less carbon?
You don’t have to answer any of those in specifics, I’ll respect your privacy, but if you could give me a general answer to the general idea behind that point, I’d appreciate it.
BTW, don’t even think of retorting with the notion that I’m invading your privacy by debating with you on your habit here. You chose to public state all of your opinions on this matter.
Again, your logic in drunk driving to death is horrid. drunk driving is not the drug that causes the death, it’s the alcohol imbided prior to that driving, which causes the person to be drunk, which can cause the car accident. a “drunk driver” by any means is not the same as “smoking” because “drunk driver” implies many factors, which includes a substance called alcohol. Whereas, “smoking”, unless you’re twisting words and taking the action of smoking, not the cigarette or niccotine that it implies, CAN CAUSE CANCER. You’ve admitted as much as well.
Now, a proper analogy would be, drunk driving to death (by way of car) is as smoking to death (by way of burning bed). the actions of drunk driving and smoking imply the drug behind it, but at the same time, the actions themselves are the cause of the death.
Would you be happier if they said cigarettes and niccotine and tar and cyanide and rat poison and all teh other nasty shit in cigarettes cause cancer, and not the act of smoking itself?
And pro-smokers, with teh exception of yourself and maybe a few others, are just the same. Don’t pretend. You’re side of the coin is no better.
I wonder, if you imply by many of your constant berating remarks, that smokers are more intelligent than non-smokers? If this generalization is true, then I challenge you to take on anybody else in this world, scientists and medical professionals who actually do this work. All of your evidence of fighting against this has been on forums (where people have to visit in order even know what is being said) and you said something about your history off the internet. Was it against professionals or industry “experts”? Or was it against the random common person like this forum here? Just curious. I obviously can’t make a dent in you because, I admit, I don’t know more than the researchers who find these studies. But neither do you.
Why can’t you accept that niccotine very may well have caused the emphysema in both and cancer in one of my grandparents? The link of smoking and being in teh same place at the same time is also a culprit. You’re just choosing to ignore that fact.
And other measures? none. I don’t know how they lived. I just know they lived out in an arizone desert then moved to california and died there in the house of my father…who hasn’t had any ill effects like such.
Just face it, people do get sick from this stuff, and you may as well.
Again, it seems like you’re trying to hide from my truth. Yes, they all did. Yes, I saw them all whither away. No, it was entirely linked to smoking, but the cancer I stated earlier was. With no other evidence to go off of, you can only point the finger at the only known source of cancer causing agents, and that was the cigarettes she enjoyed every day of her life.
All of this meaningless rhetoric is getting annoying to me. Ya, I do things that may effect others. I drive a car, I eat fast food, I blah blah blah. But, unless you’re a saint, so do you. You are NO BETTER THAN ME. But you choose to do an activity that, as you have admitted, can cause harm. It can cause cancer. It can be prevented. And while I have no place to tell you what you can or can’t do in your own house, I can have a say what you do right next to me.
However, you state something that pretty much goes against everything pro-smokers are for…
Wow… that was EXTREMELY difficult to read. Easiest way to quote is: <blockquote>The text that you want to quote</blockquote>
Yes, that’s called a “logical conclusion.” That means that the conclusion is logically derived from observable evidence. This is a very different thing than a “baseless conclusion.”
His behaviour was in perfect keeping with the typical actions of an anti-smoker. You see, if you leave a hostile comment on a blog post that is speaking of the evils of the anti-smoking movement, and your comment is in accordance with an opposing view-point to the post, and your behaviour is in keeping with the typical behaviour of an anti-smoker… then it’s LOGICAL to conclude you’re most likely an anti-smoker! You see how that works? If I would have concluded that he was a space alien, for instance, that would have been an entirely different thing. But, I didn’t, My conclusion was that he was an anti-smoker. Have you ever heard that old saying: “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….” you know the rest, I’m sure.
(A) Please cite an instance of hypocrisy in any of my statements. (B) I make logical conclusions as to whether or not a challenger is an anti-smoker, or sympathetic to the movement. If they are, they are treated no better or worse than they deserve. If you’re an anti-smoker, expect to reap what you sow, it’s as simple as that. If you’re a “non-smoker” who wants to have a reasonable discussion regarding the subject, you will be greeted with as much respect and reason as you give. The comment history of this blog is testimony to that fact.
If you come on here spouting idiotic, baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks, I’m going to rip you a new one. If you don’t like it, tough! Go somewhere else.
I don’t treat anti-smokers with kid gloves. They’re a foul, pernicious, dangerous breed. I spent years trying to engage in reasonable discussion and debate. I bent over backwards to do it. I’ve paid my dues a thousand times over in that regard. They made it clear that they’d have none of it. They’re only interested in dictating. So, now I call a spade a spade and out the low-lives for what they are.
Huh? Do you mean people who make baseless accusations who are in agreement with what I’ve written? Why don’t I chastise them? Probably because they’re not challenging me. They’re their own people, if they make baseless accusations they’ll have to defend themselves from their own challengers. I don’t know them. Their comments are not my responsibility. What business is it of mine how they conduct themselves?
And, that makes me no better than those I choose to lambaste?? What a ridiculous statement.
An anti-smoker that resorts to meaningless rhetoric, baseless accusations, gross assumptions, red herrings, logical fallacies, refusing to present a defendable argument, etc., is acting typically. That is how anti-smokers typically act. It is typical behaviour for their type. That is just a fact.
NO THREAT? Are you serious??? Not only is it a threat to me, IT’S A THREAT TO YOU! It’s written documentation of the effect that the outright indoctrination the immoral anti-smoking movement is perpetrating. The kid has eaten up, logged as knowledge, and regurgitated a bunch of outright falsehoods! You don’t think it’s a threat that children are being subjected to such measures? That they’re being fed lies as truth from what they see as authority figures who are beyond reproach in their minds? That people in positions of authority in children’s lives are abusing their postion and influence over a child, who has not yet developed adequate intellectual mechanisms to temper such attacks with logic and reason, to indoctrinate the child by cinvincing them that lies are truth. You don’t see a threat in that?
You, yourself, said that you saw no logical fallacies in my rebuttals to what what that kid wrote! So, you are in agreement with teaching children lies and untruths in order to further a political agenda? If this is your position, I find it horrendously frightening that you can not then see why I would choose to treat you with contempt.
Huh? What? When? When did I ever attack any kid? That kid is a victim. I was attacking the immoral, low-life scum that preyed on that kid’s underdeveloped, youthful intellect in order to fill him full of lies and indoctrinate him into their cause for the purposes of furthering their own unjust, selfish agenda. That kid is no more to blame than the Hitler Youth were for ideas they adopted. That kid is a victim of unscrupulous, immoral swine.
Somebody taught that kid all of those fallacies. He didn’t make them up himself. That’s who I was attacking. And, in your alignment with the anti-smoking movement, those are your brothers in arms, your comrades, your allies. And, you wonder why some might direct viciousness toward you?
The post is almost three months old, I no longer have the link. The question was already closed and resolved when I found it. So, I couldn’t provide anything in the form of an answer. I seem to recall that I left a comment, but Yahoo doesn’t log comments in a way that would allow me to find the post again… at least not that I can find anywhere.
I really don’t see the relevance anyway. If I did comment on it, it would have been something which echoed my views above.
You do know that there are dozens of risk factors for emphysema, and about 85% (according to the anti’s science) of all smokers never develop emphysema. It’s peculiar that both contracted emphysema. Not impossible that it was from smoking, but the odds would definatley suggest otherwise. The fact they were married, and both contracted it, is suggestive of some other factor being the culprit. What measures did you take to rule out all other risk factors?
What age were they when they passed?
And your reasoning for certainty of that statement is…. ???
(1) The vast majority of smokers never contract the disease. (2) They were your “grandparents” so it’s probably safe to assume that they were likely in, or entering their later stages of life – emphysema is often a common degenerative condition of ageing – as we get older and our bodies age, our lungs lose capacity. and (3) I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that you’ve never ruled out exposure to other risk factors.
All of these points argue a logical case against smoking being the catalyst for their condition. The odds are that it wasn’t due to smoking. I’m not saying that it wasn’t due to smoking in either case. But, the odds are it wasn’t. It would seem that your main reasoning for being anti-tobacco is based on a completely illogical assumption. I’m curious as to why, with all of those factors, you’d jump to the conclusion that it was their smoking.
Again, how old was he?
Three people in your immediate family who required the aid of oxygen bottles? I’m sorry, but this stretches the limit of my belief just as little. Are you being entirely honest here? Maybe you have the misfortune of poor genes on both sides of your family, maybe you’re just unlucky. I don’t know. But, I’ve known hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who were smokers in my life. In my own family there are quite a few elderly, life long smokers. I’ve never had a single acquaintance who required the aid of bottled oxygen.
And, all of this meaningless rhetoric is relevant because…??? Since you find the practice disagreeable on a personal level, that is justification for the behaviours of the anti-smoking movement, and all of the damage they’re doing? Since you find the practice disagreeable on a personal level, that’s justification for supporting a movement that is trying to force me to alter my chosen behaviour that I don’t find to be disagreeable?
Can I please spend a few days with you, and then work to legally restrict any activity that you choose to engage in that I have a distaste for? Would that be ok with you?
Again, when, exactly, did I call the kid a twat? Citation please. When did I attack the kid in any way?
Who said I didn’t do that? Again, citation please. I most certainly do do that. If I see idiocy, I call it idiocy.
But, you engaged ME remember? Not the other way around. In your very first, entirely unprovoked, post you called me delusional, accused me of purposefully hurting others, not having friends, made assumptions about my guilt, accused me of having no “argument of substance” (which you’ve already back-peddled on) etc.,
So, what? You think you can open up an exchange in such a manner and expect to be met with with “Yes, Bob. You’re right Bob. Anything you say Bob. I’m sorry Bob.” Well, not around here you can’t. You’ve come to the wrong blog. Like I explained before, you come on here with that sort of shit, and I’m going to tear you a new one. If you don’t like it, you’re free to click your back-button and take thsi site out of your favourites list.
(1) It’s not incumbent upon me to have to justify to you what I choose for myself (2) It’s entirely irrelevant, as it doesn’t matter what you think about my chosen activities – you have no authority over me. I.e.- it doesn’t matter how pointless YOU find it, or how detestable YOU find it. IT’S NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS WHAT I DO. It only matters if I find it pointless, or detestable or not.
But, if you must know. (1) I find it to be a pleasurable activity. (2) I find it to be a relaxing activity. (3) I find it to aid in certain cognitive tasks (4) I find it to heighten and enhance the enjoyment of certain other activities.
All four things carry both a purpose and a point. Ergo, your decree that the activity is pointless and/or purposeless is nonsense. YOU might find it to be so for your own purposes, I don’t.
It’s an activity which you find disagreeable, and one in which any point it might carry you feel is not attractive enough to warrant engaging in. But, because YOU feel that way about it, it doesn’t mean that’s true for EVERYBODY. Such thinking is indicative of holding to fascist-like ideals. I.e. – “I don’t like it, so it must be stupid and pointless, and therefore nobody else can like it either and if they do, they must be delusional. So, I’m justified in supporting a movement that seeks to restrict them from the activity, as they don’t really like it themselves… they just think they do. But, I know better than they do what they like and what they don’t!”
I’m sure I could probably find one or two things that you take part in that I find to be pointless and disagreeable. Should I launch a campaign to restrict you from taking part in those things? Should I decide for you whether or not they are actually pointless or purposeless? And, launch a movement to forcefully free you from your pointless activities that you’ve chosen for yourself? No, because I understand that what you choose for yourself might be something that I wouldn’t choose for myself. And, you’re the only one that’s capable of figuring out what you want to partake in, and what risks you’re willing to accept to do it.
What public smoke? I don’t smoke in public, except in areas in which it could have no adverse effect on anyone who must be subjected to it, who doesn’t accept any associated risks. The only time I’ll ever smoke in public is if I’m outside, and there aren’t any people around who might object to tobacco smoke that are within a reasonable distance sufficient enough to be affected when I begin smoking.
So, what public smoke?
How? Exactly. I want you to explain how I’m imposing anything on anyone, who doesn’t freely accept the imposition. Please explain.
You’re rationalizing, just like an addict.
You never make use of combustion powered vehicles unless it’s absolutely for a necessity? Ya, right! You never take a car somewhere, when you could have just as easily walked or ridden a bike? You NEVER do that? You never just take a drive out of boredom, or just for entertainment? Please! You never use a car when it would have been perfectly feasible for you to use public transportation? Sure.
You don’t drink alcohol around others? Ethyl alcohol is a carcinogen you know. It evaporates carcinogens into the atmosphere at a rate equal to about 2,000 burning cigarettes per hour. You don’t eat at public places that grill their food? Again, carcinogens into the atmosphere. All over the world people survive perfectly well on diets exlusivley consisting of raw food. You don’t wear any artificial textiles like vinyls of any type, the manufacture of which dumps untold tons of pollutants into the biosphere that we all have to live with? You don’t HAVE to do that you know. There are other things you can wear. You never use electricity for trivial purposes? You never play video games or anything like that? Activities that increase the need for dirty energy production? You make sure to drastically limit your intake of beef products, so you don’t play a hand in the run-away beef production industry that’s contributing to rampant top-soil depletion – a problem that has toppled entire civilizations in the past? You never use tap water, just to water your lawn, or cool off on a hot day. You never take a bath, when you could have taken a shower, or flush your toilet after you’ve just dropped nothing more than a tissue in it? Or, leave your tap running for a gallon or two, just so your water can get a little extra cold? All of which are dumping chlorine (an occurring byproduct of which is thee most carcinogenic substance known to man) and fluoride into the public water table? No, you distill all of your own rain water, right?
You don’t do any of those things, right? Give me a break. Hypocrite.
I’ll put the volume of your collected luxury toxic emissions up against just my smoking, any day. Do you want to put money on which one is the catalyst for subjecting more people to more harmful substances? Answer that for me please. Would you put money on that?
So, I’ll ask again. Why, exactly, are the luxuries you enjoy exempt from this “You’re subjecting other people to it.” bullshit, but my luxury isn’t? Even though I force my smoke on nobody that objects to it.
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you needed to watch T.V. to live, play video games to live, wear cool shoes to live, go out for a cruise with your friends to live, listen to music to live. I was unaware that such activities were essential to your life functions. I was unaware that charcoal grilled beef was the only food on the planet you can survive on.
And, brother, if you think you need a car to live, you’ve got problems that I certainly can’t help you with. It seems to me that humans managed to survive without motorized transportation for… oh… almost a HALF A MILLION YEARS, and without all of the rest of our modern technological conveniences to aid them. I may be crazy, but that seems to suggest to me that a car might actually not be entirely essential to human survival. I dunno… maybe I’m just a loon.
Try this: Ask me if I care.
The well thought out argument is there. If they’re turned off by something as innocuous as certain letters arranged in a certain way, that carry a certain connotation that humans have arbitrarily decided to put on them, then it’s their loss.
But, you’re probably correct, that’s probably why none of what is considered to be the great works of literature of the 20th century contains any such language.
Hello? McFly???
An “intelligent thinker” that would think less of the validity of an argument because of the use of such language isn’t an “intelligent thinker.” An intelligent thinker should be intelligent enough to know that language doesn’t make an argument valid – logic, reason and facts do. If they’re enough of a prude, and unintelligent enough to be put off by the language to such a degree as to not consider the argument, then… fuck ’em. They’re hopeless anyway. They can go check out the mother-fucking, cock-sucking, cunt-licking, shit-eating Disney website.
Yes. They all read it, then they call me up on the phone and congratulate and praise me. At the end of the year there’s a big banquet and I’m presented with awards and have to make speeches from a podium as everyone breaks out into song singing my praises. It’s all quite grand. At the end of it all, there’s cake and soda. I don’t have to pay for mine, but everyone else has to pay for theirs.
That kid is a kid. His opinion was instilled in him. It wasn’t his opinion, it was the opinion of the person who coerced him into adopting it.
But, I’m not angry at the kid. I’m angry at the low-life scum that selfishly, and with an appalling lack of decency, morality or scruples of any sort, filled the kid full of lies for their own nefarious purposes.
No, I’m angry allright. I’m beyond angry. I’m damned well pissed. I’m fuming mad. But I’m not angry at the kid. The kid’s a victim. He’s blameless. All of those comments were directed at the fascist scum of the anti-smoking movement and their supporters that prayed on that kid and filled him full of lies in order to further their own agenda.
Smoking may be harmful to me. No matter what fascist anti-smokers think, I’m allowed to impose any damned thing I wish upon myself. They have no say in the matter.
And, the government is allowed to ensure the safety and rights of the citizenry, nothing more. They are not allowed, or at least should not be allowed, to restrict behaviour based on fashion. You can’t, or at least shouldn’t be able to, legislate against subjective, aesthetic values. Anti-smokers, much to their protest, were not born with an inalienable human right to never have to suffer any annoyance.
If you want to live as a functioning member of a civilized society, one of the prices to be payed is that you have to put up with a lot of byproducts of other people’s freedoms which might happen to annoy you, or which you might find unpleasent. If you can’t handle that, you don’t legislate away those freedoms, YOU MOVE TO CABIN IN THE WOODS, grow a beard and befriend a grizzly bear.
In a free society, every person is sovereign over themselves. The limit of government restriction can only extend to the point where the measure restricts the behaviour of one individual from denying the ability of another to also be sovereign over themselves. Government imposed restrictions can not extend one iota further than that, or else, you don’t have a free society. The current state of tobacco control already well exceeds those bounds, and the anti-smokers still are pushing for MORE restrictions! And, they wont stop pushing until their end-goal is reached: The complete eradication of tobacco usage.
The appalling and unmitigated selfishness of the anti-smoking lobby to push through legislation that legally requires every single venue in the entire Province in which I live to be smoke-free at all times, just because at some time in their lives an anti-smoker, might, maybe, perhaps want to go into any one particular venue on some occasion, is an absolute spit in the face to any notion of a free society.
“Try to leave those out next time.”???? Uh… my blog… I’ll put into my posts whatever the hell I damned well please. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of other blogs that you’re free to go hang out at.
My God man! You REALLY are an anti-smoker, aren’t you? Why are such things so difficult for anti-smokers to understand? Look it’s simple – If there’s stuff going on on this blog that you find disagreeable, don’t come here. You can go to one of about another hundred million blogs that are out there. You see? Easy! See how it works? If there’s a bar, or a restaurant where people smoke, and you don’t like that, don’t go there! Go to a bar or restaurant where smoking isn’t allowed! You see? Easy!
Not every blog on the internet should be required to appease you and your personal tastes. And, not every bar or restaurant in the world should be required to appease you and your personal tastes. Can you not understand that?
Would you mind explaining to me just how in the hell I could possibly find anything out about you if I wanted to? All I have to go on is “Bob” That’s it! And, as far as I know, you just thought those three letters up as something to enter when you were submitting your comment!
You have access to my blog site address, my full name, what I look like, where I live, my personal website, all of my writings. It’s not exactly like I’m a low-profile character or anything, a Google search for my name only brings back about 11,000 entries or so. You’ve got all of that at your disposal. I’ve got: “Bob”
And, I didn’t engage you. You engaged me, remember?
No, the logic isn’t wrong. It’s perfectly sound. It’s an analogy.
Look:
The only link that we currently have between smoking and cancer is a statistical one. There is no scientific evidence to show a causative link. Only a statistical link. We don’t have a scientifically observable mechanism. We only have statistics. That’s it, nothing else.
The only basis for saying “smoking causes lung cancer” is that statistically, more smokers get lung cancers than non-smokers do. The point of my argument was to illustrate how a statistical link CAN NOT be used to determine a causative factor.
Understand? Cars do not cause drunk driving, right? We agree on that? But, the statistical link between cars and drunk driving is 100%!!!! No car, no drunk driving! That’s a 100% statistical link. Statistically, 100% of drunk drivers wouldn’t have driven drunk if a car was not available to them. Right? So, a 100% statistical link, and it’s STILL ludicrous to claim cars as a cause of drunk driving. Wouldn’t you agree?
Now, all we have is a statistical link between smoking and cancer… and that link is ONLY 8%!!!! 92% LESS than the statistical link between cars and drunk driving! But, for some crazy reason that no anti-smoker has yet been able to explain, on just this 8% statistical link, it’s somehow perfectly justifiable to claim that “smoking CAUSES lung cancer” Even though, I’ve yet to find an anti-smoker who would agree that cars cause drunk driving, with a 100% statistical link!
It’s a ludicrous claim. Statistically, there is a corollary link between smoking and cancer. There is no CAUSATIVE link. You CAN NOT show cause with statistics. You can only speculate about cause with statistics. So, whenever you hear the phrase “Smoking causes lung cancer” THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. They don’t know if it CAUSES lung cancer or not.
Well, you’ll have to assume away. Most of my debates aren’t readily available through internet links. I’ve been very active in the fight for civil liberties for over ten years. Most of the ones that did go on in open internet forums are long since lost in time – sites close, content gets deleted, MySQL databases become corrupt.
I was involved in many debates on “Stupid.Ca.” At the risk of bragging, it’s kind of a point of pride with me that I was instrumental in getting them to remove their open forum. It’s a government sponsored, rabidly anti-smoking website. They had the short sightedness of hosting a public forum on their propaganda page. After waves of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-smokers kept consistently getting shot down and torn to shreds with rational, reasonable, logical arguments, to the point where the entire forum became one of the greatest advertisements for smoker’s rights on the internet. Soon, they started censoring my posts, and the posts of a few others that had by now joined in – all while taking no such action against the antis. Since it’s a government operation, I threatened with a constitutional violation, accusing them of silencing dissenting views in opposition to government policy. If you go there now, you’ll find there is no longer an open forum on the site. 🙂
Of course, most of my history has taken place off of the internet. However, there’s some old discussions here: http://forums.ottawaarts.com/viewforum.php?f=8 but that hasn’t been maintained in quite some time, so you’ll likely have to wade through a lot of spam.
But, I think you should be able to see on this blog that I shy away from nothing. I’ve been running this blog since 2004, and I’ve never deleted a single comment that wasn’t spam. I think, logically, that should tell you something about my confidence level in accepting challenges from the anti-smoking crowd, and I think the most probable reason for that confidence should be clear.
Antis, generally, don’t debate. They only want to dictate. Few will even challenge, because they see before they do that they’re up against someone who’s informed. And, an informed person is like kryptonite to an anti-smoker. They wont take the risk. When they do, over and over and over again, it almost always goes the same way. Almost without exception.
But, it’s not because of any great skill or superiority of intellect on my part. It’s due to a fault on their part. They have no rational, logical, factual argument to defend their position. And, whenever you’re faced with someone who has no rational, logical, factual argument, and you do have one, you win. It’s as simple as that. With few exceptions, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, or how skilled you are at debating. If rationality, logic and facts are on your side, nine time out of ten, you win. End of story.
Good for you. You’re to be congratulated. You’ve already shown more guts than about, I’d say, 70% of the anti-smokers who choose to engage. Although, I must say you seem a fair bit more moderate in your views than most anti-smokers.
But, you’ll get an honest debate if you’re ready to give one. If you resort to typical anti-smoker tactics – out of hand dismissals of factual evidence, red-herrings, non-sequitur, appeals to authority, straw-man arguments, etc., etc., the gloves come off and I’ll tear into you. My blog, those are the rules. We respect property rights of the owner here.
Be aware though, that due to my experience, I’m aware that requesting honest debate is also a common anti-smoker tactic. They run around yelling “The smokers wont debate! They’re afraid!” But, they always seem to conveniently disappear as soon as their challenge is accepted.
See this loon here: http://smokersrightscanada.org/?p=14 In that article he’s whining about wanting a debate, but no one will accept his challenge. He ends with “As always, I expect the silence will continue to be deafening!”
I’m still waiting for him to accept my challenge to his challenge from 3 years ago. And, also to approve my comment posted to that very entry about 2 months ago. It’s common among the anti-smoking crowd. They like to make it seem like they’re all too willing to debate, but all of their opposers are afraid to take them up on it. Of course, we’re all jumping around screaming “I’ll debate! I’ll debate!” but somehow, conveniently, their hearing aids always seem to stop functioning at just the right moment or something.
I’ll accept any point of view that warrants acceptance. Present me with a rational, logical, factual argument which demonstrates your point of view to be better than mine, and I’ll accept it as my own point of view.
I’ll even entertain, but not accept, any point of view at all – valid argument or none. But, as stated before, if your only interest is the common, baseless anti-smoker vitriol, fallacy and rhetoric. Then, the gloves come off. I will not treat such ignorance and intolerance with kid-gloves. If you’re an anti-smoker fascist, I’ll expose you as such.
Citations please. Please direct me to a single instance when I abused or called any individual names that didn’t initiate such behaviour.
Dire??? Oooooooook.
Where are these piles? I think if smoking is creating piles of corpses, I should see them. I need that information. Piles of corpses might make me change my mind.
The truth is. The piles don’t exist. Smoking is not nearly as dangerous as you think it is. If it was even half as dangerous as its currently commonly perceived, we’d all have realized it a long time ago and nobody would be smoking anymore. We’d be appalled at all of the death and loss, and nobody would smoke. People aren’t generally as weak or as stupid as you must think they are.
About 1.5 billion people in the world still smoke – partly because we just never actually see all of this horrendous death that we always hear is supposedly happening all around us.
Do you know what the very first rule of independent thought is? Whenever somebody tells you something, ask yourself if what they have told you agrees with your own, real-world observation. If it doesn’t, it’s probably a lie, or they’re mistaken.
If I told you that 95% of people that chew gum turned into a raspberry, would you believe me? Of course not! You’ve known a lot of people that chewed gum, and you’ve never seen anoybody turn into a raspberry! But, what if I brought you a whole bunch of scientific papers that absolutely proved that fact? And, every doctor, every scientist you knew told you the same thing. Would you believe it then? If you are at all able to exercise any semblance of independent thought, the answer should be “no” you still wouldn’t believe it. You’d instead believe it more likely that there was some unseen flaw in the science, and the doctors and scientists had all been duped, or were lying for some reason. Because, what you were being told just doesn’t agree with your own real-world experience.
Now, how many people have you ever been aware of that smoked? How many people have you ever been aware of that died at an early age because they smoked?
Would you say the numbers you just came up with are logically more indicative of a horrible demon plague that’s the most evil scourge mankind has ever known and is killing people en masse all around you? The way smoking is popularly portrayed today. Or, is your own real-world experience more indicative of something which just carries some health risk and increases some people’s chances of dying earlier than they normally should?
What does your own real-world experience tell you?… not the anti-smoking propaganda, not what you’ve been told by someone on T.V., or the internet, not some government funded public service announcement… your very own observations, of your very own real world. What does it tell you?
From your own, personal, real world observation, does the death rate from smoking seem more like cyanide, or air-travel?
…I’m going to take a wild guess that no matter what, you’re going to say “cyanide.”
Ah, ok. Well, I hope you can read it. Kind of makes me debate a little shallow doesn’t it?
ok, sorry, but trying to figure out how these tags work. I’ve never used XHTML yet.
OUCH! that didn’t work out well, did it… Any chance to edit? I apparently misunderstood how the tags worked.
Is it…
<blockquote cite=”My guess is that you think I should feel guilty because I have the audacity to choose to partake in an activity which you find disagreeable. It’s typical fascist ideology. You want to dictate morality based on your own fashions, and anyone who does not conform should feel guilty at their own gross morality of not following your orders.
Newsflash Bob: I don’t subscribe to your dictates. I know that must be upsetting and appalling to you.”
You readily come to conclusions about anyone and everyone that makes an attempt at discrediting you, also like this following remark reveals:
<blockquote cite=”In typical anti-smoker fashion, he posted a bunch of baseless assumptions and ad-hominem attacks, then disappeared when he was called on it.”
I don’t know you. I admit that. I only wrote those remarks based on that single blog post and the following comments. After posted my comments, I did take a gander around at another stream of posts you have, primarily with a “Steve.” It almost seems like a love/hate relationship you got going on there! But I digress.
Point is, I just wanted to state that you make outlandish generalizations about anybody that attacks or debates you…but falsely deny any such generalizations back. Kind of hypocritical…like most of your comments.
To return to the previous quote I had from you, you make the generalization that all people who do that tactic of “baseless accusations” and such are “typical anti-smokers”. But what about all the others on your blogs and comments that do the same and fail to receive your chastising? Biased? That makes you no better than those you choose to lambast.
Nice assumption.
The old, lame-duck, psittacistic, patent-applied-for, anti-smoker’s response of “You’re angry because you’re addiction is threatened” doesn’t apply. I have no guilty conscience, because there is nothing for me to be guilty about. Do you care to explain why I should have a guilty conscience?
My guess is that you think I should feel guilty because I have the audacity to choose to partake in an activity which you find disagreeable. It’s typical fascist ideology. You want to dictate morality based on your own fashions, and anyone who does not conform should feel guilty at their own gross morality of not following your orders.
Newsflash Bob: I don’t subscribe to your dictates. I know that must be upsetting and appalling to you.
In typical anti-smoker fashion, he posted a bunch of baseless assumptions and ad-hominem attacks, then disappeared when he was called on it.
Not surprising.
Yet, you fail to point out a single one. Typical.
Then why do you support a movement that’s actively, and viciously engaged in stripping me of that right?
I suppose you just innocently failed to notice where I provided, point-by-point, the lengthy list of of claims and statements contained in the essay I was responding to, along with a rational argument pointing out how each one was a fallacy?
I suppose you also just innocently failed to do a quick search of other topics related to the same issue on this blog, where you would have found posts such as this one:
http://myblog.ottawaarts.com/archives/2005/10/get-it-straight-smoking-does-not-cause-cancer/
which contains an exceedingly lengthy series of debates regarding the issue?
Get out of here, you air-headed, delusional mung. You’ve removed any credibility you might have had with that idiotic, easily demonstrable fallacious statement.
First of all, thank you for deciding for me which of my chosen activities is pointless. And secondly, would you mind explaining (A) How, exactly, I’m harming anyone other than people who have chosen, of their free will, to accept any risks that might be associated with my habit. And, (B) How come you’re allowed to harm others with your chosen activities, but I’m not?
I’m sorry you find my use of language disagreeable. I don’t believe in treating fascists with kid-gloves. It’s too dangerous a practice.
And, again, these are some nice assumptions you make. If you could, for a moment, know how wrong you were on this point, you might be able to open your eyes to your own absurdity.
Who’s angry about anyone’s opinion? You can have any opinion you want. You can express that opinion any way you want. If you had any semblance of intelligence, you’d know that I’ve stood-up and exposed myself, in way that I doubt you’ll ever have the guts to do, for my entire adult life, fighting for people’s rights to do just that.
But, when you try to impose those opinions on others — when you try to legislate those opinions — in way that strips people of civil liberties, that denormalizes and vilifies individuals, that promotes irrational hysteria, fear and intolerance, that promotes practices of discrimination,or, if you give your support to a system that does that , then you’re a low-life fascist pig, and you’ve got a fight on your hands. . And, at the very least, you can expect me to call you want you are.
Again, see what I wrote above. You didn’t even read the post, did you? Nor did you even take the time to equate yourself with the facts by browsing some of the rest of site before launching your reactionary tirade. Typical anti-smoker methodology.
You want a legitimate debate? Bring it on. I have no qualms about adding yet another ill-informed, irrational, illogical anti-smoker, with no valid arguments to stand on, to my long list of antis that I’ve destroyed and left as a shattered, quivering mass. So, let’s go.
I’ve been doing this, going toe-to-toe with antis and fascists of all stripes, for well over ten years. It always goes the same way. Let me give you a run down of how our debate will go:
(1) You’ll present me with a bunch of regurgitated speech-bites, straight out of the “Why anti-smokers have all the answers” text book.
(2) I’ll counter all of those points with reason, logic, rationality and facts — to which you’ll find yourself unable to factually or logically respond. So, you’ll resort to introducing a bunch of red herrings, straw-man arguments, argumentum ad verecundiams, non sequiturs, etc. There’s even a fair chance you’ll start pointing out typos as some sort of defense to your arguments.
(3) I’ll easily point out and tear apart all of your logical fallacies.
(4) I’ll supply you with multiple questions to which you’ll consistently ignore and to which you’ll either fail to, or refuse to, provide answers. At the same time, you’ll ask me questions, to wich I will supply answers, but, nontheless, you’ll consistently accuse me of evading the questions — even though my answers are a matter of public record, often plainly visible just a few posts above.
(5) At this point, you’ll take one of two paths (A) You’ll conveniently run away and disappear, never to be heard from again, and likely providing some patented, baseless, empty dismissal like “I don’t have time for this! You can’t argue with an addict.” Or, (B) You’ll expose yourself and your true motives by making a statement that reveals your true fascist ideologies.
It ALWAYS goes the same way. In ten years plus of open debate with antis it has ALWAYS, with very, very few exceptions, gone the same way. Judging from your first post, I doubt very much you’ll prove to be one of those very few exceptions.
In fact, I’ll be a little surprised if I ever hear form you again after this post. Most antis are bullies — nothing more. They post comments like yours looking for a chance to bully. When they’re met by someone who has the capacity to bully back, they turn-tail and run, timidly sulking off to look for easier pray.
Why do you think I leave the comments open to anti-smokers on these posts? It helps my cause to have them constantly and voluntarily exposing themselves and publicly illustrating themselves as the irrational, hysterical, delusional, wanna-be-tyrants that they are.
That remains to be seen. However, at this point, …I think the smart money is probably betting on that possibility.
Well, they’re not absurd delusions… but, yes, the rest of your statement is most likely correct. I suspect that really is “all you can do.”
Chances are, like me, he stumbled on your pointless rant, took a moment to read it and found himself engrossed in your need to point the finger at others in order to make yourself feel better about a guilty conscience. He posted a response and left, never feeling the need to even bother having any more of a discussion with you.
I also happen to agree with him (as you may have guessed). I noticed many fallacies with your own arguments. Except the right to do it because it’s your own body and your own money. I can’t say anything is wrong with that. Other than that point, all you do is swear and call people names. Where is the argument of substance? Oh wait, you’re worse than the people you attack.
The moment you affect another person in a harmful way, however, is another thing entirely and then you aren’t just harming your own body and finances over a pointless addiction. You affect everyone around you. But then, based on this aggressive rant and chaotic name-calling (and abusive swearing), I’m guessing this is how you are in real life and you have few friends…except for those that choose to cry about people affecting them but taking every moment to affect others.
I’m actually appalled that people are so defensive about their habit that they’d choose to be this angry over another persons opinion. I understand the need to be defensive in general, but you offer no legitimate debate yourself other than calling people names and swearing at them.
Oh wait, I’m part of the paranoid brainwashing aren’t I? All I can do is laugh at your absurd delusions.
Surprise, surprise… well over a month and no response from Ed. Typical. Ed provides yet more evidence that anti-smokers have no reasonable argument. When exposed for what they are, they pop in with a bunch of meaningless rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, and then disappear – crawling back into their hole. So typical.
Than you Ed, for being yet another anti-smoker all too eager to unwittingly undermine your own cause.
Poor Ed.
Did I happen to hit a nerve?
Your guilt is showing, Ed. Do you actually have any rational or factual argument? Or, is your childish ad hominem attacks all you’ve got? Typical anti-smoker.
You’re angry because my post has hit too close to home, and you know it. I’ve indicted you with my post above, and you’re all too aware of your own guilt. Being exposed as the irrational, low-life, worthless, fascist pig that you are doesn’t feel good, does it?
Yeah, you let that little kid know whose right.
Hey, look what a little kid wrote about smokers, “They’ll die”! FUCKING MORON
I’d rather the kid be anti-smoking than pro-smoking, wouldn’t you? No, because you don’t believe smoking is bad for you. So you’re saying carcinogens don’t give you cancer, the governments just spending millions on anti-smoking campaigns for fun? And i guess it means UV rays don’t cause melanomas, well how else do people get melanomas. You may like to live in denial about the effects of smoking so you can feel better about your disgusting habit, but seriously, YOU’RE STUPID – unintelligent – dumb! No arguments, no debates. You’re a FUCKING moron!
And you’ll come back with a reply that says i’m brainwashed and a Fucking moron and to stay the fuck out of your business and that i’m wrong.
Only narcissists like yourself write these disgustingly opinionated blogs like you’re actually worth something.
Hell yeah! You tell em! Plus chicks that smoke put out more so there!!