|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 15:13:55 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
My, what it takes to get the ghosties that lurk in the shadows to come forth and attempt to justify their supernatural denial.
| "Almost half" is not a majority of any sort, certainly not a "large" one. |
Nor is the single study I cited the only - or the definitive - work that has been done on this subject. There are many, many more extensive studies extant, as you well know. The aggregate sum of the data is pretty persuasive. | That article also categorically states that young people who smoke aren't being suicidal, in denial, mentally aberrant or psychopathological since if they quit by age 30, they will have the same life expectancy as non-smokers (in other words, any early damage done by smoking is not "irreparable," as you claimed). |
And how about those who continue to smoke heavily past the age of thirty - perhaps into their forties or more? Like yourself, for instance? | If by "extremely likely," you mean "slightly less than 50%." |
I mean substantially more than 50%, with my opinion based on the acervation of all the data that has been collected on the subject. And even 50% should be sufficient for a person whose primary life effort is highly directed toward rationality in all things -- to think long and hard about the effects of smoking, and whether or not it is rational behaviour.| So you're opposed to terminally ill people killing themselves in order to avoid languishing in misery during the end stages of their diseases? |
Not at all, in fact I strongly support euthanasia while strongly opposing murder. Conflating the two is simply ignorant.
If you were to suffer the ravages of lung cancer when you reach your late 60's as a result of your addiction (highly likely), and your disease had been pronounced terminal by medical experts, I would strongly approve of your being permitted to mercifully end your life. Nothing personal, Dave, I would say the same about any addicted smoker whos is very likely seriously damaging his/her body with a tobacco addiction.| And to be even more fair, bngbuck is really targeting the skeptics here as being lunatics for smoking. Some of us may be poor, but we're generally pretty smart. |
If it is "pretty smart" to intentionally, consistently, and progressively continue to damage your body after fully understanding the consequences of prolonged heavy smoking; yes you folks certainly have something awry in your cognitive processing. "Lunatics" is not a term that I used , nor would I. "Selective stupidity" would be a more accurate description.| What bngbuck is really trying to do is pass off "one needs to live as many years as possible" as a sort of universal moral standard, and then complaining that people who may not share that standard are failing to live up to it by engaging in a behavior which can considerably shorten one's life. |
Wrong. What I am correctly stating is this: | If one enjoys life and wants to live as many years in reasonable comfort as is possible, then they are hypocritical and self-contradictory if they habitually engage in self-destructive behavior. |
I gather this is not one of your life goals. It is one of mine and always has been, and I have been pretty damn successful at it. It certainly does not appear to be any kind of universal moral standard, I just firmly believe that it should be. My opinion, of course.| But he's downplaying the risks of some behaviors while embarrassingly overplaying the risks from smoking, so there's a clear bias and the whole argument doesn't seem well thought-out. |
This commentary indicates that you have not understood what I expressed. Obviously there are many other self-destructive behaviors that stupid people engage in. A daily game of russian roulette will certainly end in the desired result in a much shorter time than any kind of drug use can deliver. And much less painful. That being so, it bears no relevance to, and neither adds to or subtracts from the argument against smoking.
Of course there is bias, an overwhelming bias. There is no rational excuse or justification for smoking and despite your remarkable talent for producing semantic spaghetti, you certainly haven't presented a cogent justification for tolerating the addiction in this thread. I am hoping you can do better than the current weak effort in the blistering reply that you will soon post. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 15:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
| Dave already pointed out the other problems with what you've said - the risk is actually less than 50%. |
| We are well aware now of the difference in life expectancy between more affluent and poor in America, and we are also aware that this is caused by a whole myriad of factors, which include lower quality of health care, worse diet, and different types and levels of stress. |
Then why did you decide to give of the exquisite pleasures of sucking smoke loaded with carcinogens into your lungs? If there really is only a small statistical probability that it will kill or damage you, why quit? | But, let's just ignore the role that socio-economics plays in smoking just continue saying this is a simple matter of logical reasoning and conclude that smokers are mentally off and perhaps "psychopathological." |
Yes.I assume this is an affectionate commentary of agreement along the lines of "A thing of truth and beauty is a joy to behold"; and I thank you for your appreciation of my argument. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 15:38:57 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer.....
| bngbuck, walk a mile in your neighbor's moccasins. At the end of it, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes. |
Val, I walked many a mile in my own tattered moccasins, and at the end of it, I couldn't get away from myself, my shoes were worn out, and I busted my heart in the process. If that neighbor is a smoker, I'm sure as hell not going to steal his shoes! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 15:53:03 [Permalink]
|
Hal.....
Originally posted by Dave W.
What bngbuck is really trying to do is pass off "one needs to live as many years as possible" as a sort of universal moral standard |
Ah, yes, the "Misery loves company" axiom. |
Well, Hal, I don't know how old, smart, or affluent you may be; nor is it any of my business. But "misery" does not very accurately describe my current posture.
I will be 83 in about a month, I'm smart enough to know that I really know very little despite a long lifetime of learning, and although I am not "rich" by real standards of monetary wealth; I am a helluva long way from being poor. I am terribly smug and satisfied with my progress from birth to now with respect to health, wealth, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is what constitutes misery, so be it. I would be delighted if the entire world was as miserable as I am, and I would indeed love the company. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 16:06:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
| Some of us may be poor,..... |
What? Don't understand the relevance, unless you are referring to Marf's contention that poor folks not only smoke but suffer many other life-threatening indignities, so it really doesn't matter if you smoke or not as long as you are poor and are going to die early anyway.
Besides, those of us of high intelligence who choose not to be poor usually can correct the situation pretty quickly. I recognize that it is not always a priority for the intellectually gifted, but I don't really understand it. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 17:29:18 [Permalink]
|
| Then why did you decide to give of the exquisite pleasures of sucking smoke loaded with carcinogens into your lungs? If there really is only a small statistical probability that it will kill or damage you, why quit? |
It is still a significant statistical probability that it will shorten my life, so that of course is one factor. Others: cost, makes my clothing smells, stink-eye from most of my friends and relatives (including my husband), I was pregnant and then nursing and then around kids all the time, makes me more prone to colds, makes colds last longer, and as an addiction, the high eventually becomes the norm, so then if one is without the high one feels lower than usual, and to get high again one must smoke more. Plus my addiction was pretty tame compared to most. While I was nearly a pack a day for one year when I lived with another smoker and we hung out a lot, all my smoking before and since then has been sparse and casual. In fact I do still smoke on occasion. But most of the smokers I know must be all or nothing. Even if they've quit for months or years, smoking just one cigarette at a party sends them right back to buying packs and smoking regularly. Nicotene is an incredibly addictive drug, and I'm fortunate to not be as prone to its addictive qualities as most who have tried it. I suspect the vast majority of smokers don't realize how addictive it is when they first start. I'm sure if you asked the typical smoker if they knew then what they knew now would they try smoking, they'd say "Hell no!" The problem is that once you've tried it you can't go back. Even those many who successfully quit still struggle with the cravings for the rest of their lives. My father quit over two decades ago and still sometimes talks about missing it in a bitter, sarcastic tone of voice. Addiction is a bitch.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2011 : 17:54:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
My, what it takes to get the ghosties that lurk in the shadows to come forth and attempt to justify their supernatural denial. |
Ah, insults right away. Did you get that out of your system, or shall I expect more?| "Almost half" is not a majority of any sort, certainly not a "large" one. |
Nor is the single study I cited the only - or the definitive - work that has been done on this subject. There are many, many more extensive studies extant, as you well know. The aggregate sum of the data is pretty persuasive. |
Well, that was the single article you highlighted in support of your "large majority" claim. Blame yourself for your failure to support your adjectives with appropriate data.| That article also categorically states that young people who smoke aren't being suicidal, in denial, mentally aberrant or psychopathological since if they quit by age 30, they will have the same life expectancy as non-smokers (in other words, any early damage done by smoking is not "irreparable," as you claimed). |
And how about those who continue to smoke heavily past the age of thirty - perhaps into their forties or more? |
Irrelevant given your calls to hear from "young" people.| Like yourself, for instance? |
If I were to stop smoking right now, I might get to live through the suckiest eight years of my life. Probably not, though, since I'm also fat. A double-whammy to my position on the actuarial tables.| I mean substantially more than 50%, with my opinion based on the acervation of all the data that has been collected on the subject. |
Why not cite a good summary of the data which supports your claim, then? Asking other people wade through the references on a CDC data dump isn't going to be very compelling.| And even 50% should be sufficient for a person whose primary life effort is highly directed toward rationality in all things -- to think long and hard about the effects of smoking, and whether or not it is rational behaviour. |
I don't see anyone here claiming that smoking is rational. Addiction is a decidedly irrational thing. Striving for rationality in all things doesn't mean succeeding in being rational in all things.| So you're opposed to terminally ill people killing themselves in order to avoid languishing in misery during the end stages of their diseases? |
Not at all, in fact I strongly support euthanasia while strongly opposing murder. Conflating the two is simply ignorant. |
Hey, you're the one who flatly stated that suicide is murder. Suggesting that euthanasia isn't suicide seems like a semantic ploy, to me. Is euthanasia is suicide, and suicide is murder, then euthanasia is murder.| If you were to suffer the ravages of lung cancer when you reach your late 60's as a result of your addiction (highly likely), and your disease had been pronounced terminal by medical experts, I would strongly approve of your being permitted to mercifully end your life. |
So I do have a right to murder myself under particular conditions, according to you, even though you said otherwise before. How about throwing myself on a grenade to save a handful of other people? Another case where semantic juggling can turn self-murder into an approved right?| If it is "pretty smart" to intentionally, consistently, and progressively continue to damage your body after fully understanding the consequences of prolonged heavy smoking; yes you folks certainly have something awry in your cognitive processing. |
Talk about conflation.| If one enjoys life and wants to live as many years in reasonable comfort as is possible, then they are hypocritical and self-contradictory if they habitually engage in self-destructive behavior. |
Fine. You don't get to impose that standard on anyone but yourself. If the antecedent holds for any particular person, then you can call them whatever names you like without looking pompous.| I gather this is not one of your life goals. It is one of mine and always has been, and I have been pretty damn successful at it. It certainly does not appear to be any kind of universal moral standard, I just firmly believe that it should be. My opinion, of course. |
And apparently you decided to proselytize.| This commentary indicates that you have not understood what I expressed. Obviously there are many other self-destructive behaviors that stupid people engage in. A daily game of russian roulette will certainly end in the desired result in a much shorter time than any kind of drug use can deliver. And much less painful. That being so, it bears no relevance to, and neither adds to or subtracts from the argument against smoking. |
No, the fact that you don't post proportionally lengthy screeds against other irrational and potentially dangerous behaviors is absolutely relevant to your selective passion as an anti-smoker. You're right that it has no relevance to the argument against smoking, but pointing out your bias isn't an argument for smoking. Or do you think that pointing out flaws in your argument is necessarily an argument in favor of whatever you're against?| Of course there is bias, an overwhelming bias. There is no rational excuse or justification for smoking... |
I can't think of a rational excuse or justification for recreational sky-diving, either.| ...and despite your remarkable talent for producing semantic spaghetti, you certainly haven't presented a cogent justification for tolerating the addiction in this thread. I am hoping you can do better than the current weak effort in the blistering reply that you will soon post. |
Why? What makes you think I would even try to make a rational defense of smoking? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 20:09:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And to be even more fair, bngbuck is really targeting the skeptics here as being lunatics for smoking. Some of us may be poor, but we're generally pretty smart.
|
My friend I mentioned as an example is a semi-skeptic. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2011 : 20:31:48 [Permalink]
|
| Almost every educated person knows that if he or she were to adopt a dietary lifestyle that involved no drinking, no desserts, no cheese, and was say, around 90% plant based with good variety for complimentary proteins and getting all the necessary vitamins and nutrients, he or she would live significantly longer (not counting death by accident, catching a rare virus, or violence of course) and be in better shape during the years lived. And it isn't difficult in theory to live such a lifestyle. If one stops buying meat, cheese, desserts, and drinks, there is more money for fresh produce. And beans and brown rice are relatively cheap. If such a lifestyle were prioritized, one could make time for cooking a priority (since obviously most restaurants don't accommodate such a diet.) And there are plenty of cook books and free recipes available online for someone taking on such a diet. But most people aren't going to do that, are they? Even though heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, are all leading causes of death, and all typically result in years of suffering and lots of painful and expensive medical interventions. I guess almost all people in the first world must be psychopaths! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 05:19:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Almost every educated person knows that if he or she were to adopt a dietary lifestyle that involved no drinking, no desserts, no cheese, and was say, around 90% plant based with good variety for complimentary proteins and getting all the necessary vitamins and nutrients, he or she would live significantly longer |
(bolding mine)
There would be no point in living then.
Why do you keep picking on cheese? Cheese is good for you. It is full of calcium for strong bones and teeth! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 05:51:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hal
Originally posted by bngbuck
Hal.....
Originally posted by Dave W.
What bngbuck is really trying to do is pass off "one needs to live as many years as possible" as a sort of universal moral standard |
Ah, yes, the "Misery loves company" axiom. |
Well, Hal, I don't know how old, smart, or affluent you may be; nor is it any of my business. But "misery" does not very accurately describe my current posture.
I will be 83 in about a month, I'm smart enough to know that I really know very little despite a long lifetime of learning, and although I am not "rich" by real standards of monetary wealth; I am a helluva long way from being poor. I am terribly smug and satisfied with my progress from birth to now with respect to health, wealth, and the pursuit of happiness. If that is what constitutes misery, so be it. I would be delighted if the entire world was as miserable as I am, and I would indeed love the company.
|
|
If that's the sort of "misery" afflicting the bulk of suicides, then you'd have a point.
You've shown a remarkable lack of empathy in other posts, so I'm not surprised that you're content to judge the behavior of others with no apparent regard for their unique circumstances and experiences. When I was younger, I felt very much the same way. Nowadays, I try much harder to respect the sincerity of people's convictions, regardless of how I judge their propriety. If, like most of us, you've had opportunities in your life to confront someone who was seriously depressed, then you'll know that the worst thing you can say is, "Why so sad? Look how great my life is?"
That's a (mostly) irrelevant side-track, anyway, because I was really only snarking on the assertion, paraphrased by Dave W, that one should always want to live as long as possible. If I'm happy, healthy, and comfortable, why do you think that I must want that to go on indefinitely?
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 06:59:37 [Permalink]
|
Ebone, cheese is full of fat. Saturated fat. And that is not good for you. The calcium can be gotten through much much healthier foods. Also, the typical Westerner isn't exactly for want of enough calcium.
That said, I love cheese (especially the really good stuff), I eat it all the time, and any health consequences of that are totally worth it! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 07:19:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, cheese is full of fat. Saturated fat. And that is not good for you. The calcium can be gotten through much much healthier foods. Also, the typical Westerner isn't exactly for want of enough calcium.
That said, I love cheese (especially the really good stuff), I eat it all the time, and any health consequences of that are totally worth it!
|
What a coincidence! My body is also full of fat!
I can talk about cheese all day which is why I was so excited when you brought the subject up. I have a buddy who is a cheesemaker and he can talk all day about the science of making cheese. He is cool and will frequently give me free cheese.
What do you consider really good cheese?
To me the best is cheddar cheese curds fresh out of the vat. They are best when still warm and squeaky when you buy them. Great for road trips. Toss the bag on your dash in the hot sun and they will be like new all day! We have an advantage here in the Dairy State because there are cheese factories everywhere. Our idea of good cheese I find is usually quite different than other parts of the country. Other areas of the country seem to find old cheese or cheese made from milk other than a cow's to be the good stuff.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 12:29:52 [Permalink]
|
| What do you consider really good cheese? |
Pretty much anything more expensive than the overly process crap you get at the typically dairy isle in mainstream grocery stores. Preferably what you get in a specialty cheese shop. I LOVE ordering cheese plates in decent restaurants. Am quite partial to really strong hard cheddar or cheddar-like cheeses, and also triple cream bries. But I will pretty much eat and enjoy ANY quality artisan cheese. I once had this cheese from a cheese shop in Canada called "The Stinking Bishop". I found a wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Bishop_cheese It was incredibly stinky and strong tasting, but I could take it. My brother tried one bite and nearly wretched. He said the taste stayed with him for hours afterward, and he was really pissed off at me for buying it.
More related to this thread, I could also have this conversation about cigars. Haven't smoked any in a long time, but I used to be quite the aficionado, particularly of maduro cigars. I think according to Bngbuck's logic, these conversations about good cheese and cigars are no different than conversations over our preferred methods for committing suicide. Cheers! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 12:32:51 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and scotch. I LOVE scotch. Well, not highlands so much. But I'll take a good Islay or Speyside any day of the week (except when I'm pregnant. C'mon kid, get baked and pop out already, mama wants to drink her Glenrothes!)
Oh the glorious, glorious many ways to kill ourselves slowly! Ah, hedonism! ;-) |
"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 08/31/2011 12:33:18 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skeptically quitting
