Smoking ban

once again jeff, you displayed a complete lack of following the bouncing ball..

you misquoted absolutely everything i said.. effectively once more ending an otherwise informative, and healthy topic (not that cancer is healthy, just the debate)

thanx bud :/

No, you were trying to say that Korn's grandparents might not have got their cancer from smoking. I am saying that "it's more likely that a qualified doctor got the cause right than somebody thousands of miles away who knows nothing about it" - if you don't agree with that, theres something wrong with you.

Sigh. Here we go again...I reckon this'll only end in annoyance.

/me attempts to derail argument in a sudden act of spontaneity to prevent bad s**t from happening

So yeah, uh...smoking is bad! Discuss. :razz:

/me senses that the argument will continue regardless, so instead creeps back into the shadows where he can plot his revenge....yeeessss.......

Ack, would people please distinguish between causation and necessity? They are just about as different as two concepts can get! :rolleyes:

Bah.

Oops... did I screw up?

I understand that smoking doesn't necessarily mean you get cancer, and having cancer doesnt necessarily mean it was caused by smoking. But doctors will make a best guess as to what caused a cancer if they can, and if they said it was caused by smoking, I see no reason not to treat this as accurate... I think it's reasonable to say that smoking increases your risk of cancer enough that if you are a heavy smoker, and you get lung cancer, smoking is the probable cause (unless there is something else much more dangerous like err... the perpson worked in an aspestos-shredding-room or something). But of course it does not have to be the cause.

jeff, re-read everything i wrote.

i do in fact believe its entirely probable that they died from smoking, but i do also believe there is some room for doubt. but truly thats beside the point.. the issue is, you must be argumentative, to the point of generating misquotes to incite anger from your opponent.. thats just wrong.

the seatbelt issue, i know i am correct, i stumbled upon the figures while researching cell phone accidents last year, but you being a the close minded person you are, insist on my being the one to prove my point, thats not only wrong, its down right lazy, i told you i was sure, you should have taken the initiative and researched it at least long enuff to get some numbers of your own to persuade with.. but no, again it me whom must do so..

i posted a link to the definition of hypocrite, and it clearly stated that i was not one, yet you again ignored this tid-bit of nomenclature, in favor or incurring my temper.. why? i do not falsify my comments, i believe them entirely, the fact that some of the pit does NOT doesn't automatically make me a hypocrite.. if i changed my viewpoint with the crowds opinion, THEN i could be considered one, but dammit.. even in my erroneous views, i am consistent in them.. they are unwavering, and rock solid the same month after month, post after post, and f**king year after year.. my being WRONG does not make me a hypocrite.

now, allow me to enlighten you, then i am done with this f**king post/topic.

1) wearing seat-belts in an accident, will not automatically save your life.
2) not wearing them will not automatically mean you will die.
3) seat belts are mainly effective in roll over and frontal collision accidents, ALL others the seatbelt is either ineffective or a hindrance to its designed purpose.
4) lower colon damage has caused many deaths directly due to the belt, but easily overlooked by a doctor.
5) with the popularity of the SUV, another factor was introduced into the accident and fatality issue.. the height difference between them and a normal car is great enuff to cause the frames to never meet.. the SUV hits your door, pushes you into the next seat, the belt is connected to the frame, it doesn't move.. you now have two halves of you in the passenger seat.. YOU DIE!! this type of accident is more and more common.

when i said seat belts cause deaths, that was slightly inaccurate, it would be safer to say, they do not save as many as you would think..

next time, you force me to prove my point, i will ignore you as nothing more than a lazy bum. at some point, it would be so nice to see you disprove an issue with something other than mis-quotes.

i am done with this topic, whether i convinced you or not, i am to f**king angry to give a god damned anymore.

Gollum said:
Ack, would people please distinguish between causation and necessity? They are just about as different as two concepts can get! :rolleyes:

meh...... is this a trick question?

:biggrin:

Gah. Does jeff enjoy pissing off Orph or what? It just leads to bad, ugly things...

Kage_Prototype said:
Gah. Does jeff enjoy pissing off Orph or what? It just leads to bad, ugly things...

jeff and i are almost as close as two people can possibly get while online.. i think thats why we argue so often.. in the end tho... we remain friends.

i just wish it was a bit less often, and someone else he mis-quoted.

Great logic, Gwil! I suppose we should keep class A drugs, teenage pregnancy, obesity, alcoholism, etc, etc, etc! Wonderful!

LOL, you've completely twisted the point. They aren't cultural traditions and shouldnt be considered so. Theyre just problems created by the very same society that shot itself in the foot with the commercialisation of smoking tobacco.

when i said seat belts cause deaths, that was slightly inaccurate, it would be safer to say, they do not save as many as you would think..

haha, well that's fine then. I never said seatbelts will save your life every time, or that they will never kill you... if all you are saying is that they don't save as many as some people think, then well.. I agree :smile: I am happy to agree with all 5 points you made.

I did not miss-quote you. A miss quote is when I say you said something that you didn't. I did not ignore your definition for hypocrite at all. I specifically addressed it, by explaining why in this case, what you said was hypocritical, in spite of that (somewhat dated) definition. You said that "discrimination, no matter the good intentions, is still wrong." - that's fine, I'm not going against this or calling you a liar, and I accept that this is your opinion in this case of smoking! The reaosn this is hypocritical is because you pick when to apply this view. In the 'gay marriage' topic, you were clearly discriminating against gay men. You say it's prejudice not discrimination - in this case predjudice implies discrimination.

scary_jeff said:
The reason this is hypocritical is because you pick when to apply this view. In the 'gay marriage' topic, you were clearly discriminating against gay men. You say it's prejudice not discrimination - in this case prejudice implies discrimination.

jeff, if i use your example as a defining term for discrimination, then you are discriminating against me cause of my beliefs.. how is that possible?

my belief is that its wrong for gays to marry, and i do not think its ok for gay women to marry either, i do not physically block the doors to the chapel... but you do physically with text, block my doors to self expression.. you are more of a discriminator than i am by your definition of the word. a true hypocrite, would seperate when and where its ok for gays to marry, i feel they are all wrong, so how can i be hypocritical?

if i quit smoking after 27 years, i am a non-smoker, at least till i start again, which statistically is probable, but if i stop acting gay today, (hypothetically speaking) i am still gay.. clearly, the two topics are not interchangeable, and sadly.. i do not think its possible to act gay, or stop doing such..

also, i feel enough hurt about the gay issue has transpired here at snarkpit... we have members that the issue effects dearly, and i think their feelings should play a much more important roll than our silly squabbles over who's right and wrong.

it i am being hypocritical now, for avoiding the gay issue, to spare some hurts.. so be it, i am a hypocrite, cause i have indeed avoided several more chances to express myself, in favor of better forum relations.. my viewpoint on the subject cannot be expressed in such a way as to sound humane, so its better left un-typed.

also, and i could very well be wrong on this one point.. but it is my understanding that "all men and women have the right to get married", it does NOT say "all men or women have the right to get married" the two concepts are legally different enough to be used against the gay marriage issue. if legality was the only issue, discounting and moral issues, it should be enough.

i think we should avoid using gay issues from this point on, i am quite sure you could dig up several other cases where i supposedly acted hypocritical, i find it very unlikely that you, being YOU, could possibly feel that i am only a prick about gays :rolleyes:

I didn't mean too push it too far... it's easy to get carried away when you can't see how a person is reacting face to face. But using my example, I am not discriminating against you, because I am not trying to stop you from doing anything (or force you to do something) - that's the only difference.