10,801 Forum Posts by "Light"
At 2/2/14 08:18 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote: Are there any good reasons for thinking God does not exist?
Serious question.
A serious question deserves a serious response, which is what I will give you.
Generally, in a debate, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the affirmative claim(In this case, the theist claiming God exists) to prove or substantiate to some degree their claim and not on the person making the negative claim or the person who simply doesn't believe that negative claim.
In essence, when it comes to debate, the atheist has no responsibility, logically speaking, to defend his/her views unless he/she is a "strong atheist"—one who negatively claims that God does not exist. "Weak atheists" such as myself have no such responsibility because we do not deny the existence of God outright, but find insufficient evidence to believe in His existence, and so we don't believe he exists.
This principle exists in the world of science; it isn't up to the scientists who don't believe, for example, that vaccines cause autism to disprove that claim. It's up to those who do believe that vaccines cause autism to prove it. So far, they have failed miserably.
This principle also exists in philosophy. Debates about the existence of God fall under the domain of philosophy and so we come full-circle and show that the burden of proof falls upon theists to prove their claims right and not on atheists to prove the theists' claims wrong.
With that said, there are many excellent arguments against the existence of God. I suggest you read them. They're not necessary to justify support for atheism, but they are worth reading in my opinion.
At 2/2/14 11:52 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
And the fact that record setting offense generally fails, I mean the last passing yards leading QB to lead the team to a championship win was Johnny Unitas and that was 1959.
It's like the passing yards title is jinxed.
Geez.
At 2/2/14 11:24 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:At 2/2/14 11:09 PM, Ron-Geno wrote:Indeed, this is what one get for underestimating the number one defense.
Meanwhile, for all those that bet Seattle:
I did some research just now and found out that historically, in the 7 superbowl games in which one team had the #1 offense and the other team the #1 defense, the one with the #1 defense won the overwhelming majority of the time.
It's surprising that no one seemed to have taken that into account when betting on the Broncos.
At 2/2/14 10:02 PM, DeftonesFan665 wrote: Their defense is what won that game, not their quarterback.
Couldn't agree more and frankly, most people realize this. The Seahawks' defense was just impeccable.
At 2/2/14 09:59 PM, Ron-Geno wrote: Truly I underestimated Seattle
GG, guys
GG
(bad game for Denver, though)
Didn't everyone favor the Broncos?
At 2/2/14 09:44 PM, ZJ wrote: Lol did anyone else see that shot of Eli Manning looking really sad?
There were several of those lol
At 2/2/14 09:39 PM, KillerSkull wrote: I hope Sherman's injury is career ending. I really do.
Doubtful.
At 2/2/14 09:10 PM, KillerSkull wrote: That Seattle fan who got "Superbowl Champs" tattooed on his arm three weeks ago should have his arm cut off. He was right, but he shouldn't be rewarded for his stupidity.
Can you provide a pic of this guy?
Also, congrats to the Broncos for their first touchdown lol
At 2/2/14 09:06 PM, ZJ wrote: How great would it be if Seattle started resting its starters at the start of the 4th quarter IN THE SUPER BOWL?
dying laughing even though i predicted a broncos win
I have a feeling they'd do that to add insult to injury.
At 2/2/14 08:57 PM, ZJ wrote: Team Glass Ketchup Bottle reporting.
in other news denver keeps fucking up
I'd hate to see Peyton Manning possibly end his superbowl career on such a sad note.
At 2/2/14 08:35 PM, ZJ wrote:At 2/2/14 08:33 PM, Light wrote: Goddamit Broncos.I'm officially rooting for the Seahawks to break the record for the biggest blowout in Super Bowl history since it's very clear they're competing with history and not the Broncos at this point in the game.
Pretty much.
Seahawks may be my team, but Jesus Denver make this game exciting.
Who knows, maybe Peyton can turn this around and win or at least make this a close game. Stranger things have happened....
Goddamit Broncos.
I'm rooting for the Seahawks, but goddamn the Broncos are blowing it right now.
At 2/2/14 12:15 AM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: I agree with most of these, but not JFK
As for JFK, I do not think he is infallible, but he was not just another politician with good looks.
Historians think he was just another politician for the most part and I agree with the reasoning behind their opinion.
He did have a dark side in his affairs, which were numerous, but thats arguably based on how he was parented (Joe Kennedy was notoriously misogynistic). But he was not a mediocre president.
Mediocrity is sadly the defining characteristic of his presidency.
JFK created the Civil Rights Act (he just didn't live to see them pass).
lol, presidents don't create legislation, they sign them into law. JFK didn't even live to sign the civil rights act of 1964 into law and I explained why he isn't considered a civil rights hero.
And he did not support Civil Rights for political reasons.
I already knew that and that doesn't justify withholding support.
And saying he delayed to show his supports is ridiculous.
But he did delay expressing his support. That's just a fact and you're denying the historical reality of the situation.
He always supported Civil Rights, he just hesitated in giving official presidential endorsement for protests in case they turned violent.
This isn't a secret, but his successor had more political courage than he did, expressing support for that issue, signing civil rights legislation into law and still getting reelected. JFK dropped the ball on this issue plain and simple. Don't deny that.
JFK arguably prevented Nuclear War, not just by his actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis but by being president instead of his running mate, Richard Nixon (if you didn't know he sabotaged US peace talks with Vietnam to win reelection).
JFK almost certainly caused the Cuban Missile Crisis due to his approval of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, so this doesn't really count.
Kennedy was the only President who sought diplomacy with the Soviet Union, he even tried to create a joint Space Program (but again, his death prevented this from happening). If he was not murdered the Cold War would have thawed a lot sooner.
What the hell are you talking about? Nixon made larger strides in improving relations with the Soviet Union than Kennedy ever did. Also, let's not engage in alternative history by saying "If JFK had never died, so and so would've happened." You cannot prove or disprove such a claim, so you shouldn't be making it.
Kennedy also created the Peace Corps.
Not really a significant accomplishment given that the Peace Corps does very little to actually alleviate global poverty.
Did he authorize the Bay of Pigs invasion? Yes. Did he have numerous affairs? Yes.
But he was an eloquent speaker, a brilliant politician, and undoubtedly a decent human being.
Being a great speaker doesn't make you a good politician, he blundered frequently in office, and he is no more or less decent than the average U.S. President.
Kennedy's legacy was not being assassinated, his legacy was being beloved by his country who mourned him.
Do you seriously believe Kennedy's assassination has nothing to do with his legacy? Because it'd be pretty stupid to think it doesn't.
At 2/1/14 09:49 PM, stafffighter wrote:
I hear JFK was less charming than he's been presented as.
You're right to believe that. He's been accused by some people who knew him closely of having a ridiculously powerful libido and sexually harassing female interns. I don't know if it's true, but it's consistent with what we know about the man.
He's another person who, in my opinion, doesn't deserve the praise he gets. In fact, I'd say he's the most overrated president of the 20th century. Most Americans think he was an excellent president and yet they can't name very many accomplishments of his. That's because Americans are generally ignorant about history but also because JFK was assassinated and because he represented an era when Americans were more optimistic than ever. He was also charismatic, a bit of a celebrity president(Comparable to President Obama early in his first term), and pretty handsome.
When it comes to economic, social, and foreign policy, JFK was extremely mediocre. He was slow to support civil rights for African-Americans because the Democratic Party had still had the support of the South and didn't want to lose their favor(This ended up happening anyway after JFK died and Lyndon Johnson became president and started supporting civil rights.). He only came to officially support it in June of 1963 when the issue got out of hand and he realized that this would undermine American prestige around the world; in essence, he acted like a typical American politician when he did that. He was no racist, but he wasn't exactly a champion of the downtrodden blacks of that era. Ironically, it would take the political skills of his successor, a Southerner at that, to get anything significant done on civil rights. JFK did advocate for tax cuts, more social spending, better healthcare for the elderly and all of that other good stuff, but he never really tried to get anything done. He didn't put any effort in to negotiating the passage of such laws. He cared more about foreign policy because he could get more shit done there, and even then, he sucked.
He was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco because he approved of the mission but had the audacity not to go all out and see the mission through to the end. In order to prevent the world from finding out that the U.S. was behind the invasion of Cuba, he called off air support at the last minute. Predictably, the invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles trained by the CIA failed and the whole world ended up finding out the U.S. was involved anyway. Literally, the worst possible scenario happened that day.
Some people think he was a great president in part because of how he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, but chances are that if he didn't approve the Bay of Pigs mission, that crisis wouldn't have happened in the first place. Cuba just wanted some security to prevent some shit like that from happening again so they turned to the Soviet Union for help. JFK was just cleaning up the mess he made.
Some people also think that if JFK didn't die, we would never have gone to Vietnam. I can't technically disprove that claim, but there's no evidence that he seriously considered withdrawing troops. In fact, before he died, he was sending more and more "military advisers" to the area. He was also very hawkish on foreign policy, meaning that he was very aggressive, and I mean like, George W. Bush levels of aggressive. It was the Cold War and he kept sending aid to different anti-communist groups around the world. Such was the foreign policy of the U.S. at the time.
Sorry I ranted about JFK, but I get a little annoyed when people say things like "JFK was such a good president" or "JFK was our last real president." The man was just a typical politician of his time who was gifted with good looks, extensive connections, and tragically ended up dying at the hands of an assassin. Let's not forget that.
At 2/1/14 09:33 PM, Sekhem wrote:
The only way it could be excused was if it was something embedded in their culture such as highly stratified/hierarchical cultures of the Egyptians, Indians, and so on. It cannot be excused after the so-called "Enlightenment" and certainly not by Christians.
True. Moreover, the Christian sect known as the Quakers actively condemned slavery and knew of its inherent evil. Although Washington and Jefferson both realized that slavery was wrong, they should be deplored because they didn't do the right thing and release their slaves upon realizing the evil of engaging in that institution.
Most abolitionists of their era actively pointed this out and most were aware of this argument and still chose to be racist. It cannot be brushed aside as them just being "of their era."
Couldn't agree more.
I understand the reasoning behind the claim that the actions and beliefs held by people throughout history that are considered immoral today shouldn't be considered immoral in the context of the time in which they lived—an example being that it wasn't totally wrong to own slaves in 18th-19th century America because people didn't know any better back then—but that logic falls apart when you study history and learn of people who lived in those times and realized that certain things universally considered wrong today were wrong in their time. William Lloyd Garrison is one of the most famous white abolitionists of his time and he knew of the depravity of slavery. So did the infamous John Brown. Brown killed slaveowners and led slaves in a revolt. He was that certain that slavery was wrong.
That's why I'm somewhat unforgiving of those figures in history who are held up as paragons of moral virtue. Many, if not most of them, had significant moral failings and people conveniently gloss over that because they presumably cant handle the truth.
Well, this is a perfect segue in to mentioning a "historical hero" that I dislike: Ronald Reagan. Conservatives and older blue-collar white people in general talk about him as if he's the greatest thing sliced bread. They think of him as some sort of giant among U.S. Presidents who did so much and was virtuous in every sense of the word. He wasn't. He didn't live up to his conservative values of shrinking government and cutting overall spending. He practically blew up the national debt and there were huge deficits ever year he was in office.
He advocated spending reductions on the poor but didn't have the courage to live up to his principles and attack more popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, whose beneficiaries could fight back. He worsened relations with the Soviet Union and ushered in an era of conservative resurgence and relentless attacks on the middle class and the poor, attacks that continue to the present day. Many of the problems that exist today can be traced back to Reagan. He also used racist language to appeal to Southern voters. Generally, he was a pretty awful human being.
Italy can go eat a dick. Knox shouldn't be extradited to Italy. From what I've read, the trial was practically a circus and suffered from problems of credibility.
I ran in to the street when I was about 4 or 5 years old.
Naturally, my mom lost her shit and yelled at me for it.
At 1/31/14 08:14 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: At the end of dinner, I got down on one knee and asked her to marry me, and she said yes.
I am so fucking happy right now!
Congratulations!
At 1/29/14 08:59 PM, Korriken wrote: One of the popular topics of the times is the so called "1%" who is hoarding all of the nation's wealth while others live in poverty. People call for the end of capitalism and the redistribution of the wealth the "1%" are hoarding and to bring in a shining new era of socialism or even communism to make everyone equals.
I don't think we must outright embrace socialism to remedy the problem of income inequality. I would say that most liberal/progressive democrats would agree. Some aspects of socialism will almost certainly be necessary to accomplish the goal of income inequality mitigation.
It's a hell of a pipe dream, to be sure, but problem is, equality goes against human nature.
Very few people believe that we should eliminate income inequality. Most people on the left think it is sufficient to decrease inequality in America to make it comparable to inequality levels observed in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries.
On another note, it's never a good idea to argue against a course of action or against an opinion because it is "unnatural." Living to the age of 95 is unnatural because most people who make it to that age do so with the aid of modern medicine. Would it therefore follow that it is wrong to live to age 95 with the aid of modern medicine? I don't think so.
Hell, democracy is fairly unnatural in a way. It's been fairly uncommon for most of human history; monarchy, autocracy, and so on have been far more common. I doubt that before civilization, when man truly lived in nature, that democracy was common.
Just because it's unnatural doesn't mean it's wrong is the point I'm trying to make here.
The destruction of a capitalistic system and the implementation of socialism or communism would be the single biggest mistake America has ever done.
I'm inclined to agree.
Capitalism is, in my opinion, awesome. It just happens to have nasty side effects that need to be corrected from time to time. We should, in my opinion, balance capitalism with some features commonly observed in socialist states, such as universal healthcare, guaranteed basic income for all citizens and the like. Don't think I'm sort of pinko communist. Far from it.
the government terrorized its people as the leaders and their families and friends amassed great wealth and grew fat while the people starved. The government was constantly looking for "enemies of the state" to oppress and even murder to ensure that no one dares to step out of line.
Communism is a failure. We can agree on that much.
When the Chinese Communist party took over, the people were not made equal. The higher ups in the government as well as their friends, families, and allies became rich and began hoarding the wealth while the typical Chinese citizen is still dirt poor. The "1%" still exists in China and anyone who speaks out against them often find themselves in legal trouble, if they don't simply disappear.
Again, most people who care deeply about this problem don't believe that communism is the answer.
Even in supposedly socialist Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has amassed over $1 billion in net worth before he died. Great equality there.
This doesn't seem to be a problem for the socialist states of Europe.
There will ALWAYS and I do mean ALWAYS be the 1% and the 99%, as people like to put it. It's a matter of determining who can be the 1% and who has to be the 99%, whether its government officials using their political power to amass wealth, or people using their amassed wealth to amass political power.
Of course there will always be the 1%. But what we must never accept as a foregone conclusion or as some immutable fact of life is that the rich must be obscenely rich at the expense of the poor, that the 1% must have 20% or 30% of the wealth while the poor must fight for the scraps.
There are many people who would benefit from the fall of capitalism and the installation of communism. Often those who bring about this change BECOME the new 1% and use this power and wealth to bring the hammer down on his new subjects to oppress them and ensure his power and wealth remains in his hands.
Again, most people don't advocate communism.
Now, for the topic of poverty. What exactly IS poverty? Oh right, it's not having something others do have. To me, poverty is a non issue.
You're wrong.
Destitution, however, is a problem, but it's not NEARLY as major a problem as the buzzword poverty is. The difference between poverty and destitution is when you are destitute, you can't get what you REQUIRE to survive, be it food, clean water, a place to live, etc.
Destitution and poverty are synonyms by definition, so now you're just making shit up here.
There are very, very few destitute people in America.
Speaking as someone who has lived and does still live in poverty, I know that this is wrong.
There's tens of millions of people who are on food stamps and welfare. Contrary to popular belief, most are children or elderly people. Very few of these recipients are gaming the system; most of them actually need that financial assistance to live.
Trillions thrown at a problem that can't be solved with money. Poverty is a "problem" that cannot be solved. If everyone in America has $1 billion each, the person with $500 million is in poverty.
It's been proven that the social spending instituted during the Johnson Administration significantly lowered the poverty rate and improved medical outcomes for beneficiaries.
Poverty is a problem that can be solved, or, at the very least, mitigated significantly. Seriously, look at Norway, Sweden, and Finland. They've managed to significantly alleviate income inequality and poverty in general. I'm not saying that we can do what they did flawlessly or even that we can do exactly what they did in general, but I am saying that the War on Poverty is a war worth fighting and one that is winnable. We have a moral obligation to fight that war. It's understandable that you disagree with the policy methods that have been pursued by the Democrats over the past 50 years in waging this war, but I think it would behoove you to acknowledge that there is a problem must be addressed.
However, if the government insists on doing something to "fight poverty" then they should take initiative and educate people in various concepts that those not living in poverty work with, such as not spending every dollar you have on vice ever weekend, or maybe even putting a few dollars away every week.
Are you insinuating that welfare recipients just blow their money alcohol and cigarettes and never save their money? Because that's pretty fucking ignorant and indicates to me that you've never known many people on welfare or what they do to survive.
Life on welfare isn't as fun as you seem to think. It's sad that you impugn the character of these recipients and think all of them are stereotypical welfare queens.
The government can't end poverty, nor can it bring about any form of equality beyond equality under the law. If a person wants to be equal to others, then they have to be personally responsible, take the initiative, and make themselves equal. You can scream and yell about how the government needs to help the poor, but at the end of the day, the poor MUST help themselves.
This is probably the wrongest thing I've ever heard.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to "pull yourself by the bootstraps" in this country if you're poor? Believe it or not, economic mobility in this country is extremely low. Telling the poor in America that they should help themselves is basically tantamount to telling them to go fuck themselves.
Those that cannot bring their self destructive habits under control will remain poor. Spending all of your money on things you do not need at all is one of the best ways to ensure that you remain dirt poor.
Stop watching fox news. Most people on welfare are pretty honest and are just down on their luck. It's sad that you believe these stereotypes about poor people.
At 1/28/14 02:06 AM, Ranger2 wrote:At 1/27/14 11:03 PM, Light wrote: Everyone would be better off because, you know, 'murrica.I am sick to death of people saying "'Murica." It reduces the idea of patriotism to blind jingoism. 99% of people who say it, say it ironically, thinking that those who are genuinely patriotic think the same way - "Murica!"
I haven't met too many patriotic people who didn't think America is #1 at everything and super-duper-awesome. In my personal experience, the joke I made about "'murrica" earlier is almost too true when it comes to satire.
Not that patriotic sentiment is immoral to express or experience, but my observations of the patriotic expressions people make have, more often than not, left a bad taste in my mouth.
I never really understood why the U.S. hasn't just annexed Canada.
Everyone would be better off because, you know, 'murrica.
I'm still as liberal as ever.
At 1/26/14 11:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Not much change from before.
Still think the lack of a middle answer and weighting does leave much to be desired about this test.
I agree. I also think some of the questions could've used a little more nuanced and some were just inappropriate in regards to gauging one's political leanings.
My results:
I rely on Salon.com, CNN, The Atlantic, and NPR.
At 1/25/14 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So, even if chemo were more harmful than second hand smoke related cancer (cause, ironically, chemo is carcinogenic), it still would have other uses in the medical field.
Interesting. The more you know, right?
At 1/25/14 07:37 PM, Saen wrote:At 1/25/14 04:48 PM, Light wrote:You still don't understand what a carcinogen is or even how cancer develops in the first place. Carcinogens don't have to damage DNA to force cancer, only damage the cell.
Which makes you wrong to assert that secondhand smoke only damages cell membranes if there are actual carcinogens in it.
So if this is what secondhand smoke does, how do you maintain that it doesn't cause cancer?
You are so fucking stupid you clearly don't even know what chemotherapy is.
If this were true, chemotherapy wouldn't even be used in the field of medicine.
Aww. :(
Sunburns increase risk of developing skin cancer, merely being out in the sun and not getting sunburned (either by only being exposed to UV radiation for a brief period or by wearing sunscreen) doesn't put you at risk of cancer what the fuck are you talking about.
Tanning is sufficient to cause skin cancer. No need for a sunburn.
Me avoiding your points? How about the fact that you denied the existence of sun poisoning you stupid mother fucker.
I didn't deny the existence of sun poisoning. In fact, sun poisoning is just a very bad sunburn and I already acknowledged the existence of sunburns.
Come on, man.
I'd recommend educating yourself next time before diving headfirst into a debate. There are so many terms and conditions pertaining to medicine and biology that you clearly don't understand or are even aware of.They don't. Once again carcinogens don't have to damage DNA to force cancer (and they rarely do, radiation is unique as a carcinogen), merely the cell itself.
Says the guy who thinks carcinogens in secondhand smoke don't damage cell DNA.
So again, how do you maintain that secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer if this is what you say it does to cells?
You don't know what chemotherapy is, you don't know what sun poisoning is,
And really, what misunderstanding of these fields of knowledge have I demonstrated to you? You haven't shown me that I misunderstand anything as far as I'm concerned.
I definitely know what chemotherapy is and not knowing what sun poisoning is doesn't = a misunderstanding of medicine.
you don't know how carcinogens behave, you are beyond misunderstanding you flat out have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't know, you just seem a little pedantic to me. "Carcinogens don't cause cancer this way, they cause it this way, so therefore you're wrong and completely stupid."
Tell me that doesn't sound pathetically pedantic.
I've spent my whole time arguing with you while trying to educate you which has clearly failed.
You've evasively responded to the many points I've made. Hell, you completely ignored the conditions I gave you for experimentally proving the danger of secondhand smoke that you kept demanding from me. Keep telling yourself that you've refuted every point I've made, but any reasonable person observing this discussion will tell you that you are far from achieving that goal.
I'm sorry for being so ignorant about the complete harmlessness of secondhand smoke. :'(
Show me peer reviewed scientific literature with the results that secondhand smoke has directly caused cancer, illness, or death even in one individual.
I even challenged you to name a study that shows that secondhand smoke is harmless and you didn't oblige my request, leading me to believe that you couldn't use science to back up your unsupported claims.
I absolutely love how you deflected and challenged me to name a study. I'll do that right now, but something tells me you're going to evaluate it with your preconceptions in mind and with the assumption that it must be flawed somehow because it contradicts your views.
If you can't do this I'm done arguing with you. You are completely ignorant on the biological and medical terminology involved in this discussion. You have no right to discuss cancer, radiation, toxins, carcinogens with anyone and you should feel like an imbecile right now holy fuck.
I feel like an imbecile for debating someone who cares so much about the plight of the American smoker and where he/she gets to smoke that he goes to great lengths to try to get other people to believe the stupid notion that secondhand smoke is harmless. Look, just know that you're fighting a losing battle with me, with society, and with science. You keep belittling me because I'm supposedly making mistakes in my terminology and know nothing about science when I'm the one who's been citing studies(I cited the fucking U.S. Surgeon General and I think you just ignored that) and calling upon the support of the wider scientific community. Thankfully, society will never warm up to your views, and that's really all I'm concerned about. I couldn't care less about the outcome of this debate; it's just time spent on a forum. The real action is out there and that's where secondhand smoke is being curbed, from workplaces to universities. That means fewer people will die prematurely. That makes me happy.
I don't think you've really given anyone looking over this thread a reason to be OK with secondhand smoke. You just continually made attempts at demonstrating the harmlessness of this substance through somewhat intricate logical arguments that sound nice, but that have nowhere near as much value as empirical studies because this is an argument about the empirical, and in that regard, you curiously did not rise up to the challenge I presented to you: to cite a study that states that secondhand smoke is harmless. I wonder why.
At 1/25/14 04:04 AM, Saen wrote:At 1/25/14 03:13 AM, Light wrote:Carcinogens themselves are defined by how they behave as mutagens.
The toxins in smoke are classified as carcinogens, so now you're just being dishonest.
Which makes you wrong to assert that secondhand smoke only damages cell membranes if there are actual carcinogens in it.
I would have maybe taken prescribed oxygen as an answer, but yours doesn't surprise me. Since chemotherapy involves toxins itself, it would actually worsen any hypothetical "secondhand smoke poisoning" that developed from an overdose of toxins to begin with.
That medicine is called chemotherapy when you're exposed to enough secondhand smoke.
If this were true, chemotherapy wouldn't even be used in the field of medicine.
Sun poisoning is quite a common condition. Also you body needs sunlight to function properly. Various individuals can tolerate different doses of UV radiation without sunburn and an increased risk for cancer. When your body is repairs itself from sunburns repeatedly over time, that's when you are at risk of cancer.
You don't need to be sunburned to increase your chances of developing skin cancer. You're just avoiding every point I'm making.
I'd recommend educating yourself next time before diving headfirst into a debate. There are so many terms and conditions pertaining to medicine and biology that you clearly don't understand or are even aware of.
Says the guy who thinks carcinogens in secondhand smoke don't damage cell DNA.
And really, what misunderstanding of these fields of knowledge have I demonstrated to you? You haven't shown me that I misunderstand anything as far as I'm concerned.
I've debunked every cliche' point you've made and I'm done.
You've evasively responded to the many points I've made. Hell, you completely ignored the conditions I gave you for experimentally proving the danger of secondhand smoke that you kept demanding from me. Keep telling yourself that you've refuted every point I've made, but any reasonable person observing this discussion will tell you that you are far from achieving that goal.
I even challenged you to name a study that shows that secondhand smoke is harmless and you didn't oblige my request, leading me to believe that you couldn't use science to back up your unsupported claims.
At 1/25/14 02:04 AM, Saen wrote:
Radiation exposure is most common within the hospital and home, unless if you work inside a nuclear power plant (even then doses are ok).
That doesn't refute my point, now does it?
Radiation is a mutagen, it directly damages DNA within cells which may lead to cancer. Toxins inhaled through smoking are also mutagens, but they instead damage the cell membrane.
Hell, many kinds of radiation are, in small doses, 10,000 times better for your health(Still bad, though) than secondhand smoke. That shit is poison.
The toxins in smoke are classified as carcinogens, so now you're just being dishonest.
People aren't dying from radiation unless if they directly handle strong radioactive material or are exposed to prolonged doses of strong radiation unprotected and people aren't dying from cigarettes unless if they smoking themselves.
Prolonged exposure to lower levels of radiation is still dangerous.
You can't die from secondhand smoke I don't know how many analogies I have to make.
Don't make analogies. Cite studies.
Exactly my point. If breathing in secondhand smoke was such a hazard as it's claimed to be, there would be medicine (fake at the very least) that your doctor would prescribe or that you can buy over the counter to treat "secondhand smoke poisoning".
What point are you trying to make here? I never heard of anyone going to a doctor over something like that.
That medicine is called chemotherapy when you're exposed to enough secondhand smoke.
Ironically there is no such thing as "secondhand smoke poisoning" there is nicotine poisoning for smokers themselves even though secondhand smoke itself is claimed to be so incredibly toxic that there is no safe level of exposure. We observe nicotine poisoning in smokers themselves, if secondhand smoke was anywhere near as toxic as smoking itself we would observe "secondhand smoke poisoning".
You saying that the impossibility of developing "acute secondhand smoke poisoning" is proof that secondhand cigarette smoke is harmless is like saying that being in the sun for long periods of time doesn't give you skin cancer because you can't develop "sun exposure(tanning, basically)" poisoning. I suppose you'd develop a sunburn if you were in the sun for 4 hours, but you don't need to get a sunburn at all to significantly increase your chances of developing skin cancer. Just spending enough time in the sun without getting a sunburn is enough to increase those risks. You see what's wrong with your thought process here? That is some pretty shitty logic.
At 1/24/14 11:58 PM, Saen wrote: What I mean by this is when Marijuana becomes a processing industry, where joints are pre-rolled and sealed with all the chemicals we see in cigarettes today, smoking marijuana will pose the same dangers, if not more to smokers as cigarettes now do.
That remains to be seen, but you do raise a valid point.
But since people will just grow their own weed, free of all those added chemicals that may be found in pre-rolled joints of the future, I don't think manufacturers will find much incentive in doing what the tobacco companies are doing. They just wouldn't be able to succeed. Just my opinion, though. I can only speculate at this point.
Also one last point on secondhand smoke, to say that there is no tolerable level of secondhand smoke inhalation when there is an established level of radiation exposure is a complete hyperbole. I.e. there is an acceptable dosage of radiation exposure a person can sustain in a year, but if a person breaths in secondhand smoke even only once, his/her health is at great risk.
First, if you're going to use big ol' words like "hyperbole", learn to use them properly.
Second, we put up with radiation exposure because it's unavoidable and generated by certain activities that we just can't go without, like nuclear power. Secondhand smoke is generated by people who engage in an activity that benefits one person at the expense of everyone else.
Hell, many kinds of radiation are, in small doses, 10,000 times better for your health(Still bad, though) than secondhand smoke. That shit is poison.
I mean how ridiculous is it for me to run to the doctor panicked that I accidentally breathed in secondhand smoke, give me a break.
What point are you trying to make here? I never heard of anyone going to a doctor over something like that.
