Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alexhans]

but, remember how this started:

That is an excellent viewpoint. Smoking is bad, but if someone tells me smoking is bad while I'm enjoying my cigarette, I will punch them in the neck. I hear that's also bad for you.

violence because you can ,or think you can, overpower the other.  Violence because someone doesn't share your view.

Actually, that was an example of violence because someone is acting like an arrogant douchebag.

Ok. So you think that someone was acting like an arrogant douchebag... therefore the use of violence to "punish him" is justified?

seriously?  You've just proved my point beyond my greatest fears. 

EDIT:

Internet tough guys FTW. Because claiming that you would beat up other people for moronic reasons actually makes your genitalia larger.

Yeah... specially when there are no consequences for it...

[Leafsnail]

Actually, that was an example of violence because someone is acting like an arrogant douchebag.

Wait, so now you're judge jury and executioner deciding if someone is being "arrogant" or not?  Is that not rather an arrogant position to take?

[ChairmanPoo]

the funny thing is that people who take that kind of attitude in real life actually tend to end up pretty badly, with, among other things, a criminal file longer than my arm.

Not to mention what happens when they end up throwing themselves at a bigger thug. Natural selection works, buddies.

[Enzo]

Let me clear this up, since apparently we have a misunderstanding:

When I said that, I wasn't trying to make any statement about the effectiveness of violence when solving problems. I don't go around punching annoying people in the neck. That would be silly. So silly, in fact, I didn't think anybody would seriously think I do. I was not trying to say "I literally solve my problems by punching people in the neck". I was trying to say "people who tell smokers that smoking is bad for their health are stating a well-known fact, which is annoying, not helpful." I was ignoring the violence argument because I have nothing much to say on the subject, but when Alexhans started quoting me to support his agenda I decided to jump in. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my point in a way that was offensive to your sensibilities.

[ChairmanPoo]

ok. Then addressing the smoking argument:

"people who tell smokers that smoking is bad for their health are stating a well-known fact, which is annoying, not helpful.

you're quite wrong actually. As I have said, people have all sorts of whacky ideas (often rationalizations) about smoking.

For instance, I recall this woman "Well, yes, I smoke, but only a little, which is actually good for your health, or so I heard".

[Enzo]

I'M TELLING YOU MAN THOSE THINGS GOT VITAMINS.

I've yet to run into someone who actually believes smoking isn't bad for them, but I can agree to disagree on that one. I'm sure such crazy people exist somewhere.

[Cthulhu]

For the record, there is no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer.

[ChairmanPoo]

The ones that think it's outright good are the lesser ones, but most chronic smokers I've seen tend to make BS rationalizations after the fact and/or misrepresent the ordeal completedly.

[ChairmanPoo]

For the record, there is no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer.

Some cancers are a byproduct of smoking and a combination of evil spirits.*


* rum, vodka, gin, etc...

[Leafsnail]

For the record, there is no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer.

There would appear to be rather a lot.  Unless you can suggest another reason why over 90% of those contracting lung cancer are smokers?

[Cthulhu]

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's certainly likely that smoking causes cancer, but you can't say there's scientific evidence.

[Leafsnail]

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's certainly likely that smoking causes cancer, but you can't say there's scientific evidence.

Strong correlation does imply causation.  It doesn't prove it, but if there's a strong correlation after you've adjusted for social factors, that is certainly "evidence".

[deadlycairn]

I knew of someone who started smoking because they believed it would help them lose weight.

...It had the opposite effect.

[ChairmanPoo]

For the record, there is no scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer.

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's certainly likely that smoking causes cancer, but you can't say there's scientific evidence.

You're trolling right?
Sure, correlation doesn't imply causation, but there's much more than correlation in this case.

[Jakkarra]

As long as Toady or anyone does not decide toLock my poor thread because of your arguments, go ahead.

If he WILL do so. stop, please.