T1B

Dinsdale wrote:There are no laws against unforced sodomy in my state.

Thanks for that

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:There are no laws against unforced sodomy in my state.

Thanks for that

The pertinent question here is,

where do you draw the line?

If it involves hot chicks on video, or a child molester doing time, I'm all for it.

Can I ask you folks one question?

And please, hone in on the question asked.

Why, exactly, am I supposed to believe Dinsdale over the EPA?

Has he really done more research?

The following conspiracy theories should be funny.

Why, exactly, am I supposed to believe Dinsdale over the EPA?

The EPA is headquartered in Washington DC right?
Is that ANYWHERE near the U&L?

Exit the Cascades and you live in a world of idiots.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Why, exactly, am I supposed to believe Dinsdale over the EPA?

Uhm...I kinda doubt the EPA has much to do with this.

FDA or OSHA?

Sure.


But, easy answer -- it's the government. The same people who told you to buy up duct tape to prepare for a terrorist attack. The same people who told you Saddam had WMDs. The same people that...you get the picture.

But MGO, I asked YOU a question first -- can you show me one SCIENTIFIC study that supports the claims that secondhand smoke is the plague of America?

Still waiting on that one...could be waiting a lot longer, since there isn't one.

And the other thing I asked of you was to think for yourself...that was all.

Here's another question -- how do you feel about personal freedoms being abridged based upon an assumption, that nobody has ever been able to prove.

And how do you explain the disparity between half-pack-a-day smokers, and the outrageous claims made about the risks to non-smokers who breath the secondhand smoke?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming smoking or secondhand smoke is good for anybody, I'm just pointing out that there's some people who are flat-out LYING to promote their agenda, which includes dictating the behaviors of others to suit their own ideals. At what point do we draw the line, where people can't just roll out phantom numbers from bullshit non-studies, in the name of having their own way?

But somebody is fucking lying to you...it's usually a good idea to be suspicious of those who want to control others, when the "facts" they're rolling out are based upon....well, nobody really knows how they came up with those "statistics," but they sure want everyone to cowtow to them, and they're trying to effect political changed with numbers that don't add up....red flag?


And therein lies the problem when scientific issues become politicized. The bullshit starts to run pretty deep. See also : Global Warming, where you have two completely opposite sides of the issue, both lying through their teeth to get their way, or assigning some "scientific" value to things that can't be measured by the means they claim.

Y2K wrote:Exit the Cascades and you live in a world of idiots.

Absolutely. In Cascadia, it's only partially a world of idiots.

Dinsdale wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:if they say it's a good idea to ban smoking in a public place for the health and safety of others (especially the employees) then, I'm going to take their word over yours.

Oh fuck...he "went there."


OK MGO, same as the last several times this came up --

Quote or link ONE scientific study that shows that secondhand smoke is hazardous to human health.

One.

Or, you could list ONE person who was definitively diagnosed with an ailment directly caused by secondhand smoke.

One.

Or, you could name one person in the history of mankind whose death was definitively caused by secondhand smoke.

One.

Way too easy

Dinsdale wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming smoking or secondhand smoke is good for anybody...

If it's not good for you then, well let's see, what's the opposite of good? Oh yeah! Bad. So if it's bad for you then it must cause adverse health effects. Anyone who is stupid enough to doubt this need only see someone who is allergic to cigarettes (like my OL, unfortunately) walk into a room where a cig has been toked even that same day. She can't freaking breathe.

OCmike wrote:
Way too easy

No, that wasn't "easy" at all.

I asked for something that was based upon science, not politicized junk science.


There's no concrete evidence to support any of that horseshit. The "science" behind any of that has more holes than Courtney Love's forearms.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...so it's only valid science if you say so. Right. @

OCmike wrote:She can't freaking breathe.

And I'm violently allergic to most types of perfume.

Yet, I'm not shouting from the mountaintops about passing laws banning the use of perfume, nor being so bold as to suggest that people shouldn't wear perfume in public places.


See how that works?


My purpose isn't to defend smoking or smokers, it's to get your fucking personal beefs out of the legislature. Then again, I suppose I could get some bought-and-paid-for "scientists" to write "studies" about the health crisis that IS perfume use in the USA, and rally for it to be banned, even from private establishments, since I know there's a whole boatload of people with the same affliction.

Where do we draw the line?

Let me know when they start pumping perfumes full of toxins and carcinogens. Until that time comes, keep your oranges out of this argument.

OCmike wrote:Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...so it's only valid science if you say so. Right.

Gee, didn't see that coming.


OK. Let's just examine the results of these scientific studies, you and I, shall we?

OK, first, like you do in any scientific study, why don't you give me your thoughts on the baseline we've established, that of course being the "control group"...


Oh. Nevermind.



You do realize that I could probably come up with some "statistics" that say that people who pick their nose on saturdays are more likely to die from lightning strikes, right?


And once again, these "studies" are based on a set of "smoking related illnesses." And as mentioned, the MAJORITY of nonsmokers also die of "smoking related illnesses." Now, how can a person, "scientist" or otherwise, even keep a staright face when discussing these "statistics" when people who have nothing to do with what they're trying to study are lumped in with the "statistics" that are making their case.

THAT is the very definition of "junk science." A person who grew up in an Amish community who has never seen a cigarette in their life is probably going to die from a "smoking related illness." This isn't just bad science -- it's LYING to try and polarize the political climate.

Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, it's just the truth.

Or to put it in a different perspective --

You're probably going to die from a "smoking related illness," Mike. And since somebody you know has probably smoked, or you've frequented places where people smoke, YOU'RE going to be listed among the people whose deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke.


Now really...let's be honest here.

THAT'S my whole point.

When people start resorting to complete bullshit studies, and flat-out lies, I have to raise my eyebrows and take a little deeper look...like in this case. The secondhand-smoke-chicken-littles would have you believe that people exposed to secondhand smoke are at greater risk than what has been accepted to be the risk of light smokers.

C'mon, now. So, to reduce the risk of illness from secondhand smoke, a person should start smoking a half-pack a day? Yeah, I'll be sure to buy some from the vendor that comes around on the flying monkey.

Dinsdale wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming smoking or secondhand smoke is good for anybody...

Surprisingly, a World Health Organization study did come close to making such a claim:

The only statistically significant number {resulting from the study} was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers. The RR {Relative Risk} for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI {Confidence Interval} of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

OCmike wrote:If it's not good for you then, well let's see, what's the opposite of good? Oh yeah! Bad.

Won't argue that bad is the opposite of good, but there is another possibility: no significant impact either way.

So if it's bad for you then it must cause adverse health effects. Anyone who is stupid enough to doubt this need only see someone who is allergic to cigarettes (like my OL, unfortunately) walk into a room where a cig has been toked even that same day. She can't freaking breathe.

But you're talking about a specific medical condition (allergy). Are peanuts bad for the general population because some people die from them?

I understand the "fun with statistics" played by the people behind many studies, but thanks for the needlessly lengthy explanation anyway...I guess.

The problem is that even though some of the studies may have inflated numbers to satisfy an agenda, that doesn't mean that all of the numbers are useless and baseless when dealing with secondhand smoke. SOME of those people will still have died because they have a higher risk of lung cancer (because of the SSS), just in the same way that a firefighter or other person who works a job where they're exposed to high levels of any type of smoke will have a higher risk.

Breathing in any type of smoke is unhealthy and will lead to adverse health effects, whether you want to believe it or not.

I don't give a fuck if second hand smoke harms me or not. It's fucking sick. How would you like someone fartingin your face all the time?

In your 4 walls, smoke away and die. In public, put'em away. Hell, I was driving yesterday and the guy in the truck ahead of me was smoking and I could actually smell it through my air conditioning. Made me want to puke.

Are peanuts bad for the general population because some people die from them?

Another oranges argument. When planters pumps chemicals into their peanuts that kill people, you'll have something there.

OCmike wrote: Breathing in any type of smoke is unhealthy and will lead to adverse health effects, whether you want to believe it or not.

Just because I'm playing devil's advocate, don't think I don't understand this.


Catch is, an automobile makes more harmful emissions in a few miles than a smoker does in a year. A semi truck produces more carcinogens in an hour than a chain smoker will in a lifetime.


Where's the outrage?

There is little-to-none, because expressing outrage against the trucking industry doesn't make the person doing the preaching high and mighty and far-superior like being part of the anti-smoking nutcases lobby.


It's not out of concern for their lungs, and it's not out of concern for the health of others -- it's for their ego.

To those people I say -- find a new hobby.

IndyFrisco wrote:I don't give a fuck if second hand smoke harms me or not. It's fucking sick.

EXACTLY how I feel about perfume. And I smell it and start wheezing just about every time I go to a public place. Exposed to enough of it, I'll become physically ill, and eventually vomit.

So, I guess the whole world should stop using perfume, because I don't like it, and it make ME sick...because it's all about ME.

I guess I should start compiling statistical data to show how many people perfume has a negative effect on(there's lots), and get the lawmakers to do something about it.

IndyFrisco wrote:Hell, I was driving yesterday and the guy in the truck ahead of me was smoking and I could actually smell it through my air conditioning.

Oh, and BTW, this is pretty fucking funny.

So, you were sitting in traffic, pumping out harmful gaseous emissions that lead to respiratory problems and death, and you smelled a cigarette?


Yeah, somebody should pass a law, alright.

OCmike wrote:

Are peanuts bad for the general population because some people die from them?

Another oranges argument.

No it isn't, not when it comes to the original topic of this thread, which is government regulation of fucking cooking oil, for Christ's sake.

How far are you willing to let the "public health" officials dictate what you can and can not do? Fuck, why even bother going outside. The world is "dangerous." :roll:

Dinsdale wrote:So, I guess the whole world should stop using perfume, because I don't like it, and it make ME sick...because it's all about ME.

Hey, I know. Let's BAN it.

Makes absolutely perfect sense and sound public policy.

Sincerely,

Hypochondriac activist and pathetic public policy apologist.

There's people who are disgusted by sexual acts (see married women). Doesn't mean we need to ban sex in America.

It's about what the masses want. And the masses say "down with smoking". Sucks to be outvoted.

Oh, and isn't the primary additive in perfume alcohol? Since when has that ever caused an allergic reaction on Dins?

IndyFrisco wrote:It's about what the masses want.

Uh, no it isn't mensa.

Dinsdale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Hell, I was driving yesterday and the guy in the truck ahead of me was smoking and I could actually smell it through my air conditioning.

Oh, and BTW, this is pretty fucking funny.

So, you were sitting in traffic, pumping out harmful gaseous emissions that lead to respiratory problems and death, and you smelled a cigarette?


Yeah, somebody should pass a law, alright.

There is no traffic in this little town. Amazingly, I was actually driving and still smelled it. Question...why do smokers in cars smoke with the window down? If they don't want to smell it, why the fuck do they think we do? Fucking "the world is my ash tray" assholes...

Isn't it odd how when there's a policy that people agree with, then all of a sudden a whole buncha liberals come out of the woodwork?

Many of the same people who blame "those damned liberals" for every ill of American Society have no trouble whatsoever switching allegiences when it suits them.


I think that's the funniest part of this, for myself.

IndyFrisco wrote:[If they don't want to smell it, why the fuck do they think we do?

Probably for the same reason you think bicyclists want to smell your toxic car exhaust(which is more dangerous than cigarette smoke).

I just think it's funny how defensive smokers get about their long term suicide.

IndyFrisco wrote:I just think it's funny how defensive smokers get about their long term suicide.

Just as I think it's funny how all nonsmokers are liberals.


I'm not defensive about smoking. I'm quite defensive about nanny-state-supporting liberals.

Link?

OCmike wrote:

Are peanuts bad for the general population because some people die from them?

Another oranges argument. When planters pumps chemicals into their peanuts that kill people, you'll have something there.

You're not too good at this.

You make generalized, unsubstantiated claims like ...

So if it's bad for you then it must cause adverse health effects. Anyone who is stupid enough to doubt this need only see someone who is allergic to cigarettes (like my OL, unfortunately) walk into a room where a cig has been toked even that same day. She can't freaking breathe.

... and try to apply the adverse reactions experienced by someone who's allergic to smoke to the general population. This is not exactly what could be considered an aspect of scientific method. If it's simply a matter of common sense that the inhalation of SHS has negative health implications on otherwise healthy, non-allergic individuals, then there should be plenty of science and statistics to support it. I suppose you could cite an EPA Report that provides the types of stats that would support your argument. But as you can see, it's not technically a study, and its "findings" are considered suspect.

I'm a non-smoker, and don't particularly care for being in areas where cigarette smoke is present. But the recognized solid science does not conclude that which you are trying to claim is common sense.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna have me an orange.

In the early day of the New World, witchcraft was considered to be a leading cause of adverse effects on the general public.

I think we all know how that ended.

Dinsdale wrote:In the early day of the New World, witchcraft was considered to be a leading cause of adverse effects on the general public.

I think we all know how that ended.

I now want to see Sleeper again.

Dr. Melik: [puzzling over list of items sold at Miles' old health-food store] ... wheat germ, organic honey and... tiger's milk.
Dr. Aragon: Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/quotes

IndyFrisco wrote:Better than smelling smoke.

Looks like a job for JTR...the fluffer who runs around the set with a bicycle pump.

IndyFrisco wrote:Hell, I was driving yesterday and the guy in the truck ahead of me was smoking and I could actually smell it through my air conditioning. Made me want to puke.

What a fucking oversensitive pantywaist.

P.S. I don't smoke.

IndyFrisco wrote:Better than smelling smoke.

I thought for sure one of 'em would draw mud.