1,250 Forum Posts by "Saen"
So what are our canines for?
Evolution is science, if you are unsure of that you don't belong in a discussion pertaining to it. Just ignore those rednecks who flat out reject evolution, don't lend them any credence.
At 1/25/14 08:22 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
May I?
"Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379 000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165 000 from lower respiratory infections, 36 900 from asthma, and 21 400 from lung cancer. 603 000 deaths were attributable to second-hand smoke in 2004, which was about 1·0% of worldwide mortality. 47% of deaths from second-hand smoke occurred in women, 28% in children, and 26% in men. DALYs lost because of exposure to second-hand smoke amounted to 10·9 million, which was about 0·7% of total worldwide burden of diseases in DALYs in 2004. 61% of DALYs were in children. The largest disease burdens were from lower respiratory infections in children younger than 5 years (5 939 000), ischaemic heart disease in adults (2 836 000), and asthma in adults (1 246 000) and children (651 000)."
Already addressed this exact study. First of all this isn't experimentation it's an observation, two the premise of the stud and it's methods involves estimates, and three this study didn't even involve experimentation with living subjects, but rather subjects which have already died.
Like I said before, smoking itself was determined to directly cause lung cancer through extermination (not observation) with living subjects that smoked. This is not the case concerning all studies of secondhand smoke.
At 1/25/14 04:48 PM, Light wrote:
Which makes you wrong to assert that secondhand smoke only damages cell membranes if there are actual carcinogens in it.
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.
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.
If this were true, chemotherapy wouldn't even be used in the field of medicine.
You are so fucking stupid you clearly don't even know what chemotherapy is.
You don't need to be sunburned to increase your chances of developing skin cancer. You're just avoiding every point I'm making.
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.
Me avoiding your points? How about the fact that you denied the existence of sun poisoning you stupid mother fucker.
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.
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.
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.
You don't know what chemotherapy is, you don't know what sun poisoning is, you don't know how carcinogens behave, you are beyond misunderstanding you flat out have no idea what you're talking about.
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've spent my whole time arguing with you while trying to educate you which has clearly failed.
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.
Show me peer reviewed scientific literature with the results that secondhand smoke has directly caused cancer, illness, or death even in one individual.
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.
At 1/25/14 03:13 AM, Light wrote:
The toxins in smoke are classified as carcinogens, so now you're just being dishonest.
Carcinogens themselves are defined by how they behave as mutagens.
That medicine is called chemotherapy when you're exposed to enough secondhand smoke.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've debunked every cliche' point you've made and I'm done.
Carrying onto 2014, abortion and birth control are once again hot topics as states are deciding whether or not our National Healthcare should fund birth control and abortion itself. As a result, the media's angle on birth control has been addressing fiscal issues pertaining to it, rather than social.
Feel free to post any articles or opinions related to this.
I'll start off with elaborating on some of the implications on fiscal scrutinizing of birth control.
Republicans, realizing that they have lost the effectiveness of their moral monopoly on abortion and birth control are now switching to criticizing these from an economic standpoint. Conservatives argue that tax dollars under our National Healthcare act should not be used to fund birth control and abortion, because tax payers should not have to pay for some one else's birth control.
One the face of it, this seems like a very reasonable statement. However, if our goal of implementing national healthcare is to improve the quality of life for citizens, let's recall just how effective granting women access and education of birth control is in reducing poverty. We all know that supplying and educating women about birth control reduces population size and poverty in entire countries.
So if it is a well known fact that educating women and increasing their access to birth control reduces poverty, why aren't Republicans on board with funding? It's because Republicans only care about their own finances as individuals and don't give a shit about poverty, the selfish mentality Republicans have had for decades. Or maybe it's the fact that Republicans will never truly be able to look at birth control from a fiscal standpoint, because of their own beliefs which prohibit the use of it.
There is an official religion thread you guys can post in. This thread's sole purpose is to separate religion from evolution and elaborate on evolution as a science itself.
Most of your "honest" politicians will be found your local government, whether you agree with their standpoints or not.
The autism speaks.
At 1/25/14 01:01 AM, Light wrote:
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.
Radiation exposure is most common within the hospital and home, unless if you work inside a nuclear power plant (even then doses are ok).
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.
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. 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.
You can't die from secondhand smoke I don't know how many analogies I have to make.
What point are you trying to make here? I never heard of anyone going to a doctor over something like that.
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".
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".
It's an immune system response largely predetermined by your genes. Your body reacts in a certain way to prevent an outside substance (which your body perceives as a potential pathogen) from spreading within the body.
Last point I'll make is directed to those opposed to tobacco smoking, but in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Excluding the idea of just how hypocritical this stance is, with the legalization of marijuana we are doomed to repeat history.
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.
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.
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.
At 1/20/14 04:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
I would be fine with a smelly food ban on all non-cafeteria portions of a campus. The cafeteria is a place for food, and therefore the smells of food, both good and bad, are to be expected.
So this is what I'm dealing with, fucking ridiculous. Once again I'm done debating with you on another subject until you seriously adjust your reasoning.
At 1/20/14 03:50 PM, Light wrote:
It's worth taking in to consideration that the levels of carcinogens in secondhand smoke is roughly the same, if not greater, than in firsthand smoke. Given this fact, it should be pretty obvious that secondhand smoke is dangerous. There hasn't been a determined safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
If you're just going to stick with observation, isn't it obvious that the person smoking him/herself filters out most of the carcinogens and other particulates, making secondhand smoke just smoke? You can stick to observations all day, I'll be using the scientific method.
Studies show that people who are exposed to smoke for even a short time in the work place and elsewhere are more likely to die from heart disease and other ailments.
Still not experimentation, merely observation.
Well, it's been shown that the body recovers almost completely from the effects of firsthand tobacco smoke after 10 years of cessation. 20 years after the cessation of smoking would definitely classify your dad as a nonsmoker for logical and empirical reasons because he doesn't smoke(duh) and would be almost biologically indistinguishable from those who've never smoked. I think you're overstating any methodological flaws here.
I'm so glad you made this point, it applies to this entire discussion and it's an important principle of biology itself. The human body can tolerate certain doses of toxins and carcinogens and recover from prior exposure. In the case of secondhand smoke, if it was actually harmful the body is easily able to recover from the amounts it's exposed to on a daily or weekly basis. I.e. small doses require a shorter recovery period, larger doses require a longer recovery period.
Furthermore, you body develops cancer cells every day and your immune system kills them off. When the frequency of cancer development exceeds your body's capacity to find and destroy cancer cells before they replicate uncontrollably, that's when cancer develops. Your body is exposed to carcinogens and toxins within nature and human goods on a daily basis and it has a certain capacity to filter them out and fight infections/mutations/damage. Secondhand smoke isn't even a blip on the radar when compared to the amount of preservatives, radiation, pathogens, and toxins your body regulates on a daily basis.
The fact remains, my dad smoked from his teens until his 30's and his respiratory and circulatory system will never quite be in the condition if he hadn't smoked. There are people included in these secondhand smoke studies (couples for example) who just recently quit smoking and are classified as non smokers.
As if there are no studies on brief exposure to secondhand smoke in these environments. I linked you to the website of the U.S. Surgeon General and it said that even brief exposure is harmful. Our knowledge of secondhand smoke's effects on the body is multifaceted and I'm surprised that someone who's done some research on the subject didn't know that already.
All of these studies are based on observation and data collection not on experimentation. We were able to determine that smoking itself was harmful through experimentation between smokers and nonsmokers. Nonsmokers were the control and the frequency of smoking was the variable. This is not the case for secondhand hand smoke studies, there are no controls. The very fact that I'm debating the effects of secondhand smoke with you should be eye opening.
Which has been shown to increase my chances of developing cancer. The EPA estimates that thousands of people die from car emissions every year. Or are you going to deny that, too?
You proved my point yet again, "estimates", purely observation and data collecting.
Carcinogens aren't mercury. Even the slightest exposure to carcinogens increases one's chances of developing cancer.
Cancer cells develop from cell damage. Mercury causes neurological cell damage, therefore mercury exposure increases the risk of developing brain cancer, that is if you don't die from mercury poisoning first.
This would be a good point if secondhand smoke were completely harmless. But hey, all those medical organizations I mentioned earlier with no vested interest in destroying the tobacco companies are probably wrong.
There's always someone pocketing from lobbying certain legislation. Whether through nicotine pills/patch sales, "smoke free" organization contributions, or simply votes, there is always a group that profits as a result.
Sure. Let's keep the gender equality train choo chooing.
At 1/20/14 01:40 PM, sandordude wrote:At 1/20/14 01:38 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: some people dislike sharing personal information on the internet... of course its usually all stuff thats already there and you don't have to show it really...Yeah, some people think this way.. but I'm talking about those who don't even think about creating an account. Is it because among us there's personalities who don't have this urge to get a lot of attention?
other people don't like the dickheads that use it.
I love attention, but I don't have a facebook or anything else like it. It just doesn't appeal to me. Childish, fake, desperate come to mind.
What would you even know about casual sex wriggle jesus that's disgusting.
At 1/20/14 12:53 AM, Light wrote:
Here's what the U.S. Surgeon General said on the matter::
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Supporting Evidence:
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children. Supporting Evidence:
Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
Frankly, this is sufficient for me to conclude that secondhand smoke is a toxic substance that must be regulated by society for medical reasons. If the U.S. Surgeon General's own report on the dangers of secondhand smoke isn't enough for you, I can cite the opinion of the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Lung Association, or the bazillion other medical organizations that say secondhand smoke is pretty dangerous.
A few points need to be addressed, one apparent bias from case studies, this excerpt was pulled directly from the National Toxicology Program's 12th edition;
Other suggestions of systematic bias have been made concerning the epidemiological information pub- lished on the association of environmental tobacco smoke with can- cer. These include misclassification of smokers as nonsmokers; factors related to lifestyle, diet, and other exposures that may be common to couples living together and that may influence lung-cancer inci- dence; misdiagnosis of cancers that metastasized from other organs to the lung; and the possibility that epidemiological studies examin- ing small populations and showing no effects of environmental to- bacco smoke would not be published (publication bias).
Two, these studies are all based on observation and data collection from households, not experimentation. An example of an experiment would involve gathering volunteers and organize them into various age groups and exposing each of those groups to measured levels of secondhand smoke. Experimentation requires controls while simply observing populations and collecting data has little to no controls, which leads to flawed, indirect, and inconclusive results.
Furthermore, what exactly classifies a nonsmoker? My dad was a social smoker over 20 years ago and hasn't smoked since, if he was involved in a secondhand smoke household case study and contracted lung cancer, he would be labeled as a non-smoker, which is clearly biased.
Finally, lets step back and look at a realistic picture here. All of these studies involve secondhand smoke at the household level with secondhand smoke constantly being inhaled while inside the house. This is an unprecedented level of exposure compared to the majority of us who are labeled as nonsmokers. More realistic exposure experimentation should be equivalent to daily exposure from walking on an inner city sidewalk, waiting in line to order food outside, waiting outside a building, etc.
I don't even know how you can straight-facedly say that being exposed to carcinogens doesn't harm you.
You are exposed to carcinogens and toxins on a daily basis. What matters is the amount you are exposed to, how frequently, and in some cases your body weight. E.g. when you eat a can of tuna you expose yourself to a specific level of mercury. Eating a can of tuna a week is harmless, but eating large amounts of tuna on a daily basis puts a person at risk of neurological damage.
Well, if secondhand smoke weren't harmless, I wouldn't care. But that is sadly not the case.
And even if secondhand smoke were as harmless as, say, marijuana smoke(Not completely harmless, but it hasn't really been shown to cause cancer despite having carcinogens in it. Some scientists speculate that it might have to do with the THC in marijuana), it should still be regulated. Smoke stinks and it's extremely annoying. You don't have a right to annoy people with your smoking habit, regardless of how medically benign it may be.
Oh you already understand the point I made earlier.
Well fuck you have no right to eat your stinky curry near me, regardless of how harmless it actually is it makes my eyes water and its extremely annoying.
At 1/19/14 11:13 PM, Entice wrote:
Usually, there's one killer and the rest of the characters (who may be male) are ordinary people. So it's not a matter of anyone saying "all men are like this".
From my experience it is usually the women who plays the ultimate part in catching, killing, or finding the serial killer, while the men seem helpless or unable to solve the case without a woman's help. That's a point I'll elaborate on later.
My point is, the "civilized men" are only limited to the rare breed of detectives within the show. All other men end up with something to hide, they're creepy, or just behave like complete animals. Meanwhile, whenever the perpetrator ends up being a woman the detectives seem shocked as if a woman wasn't capable of such a crime.
There was no such argument.
Right, then I suggest not using male serial killers to define whatever your point is.
I don't mind being the underdog. I also love bragging to white middle class suburbans that I'm the antichrist, I kill babies, and I'm sneaking in your home to take all your guns away and piss on your bible.
At 1/19/14 11:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The mere existence of female killers, rapists, and so on doesn't change that the majority of them are men.
As for TV, I think they stick to men no to enhance the belief, but precisely because of the belief. A male villain in such a role is both scarier and more believable to the average American viewer (mind you, the bar is VERY low here). In order to reel the most people in, they go with what they think will create the strongest effect. In thrillers it's fear and thrill, and naturally, men can elicit those feelings in an audience better than a woman can. It's not right, but I don't think the end effect of painting men as bad is intentional.
What's the name of that movie where a popular author is kidnapped by a crazy female admirer of his. She "cares" for him in bed while he has a broken leg/back and tortures him on a daily basis. That movie would give anyone the creeps. My point is once against women are just as capable of being violent and cruel.
I'm against the death penalty simply because of the sheer amount death penalty trials cost tax payers.
At 1/19/14 11:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Our scoeity has made numerous determinations that pollutions or other intrusive effects deemed disgusting or disruptive can be halted for that very purpose. I fail to see why it should be treated differently here.
Secondhand smoke may be classified as a pollution only in terms of C02 emissions. Do you know why cigarette smoke "stinks"? It's the same reason why marijuana smoke stinks, it is in the nature of the breed of plant itself.
At 1/19/14 03:31 PM, Light wrote:
So? Your behavior is childish and you need to know that.
That would be fair if my behavior was relevant to the topic at hand.
Well, secondhand smoke is pretty dangerous. The Surgeon General, the EPA, the American Lung Association and pretty much the whole medical science community say that there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. It makes sense, really: If there are carcinogens in the smoke that kill the person who smokes it, those same carcinogens are going to pose a danger to people in the vicinity of the smoker, even though they don't expose themselves to secondhand smoke as often as the smoker exposes him/herself to the smoke in the cigarette. You don't even need empirical data to confirm this. It's just basic logic.
You're going to have to source those two statements. As for it "making sense", it also "made sense" in the past that smoking was good for you, even the indians thought it had medical properties. You know how wrong that turned out. Now once again you think you know better when it comes to secondhand smoke, but actually you are on the verge of a huge misunderstanding.
Few things to sort out, one if cigarette smoke itself was a carcinogen, no questions asked smoking itself would be banned or thoroughly regulated. Two, cigarette smoke is not dangerous is you don't have asthma (that being said dust and "regular" smoke is just as dangerous to an asthma patient). Finally, yes you absolutely need valid scientific research to prove your claim don't be ridiculous. Actually try and find some peer reviewed scientific literature on secondhand smoke directly causing any kind of illness and you'll see the point I'm making here.
Here's a thought, what if secondhand smoke is just smoke?
At 1/19/14 06:37 PM, Entice wrote:
:Aren't these people usually stopped by other men, though?
Not necessarily, what's your point?
Also, serial killers are almost exclusively male, rape and spousal abuse are more common with males (even if you're talking about male victims).
There have been just as notorious women serial killers. Either way, serial killers male or female make up such a small percentage of our population. That being said, you bringing up serial killers as a part of your argument that men are natural born killers is exactly my point,a very small percentage of wicked men are being used to define the gender on the whole. This is what you've learned from watching television shows.
I agree that pedophiles are usually portrayed as males or gay males, which is obviously off.
That's funny, most people wouldn't even consider that women commit and are just as capable of committing pedophilia as men.
