Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
quinch on 19/7/2006 at 12:49
is this what i have to look forward to when i give up smoking? :eww:
Rug Burn Junky on 19/7/2006 at 14:15
Quote Posted by Convict
I'm usually right and I can back up what I say
Ahhh, self delusion in action is such a beautiful
sitesight to behold.
Stitch on 19/7/2006 at 15:05
Quote Posted by Convict
You might not like what I say but I'm usually right and I can back up what I say
This is quite possibly the first thing you've said that's remotely worth reading, if only for the comedy.
Thing is, you could cite internet references to studies until Saam pulls the plug and reduces you to gibbering retardedly at the spiders in the room, but the only opinion on this matter I'm remotely interested in is that of someone with some actual non-internet education on the issue, i.e. a chap like Subjective Effect. I do think doctors tend to overhype the negative effects of certain vices, but I'd be curious as to where his hardline stance on the effects of infrequent passive smoking comes from. My admittedly lame online research indicated that the exact effects of secondhand smoke is a controversial and unresolved topic, but that could conceivably just be the tobacco companies trying to shout down the truth.
SD on 19/7/2006 at 15:07
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Ahhh, self delusion in action is such a beautiful site to behold.
Now, if you're going to mock people on the Internet, you should at least spell <strike>rite</strike> right :thumb:
Rug Burn Junky on 19/7/2006 at 15:10
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Now, if you're going to mock people on the Internet, you should at least spell <strike>rite</strike> right :thumb:
True 'nuff. oops. ;)
SubJeff on 19/7/2006 at 15:54
Thing is Stitch, it's a very complex issue for me. On a personal level I just don't like smoky places. But we all know that smoking itself is a cause of serious illness and, arguably more importantly, exacerbates almost every illness you can think of (and yes, it actually helps a few but the trade off is then the problems it causes directly).
Passive smoking isn't reeeally that big of dealio in UK medical circles. No one ever asks how often a patient spends in smoky environments (unless it's a kid and the parents smoke) because in the acute setting of hospital it just isn't THAT interesting in the context of this guy's heart attack, cancer, whatever. Acute life-threatening asthma attacks are probably the only time it's an issue, but in those cases many docs would actually be of the opinion that someone with the potential for such problems on account of disease severity should just avoid provoking factors like going to El Smoky Smokas Bar of Cigarrillo.
In truth I'm far more interested in the issue of addiction reinforcement and reinstatement because allowing public smoking makes it harder to quit and easier to start. As an additional factor in any illness it makes life for us and patients ALOT harder. For me it's a public health issue that I can actually see the effect of and, unlike some people I know, I don't actually like having to tell people that they are going to die/be housebound on oxygen because they smoked a few. And you'd be surprised how few it can be and how many years after you quit it can all catch up on you.
Also whats up with the bad smells on my jacket that last for days.
Convict on 19/7/2006 at 21:20
Quote Posted by Stitch
This is quite possibly the first thing you've said that's remotely worth reading, if only for the comedy.
Thing is, you could cite internet references to studies until Saam pulls the plug and reduces you to gibbering retardedly at the spiders in the room, but the only opinion on this matter I'm remotely interested in is that of someone with some actual non-internet education on the issue, i.e. a chap like Subjective Effect. I do think doctors tend to overhype the negative effects of certain vices, but I'd be curious as to where his hardline stance on the effects of infrequent passive smoking comes from. My admittedly lame online research indicated that the exact effects of secondhand smoke is a controversial and unresolved topic, but that could conceivably just be the tobacco companies trying to shout down the truth.
But surely your English degree has made you capable of "researching and comprehending" scientific research and therefore you could easily refute the literature I present if it is wrong? And what are these conflicting studies you are <s>siting</s> citing?
Rug Burn Junky on 19/7/2006 at 22:00
The mere fact that you ask that question shows why you're an intellectual lightweight and most of the intelligent people on this sight (lolz I made a typo) think you're a joke.
He's saying "I've seen studies saying both x and ~x (where x = 'exposure to second hand smoke is harmful'), and the ultimate weight of evidence isn't dispositive in my mind, especially since they're generally talking about a much more prolonged and/or acute exposure second hand smoke than we are discussing here. I'd like to hear from someone who actually knows this shit."
So you coming along and jabbering "HAY GUYS, HERE'S ANOTHER STUDY THAT SAYS X! REFUTE THAT, FUCKER!" is kinda fucking missing the point (especially since it doesn't actually even say x, unless you throw in certain retarded assumptions such as "assume that second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 1 cigarette per day." which is even farther over the line than his problems with the second hand smoke studies in the first place).
He's not TRYING to refute anything in the first place, nor take a stance on x vs. ~x. The ultimate point being "If we don't know that x=T, then operating as though x=F is acceptable based on additional factors y and z."
It's this sort of failure to understand logic that makes people laugh when you claim that you're 'usually right' and 'can back up what [you] say.'
Stitch on 19/7/2006 at 22:16
Quote Posted by Convict
But surely your English degree has made you capable of "researching and comprehending" scientific research and therefore you could easily refute the literature I present if it is wrong?
I have exerted absolutely no energy on researching what the general reaction was to the study you posted. It was not listed in the various articles I googled on the effects of secondhand smoke and as such I'm content to assume it didn't make much of an impact one way or the other.
As for the conflicting studies I've cited, I've already explained the nature of the research I did, so it isn't particularly difficult to follow in my footsteps should you so desire.
If it seems like I'm blowing off your attempts to pick apart my previous statements then you would be accurate. I simply don't care enough about this subject to play Strontz's part in the dance you're so fond of, nor do I consider you to be someone worthy of having any discussion with.
The reason I punted this topic to Subjective Effect was because I recognized he is in the position of possibly having some perspective on the medical world's view on secondhand smoke. All you and I can do is google studies and cite them back and forth, whereas he actually has some real world perspective on the issue. You and I do not.
If this all seems rather harsh, keep in mind that I view your contributions to this board to be a cancer that saps all critical thinking from every remotely political thread. You and Strontz have a unique talent for turning otherwise interesting topics into public PM conversations that skirt around the relevant issues without ever actually touching them.
Strontz, however, has the saving grace of at least being clever and likable.
I do not care for what you do here and I refuse to help you do it.
Edit: RBJ STITCH DOUBLE SLAMM!!!
PigLick on 20/7/2006 at 08:09
longest post by Stitch ever!:eek:
