Posted on 10/17/2006 1:09:34 PM PDT by trumandogz
No, don't play games with me. You made a post that seemed to suggest you believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and you lauded another poster for saying so explicitly. So don't play games and answer the question: Do you believe that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? Yes or no?
I don't know. How come some straight monogamous people get AIDS, while some gay men who have anonymous unprotected anal sex with hundreds or thousands of partners stay negative?
-1- Tobacco is by far the leading cause of lung cancer. But, as the asbestos industry knows, it isn't the only cause.
-2- Sometimes smokers -- like bathhouse goers -- just get lucky. The odds, however, are pretty slim.
What a whiner! Refusing to pay for your own moral failings isn't fascism. It's just common sense. YOU need to grow up out of your undeserved sense of entitlement. Why do you think you have a claim on my pocket book?
You are an enemy of this Republic and of individual liberty.
What are you going to do, addict, challenge me to a duel? This is absurd.
Well, since a gunshot wound to the head reuslts in instant basically painless death and COPD, where you slowly drown in your own lungs over a period of years is unimagineably unpleasant, I can't say that tobacco is the better choice.
Where did I mention property?
Your semantics asside, the same argument is used by the loony left to limit religeous behaviours such as prayer in public schools. You know, the unwilling victims of such dastardly behaviours and such.
Feel free to continue to use the sword that will be used against you multiple times. Just don't be surprised when your ox is gored.
I'm acutely aware of the GLEEFUL goring of my ox hereon.
I may be a lot of things. But I'm not blind.
"Do you believe that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? Yes or no?"
No. It may increase the risk factors of contracting lung cancers, or other diseases, but it is not a causal factor. Genetics is far more influential in contracting lung/heart disease.
Now, how about offering your answer to my question. Why is the highest per capita population in the world, Japan, also the lowest per capita heart and lung disease incidence in the world?
I observe a lot of wailing on such threads against folks against smoking labeling smoking BEHAVIORS in less than lauditory ways.
The screams are usually of the flavor of individual rights; freedom of behavior and expression etc.
AND
the wailing usually takes the hypocritical form that the smokers ought to be protected from the anti-smokers labeling smoking behaviors in anything remotely like negative terms. And when the anti-smokers don't comply with the demands of the smokers TO CONFORM TO THEIR REALITY, the smoking WORD POLICE come harshly down on them with a vengeance that would make Shrillery blush . . . or close to it--I don't think it's possible for The Shameless one to blush, really.
Impressive, those SEMANTICS POLICE.
"Why do you think you have a claim on my pocket book?"
You are really a stage 1 thinker. I never said such things, in fact all over FR I advocate the abolishment of government entitlement programs and promote individual responsibility resulting from individual liberty. You however have advocated on this thread a strict government dictation of individual behaviour to ensure that the socialist programs continue to thrive. That is nothing more than fascist solutions to socialism.
"What are you going to do, addict, challenge me to a duel? This is absurd."
Aww, how very cute. As usual, when a light is shined on your position the thin skin becomes well known.
Good bye.
"Where did I mention property?"
Not saying that you did, but I wanted to clarify that it is neither you nor I that holds the right. I tried to do so in a reasonable manner that might add some perspective to your statement that you would "defend your right," a right that does not exist, therefore you can not defend it. Unless, of course, you own the property.
So, you would prefer to gore other's ox with the weapon, than try to eliminate the use of the weapon?
You do a lot of projection. Your imagination is quite impressive.
I deplore lop-sided discussions where one side feels quite free to use all manner of fierce, harsh, abusive "weapons" and then scream bloody murder when the other side brings out so much as water guns.
I deplore lack of candor and insight on the part of any side presuming to pontificate in shrill, harsh, loud, absolutist terms.
I deplore overt hypocrisy in perspectives, arguments, positions which seem so blatantly obvious yet are so fiercely denied by any side.
I expect that folks who can dish it out ought to be able to take it though such threads seem to chronically demonstrate the opposite.
I wonder how gilded is the frame around the shrink license.
Then you should inform the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US National Cancer Institute, the office of the US Surgeon General, as well as RJR, Philip Morris, and all the other tobacco companies, all of which agree that smoking causes cancer.
While you are technically correct that smoking increases the risk factor for lung cancer, you'd be equally correct in saying that pulling the trigger of a loaded gun aimed at your head increases the likelihood that you'll be shot in the head.
Regarding Japan, it's likely genetics and diet may play a role on a population level. However, Japanese smokers are far, far liklier than Japanese nonsmokers to develop lung cancer, and Japanese lung cancer rates have skyrocketed over the last 100 years, tracking remarkably the increase in tobacco use. If you'd like more information on cancer statistics in Japan, I'd be more than happy to refer you to relevent studies.
You should really re-read this thread, then tell us which side was using "all manner of fierce, harsh, abusive "weapons." That human beings utilize their fight or flight instincts should not be a surprise to you.
Exactly what you deplore is what the anti-smokers have used on this thread. Re-read it with fresh eyes.
I also expect those of you that have dished it out to be able to take it. There is clear evidence in this thread that proves who can take it and who couldn't. Just look at the banning. That wouldn't occur without a bit of tattling.
Ah, so I have no right to protect my health unless I am the property owner? I understand your point, but I was coming from a free will POV, not a legal one. Consider it as my right to self defense, if you will.
Your terminal addiction is apparently affecting your cognition once again. Where on earth have I ever endorsed "governnment dictation" or a "socialist program?"
You're a very silly little thing: "Socialist!" "Fascist!" "Nazi!" -- anything to avoid talking about the real issue, the very real consequences of your tragic addiction.
"Ah, so I have no right to protect my health unless I am the property owner?"
You have every right to protect your health by not entering property owned by others that allows smoking. That is how you exercise that right. To have any other expectations means that you others could start to dictate to you things you don't prefer on your property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.