|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 12:42:41 [Permalink]
|
On a more serious note, and back to the topic: A few years ago I was at a bar with some dudes. Real blue-collar dudes in Ohio who worked in a bike shop. One of them was a goofy, short, round guy with a scraggily beard, in his 40's, whose nickname was "Trip". Not because of drug use, but rather, because he had literally once tripped in such a ridiculous way in front of his friends that they started calling him that. The guy had a really gross and silly sense of humor, which might have lead some to think that he was a jolly sort of guy. But if you paid closer attention, it was clear that his humor was a cover for a lot of deep pain. He was pretty lonely and had some money problems, and just one of those people who was sort of stuck in life and too much into his own habits and rut to make any major changes. Anyway, we all started talking about smoking, and Trip says: "Yeah, every time I see the doc, he tells me I gotta quit. I say to him, 'I ain't happy. You got something to make me happy? No? Then I ain't quittin'." There was something incredibly dark and sad in the way he said this. It was completely the truth. Trip felt so bad about himself and his life that he just didn't care if risked making himself sick and dying years before he would otherwise. Trip needed something more to live for before he would even consider quitting a habit that was, in his mind, helping him just get through each dark day.
Ebone, I don't know you in person obviously, but you seem like a pretty happy person. IMO that already gives you a huge advantage for quitting because you have things you want to live for and be healthy for. Keep an eye on that and just keep trying, and you will succeed in achieving this goal. |
"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 12:45:00 |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 08/31/2011 : 13:43:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone, I don't know you in person obviously, but you seem like a pretty happy person. IMO that already gives you a huge advantage for quitting because you have things you want to live for and be healthy for. Keep an eye on that and just keep trying, and you will succeed in achieving this goal.
|
Oh I wish there were little heart icons to use. You are a sweetie.  |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2011 : 16:08:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Oh I wish there were little heart icons to use. You are a sweetie. |
There's always the left angle bracket followed by a three: <3
Edited to say: it looks crappy in the default font here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 00:23:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Ah, insults right away. Did you get that out of your system, or shall I expect more? |
More, much more. Jeez, Dave, I been trolling bait for five pages now in this thread. I thought maybe you were dead from nicotine ingestion or having a lung transplant or something. So happy to see you back as your old irascible self.| Blame yourself for your failure to support your adjectives with appropriate data. |
I try very hard not to blame myself for anything I can pin on someone else.
You need additional data on this subject like Celine Dion needs singing lessons. If I said evolution was proven science, you would call for "appropiate data" to prove the point! Come on!| Irrelevant given your calls to hear from "young" people. |
To me, anyone under sixty is pretty young. I have not seen any data supporting the thesis that one can quit a lifetime smoking habit at 55 and have a good chance to not have irreparable damage to their body. I have been told by many cardiological experts that the fact that I quit smoking in my fifties did not in any way ameliorate the damage already done to my coronary arteries - damage that required open heart surgery to save my life.| If I were to stop smoking right now, I might get to live through the suckiest eight years of my life. |
My point, exactly. If you had stopped at 30, you would have a much better chance. And talk about sucky years - try living a few years with emphysema, lung cancer or COPD - in your sixties!| Probably not, though, since I'm also fat. A double-whammy to my position on the actuarial tables. |
Dave, dave, I can't tell you how radically you have just changed my imagined impression of your appearance. From yesterday's idealization -- a tall, muscular, hunky young Master of the Universe; with chiseled features and the aura of Apollo - I now get a visual of a chain-smoking Jabba the Hut; a gelatinous mass of smoked porcine flesh spilling over edges of an overstuffed LazyBoy in front of a four-screen monitor and nicotine-stained keyboard. Tell me it ain't true, Dave; a bit chubby perhaps, but not fat! Fat is such an evocative word, one really should use a euphemism like stout or chubby. | 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. |
You have about persuaded me that expressing my admittedly strong feelings about this subject in any way is hopelessly quixotic. I don't believe at this point that providing summaries, endless links to extensive studies, quoting dozens of medical authorities - none of any of this would appear to have any effect on the addicted. Your position that addiction is impossible to address and that resistance is futile, is quite possibly accurate. Oddly enough, my own personal experience with my daughter's pathological addictive personality largely bears out this unhappy contention.
Point and match, Dave, I shall from this point forward attempt to suffer fools gladly.| 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. |
Well, I really appreciate that capitulation. It may be interesting some time in the future to examine if that philosophy applies to any other attitudes and behaviors. I thank you for clearly stating it on the record in print.| 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 [sic] euthanasia is suicide, and suicide is murder, then euthanasia is murder. |
I underspoke. Just as there are differing degrees of murder in forensic nomenclature, so also are there differing degrees of intent, justification (and rationality) in the societal and psychological assessment of suicide. Semantics is not the definitive framing of the murder-euthanasia relationship; rather ethical and moral judgments stucture the distinction between the two concepts. Note that voluntary euthanasia is legal in many states and is a recognized legal concept as distinct from murder.| So I do have a right to murder myself under particular conditions, according to you, |
Yes.| 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? |
No semantic juggling needed. Wiki states, correctly I believe, that "Self-sacrifice for others is not always considered suicide, as the goal is not to kill oneself but to save another"; however, Émile Durkheim's theory termed such acts "altruistic suicide." Again, judgement, ethics and morality ultimately would define an extreme act of altruism such as you posit as something other than simple suicide and certainly not as murder. As you are fond of repeating, context is everything - there are many shades of grey here between the extremes of euthanasia or self-sacrifice and either suicide or murder.Let's do that talk. I see no error in congruent conflation, although I don't see why you view my statement as conflated.| 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. |
"You don't get to impose that standard on anyone but yourself" - by whose arbitrary command? Or by what universally accepted Law Of The Universe? I "get" to impose it on anyone that chooses to accept it. Period.| And apparently you decided to proselytize. |
Apparently? Hell, I've been shouting it from the rooftops! And to no avail. Just as ignorant know-nothings cannot accept the truth of climate change or the science of evolution, so do some well-informed, know-a-whole-lot (but not it all) skeptics reject the simple truth that smoking destroys your health. And rationality has nothing to do with it because addiction is beyond the purview of rational (or Critical) thinking. It's enough to make a True Skeptic humble in the presence of Creationism's denial of reality. Right?| 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. |
Haven't seen anything else in the way of irrational, suicidal behavior among the stellar Skeptics of this forum. After all, they are - and that comes from high authority.| 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? |
Well, let's see. If person D consistently points out flaws in person B's argument, it would appear reasonable to assume that person D is in disagreement with person B's thesis, theory, conclusion or the like. And if person D does not agree with the premises of person B's thesis, it is a reasonable conclusion that person D has a different thesis which he considers superior or perhaps contrary to person B's thesis. So his process of pointing out flaws in B's presentation certainly [u]implies[/b], at least, that person D is making an argument for his particular, different thesis. Without getting into the paraphenalia of truth tables and the specifics of syllogistic logic, the above simple example seems to provide a probable cause for the flaw-finding behaviour of person D.
Or maybe person D just likes to attempt to find flaws for the sake of flaw-finding alone. Who knows? (de Shadow do!)| I can't think of a rational excuse or justification for recreational sky-diving, either. |
Approximately 350,000 people skydive in a given year. The fatality rate is approximately 35 annually or 0.0001.
About 35% of all smokers die from smoking-caused disease or 0.35. A rational reason for sky diving might be that it is a hell of a lot safer than smoking, as far as possibly dying from participation in the sport, or the habit - if the choice is mandatory between sky-diving and lighting up. As an ex-smoker who has not sky-dived, I cannot compare the thrill factor of the two activities. I can imagine that it might be exciting to contrmplate death by cigarette, however.
One rational justification for sky-diving might possibly be the adrenaline rush and the thrill of having done something that most people see as dangerous. The satisfaction in smoking is the appeasement of the nicotine addiction. It is difficult to compare the two except for the vast discrepancy in the mortality rates.| Why? What makes you think I would even try to make a rational defense of smoking? |
Because you have given ample evidence of being a highly rational person, and you have constructed many highly rational arguments and defenses for and against a great variety of opinions and conclusions expressed on many controversial subjects. But why would I expect a seriously rational person to defend the irrationality of his personal behavior? Oh, I don't know - maybe consistency?
I know. I don't get to ask for consistency.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 02:05:57 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
| 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! |
Cognac, cheese, cocktails, and coq au vin are all fundamentals of la vie en rose. Although personally I can't tolerate them, quality cigars are marginally acceptable as long as they don't become habitual.
I brook no quarrel with a Cyrenaic lifestyle as long as the pleasure principle does not descend into self-abuse, addiction, or masochism. Abstention from self-destruction does not in any way demand a monastic existence, in fact it is not unusual in Europe to find monks cultivating vineyards. Surely they sample their product?
I suppose one could achieve death by cheese, or even peanut butter; but a habituation such as these, lacking an addictive component like nicotine does not begin to present the danger that is inherent in tobacco addiction. How many bulemics or gluttons are there compared to smokers?
However. there does appear to be a trend toward overeating, particularly junk food, in the current United States. Perhaps a case may need to be made against cholesterol and transfats in the not too distant future. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/01/2011 02:07:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 03:20:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
You need additional data on this subject like Celine Dion needs singing lessons. |
Additional. Appropriate. Who gives a damn what words get used, or what a person's point is? But nevermind that, because now you claim that only "About 35% of all smokers die from smoking-caused disease..." 35% is a "large majority," according to you. Brilliant.| Your position that addiction is impossible to address and that resistance is futile, is quite possibly accurate. |
That's not my position at all. Making shit up is certainly not persuasive.| Just as ignorant know-nothings cannot accept the truth of climate change or the science of evolution, so do some well-informed, know-a-whole-lot (but not it all) skeptics reject the simple truth that smoking destroys your health. |
Which skeptics would those be?| I know. I don't get to ask for consistency. |
Not when you think that fabrication is a valid form of argumentation, no. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 05:16:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Oh I wish there were little heart icons to use. You are a sweetie. |
There's always the left angle bracket followed by a three: <3
Edited to say: it looks crappy in the default font here.
|
Um, yeah Dave, I think that symbol would give marf the wrong impression. Quite phallic.
 |
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 06:36:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Well, let's see. If person D consistently points out flaws in person B's argument, it would appear reasonable to assume that person D is in disagreement with person B's thesis, theory, conclusion or the like. |
"Or" being an important word.| And if person D does not agree with the premises of person B's thesis, it is a reasonable conclusion that person D has a different thesis which he considers superior or perhaps contrary to person B's thesis. |
Again, "or" is important there.| So his process of pointing out flaws in B's presentation certainly [u]implies[/b], at least, that person D is making an argument for his particular, different thesis. |
Not necessarily an opposite thesis, though. I'm not arguing in favor of smoking. I'm arguing that your argument has problems.| Or maybe person D just likes to attempt to find flaws for the sake of flaw-finding alone. |
Maybe person D would like to see other peoples' argument become stronger. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 09:44:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Who gives a damn what words get used, or what a person's point is? But nevermind that, because now you claim that only "About 35% of all smokers die from smoking-caused disease..." 35% is a "large majority," according to you. Brilliant. |
Apparently, no one gives a damn whether they live happily forever after or not. I am astounded by the ennui that the adoption of serious skepticism seems to visit on some of those who practice Critical Thinking. (Voldemort must not be named. The best I can do is "you know who")
"35% of all smokers." Irrespective of the length of time or intensity level that their habit has reached. Modify the statement to include only serious, long term smokers and the percentage rises to something close to 85%. Brilliant? No. Just accurate. Fail, David, sorry. | That's not my position at all. |
Well, there's this....| If I were to stop smoking right now, I might get to live through the suckiest eight years of my life. Probably not, though, |
....and this:| I don't see anyone here claiming that smoking is rational. Addiction is a decidedly irrational thing. |
It would certainly seem that your position is that addiction, not being rational, is not subject to the persuasion of rational argument condemning it. You have all but stated outright that your addiction supercedes your rationality and that you have ceded submission to it.| That's not my position at all. |
Then, in simple straightforward language, what is your position on the subject of overcoming your addiction? In my many years of advocacy for the anti-smoking cause, I don't think I have ever run into as odd a case as yours.
Christopher Hitchens would "justify" the addiction that was feeding his cancer with statements like: | There have been moments of reverie, wreathed in smoke and alone with a book, and moments of conversation, perfumed with ashtrays and cocktails and decent company, which I would not have exchanged for a year of ordinary existence |
In other words, he was willing to risk the near certainty that his habit was slowly killing him in order to enjoy occasional "moments of reverie wreathed in smoke..." Is this the way you feel? {Disclosure. Selfish motive. I can get nearly a chapter's worth of information concerning the dissonance between high intelligence and stupid behavior from an honest answer to my question}| Making shit up is certainly not persuasive. |
Then please provide the insight necessary to replace that shit with fact.| Which skeptics would those be? |
Any and all that are heavy smokers and continue to capitulate to their addiction with the defense that it is "irrational". If you cannot bring specific names to mind that fit that definition, far be it from me to provide a directory. Living in a residence made of glass, as I do; I need to exercise some caution in choosing the size of the stones I throw. | Not when you think that fabrication is a valid form of argumentation, no. |
If I fabricate, it is only because I do not understand the mindset under consideration here. I would be pleased to have more accurate insight into this odd (to me) behaviour phenomenon.
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/01/2011 09:57:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:35:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
"35% of all smokers." |
Ah, I missed the "all." My mistake.| That's not my position at all. |
Well, there's this....| If I were to stop smoking right now, I might get to live through the suckiest eight years of my life. Probably not, though, |
....and this:| I don't see anyone here claiming that smoking is rational. Addiction is a decidedly irrational thing. |
It would certainly seem that your position is that addiction, not being rational, is not subject to the persuasion of rational argument condemning it. You have all but stated outright that your addiction supercedes your rationality and that you have ceded submission to it. |
My addiction is currently overriding my ability to act on what I rationally know to be true.| Then, in simple straightforward language, what is your position on the subject of overcoming your addiction? |
That it's difficult and not likely to be accomplished through reasoned argument alone. I already know and agree with the data, and yet I smoke.| In my many years of advocacy for the anti-smoking cause, I don't think I have ever run into as odd a case as yours. |
I would think you should have run into many of them. Pretty much anyone who says, "I know I should quit, but..." is thinking along the same lines as I.Christopher Hitchens would "justify" the addiction that was feeding his cancer with statements like: | There have been moments of reverie, wreathed in smoke and alone with a book, and moments of conversation, perfumed with ashtrays and cocktails and decent company, which I would not have exchanged for a year of ordinary existence |
In other words, he was willing to risk the near certainty that his habit was slowly killing him in order to enjoy occasional "moments of reverie wreathed in smoke..." Is this the way you feel? |
No, not at all. The only benefit I see to smoking is that it forces me away from my desk a half-dozen times a day, and at those times I get to interact with people in the building with whom I would never otherwise speak. Oh, and my backyard would probably be considerably messier and less green if I stayed indoors all the time at home. Neither of those benefits is worth the costs, though, rationally speaking.| Then please provide the insight necessary to replace that shit with fact. |
Why not ask for that first, before making shit up?| Which skeptics would those be? |
Any and all that are heavy smokers and continue to capitulate to their addiction with the defense that it is "irrational". |
Well, duh: anyone who fits those criteria obviously fits those criteria. Which skeptics do you think fit those criteria?| If you cannot bring specific names to mind that fit that definition, far be it from me to provide a directory. |
Why would I do your homework for you?| If I fabricate, it is only because I do not understand the mindset under consideration here. |
So because you didn't understand, you felt free to invent something? That's so religious of you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:56:16 [Permalink]
|
By the way, bngbuck, I also cannot seem to reason my way out of feeling hungry a couple/few times a day. I also sometimes get a song stuck in my head that just won't go away, despite trying various "anti-ear worm" tricks to do it.
I understand that you're disappointed with these sorts of failures of rationality - our inability to always have our intellect overcome our biology - but they happen all the time. Accepting this as fact isn't a denial of any data about the consequences of our behaviors, but simply the acknowledgment of another behavior. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:22:06 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | Cognac, cheese, cocktails, and coq au vin are all fundamentals of la vie en rose. Although personally I can't tolerate them, quality cigars are marginally acceptable as long as they don't become habitual. |
Oh, gee, thanks for letting us know where the line should be drawn. ;-)
| I brook no quarrel with a Cyrenaic lifestyle as long as the pleasure principle does not descend into self-abuse, addiction, or masochism. |
So you have a "quarrel" with people having an addition. See, this is why what you have been saying is so ineffective for solving the real problems behind smoking addition. Addicts don't need people getting into quarrels with them. You seem to think that quarreling with them will provide this great motivation to quit. But oftentimes it just makes them feel worse, and feeling bad about themselves is often one of the reasons a person has either started a bad habit or had troubling quitting a bad habit. Your attitude, your approach for helping people is deeply condescending and irritating, as well as probably being rather ineffective.
| I suppose one could achieve death by cheese, or even peanut butter; but a habituation such as these, lacking an addictive component like nicotine does not begin to present the danger that is inherent in tobacco addiction. How many bulemics or gluttons are there compared to smokers? |
LOL! Are you kidding me? Are you that fucking ignorant of how much the typical American diet (and even Western diets in general) contribute the top killers (cancer, heart disease, stroke) in the first world??? And food lifestyles can't be addictive? How many times do heart doctors have to hear from their patients that they would rather take a pill or have a procedure done than radically change their diet? There is evidence that a radical change in diet can dramatically slow and even stop or reverse heart disease in individuals, but the diet is so difficult for the typical person to follow that even most doctors don't even bother trying to convince their patients to try them. One of my relatives has diabetes and has been repeatedly told by her doctor not only to quit smoking, but to change her awful diet. After having lost both of her legs, she is still eating doughnuts for breakfast! Another relative of mine needed knee surgery, and the doc told her he wouldn't do it unless she lost 40 pounds because it was the weight that was destroying them. Has she stopped buying potato chips, cheese, or eating sausage and eggs on a regular basis for breakfast? Hell no! Smoking can be attacked today because smoking has lost mainstream acceptance. But the typical American diet is still embraced, and so to even suggest that someone start eating brown rice instead of white bread, that they eat more vegetables and fruits than animal products, breads, and pasta, that they eat beans instead of meat, that they cut out cheese and desserts, well, that's just unthinkable! I'm not saying that people should go to such a diet. All I'm saying is that your high and mighty, judgemental "quarrel" with just smokers is kind of random.
| However. there does appear to be a trend toward overeating, particularly junk food, in the current United States. Perhaps a case may need to be made against cholesterol and transfats in the not too distant future. |
Case may need to be made against them in what sense? That we start shaking our fingers at individuals? Should we cast the stink-eye at the single mother who works 2 jobs just to barely make ends meet and stops at McDonalds for dinner because there she can spend less than $20.00 and get enough calories to satisfy her and her kids, and not have to listen to the kids complain about beans and rice and salad after she's slaved over the stove preparing it? Yet another class issue that is never talked about as a class issue. Poor people eat way more crappy foods (and get sick and suffer and die from doing so) than middle class and rich people. What needs to happen in subsidies for health food and community efforts to put access to cheap and free healthier foods in poor and working class neighborhoods. |
"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 09/01/2011 12:23:19 |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 12:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Alright, since I don't like arguing simply for the sake of arguing (which seems to be the norm around here lately) and I have a whole bunch of one-liners that I have been storing up.. I need to get some things off my chest.
originally posted by bngbuck
| I brook no quarrel with a Cyrenaic lifestyle as long as the pleasure principle does not descend into self-abuse, |
Been doing it since I was twelve...and I don't even require corrective lenses!
| I suppose one could achieve death by cheese, or even peanut butter |
But chocolate would be better.....
| However. there does appear to be a trend toward overeating, particularly junk food, in the current United States. |
I would like to see a study and detrmine if there is any correlation with cannibis consumption.
OK, I am satisfied for the moment.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 14:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Um, yeah Dave, I think that symbol would give marf the wrong impression. Quite phallic.
|
If you tilt your head one way, it's a heart. If you tilt it the other way, it might be a butt. I don't see a phallus anyway in there. |
- 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 - 09/01/2011 : 15:02:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
How many ... gluttons are there compared to smokers?
|
In America? You're kidding, right?
Never in my entire life has I seen so many obese people at the same time, as when I visited Atlanta, GA for Dragon*Con. Not at Dragon*Con, but in the city outside the hotel... |
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. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skeptically quitting
