Smoking.

[MRaverz]

Glad to see it isn't just me, because I have very much the same feeling, and it's not a conscious judging as some people seem to be implying that it is.

Consciously, I don't care if people smoke, I don't understand why they do and I think it's not the best thing in the world to do with your time, but I don't care unless I have to breath it in.

But that doesn't stop the fact that whenever I see anyone smoke, I can't stop myself thinking less of them. D:

All I know is that I try not to be a dick about it, haha. :lol:

 

[australopithecus]

What Gnuggles said.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I care what the heck my friends do.

Showing concern for the people you care about is one thing, but most of Nemesiah's post that I have read are just plain rude with a strong hint of asshattery. The longevity of a life long smoker is 64, but that is just statistics. Like I posted earlier my great uncle died at 82.

Which is... irrelevant.

There are people who have unprotected sex and don't have STD's. Therefore any statistics are bullshit! After all, it's just statistics.

 

[tuxbox]

Which is... irrelevant.

There are people who have unprotected sex and don't have STD's. Therefore any statistics are bullshit! After all, it's just statistics.

This is what I have heard in this thread. People who smoke are dumb, idiots, losers, and weak. While I agree that anyone in this day in age that makes a choice to start smoking is making a stupid decision, that does not mean they are mentally impaired or somehow less of a human being compared to the ones that do not smoke. I have also heard in this thread that smoking kills you slowly and if you want to kill yourself find a quicker way to do it. This is a false statement. Life kills you slowly. If anything smoking speeds up the process of death. The bottom line is this, smoking is gross, but I am not going to belittle someone who smokes and I am also not going to throw false facts about cancer in there face either. If you want to really get your friends attention about smoking and why they should not, then show them pics like this:

Insulting them will get you nowhere and more than likely get you a beat down.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Which is... irrelevant.

There are people who have unprotected sex and don't have STD's. Therefore any statistics are bullshit! After all, it's just statistics.

This is what I have heard in this thread. People who smoke are dumb, idiots, losers, and weak. While I agree that anyone in this day in age that makes a choice to start smoking is making a stupid decision, that does not mean they are mentally impaired or somehow less of a human being compared to the ones that do not smoke. I have also heard in this thread that smoking kills you slowly and if you want to kill yourself find a quicker way to do it. This is a false statement. Life kills you slowly. If anything smoking speeds up the process of death. The bottom line is this, smoking is gross, but I am not going to belittle someone who smokes and I am also not going to throw false facts about cancer in there face either. If you want to really get your friends attention about smoking and why they should not, then show them pics like this:

Insulting them will get you nowhere and more than likely get you a beat down.

I'm not sure whether all this is directed at me. I hope it's not, because I didn't say any of those things. Except for the cancer and life expectancy thing. If you smoke you're statistically a lot more likely to develop lung cancer, and you're statistically, substantially more likely to speed up your death. There's no debate here, the refutation you provided regarding smoking killing you slowly is nothing but a rephrase of my words, the meaning was essentially the same. Maybe my point didn't go through before, or went through distorted. In which case it's my fault.

 

[Gnug215]

I care what the heck my friends do.

Showing concern for the people you care about is one thing, but most of Nemesiah's post that I have read are just plain rude with a strong hint of asshattery. The longevity of a life long smoker is 64, but that is just statistics. Like I posted earlier my great uncle died at 82.

Emphasis mine...

I'm sorry, but did you just dismiss math over personal experience here?

And you did this on the League of Reason website?? *shock & horror*

Seriously, though. While it is up to each individual to decide if they want to, statistically, shave some years off their own lives, I think we can agree that this is not exactly an... intelligent endeavour. I'm not gonna call smokers stupid (nor am I going to apologize if some non-smokers called smokers stupid - this is all irrelevant), because it is up to them to determine whether their quick fix and their supposedly soothing habbit is worth shaving, statistically, some years off their own lives.
But there is no way in hell smokers (and tobacco lobbyists) are going to get away with downplaying the risks and hazards of smoking without hearing for it. If they want to justify their hazardous habbit, it shouldn't be done with misinformation and trivialization.
Society has always had the responsibility of informing its citizens properly about dangers, and we're all a part of society, so....

But to me, the above has never really been an issue. The issue is, well, having fucking smoke blown in your face. It's not just cough-inducingly foul and disgusting, it is also &%(/#! dangerous to me. Not by much, statistically, perhaps, but still!

I rejoiced immensely when FINALLY smoking was banned in restaurants.

About god-damn-fucking-21st-century-bloody time!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Those who are sexually active are statistically more likely to contract an STD - possibly HIV and AIDS - ergo people who are sexually active are stupid, terrible people and they should make a law against having sex anywhere besides specific areas to have it. But anybody who is sexually active is an idiot for doing so in light of these facts and is a terrible awful person with an obviously unhealthy addiction to their acts.

Anyone else want to play this game?

 

[tuxbox]

Yes, smoking is bad for you. Yes, it will kill you quicker and yes it is gross. That said, 90 percent of smokers will not get cancer of any kind due to their bad habit. I am not trying to downplay the health risks at all, nor do I think the risks should be downplayed. However, I think the risks should be portrayed accurately and not overblown.

 

[tuxbox]

Emphasis mine...

I'm sorry, but did you just dismiss math over personal experience here?

And you did this on the League of Reason website?? *shock & horror*

My point was this, just because statistics say x does not mean that x will occur.

 

[Gnug215]

Those who are sexually active are statistically more likely to contract an STD - possibly HIV and AIDS - ergo people who are sexually active are stupid, terrible people and they should make a law against having sex anywhere besides specific areas to have it. But anybody who is sexually active is an idiot for doing so in light of these facts and is a terrible awful person with an obviously unhealthy addiction to their acts.

Anyone else want to play this game?

The game of trying to wash your own hands in other people's dirt?

Like I said, I wasn't going to call smokers stupid, but right now, I'm seriously tempted to call you stupid.

Let's break down what you just said:

First, you've just compared sex to smoking:
Smoking = Useless, pointless bad habit that fuels an addiction by externally acquired means and serves no function but to quench the acquired addiction.
Sex = A #/&"/! PRIMAL and BIOLOGICAL desire built into your bloody DNA, with the just sliiiightly important function of reproduction and preserving the species.

Second, while there is such a thing as safe sex, there is, as far as I know NO such thing as safe smoking - short of not doing it, of course.

Third, are you saying that practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners and generally being careless with sex is NOT stupid?

If smoking disappeared forever, people would live longer, be healthier, and there would be less strain on the healthcare system.

If sex disappeared forever... well... Actually, I think a lot of shit would get done for about 100 years, and yeah, then we'd all be gone.


In summary, I categorically reject your comparison and I charge that you're still trying to come up with weird excuses to abate the cognitive dissonance in your mind that exists because of your addiction.

 

[Gnug215]

Emphasis mine...

I'm sorry, but did you just dismiss math over personal experience here?

And you did this on the League of Reason website?? *shock & horror*

My point was this, just because statistics say x does not mean that x will occur.

Well yes, I get that, but you can't "excuse" the risks of smoking based on a few individual anecdotes.

And who knows how long your grandfather may have lived had he not smoked?

MANY, if not most, smokers usually have one of those stories of a relative who lived for a long time in spite of smoking. Statistically, it is BOUND to happen, really. When statistics talk about the average age of smokers being 64, and your grandfather being 82, that just means that another smoker died when they were 56.
And yeah, since most people have a bit of family or know someone who knows someone, then most smokers are going to know about an example of some smoker who lived for a long time. But many, if not most, will also know of someone who died at a relatively young age.
The problem there might be that the cause of death might not be singularly and conclusively "smoking", but again on the other hand, who knows how long your grandfather would have lived had he not smoked? Certainly, smoking was not the cause of his "long" life.

 

[tuxbox]

Well yes, I get that, but you can't "excuse" the risks of smoking based on a few individual anecdotes.

And who knows how long your grandfather may have lived had he not smoked?

MANY, if not most, smokers usually have one of those stories of a relative who lived for a long time in spite of smoking. Statistically, it is BOUND to happen, really. When statistics talk about the average age of smokers being 64, and your grandfather being 82, that just means that another smoker died when they were 56.
And yeah, since most people have a bit of family or know someone who knows someone, then most smokers are going to know about an example of some smoker who lived for a long time. But many, if not most, will also know of someone who died at a relatively young age.
The problem there might be that the cause of death might not be singularly and conclusively "smoking", but again on the other hand, who knows how long your grandfather would have lived had he not smoked? Certainly, smoking was not the cause of his "long" life.

Touché

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The game of trying to wash your own hands in other people's dirt?

Like I said, I wasn't going to call smokers stupid, but right now, I'm seriously tempted to call you stupid.

Let's break down what you just said:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

First, you've just compared sex to smoking:
Smoking = Useless, pointless bad habit that fuels an addiction by externally acquired means and serves no function but to quench the acquired addiction.
Sex = A #/&"/! PRIMAL and BIOLOGICAL desire built into your bloody DNA, with the just sliiiightly important function of reproduction and preserving the species.

How about this -
Smoking - An obviously enjoyable (your definition of "enjoyable" is irrelevant) with minor benefits and a nicotine high caused by a substance that has the side effect of being highly addictive.
Sex - A Primal and Biological drive to reproduce and flood the world with babies, with the side effect of catching a potentially deadly STD.

Second, while there is such a thing as safe sex, there is, as far as I know NO such thing as safe smoking - short of not doing it, of course.

In the world of STDs, there's no such thing as 100% Safe Sex - http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
In the world of cigarettes? It's still a work in progress. However, I would place the conjecture that Electronic Cigarettes have less health risks for them than typical Cigarettes due to a lack of anything but nicotine vapor. I'll have to brush up a bit on my research...

Third, are you saying that practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners and generally being careless with sex is NOT stupid?

The point was that all actions come with a scaled risk and the same could be said of MANY enjoyable actions.

If smoking disappeared forever, people would live longer, be healthier, and there would be less strain on the healthcare system.

Given that it could be the case.

If sex disappeared forever... well... Actually, I think a lot of shit would get done for about 100 years, and yeah, then we'd all be gone.

If sex for any other faculty except reproduction disappeared forever? It would be the same as if people stopped smoking. No rampant sex solely for pleasure, the number of STDs would dive to almost nothing.

 

[australopithecus]

Seriously, the smoking/sex comparison isn't even remotely valid for all the reason Gnug has already stated.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Seriously, the smoking/sex comparison isn't even remotely valid for all the reason Gnug has already stated.

What is the difference between smoking for enjoyment and intentionally decide to have sex for enjoyment, knowing the risk of STDs/HIV/AIDS?

 

[tuxbox]

Driving, smoking, doing drugs, having sex, swimming, running, riding a bike, sun bathing, and even working outside in the yard carries risk. Everyone dies, so we might as well have fun while we can.

 

[Prolescum]

This is all a bit silly...

Smokers, don't blow it in their faces, it makes them cry. Why they're outside the pub/restaurant/office with the smokers is anyone's guess. Non-smokers, you have legislation on your side. Consider that a win and lay off a bit; all this "I can't help but judge people who smoke" is more than a little disturbing to me. You're probably the last generation that will have to deal with it and it's trivial to avoid these days. Unless you fancy a smoker, which I think CosmicYoghurt's original thoughts were related to...

 

[australopithecus]

Seriously, the smoking/sex comparison isn't even remotely valid for all the reason Gnug has already stated.

What is the difference between smoking for enjoyment and intentionally decide to have sex for enjoyment, knowing the risk of STDs/HIV/AIDS?

Because it's spurious. Why bother going outside walking for enjoyment knowing the risk of murders or being run over? You can apply it to anythig you care to mention.

 

[Gnug215]

The game of trying to wash your own hands in other people's dirt?

Like I said, I wasn't going to call smokers stupid, but right now, I'm seriously tempted to call you stupid.

Let's break down what you just said:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

First, you've just compared sex to smoking:
Smoking = Useless, pointless bad habit that fuels an addiction by externally acquired means and serves no function but to quench the acquired addiction.
Sex = A #/&"/! PRIMAL and BIOLOGICAL desire built into your bloody DNA, with the just sliiiightly important function of reproduction and preserving the species.

How about this -
Smoking - An obviously enjoyable (your definition of "enjoyable" is irrelevant) with minor benefits and a nicotine high caused by a substance that has the side effect of being highly addictive.
Sex - A Primal and Biological drive to reproduce and flood the world with babies, with the side effect of catching a potentially deadly STD.

Second, while there is such a thing as safe sex, there is, as far as I know NO such thing as safe smoking - short of not doing it, of course.

In the world of STDs, there's no such thing as 100% Safe Sex - http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
In the world of cigarettes? It's still a work in progress. However, I would place the conjecture that Electronic Cigarettes have less health risks for them than typical Cigarettes due to a lack of anything but nicotine vapor. I'll have to brush up a bit on my research...

Third, are you saying that practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners and generally being careless with sex is NOT stupid?

The point was that all actions come with a scaled risk and the same could be said of MANY enjoyable actions.

If smoking disappeared forever, people would live longer, be healthier, and there would be less strain on the healthcare system.

Given that it could be the case.

If sex disappeared forever... well... Actually, I think a lot of shit would get done for about 100 years, and yeah, then we'd all be gone.

If sex for any other faculty except reproduction disappeared forever? It would be the same as if people stopped smoking. No rampant sex solely for pleasure, the number of STDs would dive to almost nothing.

In short, just about everything in life is (potentially) dangerous.

Sex is biologically built into us and necessary.
Smoking is not built into us, nor is it necessary.

Risky behavior can not be considered intelligent (but not necessarily be called stupid... well, probably, but if that hurts the sensibilities of anyone, then it's probably not constructive and so on.)

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Also, the numbers are very different.

The average male smoker has a 17.2% chance of developing lung cancer. 11.6% for women, according to this relatively modern study.

Is it too non specific? Is it inaccurate? Yes. But it... SORT OF gives you something to think about.

The stats for STD's for people who have protected sex are along the <1% lines as far as I know. Seriously, if you take care and know who you're fucking...