All the OP was saying is that there is a comparison to be made between two organizations who deliberately pursued policies of deliberately injuring and even killing people in pursuit of their goals.
Do you really believe what you are writing? The entire cachet of National Socialism brings with it a set of actions, including a very specific ideology. The Tobacco industry and their lawyers are certain what we would include in the subset of bad people. But comparing them in any way to the adherents of one Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist Party is indicative of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
There is a wide gulf between the use of tobacco products and human skin lamps and gas chambers.
It seems odd that one group is notorious and the other are just capitalists and capitalism is some kind of abstract thing that just happens and has no moral context.
No need to overthink it or read more into it than that.
It depends on how much logic you wish to put into it. It is rather obvious that you defend this guy because in fact, you agree with him. I agree to the point that the industry practiced evil. But there are different levels of evil. To my knowledge there are no tobacco industry executives with human skin lamps, and they have no buildings that they put people in and filled the room with hydrogen cyanide. Or performed the other horrors of the National socialists.
Simply invoking the word invokes the whole package.
This is not overthinking, this is an instant reaction, rather visceral in nature - as it is exactly intended to be. And you know that very well That you agree with the tactic seriously diminishes my estimation of you. No need to overthink that either.
Thank you! Your anecdotes really trumped all population-wide statistics.
Funny how we have so many people who cite statistics, but do not cite the statistics.
It's almost like y'all think that as long as you don't smoke, you won't ever die.
The fact of the matter is something is going to kill all of us eventually. That is a probability of 1.
There are many causes of death. Decrease the probability from one cause, say heart attack, and the other causes go up in probability because in the end all of the probabilities have to add up to 1.
So next we have the process of dying. Some processes are rather quick, say heart attacks, some take a little longer, like non-small cell lung cancer. In general, we've decreased the probability of dying from these things in most people. That means that we've increased some dying processes a lot.
Welcome to dementia! While everyone is sort of familiar with the major symptoms of confusion, during the process of deterioration, the brain also loses function in controlling many bodily functions. And is it ever expensive.
Somewhere we have bought into the idea that it costs more to die instantly or over a couple month period, while ignoring the costs of dying over a 10 year period. And somewhere are the elusive statistics that prove that ten years in a nursing home with 24/7 care is less expensive than hospice care and that final ride to the hospital to be declared dead.
When that time comes you may not be coherent enough to realize.
My biggest fear is being incapacitated via a major stroke, boxed in and heroic efforts taken to keep me alive. I do have a very detailed advance directive in place, so that I will at least go fairly quickly in that event.
Meanwhile my mother.. my father... my father in law... my step mother in law.
Meanwhile, my mother in law
We don't have to use anecdotes or personal opinion, we know exactly how much diseases cost society based on the entire population.
Let's stick with evidence based policy rather than what some guy on the Internet thinks huh?
Show me the actual evidence. I've got dozens of you parroting theis evidence, but I want to see a monetary comparison.
Smokers doern't live as long. Morbidly obese people don't live as long. Peopel who live according to whatever teh healthy wisdomis live longer. There has to be raw monetary data, proving incontrovertably your assertion, not just "Neener Neener you are wrong".
All you have to do is show it. I gave what I know, now you should be able to prove me wrong.
How long before this is trolled into oblivion?
How long before people sue Facebook for false positives and violating their privacy?
Well, I won't post on Facebook what I've said here, that when my time draws close, I'm going to choose how and when I shift this mortal coil. I'm anything but suicidal, but have no intention of spending a decade or more in a nursing home, wearing depends and not having much idea of who I am.
This really transcends creepiness, and turned into intrusion.
Meanwhile my mother died at 80 of a massive heart attack, my father at 86 and my father in law at 85, and my step mother in law at 70 of pancreatic cancer. They hardly cost society anything. They did have one thing in common - they smoked cigarettes.
And of course, one anecdote is more important than hundreds of scientific studies.
Well, show me the scientific studies that proves that people who smoke cost society more than those who end up dying in nursing homes who don't smoke.
There must be hundreds of those - just like you say.
My "anecdote" as you dispargingly called it is not me standing in front of a class, giving them the word direct from Gods lips to their ears. It's merely stating my experience, nothing more. That the experience differs from the mantra that claims that smokers cost society and heatlcare so much is interesting at least. This is a sample of 5 people who all had ends just like th erest of us. The most expensive was the one that by every claim, should have been the least expensive. In fact, she cost much much more than all of the others combined.
Take it or leave it. It's quite possible that I've given more evidence than you in the end.
Just like people once believed that smoking was healthy for you, many people believe incorrect things today. So Cites or we'll just assume you are regurgitating doctrine.
Again, the OP isn't actually say they were Nazis or did the same things that Nazis did. He just compared their deliberate planning and the outcome of it to the deliberate planning and outcome of Nazism.
I won't try to defend any more than that, because that's all they said.
So you think that's a good argument tactic? My wife makes the National Socialist parti's organization look amateurish. She's no Nazi.
So I guees you are saying that the Tobacco Industries organization is Nazi level, but not my wifes level.Perhaps she is a better nazi than a nazi. Are you of racial characteristic that would be considered "white"? Nazi's were all white, so you would think it just fine if I said "ANimojo is white, just like a Nazi." Or better yet, Nazi's were know for they discipline and order. So are you going to go into your bosses office and tell him or her that they run their group like a Nazi?
You might try it and report back how that works out for ya. In the meantime I'm not going to tell my wife she's more organized than the Nazis. I know very well should would find that really offensive, especially since she is 100 percent German.
Trying to defend the point that it is acceptable to compare people to Nazis is getting pretty ridiculous. But I'm kind of enjoying your wriggling. And this is so late 1990's in form.
Tolerance is real, I could take a single dose that could kill 100 people and not even feel it at all. Enough to kill 1001 people and I have adequate pain control with few side effects.
Which is horrifying. Any chance of doing a alcohol or phenol block?
I thought his basic point that their actions had resulted in many millions of premature deaths was not an exaggeration. Of course how premature those deaths were is up for debate.
As for "feminazi", the different is that feminists didn't do anything to cause large numbers of deaths.
And the tobacco companies didn't build concentration camps and invade Russia and most of Europe or Bomb England .
If you are going to stand up for that dood calling another group Nazis, you don't get to try to say your group is immune from the moniker being applied to it.
It's pointless, and counterproductive, as it takes people who agree, and assigns them enemy status. I don't stand up for Tobacco lawyers in the least. But I guess it is important that I must accept that they used the same tactics as used in 1930's early 1940's Germany to be acceptable.
Well since we have arrived at this point, let us compare as if this were a completely valid and acceptable comparison. The Tobacco industry through it's lawyers, used the tactic of denial, and the sowing of doubt. This succeeded legally for a while, even though just about everyone else knew it was bullshit.
The Nazis used the tactic of demanding more living space for themselves as a rationale for invading other countries. They also used the time honored tactic of declaring certain groups as "the other" and set about to exterminate "the other". They built places where "the other" were used as slave labor, slowly starved, or simply killed. They invaded Russia and treated Russia's citizen's with shocking brutality. They invaded Poland and systematically killed off many of it's citizens, and invaded France and installed a Vichy government. They also conducted incredibly unethical medical experiments on people, none of which I know were involved with tobacco products.
Now we need to hear the comparison that shows how the Tobacco companies and their lawyers were the equivalent of that.
Your proof of that by turning "Big Tobacco" and "Big Sugar" into Nazi's confirms this.
Maybe I'm out of touch with modern parlance, but I thought that in English simply comparing two things does not imply that they are the same thing. For example, if I say "coffee contains more caffeine than orange juice", I'm trying to imply that coffee/is/ orange juice.
You'll note that he also claimed that they used Nazi tactics.
The real problem is that once you compare the group who killed millions of civilians, who started a World War that for a short while actually decreased the population of the world, and start comparing them at all to anyone else or any other group that doesn't self identify as such, you are messing up your argument pretty badly. That's pretty simple
Tobacco industry lawyers and their tactics, lately adopted by AGW denialists are horrible, and act to spread doubt on things that are in no doubt. I wouldn't shed a tear for any of them who contracted lung cancer and died, or had their house in the Keys washed away. I loath those tactics to the depths of my charred black soul.
But comparing them to that group? Nah, that's stupid. Just make an argument and defend it. I imagine you would feel the same way if someone called you a "feminazi." It's a terrible discussion tactic that only serves to weaken one's point.
Oh shit! I attributed to you something you did not say! A million apologies, and you get a free swipe at me that is well deserved. Again, all apologies for my dumbasshatism.
Know difference between grammar Nazis and regular Nazi's? Grammar Nazis know how to use apostrophes./:=|
You'll have to fiogive me, I'm not as experienced in claiming people are that as you are.
You usually make decent arguments. If you think that comparing other groups tto Nazis that don't identify as such, you have departed from that. Which is kind of sad.
You're conveniently forgetting that both the tobacco cartel and (it seems) the sugar sellers seem to have willfully covered up evidence that their products are harmful.
If I ran a restaurant and served you poison, particularly while claiming the food was perfectly safe and even good for you, would you just say "buyer beware" and go about your business?
I forget nothing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out for yourself the effects of either tobacco or sugar. I had a book from the 1850's that outlines every single effect of tobacco, from emphysema , cancer - they called it "consumption" back in the day, and the cancer of the lips.
A person who way overconsumes sugar also has some pretty obvious physical manifestations.
If you need a court to teach you your medical or science knowledge, you are more part of a problem than a solution. If advertisements guide your health decisions, well, good luck, and remember to not consume fat or consume fat, eat eggs and don't eat eggs. eat a diet of mostly carbs, and eat carbs in moderation.
Meanwhile, I'll just practice moderation in everything I can, no matter what I'm tolkd by those who have a pecuniary interest in me consuming their product.
Weird fact. Salt becomes public enemy number one every so often, and the food warriors react to protect us. Where my father worked, there was a "hot end" where they forged brass products. they got a new Industrial hygenist who was terribly concerned about the outrageous salt intake of those people who didn't know better, and upon finding out that the idiots had actual salt tablet dispensers in the hot end, ordered them removed in order to keep the fools from indulging their unhealthy habit.
Then the hot end workers started fainting because their electrolytes got all screwed up. Hard to imagine an industrial hygenist being that stupid.
I sweat off around ten pounds every hockey game I play. As soon as I'm out of the shower and dressed, I hit the vending machine for a bag of potato chips, then grab a potassium pill from the car on the way home. Otherwise I get nauseous and light headed. Oh, but my salt intake!
Salt, sugar, whatever, look up the data yourself, don't rely on the courts or politics or advertisements for your health info.
I think that is because people dont understand what an opiate actually is.
Opiates (and opioids, to include synthetic drugs) are quite safe and effective pain killers at low dosages.
So what you are saying is that the same safe effective "small dose" is going to be just as effective forever?
Seriously, You are challenged to provide the citation to show that is true. Perhaps I am way off base, but tolerence is real, and I'm awating your data that says that it isn't.
And I'm not a person who hears "opiate" and instantly thinks heroin.
Why those folks are just doing the opposite of you, who hears someone mentioning issues with opiates and instanly thinks they are instantly thinking heroin.
Feel free to provide the data that shows respiratory depression, tolerance and decreased intestinal motility do not exist.
You can safely take enough opiates in a day to kill a theater full of people with little ill effect.
You do realize that this makes no sense at all.
It's also factually incorrect to assert they work in only the short term.
Take it up with these folks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... Depending of course on the person, you can reach your tolerance quickly. Regardless, I reach mine very quickly. Last time I had to take opioids (Broken Ankle) I reached my limit while still in the hospital, to the point where I refused to take any more. I took a lot of crap from the nurses eventually a doctor coming to give me hell because I refused to use that damn machine to self administer. And as soon as I got home, I just took NSAIDS. Sorry, don't care for the nausea and sweats and constipation.
While it's true they don't work for all chronic pain conditions, there are a substantial number of conditions where opioids offer the only prospect of relief.
My whole point is that we need to develop something else that doesn't have the issues. Decreased intestinal motility is a real pain in the ass, and the depression in respiration is a real problem with people at or near their limits, and withdrawal is also an issue. I don't have an issue with the short term euphoria, but that's probably half of what gets people addicted in the first place.
Development of addiction (which is not dependence) is also a medical issue, and in the uncommon case it does develop in a patient, be it by accident or because it's someone predisposed to drugs, is best addressed within the medical system as well. Cutting them off to either painfully detox and live in agony, or turn to black markets, is counterproductive and is responsible for the spike in ODs.
Not certain if you just want to disagree or what. I'm not against effective pain killers. And I'm not at all in favor of how the system is working. I suspect that a lot of people who become addicted turn to the more nasty forms of opioids after being shut off by the medical system. They are either still in pain, or addicted to that euphoric rush.
Something that relieves pain without the side effects is what I'm asking for.
Yeah I know it's fashionable to hate on opiates, but please know what you're talking about instead of repeating what the DEA and its mouthpiece the CDC are saying that runs counter to medical knowledge.
I don't understand why they don't just make cigarette manufacturing illegal.
Prohibition word so well, except when it makes things worse. Imagine the drug traffic from South America to the US. Now imagine Canadians smuggling whiskey or whisky to avoid the argument.
As well, the age of prohibition was teh biggest and best enabler and boost to organized crime ever.
Since the initial settlement in 1998, the biggest drop in smoking occurred in California, where instead of emphasizing health hazards, the state government tried to make smoking look "uncool", comparing it to breathing farts, and pointing out that it can cause impotence. Today, the smoking rate in California is 15%, compared to 30% in Kentucky, and 21% nationally.
Oh, we here in the uncivilized east get those ads as well.
There is a problem. So many of them are what th eboys down at the shop call "Fucking Lies". Some dude dies of Second hand smoke, people getting their limbs amputated because they smoked. Guy has a heart attack at 30 because - you guessed it, he smoked, and the woman with the baby in the incubator because - well you get the picture.
The problems with lying to young people is they grow up and rebel against them.
I started smoking at 13 years old because of rebelling and wanting to "be like an adult". I was up to three packs a day, and ironically, quit cold turkey when I turned 21 and was an adult. If I was a kid these days, those BS commercials would be more likely to make me start smoking, We laugh today at the old movie "Reefer Madness". Yet these BS commercials take their inspiration from it.
Hopefully to eventually be followed up by advertisements by the sugar industry reporting the severe risks to health posed by their product. Honestly, if I had any kind of power at all, Big Tobacco and Big Sugar's leading figures would be defendants in crimes against humanity trials. They've killed more people than the Nazis, and with as much planning and strategy as the Third Reich.
You do know that this puritanical streak demand that if we hunted down and killed every manufacturer seller and user of evil tobacco, we'd just have to find another hate target.
So much more of this is just based on the human color aspect of needing to hate the other. Your proof of that by turning "Big Tobacco" and "Big Sugar" into Nazi's confirms this.
So let's say we eradicate all tobacco, with some manner of engineered virus, made it a capital crime to consume sugar.
Seemingly, prescription opiates, methamphetamines, and cheap, easily available fast food also play right into the hands of the net profit of society.
Hopefully, we'll find something to replace opioids for pain management. Because they really only work for short term use. The tolerance effect kicks in quickly, and next thing you know, you are taking an unhealthy anmount. Not to mention people taking Vicodin end up taking a big dose of Acetominiphen.
But all of my old Hockey injuries are coming back to haunt me, I can only spend so much time in the hot tub spa, and I'm a bit concerned for the future.
Sure, productivity is lost when someone gets lung cancer in the prime of their life. But on the other side of the ledger, we save a fortune on Social Security and Medicare payments when elderly smokers die years earlier. It isn't clear that smoking is a net loss to society.
Exactly. And if a morbidly obese person suffers a massive heart attack and dies in 5 minutes, it saves money as well.
In the age of illusional denial, there are a huge number of people who seem to thing that if we only do X, Y, and Z, and not do A, B, and C, then we'll live forever or at worse, die peacefully in our sleep at the age of 180.
This is why I laugh every time I her how much a smoker cost society. And how little "healthy habit people" cost to society/
Meanwhile my mother died at 80 of a massive heart attack, my father at 86 and my father in law at 85, and my step mother in law at 70 of pancreatic cancer. They hardly cost society anything. They did have one thing in common - they smoked cigarettes.
Meanwhile, my mother in law did everything right. She didn't smoke or drink, exercised regularly, and did it all right. She spent the last ten years in a nursing home, and in the final year of her life at 78, racked up over 600 thousand dollars in medical bills. Overall, for her it cost over a million dollars to die. 10 years of it not knowing who she was.
I suspect a lot of these "Fame!, I'm gonna live forever!" people are in for a nasty shock when they find out that the only thing thay are going to be is the healthiest person in the graveyard.
I'm not particularly fearful of radioactivity, but if I saw reactor building 1 explode in Fukushima, I would not need an order to evacuate, I'd be in the car as soon as I could.
I'm not particularly fearful of radioactivity either. If I saw a reactor building explode, I tape up my windows and stay indoors for a couple days. THEN I'd evacuate, if it looked to require longer term safety than waiting on short-half-life stuff to decay away....
And of another explosion happens every couple of days? What you are doing is deciding the history of the event before it occurs. Make certain you have a lot of water and MRE's or equivalent on hand. As well, some manner of weaponry to guard it and yourself.
His hypothesis is that he can build a rocket that can reach 1500 ft. He has already found one design that won't work.
Yeah, but I mean what is gaining 1500 feet in altitude going to do for him? Is there something he's going to see there that requires his silly rocket to show?
Probably all scientific theories/evidence he doesn't believe in, he labels as "science", and all scientific theories/evidence he does believe in, he labels as "facts"/"formulas".
Strange no one pointed that out until now. Yes, Fluid dynamics is certainly science. All of the aspects of Rocket propulsion are science. Pressure and thrust. If it wasn't science, and if no science was needed, you could fill the rocket cylinder full of rocks, and they would work just as well as his pressurized steam Rocket.
I hope to high heaven he has tested the stability of his whacked out device. You don't just put fins on a cylinder and a seat in it and have it fly. There are stable designs, such as the rockets you see without tail fins, and designs that need some help to remain stable. And there are many that are pretty much unstable. His "rocket" looks more like a rocket plane than a rocket. There is a big difference that he might learn upon attempting to lift off. And his design is very likely unstable for even a rocket plane.
Popcorn, Tequila and beer chasers are advised when we watch this.
Slashdot Mirror
All the OP was saying is that there is a comparison to be made between two organizations who deliberately pursued policies of deliberately injuring and even killing people in pursuit of their goals.
Do you really believe what you are writing? The entire cachet of National Socialism brings with it a set of actions, including a very specific ideology. The Tobacco industry and their lawyers are certain what we would include in the subset of bad people. But comparing them in any way to the adherents of one Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist Party is indicative of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
There is a wide gulf between the use of tobacco products and human skin lamps and gas chambers.
It seems odd that one group is notorious and the other are just capitalists and capitalism is some kind of abstract thing that just happens and has no moral context.
No need to overthink it or read more into it than that.
It depends on how much logic you wish to put into it. It is rather obvious that you defend this guy because in fact, you agree with him. I agree to the point that the industry practiced evil. But there are different levels of evil. To my knowledge there are no tobacco industry executives with human skin lamps, and they have no buildings that they put people in and filled the room with hydrogen cyanide. Or performed the other horrors of the National socialists.
Simply invoking the word invokes the whole package.
This is not overthinking, this is an instant reaction, rather visceral in nature - as it is exactly intended to be. And you know that very well That you agree with the tactic seriously diminishes my estimation of you. No need to overthink that either.
Thank you! Your anecdotes really trumped all population-wide statistics.
Funny how we have so many people who cite statistics, but do not cite the statistics.
It's almost like y'all think that as long as you don't smoke, you won't ever die.
The fact of the matter is something is going to kill all of us eventually. That is a probability of 1.
There are many causes of death. Decrease the probability from one cause, say heart attack, and the other causes go up in probability because in the end all of the probabilities have to add up to 1.
So next we have the process of dying. Some processes are rather quick, say heart attacks, some take a little longer, like non-small cell lung cancer. In general, we've decreased the probability of dying from these things in most people. That means that we've increased some dying processes a lot.
Welcome to dementia! While everyone is sort of familiar with the major symptoms of confusion, during the process of deterioration, the brain also loses function in controlling many bodily functions. And is it ever expensive.
Somewhere we have bought into the idea that it costs more to die instantly or over a couple month period, while ignoring the costs of dying over a 10 year period. And somewhere are the elusive statistics that prove that ten years in a nursing home with 24/7 care is less expensive than hospice care and that final ride to the hospital to be declared dead.
When that time comes you may not be coherent enough to realize.
My biggest fear is being incapacitated via a major stroke, boxed in and heroic efforts taken to keep me alive. I do have a very detailed advance directive in place, so that I will at least go fairly quickly in that event.
Meanwhile my mother.. my father... my father in law... my step mother in law. Meanwhile, my mother in law
We don't have to use anecdotes or personal opinion, we know exactly how much diseases cost society based on the entire population. Let's stick with evidence based policy rather than what some guy on the Internet thinks huh?
Show me the actual evidence. I've got dozens of you parroting theis evidence, but I want to see a monetary comparison.
Smokers doern't live as long. Morbidly obese people don't live as long. Peopel who live according to whatever teh healthy wisdomis live longer. There has to be raw monetary data, proving incontrovertably your assertion, not just "Neener Neener you are wrong".
All you have to do is show it. I gave what I know, now you should be able to prove me wrong.
How long before this is trolled into oblivion? How long before people sue Facebook for false positives and violating their privacy?
Well, I won't post on Facebook what I've said here, that when my time draws close, I'm going to choose how and when I shift this mortal coil. I'm anything but suicidal, but have no intention of spending a decade or more in a nursing home, wearing depends and not having much idea of who I am.
This really transcends creepiness, and turned into intrusion.
Meanwhile my mother died at 80 of a massive heart attack, my father at 86 and my father in law at 85, and my step mother in law at 70 of pancreatic cancer. They hardly cost society anything. They did have one thing in common - they smoked cigarettes.
And of course, one anecdote is more important than hundreds of scientific studies.
Well, show me the scientific studies that proves that people who smoke cost society more than those who end up dying in nursing homes who don't smoke.
There must be hundreds of those - just like you say.
My "anecdote" as you dispargingly called it is not me standing in front of a class, giving them the word direct from Gods lips to their ears. It's merely stating my experience, nothing more. That the experience differs from the mantra that claims that smokers cost society and heatlcare so much is interesting at least. This is a sample of 5 people who all had ends just like th erest of us. The most expensive was the one that by every claim, should have been the least expensive. In fact, she cost much much more than all of the others combined.
Take it or leave it. It's quite possible that I've given more evidence than you in the end.
Just like people once believed that smoking was healthy for you, many people believe incorrect things today. So Cites or we'll just assume you are regurgitating doctrine.
Again, the OP isn't actually say they were Nazis or did the same things that Nazis did. He just compared their deliberate planning and the outcome of it to the deliberate planning and outcome of Nazism.
I won't try to defend any more than that, because that's all they said.
So you think that's a good argument tactic? My wife makes the National Socialist parti's organization look amateurish. She's no Nazi.
So I guees you are saying that the Tobacco Industries organization is Nazi level, but not my wifes level.Perhaps she is a better nazi than a nazi. Are you of racial characteristic that would be considered "white"? Nazi's were all white, so you would think it just fine if I said "ANimojo is white, just like a Nazi." Or better yet, Nazi's were know for they discipline and order. So are you going to go into your bosses office and tell him or her that they run their group like a Nazi?
You might try it and report back how that works out for ya. In the meantime I'm not going to tell my wife she's more organized than the Nazis. I know very well should would find that really offensive, especially since she is 100 percent German.
Trying to defend the point that it is acceptable to compare people to Nazis is getting pretty ridiculous. But I'm kind of enjoying your wriggling. And this is so late 1990's in form.
Tolerance is real, I could take a single dose that could kill 100 people and not even feel it at all. Enough to kill 1001 people and I have adequate pain control with few side effects.
Which is horrifying. Any chance of doing a alcohol or phenol block?
I thought his basic point that their actions had resulted in many millions of premature deaths was not an exaggeration. Of course how premature those deaths were is up for debate.
As for "feminazi", the different is that feminists didn't do anything to cause large numbers of deaths.
And the tobacco companies didn't build concentration camps and invade Russia and most of Europe or Bomb England .
If you are going to stand up for that dood calling another group Nazis, you don't get to try to say your group is immune from the moniker being applied to it.
It's pointless, and counterproductive, as it takes people who agree, and assigns them enemy status. I don't stand up for Tobacco lawyers in the least. But I guess it is important that I must accept that they used the same tactics as used in 1930's early 1940's Germany to be acceptable.
Well since we have arrived at this point, let us compare as if this were a completely valid and acceptable comparison. The Tobacco industry through it's lawyers, used the tactic of denial, and the sowing of doubt. This succeeded legally for a while, even though just about everyone else knew it was bullshit.
The Nazis used the tactic of demanding more living space for themselves as a rationale for invading other countries. They also used the time honored tactic of declaring certain groups as "the other" and set about to exterminate "the other". They built places where "the other" were used as slave labor, slowly starved, or simply killed. They invaded Russia and treated Russia's citizen's with shocking brutality. They invaded Poland and systematically killed off many of it's citizens, and invaded France and installed a Vichy government. They also conducted incredibly unethical medical experiments on people, none of which I know were involved with tobacco products.
Now we need to hear the comparison that shows how the Tobacco companies and their lawyers were the equivalent of that.
Your proof of that by turning "Big Tobacco" and "Big Sugar" into Nazi's confirms this.
Maybe I'm out of touch with modern parlance, but I thought that in English simply comparing two things does not imply that they are the same thing. For example, if I say "coffee contains more caffeine than orange juice", I'm trying to imply that coffee /is/ orange juice.
You'll note that he also claimed that they used Nazi tactics.
The real problem is that once you compare the group who killed millions of civilians, who started a World War that for a short while actually decreased the population of the world, and start comparing them at all to anyone else or any other group that doesn't self identify as such, you are messing up your argument pretty badly. That's pretty simple
Tobacco industry lawyers and their tactics, lately adopted by AGW denialists are horrible, and act to spread doubt on things that are in no doubt. I wouldn't shed a tear for any of them who contracted lung cancer and died, or had their house in the Keys washed away. I loath those tactics to the depths of my charred black soul.
But comparing them to that group? Nah, that's stupid. Just make an argument and defend it. I imagine you would feel the same way if someone called you a "feminazi." It's a terrible discussion tactic that only serves to weaken one's point.
Oh shit! I attributed to you something you did not say! A million apologies, and you get a free swipe at me that is well deserved. Again, all apologies for my dumbasshatism.
Nazi's
Know difference between grammar Nazis and regular Nazi's? Grammar Nazis know how to use apostrophes. /:=|
You'll have to fiogive me, I'm not as experienced in claiming people are that as you are.
You usually make decent arguments. If you think that comparing other groups tto Nazis that don't identify as such, you have departed from that. Which is kind of sad.
You're conveniently forgetting that both the tobacco cartel and (it seems) the sugar sellers seem to have willfully covered up evidence that their products are harmful.
If I ran a restaurant and served you poison, particularly while claiming the food was perfectly safe and even good for you, would you just say "buyer beware" and go about your business?
I forget nothing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out for yourself the effects of either tobacco or sugar. I had a book from the 1850's that outlines every single effect of tobacco, from emphysema , cancer - they called it "consumption" back in the day, and the cancer of the lips.
A person who way overconsumes sugar also has some pretty obvious physical manifestations.
If you need a court to teach you your medical or science knowledge, you are more part of a problem than a solution. If advertisements guide your health decisions, well, good luck, and remember to not consume fat or consume fat, eat eggs and don't eat eggs. eat a diet of mostly carbs, and eat carbs in moderation.
Meanwhile, I'll just practice moderation in everything I can, no matter what I'm tolkd by those who have a pecuniary interest in me consuming their product.
Weird fact. Salt becomes public enemy number one every so often, and the food warriors react to protect us. Where my father worked, there was a "hot end" where they forged brass products. they got a new Industrial hygenist who was terribly concerned about the outrageous salt intake of those people who didn't know better, and upon finding out that the idiots had actual salt tablet dispensers in the hot end, ordered them removed in order to keep the fools from indulging their unhealthy habit.
Then the hot end workers started fainting because their electrolytes got all screwed up. Hard to imagine an industrial hygenist being that stupid.
I sweat off around ten pounds every hockey game I play. As soon as I'm out of the shower and dressed, I hit the vending machine for a bag of potato chips, then grab a potassium pill from the car on the way home. Otherwise I get nauseous and light headed. Oh, but my salt intake!
Salt, sugar, whatever, look up the data yourself, don't rely on the courts or politics or advertisements for your health info.
I think that is because people dont understand what an opiate actually is. Opiates (and opioids, to include synthetic drugs) are quite safe and effective pain killers at low dosages.
So what you are saying is that the same safe effective "small dose" is going to be just as effective forever?
Seriously, You are challenged to provide the citation to show that is true. Perhaps I am way off base, but tolerence is real, and I'm awating your data that says that it isn't.
And I'm not a person who hears "opiate" and instantly thinks heroin.
Why those folks are just doing the opposite of you, who hears someone mentioning issues with opiates and instanly thinks they are instantly thinking heroin.
Feel free to provide the data that shows respiratory depression, tolerance and decreased intestinal motility do not exist.
You can safely take enough opiates in a day to kill a theater full of people with little ill effect.
Please, feel free to elaborate with specifics. I'll grab my popcorn while you try and explain how a theater full of dead people are doing it wrong.
It's also warmer down south than it is in the winter 8^)
You can safely take enough opiates in a day to kill a theater full of people with little ill effect.
You do realize that this makes no sense at all.
It's also factually incorrect to assert they work in only the short term.
Take it up with these folks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... Depending of course on the person, you can reach your tolerance quickly. Regardless, I reach mine very quickly. Last time I had to take opioids (Broken Ankle) I reached my limit while still in the hospital, to the point where I refused to take any more. I took a lot of crap from the nurses eventually a doctor coming to give me hell because I refused to use that damn machine to self administer. And as soon as I got home, I just took NSAIDS. Sorry, don't care for the nausea and sweats and constipation.
While it's true they don't work for all chronic pain conditions, there are a substantial number of conditions where opioids offer the only prospect of relief.
My whole point is that we need to develop something else that doesn't have the issues. Decreased intestinal motility is a real pain in the ass, and the depression in respiration is a real problem with people at or near their limits, and withdrawal is also an issue. I don't have an issue with the short term euphoria, but that's probably half of what gets people addicted in the first place.
Development of addiction (which is not dependence) is also a medical issue, and in the uncommon case it does develop in a patient, be it by accident or because it's someone predisposed to drugs, is best addressed within the medical system as well. Cutting them off to either painfully detox and live in agony, or turn to black markets, is counterproductive and is responsible for the spike in ODs.
Not certain if you just want to disagree or what. I'm not against effective pain killers. And I'm not at all in favor of how the system is working. I suspect that a lot of people who become addicted turn to the more nasty forms of opioids after being shut off by the medical system. They are either still in pain, or addicted to that euphoric rush.
Something that relieves pain without the side effects is what I'm asking for. Yeah I know it's fashionable to hate on opiates, but please know what you're talking about instead of repeating what the DEA and its mouthpiece the CDC are saying that runs counter to medical knowledge.
I don't understand why they don't just make cigarette manufacturing illegal.
Prohibition word so well, except when it makes things worse. Imagine the drug traffic from South America to the US. Now imagine Canadians smuggling whiskey or whisky to avoid the argument.
As well, the age of prohibition was teh biggest and best enabler and boost to organized crime ever.
Since the initial settlement in 1998, the biggest drop in smoking occurred in California, where instead of emphasizing health hazards, the state government tried to make smoking look "uncool", comparing it to breathing farts, and pointing out that it can cause impotence. Today, the smoking rate in California is 15%, compared to 30% in Kentucky, and 21% nationally.
Oh, we here in the uncivilized east get those ads as well.
There is a problem. So many of them are what th eboys down at the shop call "Fucking Lies". Some dude dies of Second hand smoke, people getting their limbs amputated because they smoked. Guy has a heart attack at 30 because - you guessed it, he smoked, and the woman with the baby in the incubator because - well you get the picture.
The problems with lying to young people is they grow up and rebel against them.
I started smoking at 13 years old because of rebelling and wanting to "be like an adult". I was up to three packs a day, and ironically, quit cold turkey when I turned 21 and was an adult. If I was a kid these days, those BS commercials would be more likely to make me start smoking, We laugh today at the old movie "Reefer Madness". Yet these BS commercials take their inspiration from it.
Hopefully to eventually be followed up by advertisements by the sugar industry reporting the severe risks to health posed by their product. Honestly, if I had any kind of power at all, Big Tobacco and Big Sugar's leading figures would be defendants in crimes against humanity trials. They've killed more people than the Nazis, and with as much planning and strategy as the Third Reich.
You do know that this puritanical streak demand that if we hunted down and killed every manufacturer seller and user of evil tobacco, we'd just have to find another hate target.
So much more of this is just based on the human color aspect of needing to hate the other. Your proof of that by turning "Big Tobacco" and "Big Sugar" into Nazi's confirms this.
So let's say we eradicate all tobacco, with some manner of engineered virus, made it a capital crime to consume sugar.
What's next on your list?
Well said.
Seemingly, prescription opiates, methamphetamines, and cheap, easily available fast food also play right into the hands of the net profit of society.
Hopefully, we'll find something to replace opioids for pain management. Because they really only work for short term use. The tolerance effect kicks in quickly, and next thing you know, you are taking an unhealthy anmount. Not to mention people taking Vicodin end up taking a big dose of Acetominiphen.
But all of my old Hockey injuries are coming back to haunt me, I can only spend so much time in the hot tub spa, and I'm a bit concerned for the future.
Sure, productivity is lost when someone gets lung cancer in the prime of their life. But on the other side of the ledger, we save a fortune on Social Security and Medicare payments when elderly smokers die years earlier. It isn't clear that smoking is a net loss to society.
Exactly. And if a morbidly obese person suffers a massive heart attack and dies in 5 minutes, it saves money as well.
In the age of illusional denial, there are a huge number of people who seem to thing that if we only do X, Y, and Z, and not do A, B, and C, then we'll live forever or at worse, die peacefully in our sleep at the age of 180. This is why I laugh every time I her how much a smoker cost society. And how little "healthy habit people" cost to society/
Meanwhile my mother died at 80 of a massive heart attack, my father at 86 and my father in law at 85, and my step mother in law at 70 of pancreatic cancer. They hardly cost society anything. They did have one thing in common - they smoked cigarettes.
Meanwhile, my mother in law did everything right. She didn't smoke or drink, exercised regularly, and did it all right. She spent the last ten years in a nursing home, and in the final year of her life at 78, racked up over 600 thousand dollars in medical bills. Overall, for her it cost over a million dollars to die. 10 years of it not knowing who she was.
I suspect a lot of these "Fame!, I'm gonna live forever!" people are in for a nasty shock when they find out that the only thing thay are going to be is the healthiest person in the graveyard.
I'm not particularly fearful of radioactivity either. If I saw a reactor building explode, I tape up my windows and stay indoors for a couple days. THEN I'd evacuate, if it looked to require longer term safety than waiting on short-half-life stuff to decay away....
And of another explosion happens every couple of days? What you are doing is deciding the history of the event before it occurs. Make certain you have a lot of water and MRE's or equivalent on hand. As well, some manner of weaponry to guard it and yourself.
His hypothesis is that he can build a rocket that can reach 1500 ft. He has already found one design that won't work.
Yeah, but I mean what is gaining 1500 feet in altitude going to do for him? Is there something he's going to see there that requires his silly rocket to show?
Probably all scientific theories/evidence he doesn't believe in, he labels as "science", and all scientific theories/evidence he does believe in, he labels as "facts"/"formulas".
Strange no one pointed that out until now. Yes, Fluid dynamics is certainly science. All of the aspects of Rocket propulsion are science. Pressure and thrust. If it wasn't science, and if no science was needed, you could fill the rocket cylinder full of rocks, and they would work just as well as his pressurized steam Rocket.
I hope to high heaven he has tested the stability of his whacked out device. You don't just put fins on a cylinder and a seat in it and have it fly. There are stable designs, such as the rockets you see without tail fins, and designs that need some help to remain stable. And there are many that are pretty much unstable. His "rocket" looks more like a rocket plane than a rocket. There is a big difference that he might learn upon attempting to lift off. And his design is very likely unstable for even a rocket plane.
Popcorn, Tequila and beer chasers are advised when we watch this.
" If the math is there, and you want it, Bankrupt the business first, then buy it."
Well, this explains why the video game industry is such a mess. They keep buying the devs BEFORE bankrupting them.
Just a modification of the American credo of "Buy High, Sell Low!"