News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Ridiculous!

Started by Nam, July 19, 2014, 08:25:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Berati

#75
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 31, 2014, 04:08:25 PM
You have a very interesting memory of past arguments.
You mean accurate.

QuoteI've done no sniping. I warned another user that you are known for making broad, unfounded generalizations.
Speak for yourself. I have allot of likes in the short time I've been here. You are the one with the problem here, not me.

QuoteSince you had done exactly that (assuming that everyone should know cigarettes are dangerous by a certain age when this is patently untrue) right before I issued this warning, I don't see how this is unfair of me to say. Again, if you do not wish to draw criticism, fix your arguments.
And I listed all of the evidence to show when the ad bans began, when the warning labels went out, and when the anti smoking campaigns began... so no, my ill informed troll, that is not a broad, unfounded generalization. It's a statement of fact backed up by evidence. Once again you are having a childish fit because a big bad meany on the internet just refuses to acknowledge your superior intellect. Grow up and learn to debate without taking it personally. I'm just as good as you at playing the insult game.

QuoteI am going to put you on my ignore list now. I have neither the desire nor the patience to argue with someone who is only interested in mudslinging.
LOL.. the irony coming from Captain mudslinger.
I'm happy to be on your ignore list. You're useless and petty insults bring zero to any discussion and I wish you had put me on ignore the moment I started posting here.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

#76
Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 04:13:17 PM
[EDIT]

I guess you missed my other comment where it said it didn't end everywhere else but TV and RADIO until 1997? Or you ignored it.

I see most were eliminated by 1997, some more in 2010, and other ways still out there.

Do you think radio and television is the end of adverts?

-Nam

Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims. It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.

And even should we agree on all the facts, we will still probably disagree on what to do about it since it comes down to a judgement call.
BTW, I don't hate you or anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm not like Hijiri so I won't be carrying over any disagreement in this thread to every other thread.

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 31, 2014, 04:16:16 PM
Sorry Nam, forgot to warn you: He's also a fan of cherrypicking.

Said the childish sore loser with an axe to grind.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims. It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.

And even should we agree on all the facts, we will still probably disagree on what to do about it since it comes down to a judgement call.
BTW, I don't hate you or anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm not like Hijiri so I won't be carrying over any disagreement in this thread to every other thread.

FOX NEWS say they are "all about the facts" yet other outlets keep shouting that they are not.

Get it?

Of course not. You only understand your opinions and viewpoint.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Berati

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 07:25:59 PM
FOX NEWS say they are "all about the facts" yet other outlets keep shouting that they are not.

Get it?

Of course not. You only understand your opinions and viewpoint.

-Nam

And you've shown your different how?
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
Nope, didn't miss it, but it doesn't invalidate the point that unless you've been living in a cave, everyone has been aware of the dangers of smoking for decades. I simply don't buy the argument that anyone in the last 40 years just didn't know smoking was bad for them and were hapless victims.
This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that any given smoker is a "helpless victim." What we're pointing out is that tobacco companies share in the blame of the ultimate damage done to a smoker. In the real world, culpability does not fall on any one person's shoulders, and it doesn't here.

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:19:29 PM
It has been listed, printed, discussed, talked about, advertised and literally shouted from the roof tops so much so that even a 10 year old in 1973 was aware that it was a dangerous habit.
Okay, let's grant you probably everyone knows that smoking's bad for you. Now let me ask you, how many teenagers have done stupid things, putting their health and lives at risk, knowing that they are putting their lives and health at risk? At that age, you pretty much think you're indestructable.

One could make the argument that this is what being a teenager is all about.

Now consider, the teenager/young adult does not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex until their early to mid-twenties, yet are legally allowed to smoke at age 18, and those who do start the habit probably started earlier. That's a good five years they've had to develop an addiction before their decision making faculties have fully developed. By the time they're able to make a decision on par with most adults, they're already hooked.

There is a reason why the age of majority comes when it does â€" any earlier and our already notoriously poor decision-making is much worse.

The notion that a smoker must accept full responsibility for their addiction assumes that he is a completely rational decision-maker with access to all relevant data. This flies in the face with the fact that we are not. We are demonstrably very poor decision makers as a species. This is why we need laws to protect the public. This is why we have companies prove the safety and efficacy of their products, such that any product that a consumer is likely to go for will not be completely awful no matter what choice they make. That is the kind of society we live in â€" one that keeps the egregiously dangerously products out of the consumer chain entirely. But with the cigarette, every choice is a very, very wrong one, yet it is sold in the same stores as groceries. Please forgive the stupid consumer has a sense that such an item is comparable in safety to fruits and vegetables, when certain artificial sweeteners are banned for much less.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 31, 2014, 07:31:45 PM
And you've shown your different how?

Well, I didn't post only evidence that backed my viewpoint and past comments like you did. On one comment (as noted) went back and edited additional information that I didn't have or know.

You just keep backing your position and disregarding other facts presented.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Berati

Quote from: Nam on July 31, 2014, 10:36:39 PM
Well, I didn't post only evidence that backed my viewpoint and past comments like you did. On one comment (as noted) went back and edited additional information that I didn't have or know.

You just keep backing your position and disregarding other facts presented.

-Nam

I accepted your facts and brought new ones. I didn't disregard a thing you said.  I agreed with your original post and you are upset because I don't agree with 100% of what you have to say and you said as much. And when I made a mistake when I missed your post I apologized.
That makes me the opinionated one?
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 31, 2014, 10:27:34 PM
This is a strawman. Nobody is saying that any given smoker is a "helpless victim."
Are you sure you've read the posts here?

QuoteWhat we're pointing out is that tobacco companies share in the blame of the ultimate damage done to a smoker.
I agree and I pointed that out as well. Remember when I listed the Tobacco master settlement agreement or said they should be sued over the migrant worker and child worker issues. The master settlement involves ongoing payments in the billions so the blame is already shared. Awarding $26 billion to an individual is ridiculous. That is the point of this thread and that is the point I agree with.


QuoteIn the real world, culpability does not fall on any one person's shoulders, and it doesn't here.
Sometimes, sometimes not.  I can easily list many instances where one person is 100% culpable for what they have done to another. I'm sure you can think of many as well.

QuoteOkay, let's grant you probably everyone knows that smoking's bad for you. Now let me ask you, how many teenagers have done stupid things, putting their health and lives at risk, knowing that they are putting their lives and health at risk? At that age, you pretty much think you're indestructable.

One could make the argument that this is what being a teenager is all about.

Now consider, the teenager/young adult does not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex until their early to mid-twenties, yet are legally allowed to smoke at age 18, and those who do start the habit probably started earlier. That's a good five years they've had to develop an addiction before their decision making faculties have fully developed. By the time they're able to make a decision on par with most adults, they're already hooked.

There is a reason why the age of majority comes when it does â€" any earlier and our already notoriously poor decision-making is much worse.

The notion that a smoker must accept full responsibility for their addiction assumes that he is a completely rational decision-maker with access to all relevant data. This flies in the face with the fact that we are not. We are demonstrably very poor decision makers as a species. This is why we need laws to protect the public. This is why we have companies prove the safety and efficacy of their products, such that any product that a consumer is likely to go for will not be completely awful no matter what choice they make. That is the kind of society we live in â€" one that keeps the egregiously dangerously products out of the consumer chain entirely. But with the cigarette, every choice is a very, very wrong one, yet it is sold in the same stores as groceries. Please forgive the stupid consumer has a sense that such an item is comparable in safety to fruits and vegetables, when certain artificial sweeteners are banned for much less.
So why not making smoking illegal? I think you know the answer to that so I won't bother with a long winded discussion.

Since we do make it legal, we can't then go after anybody who sells the legal product like they have committed a criminal act. We have made the decision to legalize cigarettes, we have made the dangers known to everyone, and it's strictly regulated.


Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Nam

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:32:41 AM
I accepted your facts and brought new ones. I didn't disregard a thing you said.  I agreed with your original post and you are upset because I don't agree with 100% of what you have to say and you said as much. And when I made a mistake when I missed your post I apologized.
That makes me the opinionated one?

You didn't bring new ones, you brought the same ones.

Reply #22:

QuoteWarning labels about the dangers of smoking have been mandated since the early 70's. Advertising has also been banned for decades. I can't see how anyone can claim they were duped into smoking.

Advertising has not been banned for decades; except on radio and TV; there are other methods of advertising that has been pointed out to you several times.

Reply #39:

QuoteI’m over 50 now and I remember my older brother and I getting in trouble when I was around 10 years old for hiding my mother’s cigarettes because we had already heard how dangerous smoking was. I was 10 in 1973 and I knew it then. Anybody today claiming they were duped into smoking is just plain lying.

This is your opinion based on your life. This is not evidence of anything.

Reply #52

QuoteHowever, this doesn't change the fact that as far back as '73 a 10 year old me (and my 11 year old brother) knew that smoking was bad for you and you only started in '85.  As an 8 year old kid, did you hide your smoking from your parents? Was it because you knew it was bad?

Repeating an opinion as if it's a fact that represents all since it represents you.  That's not evidence.

Reply #64:

QuoteAlso, even when the advertising was in place, there were plenty of anti smoking campaigns on TV, in newspapers, surgeon generals warnings etc... Clearly many people did know it was a hazard and didn't smoke while others just ignored the warnings.

I asked proceeding this comment (which I believe you never answered): was this nationwide or just where you live. You can't state where you grew up is the same where I grew up, or where someone else grew up. This is conjecture. You're assuming since anti-tobacco ads existed where you live/d it must have everywhere else.

I provided evidence (more than once) about a preschool I attended as late as 1982 where it shows KOOL cigarettes being advertised in the picture with Peanuts' characters. I stated that I saw advertising in my elementary school; there were smoking sections for students in my Middle school and High school up to 1992/3.

So, by all that information/evidence I provided one can determine that anti-tobacco adverts were nominally nonexistent where I lived up to the early to mid 1990s; there was the opposite, the promotion of it.

Your reply #69 and following is the same regurgitation that you keep spewing.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Elect

A lot of the arguments here are framed in personal responsibility. Definitely, it is your personal responsibility to not smoke, and the consequences you suffer that stem from your personal use of tobacco are yours alone. But, if that is a reasonable argument then what about the responsibility of tobacco manufacturers to not sell dangerous products? And if it is just as reasonable to say that people should suffer the consequences of their personal decision to smoke knowing full well that it will kill them, then it is just as reasonable to say that tobacco manufacturers should suffer consequences from continuing to sell knowingly harmful products. Those consequences just happen to involve lawsuits. Look at it as a personal choice, if you want to sell harmful shit then you have to endure the consequences of your actions. 

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
Are you sure you've read the posts here?
Yes. Apparently 'hyperbole' is not in your vocabulary.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
I agree and I pointed that out as well. Remember when I listed the Tobacco master settlement agreement or said they should be sued over the migrant worker and child worker issues. The master settlement involves ongoing payments in the billions so the blame is already shared. Awarding $26 billion to an individual is ridiculous. That is the point of this thread and that is the point I agree with.
It is ridiculous, but I think everyone agrees that it is ridiculous.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
Sometimes, sometimes not.  I can easily list many instances where one person is 100% culpable for what they have done to another. I'm sure you can think of many as well.
Do it. You say you can list many but you didn't even bother to give a single one. Do it. Submit one realistic case, not one that is obviously forced. I think I can find that even in seemingly clear-cut cases, that the blame doesn't lie entirely on one person.

Why? Because in the end, we are products of our environment and inborn proclivities. There's no getting around the fact that, ultimately, as individuals and as a society we are adrift in the sea of time.

Quote from: Berati on August 01, 2014, 08:57:24 AM
So why not making smoking illegal? I think you know the answer to that so I won't bother with a long winded discussion.

Since we do make it legal, we can't then go after anybody who sells the legal product like they have committed a criminal act. We have made the decision to legalize cigarettes, we have made the dangers known to everyone, and it's strictly regulated.
Cigarettes are NOT strictly regulated. Tobacco companies are free to adjust the content and composition of those cigarettes by wide margins, and they have adjusted that composition to maximize addictiveness. "Strict regulation" includes a wide range of requirements that a cigarette must adhere to in order to be considered legal, such as coming under a limit to nicotine (so that it is not very addictive and those who need to give up a habit after a long time of smoking have a much easier time of it), and having a cap on the amount of tar that may be deposited in the lungs (to improve safety). That's what it would take to be "strictly regulated."

Furthermore, we have NOT made the dangers known to everyone. I cannot, as a statistician, from the top of my head, give you a risk assessment for long term smoking. Yeah, I know it increases the risk of cancer, but I couldn't tell you by what amount. That is something you need to know in order to make a rational decision about smoking.

I don't smoke because I find it an odious and disgusting habit. Really? Willfully breathing a noxious mix of chemicals called 'smoke', the principle cause of death in fires? A habit that makes you and yours smell like a garbage dump walking? No thanks. The fact that I have a congenital lung condition that makes smoking particularly dangerous for me is just icing on the cake. I also admit that it is completely an emotional response, but â€"fuck itâ€" I don't care. Smoking: blech!

And that's why I cannot fault anyone starting smoking. They don't really 'know' what kind of risk they are putting themselves in. How much does smoking increase risk of lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema? How bad are each of those diseases in terms of risk of death, and physical, emotional and financial burden? Do you even know what those numbers mean? I'm betting that most people you ask will not be able to give you an answer to those questions. To them, "cigarettes are dangerous" is just something that they have been told. That doesn't mean anyone necessarily believes it as far as they have been told, or even have the same standard of what that alleged danger is. It doesn't even come down to a judgement call â€" there can be no rational "judgement" in this kind of scenario. It's a vague conception of danger competing with a tangible, immediate benefit of chemical stimulation and peer pressure. For the average consumer, it is strictly an emotional decision: does the feeling of danger override the need to fit in, or does the need to fit in quash the feeling of danger?

Contrast this with big corporations. Every large institution has armies of lawyers whose job it is to point out the legal and ethical liabilities of every action of that institution. The tobacco companies cannot be held ignorant â€" they know exactly what they're doing. The tobacco companies have willfully chosen to profit on human suffering. There are consequences for that willful decision, as there are consequences for willfully starting to smoke, only the company is fully aware of those consequences.

I'm not for making smoking illegal. But you can make it socially unacceptable, and imposing that strict regulation on the product itself to be not nearly as nasty for you. In the end, I think negative publicity will kill tobacco.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Berati

Quote from: Nam on August 01, 2014, 04:38:57 PM
You didn't bring new ones, you brought the same ones.
The same ones were new when I brought them up. They were ignored so I brought them up again.
There are not that many facts to either side of this debate. It will come down to a judgement call.


QuoteThis is your opinion based on your life. This is not evidence of anything.

Reply #52

Repeating an opinion as if it's a fact that represents all since it represents you.  That's not evidence.
You started off by bringing up your opinion based on the facts of your life. I did the same thing so I can't see how you can object to this.

QuoteI asked proceeding this comment (which I believe you never answered): was this nationwide or just where you live. You can't state where you grew up is the same where I grew up, or where someone else grew up. This is conjecture. You're assuming since anti-tobacco ads existed where you live/d it must have everywhere else.
We are discussing the United States. The ads I listed were indicated as National ads, as were the surgeon general warnings and the labelling on cigarette packs. If you live in the US then all of it applies to you as well.


Quote

I provided evidence (more than once) about a preschool I attended as late as 1982 where it shows KOOL cigarettes being advertised in the picture with Peanuts' characters. I stated that I saw advertising in my elementary school; there were smoking sections for students in my Middle school and High school up to 1992/3.

So, by all that information/evidence I provided one can determine that anti-tobacco adverts were nominally nonexistent where I lived up to the early to mid 1990s; there was the opposite, the promotion of it.
I never denied this evidence, I just disagree as to the consequences of a clip art project. The bans were placed on radio and television as this is where children were most likely to see them. They continued in magazines as children are not usually exposed to them. Not many kids read GQ, or Time. It doesn't mean that they will never ever hear of the existence of cigarettes but I don't agree that hearing about the existence of cigarettes entitles anyone to claim their smoking is the fault of someone else.

I agree that we are repeating ourselves but it's not just me. As I stated, even if we agree on all the facts we can still disagree on what to do about it. If you want to hate on me because I refuse to fall in line, go ahead. I think this topic has been exhausted.

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2014, 06:59:09 PM
Yes. Apparently 'hyperbole' is not in your vocabulary.
My own statement was no more hyperbolic than the ones I was replying to.

QuoteDo it. You say you can list many but you didn't even bother to give a single one. Do it. Submit one realistic case, not one that is obviously forced. I think I can find that even in seemingly clear-cut cases, that the blame doesn't lie entirely on one person.
Sigh... The rape of a 15 year old leaps immediately to mind. Does the victim share in the culpability? ANd no, that is not a forced example, it happens all the time. I can't see how you can claim that blame is always somehow shared. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

QuoteWhy? Because in the end, we are products of our environment and inborn proclivities. There's no getting around the fact that, ultimately, as individuals and as a society we are adrift in the sea of time.
Cigarettes are NOT strictly regulated. Tobacco companies are free to adjust the content and composition of those cigarettes by wide margins, and they have adjusted that composition to maximize addictiveness. "Strict regulation" includes a wide range of requirements that a cigarette must adhere to in order to be considered legal, such as coming under a limit to nicotine (so that it is not very addictive and those who need to give up a habit after a long time of smoking have a much easier time of it), and having a cap on the amount of tar that may be deposited in the lungs (to improve safety). That's what it would take to be "strictly regulated."

Furthermore, we have NOT made the dangers known to everyone. I cannot, as a statistician, from the top of my head, give you a risk assessment for long term smoking. Yeah, I know it increases the risk of cancer, but I couldn't tell you by what amount. That is something you need to know in order to make a rational decision about smoking.

I don't smoke because I find it an odious and disgusting habit. Really? Willfully breathing a noxious mix of chemicals called 'smoke', the principle cause of death in fires? A habit that makes you and yours smell like a garbage dump walking? No thanks. The fact that I have a congenital lung condition that makes smoking particularly dangerous for me is just icing on the cake. I also admit that it is completely an emotional response, but â€"fuck itâ€" I don't care. Smoking: blech!

And that's why I cannot fault anyone starting smoking. They don't really 'know' what kind of risk they are putting themselves in. How much does smoking increase risk of lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema? How bad are each of those diseases in terms of risk of death, and physical, emotional and financial burden? Do you even know what those numbers mean? I'm betting that most people you ask will not be able to give you an answer to those questions. To them, "cigarettes are dangerous" is just something that they have been told. That doesn't mean anyone necessarily believes it as far as they have been told, or even have the same standard of what that alleged danger is. It doesn't even come down to a judgement call â€" there can be no rational "judgement" in this kind of scenario. It's a vague conception of danger competing with a tangible, immediate benefit of chemical stimulation and peer pressure. For the average consumer, it is strictly an emotional decision: does the feeling of danger override the need to fit in, or does the need to fit in quash the feeling of danger?

Contrast this with big corporations. Every large institution has armies of lawyers whose job it is to point out the legal and ethical liabilities of every action of that institution. The tobacco companies cannot be held ignorant â€" they know exactly what they're doing. The tobacco companies have willfully chosen to profit on human suffering. There are consequences for that willful decision, as there are consequences for willfully starting to smoke, only the company is fully aware of those consequences.

I'm not for making smoking illegal. But you can make it socially unacceptable, and imposing that strict regulation on the product itself to be not nearly as nasty for you. In the end, I think negative publicity will kill tobacco.
I don't deny that you make some valid points, but IMO when we decide to allow a product to be legal, we have given the responsibility for its use to the user, not the provider. I don't feel it legally acceptible to say OK you can sell this product, but we will ruin you if you do.
Lawsuits are out of control IMO and this is just one of many examples of this. Yes...I will list many spurious lawsuits if you wish. I think there pretty well know by now but I'll list them if you insist. I'm just out of time at the moment.

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Berati

Quote from: Elect on August 01, 2014, 04:58:42 PM
A lot of the arguments here are framed in personal responsibility. Definitely, it is your personal responsibility to not smoke, and the consequences you suffer that stem from your personal use of tobacco are yours alone. But, if that is a reasonable argument then what about the responsibility of tobacco manufacturers to not sell dangerous products? And if it is just as reasonable to say that people should suffer the consequences of their personal decision to smoke knowing full well that it will kill them, then it is just as reasonable to say that tobacco manufacturers should suffer consequences from continuing to sell knowingly harmful products. Those consequences just happen to involve lawsuits. Look at it as a personal choice, if you want to sell harmful shit then you have to endure the consequences of your actions.
The legal term of what we are discussing is the assumption of risk.  Precedent has already been set in activities like attending a baseball game and being struck by a line drive. You cannot sue the batter, the pitcher, the park owner or anyone else. You assumed the risk.
There are many risky activities/products that people engage in or use. If you go white water rafting you understand that it's dangerous so you can't sue the provider of the service because of the assumption of risk.

If you smoke cigarettes, you know your chances of illness are increased so the same logic applies. The dangers of smoking have been known and made known for a very long time now right on the packaging itself so I can't see claiming you were not aware of these dangers as a defense.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."