0

How about the one under consideration currently, dubbed the "Fairness Doctrine", which could be viewed as silencing conservative talk radio?

Sorry, either I have forgotten what this is or I do not know.. Would you be so kind as to briefly fill me in> (Without linking to outside sources b/c I want your views specifically)

Science, much like religion, can be abused in ways that will excuse killing vast numbers of people. If there is no skepticism, are you willing to be privy to supporting that potential result?

Science is nothing like religion. When the hell has science been used as an excuse to kill many people? Unlike what you think, the scientific community is not corrupt. There is no reason for all scientists to unite together in order to manipulate scientific data. You seem as if you are one of those very skeptical people.. You don't believe much of what people say, and neither do you trust many people.

0

Science is nothing like religion. When the hell has science been used as an excuse to kill many people? Unlike what you think, the scientific community is not corrupt. There is no reason for all scientists to unite together in order to manipulate scientific data.

The Illuminati

0

Sorry, either I have forgotten what this is or I do not know.. Would you be so kind as to briefly fill me in> (Without linking to outside sources b/c I want your views specifically)

My summary: there was once a law that said if you had 15 minutes of liberal views, then you also need to afford 15 minutes for conservative views. Lieberals want to reinstate this to kill conservative talk radio so that they have better chances of winning elected offices in 2008.

We could move on to campaign finance "reform" it that is more familiar.

When the hell has science been used as an excuse to kill many people?

History was not in your interest, was it?

0

Couldn't help notice such an interesting thread.. :)..
as a smoker I also have a few things to add..

The problem is, children are more likely to smoke if their parents do.

NOT true. My granpa was the only one in my family (ALL his descendants) who smoked. In fact no one else than me even drinks (alcohol; is banned in my birth-state in India).
I believe "those who like it smoke, those who don't, don't".
Quiting it is a different matter. :)

I don't understand the reason to begin smoking.

There are many interesting reasons, apart form peer pressure. Like: Trying to stop a friend from smoking, who said "don't tell me to stop until you know what it means to stop smoking"

because it is a self provoked death... is like suicide...

Medically, it's not. All those gross pictures of mouth/throat cancer, lung x-rays and ulcers etc are actually of those who smoke 20+ cigarettes a day for more than 10-20 years. (Please don't quote an exception, I also have a few who survived inspite of smoking heavily). Most smokers (at least ones I know) smoke 5-10 a day.
(Source: My doctor friend who quit smoking)

Exactly.
It's hard, but think about what a great accomplishment that would be.

It's great alright, I mean really really great, but I doubt any non-smoker would be able to know how great. In any case I'm sure every smoker knows this, and non-smokers should not think they don't. :)

Now something I wanna crib abt as a smoker.
Like many have said it's bad for non-smokers that others smoke in public places, well I for one surely try to avoid this in the first place. But on the other hand, I can't smoke in place inside my office, in fact I have take a lift go down 3 floors to smoke, I can't smoke inside a theater, I can't smoke inside a train (in India, and it's not uncommon to go on a 24-48 hour train journey given the size of India) or on platform. The list goes on and on. If that's not enough government keeps lengthening the list of "no-smoking" places and increasing tax on cigarettes. In past 5 years my brand's price has doubled ! Remember I have not even mentioned places like Hospitals and Schools..
In all other places where we can legally smoke, there are many non-smokers making faces (even though you are like standing in a corner and trying to save them from the smoke).

It's pure and simple discrimination !

The least you can do is allow us to smoke in the smoking areas of a restaurant in peace.

0

Now something I wanna crib abt as a smoker.
Like many have said it's bad for non-smokers that others smoke in public places, well I for one surely try to avoid this in the first place. But on the other hand, I can't smoke in place inside my office, in fact I have take a lift go down 3 floors to smoke, I can't smoke inside a theater, I can't smoke inside a train (in India, and it's not uncommon to go on a 24-48 hour train journey given the size of India) or on platform. The list goes on and on. If that's not enough government keeps lengthening the list of "no-smoking" places and increasing tax on cigarettes. In past 5 years my brand's price has doubled ! Remember I have not even mentioned places like Hospitals and Schools..
In all other places where we can legally smoke, there are many non-smokers making faces (even though you are like standing in a corner and trying to save them from the smoke).

It's pure and simple discrimination !

Discrimination, probably, but more importantly the government is trying to force you to stop smoking. The same thing if happening here in USA. And it is a little interesting that governments would force the closure of legitimate industry and put thousands of people out of work.

0

>Isn't that the nature of science? Present a hypothesis, test it, find flaws, refine it, retest, ...?

OR present a hypothesis, test it, prove it, and hear criticism from Dave Sinkula.

Have you truly proven the hypothesis? Or has it only been 'proven' within a very narrow range of definition? Have you, as Dave's links tried to point out, accounted for all possible variables other than your original test variable? If not, your experimental tests are worthless.

Even if there is some validity in your scientific evidence, it can easily be overshadowed by the junk science surrounding it. Ever hear of something called hormesis? The evidence for it seems to be fairly well defined, even if not widely known. However, it tends to have a bad reputation because when the effect was first discovered, it was used to buttress the blatantly bogus theory of homeopathy. The Junk Science drives out the Good Science.

Give an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

How about the entire deal with the supposed Civil War and the Radical Republican Congress immediately thereafter? The entire point of what happened at that time was to negate the intent of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, even if they weren't able to do so completely. The idea of "State's Rights", contained within those two amendments, has been negated pretty much since the time of President Abraham Lincoln.

And what is up with you and your hate of science? Were you conceived in a petri dish or something, and just despise all of science now? lol.. Science can provide the answer to everything if only we know where to look. Religion provides no answer; only an easy scapegoat- god did it. Science is a contributing factor to your everyday life.. why do you dislike it so? Perhaps you had bad science teachers when you were young.. Enroll at a University or something and take a college level science course

Perhaps he's simply ticked off about how many people take one or two little bits of science information and then spread them around like they suddenly have gained omniscient enlightenment? Or about how they tend to try and force everyone else to agree with them? (Although from what you've said, I suspect you'll claim that it's religion which does that...so which side does that place the "just accept what I'm telling you" scientees?)

Science is nothing like religion. When the hell has science been used as an excuse to kill many people?

Ever hear of the theory of eugenics? Admittedly, it's not valid science, but neither is much of what's being pushed on the public these days.

Unlike what you think, the scientific community is not corrupt. There is no reason for all scientists to unite together in order to manipulate scientific data.

They don't have to be. If the Gatekeepers of the community are, then it doesn't matter whether or not those within are; the results as presented to those not within the community are compromised.

You seem as if you are one of those very skeptical people.. You don't believe much of what people say, and neither do you trust many people.

And is that such a bad thing? I thought one of the original maxims of scientific types was 'verify everything.'

0

>put thousands of people out of work

Better than killing themselves.

>Medically, it's not.

So smoking is not a self-provoked death?

>Remember I have not even mentioned places like Hospitals and Schools

I hope you don't serioudly consider smoking at such places.

>It's pure and simple discrimination !

That's a two way street.

>The least you can do is allow us to smoke in the smoking areas of a restaurant in peace.

You know what? Maybe I like to masturbate. And rather than do that only on private property the least you can do is allow me to do it in a restaurant in peace.

0

>Have you truly proven the hypothesis? Or has it only been 'proven' within a very narrow range of definition? Have you, as Dave's links tried to point out, accounted for all possible variables other than your original test variable? If not, your experimental tests are worthless.


Yes. I have. I don't see how it isn't indisputable that second hand smoke is harmful. I have my proof. If you want to challenge it, then do so, but provide it yourself. Until you can show me that second hand smoke is not harmful I will continue to believe, through these tested experiments, that it is.

0

> Maybe I like to masturbate.
On a serious note, I think you should keep such things out of discussion. There are better way of being sarcastic / putting across your point.

0

Well it is just general curtsy to stub it out while eating, what about asthmatics? No one thinks of the suffering they have to go thorough near smokers. And also why do all the smokers have to smoke in the door way to places?!? I want to get into a store without getting a puff of toxic crap in my face.

0

>The Illuminati

OMGODZ DA VINcI CODE DERREN BROWN IS DA DECIPLE!!!!


*ahem*

>>On a serious note, I think you should keep such things out of discussion. There are better way of being sarcastic / putting across your point.
Why?

0

> Why?
Do you even realize why I had made that statement in my previous post? If no, then you better read the previous posts before asking such obvious questions.

0

Well it is just general curtsy to stub it out while eating, what about asthmatics? No one thinks of the suffering they have to go thorough near smokers. And also why do all the smokers have to smoke in the door way to places?!? I want to get into a store without getting a puff of toxic crap in my face.

Rather liberal uses of "no one" and "all" there don't you think? Some of us "smoking fools" do actually consider those around us and make every effort to keep our smoke away from non-smokers. Keep that in mind before you make ignorant blanket statements about "all smokers". Some of us do actually afford others common courtesy (not curtsy) - even those who most likely do not deserve it.

0

>Do you even realize why I had made that statement in my previous post? If no, then you better read the previous posts before asking such obvious questions.

Maybe the original poster (sk8?) finds smoking on the same "rudeness" level as masturbating. and yes i did read it.

0

> Maybe the original poster (sk8?) finds smoking on the same "rudeness" level as masturbating
More likely a sarcasm gone bad, making the entire post lose its value/intent/purpose...

0

Sheesh, kids nowadays. ;-)

haha.. actually Sanjay, I also thought is was a great analogy. He pretty much compared masturbation to smoking.. And yes, I can see why a topic could easily turn into something sexual; however, he did not mean to provoke anyone into discussing the matter further. It was, in fact, you who continued on the subject ;)

But anyway, back to the point. It is true that the government is appearing to eradicate all forms of smoking.. but it is for the good of the people. Smoking kills according to well-documented scientific research. (It is not difficult to prove. Simply look at the life expectancy of those who smoke compared to those who do not). Currently, most people do not want to inhale other people's smoke and neither do they wish to smoke. Again, there is nothing wrong with smoking.. just do it on your own time (Like you know what, mentioned above :D). I do agree that we should be careful with how the government interacts with our lives. As in 1984, the government first restricts small liberties which virtually do not affect its people. Over time though, these restrictions became fascist until the government was no longer run by the people. Also, I'd like to mention the movie "I, Robot". Hah.. A somewhat interesting and exciting movie. But it brings about a good point. The computer program who tried to take over the entire human race used the logic that humans' worst enemies are themselves.. and it is best to protect humanity from itself. While such logic is truly 'undeniable' it is also inhumane, and against what we as a society want. We should be very careful how the government handles civil situations.. we do not want to end up under complete control of totalitarian rulers.

0

our government gets like 60% of its taxes from alcohol and tabacco so i doubt they would ever have an all out ban. here a small pack of cigarettes is like £5 (£10?)

0

I do agree that we should be careful with how the government interacts with our lives. As in 1984, the government first restricts small liberties which virtually do not affect its people. Over time though, these restrictions became fascist until the government was no longer run by the people. Also, I'd like to mention the movie "I, Robot". Hah.. A somewhat interesting and exciting movie. But it brings about a good point. The computer program who tried to take over the entire human race used the logic that humans' worst enemies are themselves.. and it is best to protect humanity from itself. While such logic is truly 'undeniable' it is also inhumane, and against what we as a society want. We should be very careful how the government handles civil situations.. we do not want to end up under complete control of totalitarian rulers.

From the CIA thread:

personally think the CIA is kick-a$$, and should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want.. So long as America is not attacked I really don't care how the CIA handles their business. I think it would be awesome to work for them.. or the NSA.

Do you not see how these two viewpoints are completely at odds with one another? You can't have it both ways. Choose wisely and keep these things in mind when elections and key legislature votes come up.

Quoting Ben Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

0

our government gets like 60% of its taxes from alcohol and tabacco so i doubt they would ever have an all out ban. here a small pack of cigarettes is like £5 (£10?)

Of course. I don't remember who said it, and I'm probably going to mangle the quote some, but I recall seeing something once along those lines.

"If the government says they're going to tax something to make it rare, you know they're lying. They're making money off of it, so they'll want it to be as common as possible."

0

No, there is a huge difference. I don't think the government should be allowed to restrict freedoms. But, the CIA should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to ensure that we are not attacked by anyone. The difference is this: the government is elected by the people, and could easily become corrupted if we allow them to restrict our freedoms. ON the other hand, the CIA operations are virtually unknown, and thus people do not know what the CIA really is doing (unless they release documents stating what they have done.) The CIA protects the government, and pretty much does as they say.

0

So, an agency that is directly under the control of the government - and no one knows what that agency does - should be able to do whatever they like.

Re-read your post and tell me if that is not exactly what you state.

0

Yea, there is a difference. IF the government takes over, then we will all know it. The government has more power, and can easily restrict its people's liberties. The CIA, on the other hand, is a secret organization. No one knows what they do so no one can be outraged. It would be almost impossible for the CIA to stage a coup.. they cannot abolish all our liberties like the government can.

To put it in a way that you can understand it better: The effects of government decisions are directly related to all citizens, and can easily be traced to the government. The CIA operates under anonymity, and thus, its decisions do not affect us all, and neither can they be traced directly to th CIA.

0

>here a small pack of cigarettes is like £5 (£10?)

£2 something for 10 and £5 for 20 i think, if i remember my days in the newsagents correctly.

0

To put it in a way that you can understand it better: The effects of government decisions are directly related to all citizens, and can easily be traced to the government. The CIA operates under anonymity, and thus, its decisions do not affect us all, and neither can they be traced directly to th CIA.

I understand it perfectly, which is why I am trying to get you to understand the innate conflict of your statements.

0

Rather liberal uses of "no one" and "all" there don't you think? Some of us "smoking fools" do actually consider those around us and make every effort to keep our smoke away from non-smokers. Keep that in mind before you make ignorant blanket statements about "all smokers". Some of us do actually afford others common courtesy (not curtsy) - even those who most likely do not deserve it.

Well i can't spell first off :P
And most smokers are genuine nice people like yourself, who do care for others around them, but a proportion of smokers are just plane idiots who don't give a care in the world, and when they puff the smoke out, it goes right into your face. It's those sort of people that i just want to punch in the face quite honestly! And i'm not violent!

0

I understand it perfectly, which is why I am trying to get you to understand the innate conflict of your statements.

How is it conflicting? No, I just don't care how the cia conducts their business b/c I don't see them as much of a threat as the government itself.

0

The difference is this: the government is elected by the people, and could easily become corrupted if we allow them to restrict our freedoms. ON the other hand, the CIA operations are virtually unknown, and thus people do not know what the CIA really is doing (unless they release documents stating what they have done.)

So you are under the assumption that there is someone who is not corrupt? Money makes the world go round, influence can get you anything, sometimes its cheap, sometimes expensive, you just have to name the right price.

People sell their souls for money, selling their responsibility towards their country won't be that tough...

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.