|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2005 : 02:37:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The relevancy was already made clear by the person who brought it up.
Sigh. One final try....
The only relevancy that might have is as comparison of how serious this problem is compared to others, which might come in handy if we were discussing which issue to tackle first or which issue should have the most resources.
This thread however is about tobacco.quote:
From EvoWiki
Red Herring is an argument used to evade or divert attention from a topic discussed. The divergent argument is at best nominally related to the original and is most effective when one is able to use concieved validation for their irrelevant argument.
This fits your use of the "cupcake argument" in this thread perfectly.quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
And despite it being an epidemic, you said no, there shouldn?t be a law against giving kids junkfood.
What I say or post in your fantasy world is indiferent to me.quote:
You seem to be inconsistent in your logic.
LOL! Could you give me some Swedish lessons to?quote:
You have advocated a special law that makes it illegal to smoke around ALL kids, regardless of whether that kid has a repertory problem and regardless of whether that smoking is done constantly, or in enclosed spaces, or over a period of years. That?s dumb.
No, I suggested a law that would make it illegal to expose all unwilling people to smoke and that would include minors, even your own children.
Littering is usually illegal, even if you only do it once and the garbagage is not harmful to others. quote:
The problem is that the legal consequences themselves do harm. Paying a fine, having to take time off to go to court, these things hurt families with little money.
If you cant afford the fine, don't do the crime. If I can't afford a speeding ticket I'd better keep the speed limit.
If these people can afford tobacco should be able to pay the fines for the transgressions they decide to make.
quote:
The fact that laws can be difficult to enforce or that they can be abused are still not enough reason not to have them.
Those factors should be, and are, considerations.
On this we can actually agree. |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 03:40:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
...you implied that I was an egomaniac, ...
For someone who feels justified in satisfying their urges in such a way that it cause inconvenience or even hurts other people, egomaniac is a nice word.
quote:
If you: eat meat, wear leather, drink soft drinks, drink alcohol, eat fast food, eat packaged candy, drive a car anywhere you could reasonably go on foot, travel for pleasure, set your home thermostat above 60 degrees in the winter or below 80 degrees in the summer, buy anything new that you could buy used, fertilize your lawn, use storebought household cleansers, barbecue,..I could go on almost indefinitely.
While there are definitely some things on your list that I should consider doing less or not at all, they have no bearing at all on whether you should be allowed do subject unwilling people to smoke.
Therefore ...quote:
Remove the beam from thine own eye, before bitchin' about the eyelash in mine.
..on this subject, as I don't smoke, I am able to throw the first stone. Still this has no effect on my argument. Another Red Herring, an Argumentum ad Hominem
quote:
Nope, no reference. Shot this one straight from the hip based on personal observation.
That is OK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you admit that that is what it is.quote:
Being an anti-smoking proponent does not require one to make any personal sacrifice. All that is required is the desire to point out someone else's weakness, while ignoring your own (see the above list).
Even if this was true this is also irrelevant. See above!quote:
When you have done everything possible within your own life to protect the health and well being of everyone around you, then you will have earned the holier than thou attitude you are fronting. Then and only then will you be worthy to hand someone else a hair shirt to wear.
That is an extremely stupid viewpoint.
So only perfect people should be allowed to criticize others or suggest changes? |
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 07:44:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Quote by Starman
For someone who feels justified in satisfying their urges in such a way that it cause inconvenience or even hurts other people, egomaniac is a nice word.
That was the point of my list. If I am an egomaniac because I allow my wants to inconvenience or hurt others, then so are you and almost all of the people walking on the planet.
quote:
Quote by Starman
..on this subject, as I don't smoke, I am able to throw the first stone.
Wrong. Jesus did not say let he who is without adultery cast the first stone, He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
quote:
When you have done everything possible within your own life to protect the health and well being of everyone around you, then you will have earned the holier than thou attitude you are fronting. Then and only then will you be worthy to hand someone else a hair shirt to wear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Starman
That is an extremely stupid viewpoint.
That must have stung. Not only did I reduce you to calling it stupid, I reduced you to calling it extremely stupid.
quote:
by Starman
So only perfect people should be allowed to criticize others or suggest changes?
No and Yes, You should not feel free to criticize others unless your own slate is clean. If we are only talking about "do you smoke?" then yours is. If we are talking about "do you pursue desires that have a negative effect on the health and well being of the people around you" then yours is not. Just because the vehicle of your abuse is different does not mean it doesn't count.
Yes, you can suggest changes to your hearts content and good on you for it. But:
quote:
Most of us might get by with coughs, running eyes and getting our hair and clothes stinking, but I can't come up with a reason why these self centered bastards should be allowed to expose us to that.
I don't throw my feces at other people, why should these creeps be allowed to expose me to their waste?
As for people who expose their children. I find it despicable when people abuse their children in any way. Willfully causing your child harm should of course be a crime.
Once again if you are to lazy to move your ass to another room (or preferably out doors) to smoke and thereby subject you children to the risk of long term health problem you are in my opinion a lousy parent who abuse your kids. If it was up to me this should be illegal
Smokers that whine about their personal freedom and their freedom of choice.
If you are going to argue like a egomaniac you run the risk of being mistaken for one.
That is an extremely stupid viewpoint.
Along with suggesting you have insulted, incited, and belittled. This is not an effective means for getting your point across.
I, much to my own chagrin, have followed you right down into the muck:
quote:
Whoooaaaaahhh... Let's back the Holier than thou parade up just a little bit.
allows them to feel smug, superior and self important.
Remove the beam from thine own eye, before bitchin' about the eyelash in mine.
the holier than thou attitude you are fronting.
The only defense I have for my rudeness is the schoolyard defense. "You did it first, so NYAHH! " |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 08:21:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
Along with suggesting you have insulted, incited, and belittled. This is not an effective means for getting your point across.
Yet another post without any relevance to the topic.
You may be right that I could have been more successful using a different tone, and that some of my post might have been provoking, but that was the intention.
And I also really think the viewpoint was stupid, and that your reasoning was egocentric.
I dont mind if people disagree but the "you can't criticize me because you and others are also bad" is an argument wich in my view does not deserve anything else than contempt.
Until you have anything of value to add...
Plonk!
|
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 15:39:44 [Permalink]
|
Well, Dave just explained to me what plonk means. Which is a shame since I just spent all afternoon getting back on topic. I would have done so sooner, if I didn't have to spend all the time I have had available defending my character. (I am only batting at what you pitch Starman.)
So for anyone who wants the info, here goes.
First from PubMed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
quote:
Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.
quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Next we hear from the UCLA School of Public Health, and the NYU Department of Preventive Medicine. (OK just a couple of them.)
[ Edited to shorten the link - LizW.]
quote:
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Next is the Oak Ridge National Library. (I've never heard of them either but read the article it's interesting.)
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html
quote:
The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace.
Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours. Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP.
The "Restaurant and Tavern Workers" study builds upon findings of an earlier ORNL study involving 16 cities and more than 1,500 subjects nationwide. In that study, test subjects wore separate air sampling devices at work and away from work over a 24-hour period. Results from this approach differ dramatically from stationary air sampling, which does not take into account the constantly changing conditions as people move from place to place throughout the day, Jenkins said.
The 16-cities study, the largest of its kind ever conducted in a single country, found the highest levels of environmental tobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smoking is permitted to be between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter, far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and OSHA.
"A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is in the dose," Jenkins said. "It's pretty clear that the environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people." .
Now the Skeptic's Dictionary
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html#smoke
quote:
The EPA's data show no significant link between passive smoke and lung cancer. Even after lowering the standard from p=0.05 to p=0.1 (i.e., from a one in twenty to a one in ten chance of a spurious correlation), they were still able to get a relative risk of only 1.19. According to John Brignell, "risk ratios of greater than 3 are normally considered significant. One might even stretch a point and go down to 2, but never lower" (Sorry Wrong Number, p. 129). Yet, the EPA has not backed off. Neither has the World Health Organization, which published a study in 1998 that concluded: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and lung cancer risk." The WHO study also noted that there was only "weak evidence" for a risk of lung cancer from spousal or workplace ETS. Yet WHO put out a press release that contradicts their own conclusions.
Now let's here from The Straight Dope.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
quote:
The controversy over ETS and the EPA report has been marked by accusations of conspiracy, bias, and cooked data, so one has to tread carefully. Nonetheless, a few tentative conclusions can be drawn. The first is that under the most charitable interpretation the EPA's evidence that ETS is carcinogenic comes perilously close to noise level--you're not sure if you're seeing a real effect or just random spikes in the data. The EPA report was based not on original research but on a "meta-analysis" of 11 existing studies; the analysis purported to show that ETS caused a 19 percent increased risk of lung cancer. While this seems like a respectably large number, remember it comes from an epidemiological study, which attempts to infer causality based on associations in the data--circumstantial evidence rather than a smoking gun. Whatever song and dance you may get from the statisticians, skeptical observers prefer to see an increased risk of at least 100 percent before they consider a relationship to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
And even though he is not prestigious choice, I have thrown in Joe Bob Briggs just for giggles.
http://www.joebobbriggs.com/specialreports/20020816.html
quote:
Apparently Australian journalists are a little more diligent. When the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released a second-hand smoke report in 1997, the authors decided to omit the statistical tables entirely because they feared the press might study them. An outraged judge eventually censured the government agency for what he called lying by omission--the same thing that happened in a North Carolina court case, when a judge said the Environmental Protection Agency's report was rife with "cherry picking" of statistics, and h |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
| Edited by - LizW on 09/23/2005 16:23:43 |
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 16:20:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
by Marfknox
Nothing in the above paragraphs clearly demonstrates how the problem of childhood obesity is irrelevant as a comparison to the problem of children's health being damaged through exposure to second-hand smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Starman
Is this really so difficult to understand?
It is a Red Herring! The problem of obesity might be interesting as a comparison, but it has zero relevance on whether second hand smoking is a problem or if and how the problem should be addressed.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of days. I have to say that IMHO, bringing in the subject of obesity that is exacerbated by the parents behavior, may be a good way to take the argument out of it's emotional matrix.
Would you feel the need to label something as "abuse" if the effects were similar but the subject was not something you have a personal animosity toward?
Once again only my opinion. |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 21:44:39 [Permalink]
|
The cupcake is not a red herring. It is not intended (nor did it succeed in) distracting from what we were discussing. We were specifically discussing whether it should be illegal to smoke around kids, and the cupcake was a COMPARISON of another health hazard. It sets up a valid comparison, begging the question – at what point do we draw the line for abuse? I have argued that most smoking that occurs around children is NOT a demonstratable health hazard (certainly not one worth the government's time of getting involved with), just like the occasional cupcake is not a serious health hazard, despite the fact that childhood obesity is an actual epidemic.
For how often you cry “red herring” it makes me wonder if you aren't using that accusation as a red herring. If you think a comparison or anecdote is irrelevant, just say why you think that. A real red herring is typically intentional, but the things you have called red herring her seem to be thoughtful and genuine comparisons. It is YOU who is avoiding discussing them.
I wrote: You have advocated a special law that makes it illegal to smoke around ALL kids, regardless of whether that kid has a repertory problem and regardless of whether that smoking is done constantly, or in enclosed spaces, or over a period of years. That?s dumb.
Then Starman wrote: No, I suggested a law that would make it illegal to expose all unwilling people to smoke and that would include minors, even your own children.
My mistake – you suggested an even more extensive ban on smoking which would INCLUDE making it illegal to smoke around ALL kids, regardless of whether that kid has a repertory problem and regardless of whether that smoking is done constantly, or in enclosed space, or over a period of years. That's still dumb for all the same reasons that I previously stated.
Starman wrote: If you cant afford the fine, don't do the crime. If I can't afford a speeding ticket I'd better keep the speed limit.
I love that you use speeding tickets as an example – what a HUGE economic injustice: to fine a person who makes $7K a year the same as the person who makes $500K a year. Your statement about not affording the fine is simplistic and insulting.
My point is that making it illegal to smoke around kids is just one more law that is only going to hurt poor and working class people. And most of them won't even be actually abusing their kids!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/23/2005 21:45:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
