|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Hey Smokers: I Hate You

Default Hey Smokers: I Hate You

February 5th, 2013, 22:37
Originally Posted by BillSeurer View Post
There is a fundamental difference. Drinkers aren't making you or me drink. Smokers are effectively making you and me smoke.
So, if you're attacked by a drunk - that's not his fault?
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#141

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,180

Default 

February 5th, 2013, 23:58
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, if you're attacked by a drunk - that's not his fault?
Yup, it's his fault. Which has what to do with what?
BillSeurer is offline

BillSeurer

BillSeurer's Avatar
Eternal Supreme Dictator

#142

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,727

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 00:00
Originally Posted by BillSeurer View Post
Yup, it's his fault. Which has what to do with what?
Let's see.

A smoker is at fault when people are affected by his smoking.
A drunk is at fault when people are affected by his drunken behavior.

Clear?
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#143

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,180

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 00:34
Seriously. People who are against smokers need to get a grip. SOMETHING needs to kill these people.

Until we're all super serious about colonizing other planets, we ought to stop complaining about choices people make to limit their life expectancies.

We're all in for a bumpy ride on this planet if everyone starts living to age 90 and up.

Instead of complaining, thank them for sticking up for personal freedoms, in the face of outrageous(should be illegal) taxation levels. And say a prayer for those brave souls willing to die a little earlier to leave a little more for the rest of us.

I was a tobacco user and I held out for a long time… the gov't shouldn't be able to tell me how to live my life. But I couldn't bear to prop my crappy useless gov't up anymore with my hard-earned money just to make a point. Now I'm just a goddamn quitter.
oddity is offline

oddity

Traveler

#144

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 05:02
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
And how about driving while intoxicated? And how many wifes/kids were battered because their father had a cigarette?


And why is that I wonder?
Mainly because I find smoking more intrusive than drinking. Some one can be drinking at a table next to me and I wouldn't even notice but if they are smoking the stench will bother me. I see and smell smokers everyday, it's been 2 or 3 new years ago since I've seen someone drunk.

Also, there are several studies that suggest a drink a day can actually have health benefits. So it could be argued that a responsible drinker could actually see health benefits. Were as as a smoker never would and would only damage there health.

Let me make 2 things clear:

1. I'm talking about responsible drinkers not alcoholics or people that can't just have a drink or 2 but have to get trashed every time they drink.

2. I wouldn't care if they banned both as it wouldn't affect me personally, except for the huge tax hike I would have to pay since the government wouldn't have 2 of it's cash cows.
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch

#145

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,140

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 05:37
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Why would I conceed something that simply is not true? Alcohol is simply not a major contributor to violence. THAT'S common sense. The vast majority of people that are arrested for violence are not drunk at the time.
"Two-thirds of victims who suffered violence by an intimate (a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend) reported that alcohol had been a factor"

"Published studies suggest that as many as 86% of homicide offenders, 37% of assault offenders, 60% of sexual offenders, up to 57% of men and 27% of women involved in marital violence, and 13% of child abusers were drinking at the time of the offense."

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/pdf/AL…D_VIOLENCE.pdf

Vast majority huh?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#146

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,305

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 06:03
I have nothing against smoker per se. It's just that their second hand smoke is what's doing the most damage.
first_watch is offline

first_watch

Watcher

#147

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 06:13
Cause and effect, people. You misunderstand which is which and then base all of your arguments on your misunderstanding.

But go ahead, lets just ban or regulate everything that could possibly effect human beings in a negative way. I'm sure that will be a real fun world to live in.
CrazyIrish is offline

CrazyIrish

Keeper of the Watch

#148

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 604

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 13:00
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Oh, look - Pibbur had the energy to educate you out of your ignorance:
I'm not trying to educate any one. What I wrote was not (despite mentioning him) directed at BN, it wasn't directed at anyone. At least i didn't attend to.

My statistics are from Norway, and can't be directly transferred (correct English?) to the US. For instance, the frequency of murders are low in Norway' on the average 30 pr year in a population of 5 million (for obvious reason we must exclude 2011. The number of people Breivik killed corresponds to 2 1/2 "normal" years). Armed robbery is rare, so is armed assaults. I would think that alchohol plays a somewhat lesser role in murder cases in the US, but it should still be a significant factor. OTOH I would guess that alchohol was more important as a cause of traffic accidents, due to more liberal driving and drinking laws. But that's just guessing.

For the record, when it comes to fighting, people who themselves are drunk ar far more likely to be assulted by drunk people than people who are sober. I wonder why….

Let me elaborate a bit on second hand smoking. I don't doubt that even small doses of second hand smoking have health effects. But the risk for long term effects from random exposure has to be very small (and we readily expose ourselves to activities with higher risks without any concern). Data comes from long term exposure. To reliably estimate the effect of short term/random exposure, we would have to examine a representable set of thousands of patients, following them over a period of 10-20 years (lung cancer takes that long to develop).

To put this into perspective (correct English?), it was recently published that the risk of brain tumors in children receiving CT examinations of the head is twice that of children without CT exams. Behind that result is 180 000 children followed over a 20 year period. That's reliable data. BTW, unlike random exposure to SHS, it's very easy to quantify the exposure to CT examinations. (To those of you who now is worried because of that exam your child had - the risk of brain tumors in children is very low. A doubling of the risk, correspond to a very small increase in absolute numbers.)

Another study involving 1 million women over more than 20 years found an on the average 10 year reduction in expected life span in female smokers compared to non smokers. We're talking about heavy smokers (I would guess a daily consumption of 20 cigarettes or more). That's also reliable data, and it's compatible with other stdies. I haven't data for men, but I guess the effect is somewhat lower, because in general smoking is more dangerous to women). On the bright side, the study showed that quitting before the age of 30 result in a very small effect, and quitting at 40 reduce the effect from 10 years to 1 year.

It makes sense banning smoking at work and in bars and restaurants. It would also make sense to prohibit smoking at home and in cars, but that may be invading the private sphere too much. I haven't made up my mind. Banning smoking outside would mainly target smoking as a nuisance. Personally, I would welcome that - I really dislike the smell. But I'm not sure if that's enough to ban it.

Personally, I would be more concerned walking by a group of drunk people on the street, than a group of people smoking, even if the risk of the drunkards unprovoked attacking a sober person is small. That may be partially, but not completely, due to irrational fear, and it doesn't make me advocate banning drinking.

Pibbur who, when he started working as an intern in radiology, was shocked by the number of xrays he saw showing lung cancer in patients, mostly women, below 40.

PS. One more piece of statistics for you: Facial fractures are often associated with fractures of the 4th metacarpal bone in the palm of the hand. In two different patients. DS.

d++a58e++TU4567'!S'!89!A!WM!LuC++++u+++uF+++nR——nS ++++wC—-o++++wS——uLB++++
Last edited by pibbur who; February 6th, 2013 at 20:43.
pibbur who is offline

pibbur who

pibbur who's Avatar
Number 13

#149

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 930

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 13:13
Originally Posted by pibbur who View Post
I'm not tryong to educate any one. What I wrote was not (despite mentioning him) directed at BN, it wasn't directed at anyone. At least i didn't attend to.
Take a deep breath.

I can't control what you were trying to do, and everyone on this site knows that you're not that kind of person.

You're way too amiable for that kind of thing.

But you brought extremely relevant information to the table, and I consider that education for those who weren't aware of alchohol being a significant factor.

As for not being able to transfer your information to other places, that goes without saying.

But, once again, my common sense tells me that we don't need to be able to transfer it directly. The kind of numbers you're talking about are so extremely significant - that it can't be a local thing exclusively.

Anyway, I still have no doubt that it would take less than 5 minutes to Google something from the US (or whereever) to support what I'm saying.

But I consider the effect of alchohol so well known and so obvious - that people who refuse to accept it - are being willfully ignorant. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

So, even if I found something so clear-cut that even a monkey would have to accept it - I'd have to listen to some bullshit denial.

This is about how people are perfectly willing to ban smoking, because they don't smoke themselves. However, alchohol is a no-go - because most people drink.

I have no patience for that crap.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#150

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,180

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 14:22
Originally Posted by pibbur who View Post
Let me elaborate a bit on second hand smoking. I don't doubt that even small doses of second hand smoking have health effects. But the risk for long term effects from random exposure has to be very small (and we readily expose ourselves to activities with higher risks without any concern).
That's the important bit. Humans are crap at interpretation of statistics and will fear low risk level activities more than highier level ones. For example: my wife fears air travel but has no problem driving a car.

Originally Posted by pibbur who View Post
I would be more concerned walking by a group of drunk people on the street, than a group of people smoking, even if the risk of the drunkards unprovoked attacking a sober person is small. That may be partially, but not completely, due to irrational fear, and it doesn't make me advocate banning drinking.
Same story here.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#151

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,305

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 14:32
So, again, are you looking to institute a smoking ban to go with prohibition v2.0 to go with your gun ban? Or none of the above? Or are you going to pick just the gun ban because you don't own a gun yourself?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#152

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,272

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 14:43
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
So, again, are you looking to institute a smoking ban to go with prohibition v2.0 to go with your gun ban? Or none of the above? Or are you going to pick just the gun ban because you don't own a gun yourself?
Do you honestly expect the same stupid question asked over and over again, is going to benefit anyone in any way?

If not, then why ask it? The motivation is what I don't get - and I'm curious.

Here's a thing you might try. Go back and read the response to your previous version of the same question - and instead of ignoring the answer - read it.

If you read it and you don't understand something, then ask for clarification rather than asking the same question again.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#153

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,180

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 14:49
Don't you guys have work ?
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#154

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,081
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 15:13
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
Don't you guys have work ?
Indeed I do!

I also participate on 3 forums while minding the work

Can you imagine the ill will I generate across the globe? Hehe.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#155

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,180

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 15:21
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
Don't you guys have work ?
Work? How can I work when I've got this huuuge backlog of games?

Pibbur who actually does work, but who actually has the day off today. Actually.

Since we've been talking statistics and probability, here's some pleasant statistics: In Norway the likelyhood of ever winning the top prize in the national lottery is lower than the likelyhood of being killed in a traffic accident. Hmmm. Maybe not pleasant after all. Actually.

d++a58e++TU4567'!S'!89!A!WM!LuC++++u+++uF+++nR——nS ++++wC—-o++++wS——uLB++++
pibbur who is offline

pibbur who

pibbur who's Avatar
Number 13

#156

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 930

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 15:23
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Indeed I do!

I also participate on 3 forums while minding the work

Can you imagine the ill will I generate across the globe? Hehe.
No candidate for the Norwegian peace prize then. OTOH, you didn't support George Dubya Bush (I think), so may be there's hope for you after all.

pibbur who regrettably hasn't won any prizes.

d++a58e++TU4567'!S'!89!A!WM!LuC++++u+++uF+++nR——nS ++++wC—-o++++wS——uLB++++
pibbur who is offline

pibbur who

pibbur who's Avatar
Number 13

#157

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 930

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 15:30
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Do you honestly expect the same stupid question asked over and over again, is going to benefit anyone in any way?

If not, then why ask it? The motivation is what I don't get - and I'm curious.

Here's a thing you might try. Go back and read the response to your previous version of the same question - and instead of ignoring the answer - read it.

If you read it and you don't understand something, then ask for clarification rather than asking the same question again.
I did read it. I find it pointless to simply tell you that you're all over the map and tremendously inconsistent—you get all fussy and you resist any attempt (whether backed by "common sense" or backed by a wall of documentation—as a side note, I find your clearly stated reliance on "common sense" in this thread ironic given your utter disdain when others use it) at people telling you how to think. Thus, the only real avenue to get you out of your mental bunker is to ask questions that (attempt to) lead you to the desired thoughts all by your little lonesome. If the thought ain't "DArt sense" then you're simply not going to accept it.

As for my question itself… you're a clear proponent of gun control and claim that guns have no real use beyond harming others and a high chance of harming yourself. You dismiss any argument about positive aspects of gun ownership because they don't fit into DArt Sense. OK, if that's the structure you're happy with, I'll roll with it. Now, let's look at tobacco smoke. You do not favor a ban of smoking, in spite of significant evidence that smoke definitely harms yourself and has a high chance of harming others. Let's not even drag in the alcohol argument at this time, although it would fit into my argument just fine— I'm a little pressed for time.

You're inconsistent. Worse, you're sniping at people for using common sense as it relates to guns while joyously reveling in common sense as it relates to smoke. If your logic is that tortured, the only real response is to question whether the logic is sound. I suppose it's up to you whether you're willing to do that. I won't even attempt to tell you what to think. Use your DArt sense for a bit.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#158

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,272

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 16:02
I do have problems with D'Arts "common sense" myself dte but "control" is not the same concept as a "ban". I'm not advocating banning guns, tobacco or alcohol but I'm certainly in favour of controlling them.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#159

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,305

Default 

February 6th, 2013, 17:12
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
I do have problems with D'Arts "common sense" myself dte but "control" is not the same concept as a "ban". I'm not advocating banning guns, tobacco or alcohol but I'm certainly in favour of controlling them.
That's fine. I've actually stated my personal opinion to be much the same, although probably not a limiting as your desired level of control. DArt has actually called for a total ban of guns.

I was just flummoxed when DArt trotted out a snipe about people being hypocritical about bans - basing them on personal impact rather than societal (which I would actually agree is the situation, for what that's worth)- while clearly demonstrating exactly the same problem with his own inconsistent, tortured logic. He must be a little under the weather today.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#160

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,272
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Hey Smokers: I Hate You
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:07.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch