Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
playing the semantics game is nice. sadly, at least in this case, it won't make the blindest bit of difference.
those who understand the science demonstrating the long-established health risks of smoking will understandably remain fixed in their views.
those who choose to remain in denial will continue to insist its all about brainwashing, and will more than likely do so until their dying breath - which, if they are smokers, will likely come rather sooner than they expect. this attitude is certainly the easier approach for the smoker to take than to face up to their own addiction, and take the positive moves and serious effort required to quit.
being selfish is fine - the sad thing is that death, particularly when it comes early, tends to cause a great deal of distress for those left behind. serious disability even more so.
i cant help noting that two of the loudest smoking proponents in this thread both have families and children. it may well be them who may pay the biggest price.
I don't even smoke. But I'm not going to blame smoking for something that doctors don't know about. They don't know what causes it, they don't know how to cure it. Especially when there are people who never get it, and smoke like chimneys. And there are people who get it, who have never smoked.
If I listened to those quacks, as I've said, there wouldn't be anything I could eat, or anything I could do, because EVERYTHING has been determined to be bad for you--including doing nothing at all.
If I could afford it, I"d be puffing on Cubans, and enjoying life without worrying what some doctors thinks might kill me. Because nothing has done so thus far, not even that hurricane that blew through my town, which...according to scientists...wasn't supposed to do so.
No, my premise is NOT wrong. Yours is. Pregnancy does not happen every time people have sex. Thus it is not a cause. It may be a contributing factor--I'll give you that much--but it is not a cause. If two women have sex, who gets pregnant?
Ah, so you can have sex, and not have pregnancy. Thus we can say sex does not cause pregnancy. Pregnancy ONLY happens when a egg is fertilized, and if that does not happen, there is no pregnancy.
I have yet to see any proof from you that smoking will ALWAYS lead to lung cancer. If there is ONE smoker who didn't get it, then it is NOT a cause. I've already presented you with a case of one person who didn't. That is all I need.
Science still does not know why some people get it, and some people don't. Some smokers do, some smokers don't. Some nonsmokers do, some nonsmokers don't. If smoking causes lung cancer, then why do nonsmokers get it too? Perhaps because there are other causes?
With your reasoning, life causes death, since everyone who lives eventually dies.
You still don't read what YOU write do you??
Your argument is so obtuse I don't blame you....I would find it hard to keep track of such nonsense if I came up with it too....
Try reading this reallllll sloooowww....
YOU already admitted sex IS a cause of pregnancy (and really, how can anyone with an IQ over 35 deny this) when you stated, and I quote, verbatim...."The point is, that sex is not the only way to get pregnant"
Saying sex isn't the ONLY way to get pregnant of course is the same as saying sex IS A WAY TO GET PREGNANT...
Of course, you deny that premise in a later post, but again it must be hard to keep all this nonsense straight in your head...
As to the smoking and lung cancer issue...whoever said there WEREN'T other causes of lung cancer? Certainly not I...in fact I believe I even mentioned asbestos link in another post...
Regardless, the fact that SOME nonsmokers get lung cancer (less than 10% of those diagnosed by the way) doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of lung cancer patients smoke or have smoked....
The link is clear and irrefutable...the science is out there establishing the link, the mechanism of action and attributes...
You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and denying it like a 3 year old having a tantrum but in the end it doesn't matter...
Whether you believe the earth is flat...
Whether you believe the sun orbits the earth...
Whether you believe the moon is made of cheese..
Whether you believe smoking does not cause lung cancer....
Whether you believe human procreation is unrelated to intercourse....
There are "truths" out there that are not open to interpretation or debate....your version of the "facts" related to smoking related diseases and procreation are ridiculous, childish, and ultimately...WRONG... WRONG...WRONG....
No amount of saying it "ain't so because I say it ain't so" doesn't change those inconvenient facts....
But it is NOT the same thing as saying it is the cause. If it was a cause, it would happen every single time. That's how a cause-effect relationship works, If A, then B--not Sometimes if A, then sometimes B. That's just random chance there.
Your argument is so obtuse I don't blame you....I would find it hard to keep track of such nonsense if I came up with it too....
Try reading this reallllll sloooowww....
YOU already admitted sex IS a cause of pregnancy (and really, how can anyone with an IQ over 35 deny this) when you stated, and I quote, verbatim...."The point is, that sex is not the only way to get pregnant"
Saying sex isn't the ONLY way to get pregnant of course is the same as saying sex IS A WAY TO GET PREGNANT...
Of course, you deny that premise in a later post, but again it must be hard to keep all this nonsense straight in your head...
As to the smoking and lung cancer issue...whoever said there WEREN'T other causes of lung cancer? Certainly not I...in fact I believe I even mentioned asbestos link in another post...
Regardless, the fact that SOME nonsmokers get lung cancer (less than 10% of those diagnosed by the way) doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of lung cancer patients smoke or have smoked....
The link is clear and irrefutable...the science is out there establishing the link, the mechanism of action and attributes...
You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and denying it like a 3 year old having a tantrum but in the end it doesn't matter...
Whether you believe the earth is flat...
Whether you believe the sun orbits the earth...
Whether you believe the moon is made of cheese..
Whether you believe smoking does not cause lung cancer....
Whether you believe human procreation is unrelated to intercourse....
There are "truths" out there that are not open to interpretation or debate....your version of the "facts" related to smoking related diseases and procreation are ridiculous, childish, and ultimately...WRONG... WRONG...WRONG....
No amount of saying it "ain't so because I say it ain't so" doesn't change those inconvenient facts....
And no amount of true science will ever discover the actual cause of cancer. Because of their inability to isolate different items as a control. Perhaps only white males over the age of 65 who worked white collar jobs develop it. Or maybe only black males between the ages of 35 and 55 who work blue collar jobs develop it. You can't isolate enough variables to irrefutably say, "This is why", and that is why if you actually asked any scientist, they would HAVE to admit what I said is true. That they can't properly isolate all the possible variables.
The best they can say is that it MAY be a contributing factor, but they're not even sure of that.
And no amount of true science will ever discover the actual cause of cancer. Because of their inability to isolate different items as a control. Perhaps only white males over the age of 65 who worked white collar jobs develop it. Or maybe only black males between the ages of 35 and 55 who work blue collar jobs develop it. You can't isolate enough variables to irrefutably say, "This is why", and that is why if you actually asked any scientist, they would HAVE to admit what I said is true. That they can't properly isolate all the possible variables.
The best they can say is that it MAY be a contributing factor, but they're not even sure of that.
Trust me....
No "scientist" or anyone with a 3rd grade education for that matter, would ever admit that anything you have written on this subject is "true"
Any scientist that would guarantee that their result is 100% accurate would be a liar. They hem and haw all the time. 70% chance of rain. That way, they're covered whether it rains or not.
If you cannot see that there are a large number of variables, any or all of which could have an effect, then you're pretty dang stupid and not worth talking to. Probably a woman.
lets just save that chavinistic tidbit for posterity...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
Any scientist that would guarantee that their result is 100% accurate would be a liar. They hem and haw all the time. 70% chance of rain. That way, they're covered whether it rains or not.
If you cannot see that there are a large number of variables, any or all of which could have an effect, then you're pretty dang stupid and not worth talking to. Probably a woman.
But it is NOT the same thing as saying it is the cause. If it was a cause, it would happen every single time. That's how a cause-effect relationship works, If A, then B--not Sometimes if A, then sometimes B. That's just random chance there.
That ISN'T how cause and effect work genius....
Your argument has no merit because you don't even understand the context.
This is like arguing with a lamp post....although I think a lamp post would be better able to follow its own rules.
well, i think we can all rejoice, for if we are to believe your reasoning, cancer doesn't cause death, heart attacks don't cause death, malaria doesn't cause death, car wrecks don't cause death, strokes don't cause death and so on, and on, and on, because not everyone who experiences those events will die.
and tightwad, do your kids, and any grandkids you may have, share your passion for smoking tobacco? do you encourage them to smoke, as apparently its no worse for them in moderation, than anything else?
do they have any concerns that till now, their father/grandfather got lucky, but ultimately its going to be a coin toss whether he dies of a smoking related disease?
same odds for them, if they smoke.
harsh perhaps, but true.
Oh crap! This is to asinine to respond to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
