20 Apr 07
Originally posted by mrstabbySmoking does not kill.
What people don't realise is that it's killing them. People know smoking kills, but they never think of fast food as killing them.
And yes, speedos should be made illegal on normal beaches - we should have speedo beaches like we have nudist beaches.
You've been so thoroughly indoctrinated with state worship you've lost your grip on reality. A product of the state education system no doubt, with a diminishing ability to think for yourself, all you can do is just keep repeating the party line.
Smoking increases the chances of etc, etc. It does no kill.
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziI like it Zahlanzi, those messages are state mandated graffit.
of course. i never understood the reason behind covering the cigarette pack with messages like "this stuff will kill ya" or "i wouldn't light these cigarattes if i were you". I don't think there is a smoker out there who doesn't know just how dangerous smoking is. but some might go once in a while like "i am going to have something deep fried and smothered ...[text shortened]... nd fries(yum) they don't harm anyone except themselves. so let them do what they want.
Any Australians here? I heard that companies there were selling covers and stickers alongside tobacco products that people could use to cover up the guvamints brainwashing.
So what happens next?
The thought police make a law banning the covers and stickers, they're never happier than when they're pooping out more and more regulation.
Wajoma (non-smoker)
20 Apr 07
2 edits
I really think that humans need to get over this penchant for killing innocent life. All food is exploited by humans. As long as society is greedy and cares more for it's personal comfort and life itself... than the living organisms it consumes... then we will just keep killing each other! If we would just be kind and stop it, there would be no war. Or disease and stuff!
I say ban all killing and eating! We just do it because of the capitalist mentality! I say enough! End all eating of innocent food before it's too late.
21 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaOf course it kills, - cigarette smoke contains carcinogens. These carcinogens cause mutations in DNA. These mutations can lead to cancer. Cancer kills.
Smoking does not kill.
You've been so thoroughly indoctrinated with state worship you've lost your grip on reality. A product of the state education system no doubt, with a diminishing ability to think for yourself, all you can do is just keep repeating the party line.
Smoking increases the chances of etc, etc. It does no kill.
On the other hand if a single smoker dies from lung cancer, that doesn't mean that the cigarettes killed him, they may not have contained the carcinogens that caused the cancer. But when you have a population of people who die more frequently due to a certain factor, and that factor has a mechanism which can kill you, then it's fairly safe to assume that factor kills.
If people started stabbing themselves every day and over a long period of time it made them die from stab wounds, would you not say the stabbing is killing them? Instead of stab wounds you're getting DNA damage by smoking
Just because you can't see yourself how the smoking is killing them doesn't mean it's not.
Another example - a toxin's LD50 (does at which if you give to an organism, 50% die). The toxin makes the population more likely to die. Is it not the toxin that's killing them?
And no, I don't blindly believe what the state tells me. I read the science and judge for myself.
21 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWant to play with the 'car' analogy? Then you'll lose.
In the same way that getting hit by a car doesn't kill.
It's the haemorrhaging and massive blood loss that does that.
From scottish: "In the same way getting hit by a car dosen't kill."
People can get hit by a car and sustain very little injury or injury with no lasting effects. Some even chose to be hit by a car.
As it is with smoking. eg, my Father started smoking at 14, he made it to 72 when a non-smoking related illness got him. Therefore non-smoking kills.
Mcstabby's flat assertioin that smoking kills gives us some idea of how deeply indoctrinated he is.
21 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaSingle examples are meaningless.
Want to play with the 'car' analogy? Then you'll lose.
From scottish: "In the same way getting hit by a car dosen't kill."
People can get hit by a car and sustain very little injury or injury with no lasting effects. Some even chose to be hit by a car.
As it is with smoking. eg, my Father started smoking at 14, he made it to 72 when a non-smoking re ...[text shortened]... flat assertioin that smoking kills gives us some idea of how deeply indoctrinated he is.
The stats are very, very clear. If you smoke, you are statistically more likely to die young, from a disease triggered (or at least contributed to) by smoking. End of Story.
"Each year in the United States, approximately 440,000 persons die of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million years of potential life lost, $75 billion in direct medical costs, and $82 billion in lost productivity (1)."
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5235a4.htm
21 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz"statistically more likely to die young,"
Single examples are meaningless.
The stats are very, very clear. If you smoke, you are statistically more likely to die young, from a disease triggered (or at least contributed to) by smoking. End of Story.
"Each year in the United States, approximately 440,000 persons die of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million y ...[text shortened]... 82 billion in lost productivity (1)."
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5235a4.htm
Oh yes end of story all right, can you explain to mcstabby the difference between statistically more likely to die young, and smoking kills. It is as meaningful as saying not smoking kills.
End of story.
Good night.
21 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaThe US CDC thinks those deaths can be directly attributed to smoking. Strange how you chose to ignore that bit.... I would say that pretty much defines smoking leading to death.
[b]"statistically more likely to die young,"
Oh yes end of story all right, can you explain to mcstabby the difference between statistically more likely to die young, and smoking kills. It is as meaningful as saying not smoking kills.
End of story.
Good night.[/b]
21 Apr 07
Originally posted by WajomaBecause there are examples of smokers not dying from smoking related diseases that means we can ignore all the smokers that DO die from smoking related diseases.
Want to play with the 'car' analogy? Then you'll lose.
From scottish: "In the same way getting hit by a car dosen't kill."
People can get hit by a car and sustain very little injury or injury with no lasting effects. Some even chose to be hit by a car.
As it is with smoking. eg, my Father started smoking at 14, he made it to 72 when a non-smoking re ...[text shortened]... flat assertioin that smoking kills gives us some idea of how deeply indoctrinated he is.
Can you see a difference between these 2 statements?
"Smoking kills"
and
"If you smoke it will kill you"
I don't see how your car analogy works - some people can get hit by a car and do ok, but what about all those that don't survive? Do we pretend they don't exist and say "hey look, he didn't die, so being hit by a car can't kill you"
My flat assertion is due to the statement I made before about carcinogens, you have to prove that bit wrong to show me that smoking doesn't kill.