I take apart logical fallacies, not make them. The point about helmets and planes is a direct response to the "we're all gonna die anyway" non-response to the impact of smoking on health.
There is no need for the digital situation this argument always turns into, between attempts to prolong life as long as possible, by seeking out and elminating all risk, and acting completely recklessly.
Speaking of logical fallacies, you have both a Straw Man and a Slippery Slope in there. No one is proposing to "eliminate all risk", and efforts to reduce smoking will no more lead to the state micro-managing your bacon consumption than seat belt laws did.
You mean a single study from a single journal? Even if that turns out to be the case, there's still 186,000 miles between Product X having no benefit and Product Y causing cancer.
report it to your health insurance so you can get your gouging
I see "false equivalence" is a Big Word for some people.
Living in an urban area is also a choice, and it increases your health risks. Long commutes add to health risks.
As much as you "choose" not to marry a supermodel or buy the Yankees. There are real choices in life (smoking), and then there's choice according to Randian cultists, where everyone has unlimited housing and job options.
And if we're going to be pedantic, smoking wont give you crabs or the clap either. It's still a bad comparison for plenty of other reasons.
HPV or genital warts are highly associated with cancer.
There's a vaccine for HPV. There isn't one for lung cancer.
The only way to get HPV or AIDS via sex is to....have sex with someone that already has HPV or AIDS. Cigarettes will give you cancer all by themselves.
You can bring prostitutes into your bedroom every night with every STD known to man, but you wont pass them on to your kids just because you live in the same house. Whereas second hand smoke has long been proven to harm non-smokers as well as smokers.
You can have unprotected sex without fear of infection if you and your partner get tested for STD's. There is no "test" that will let you smoke without risking cancer.
Humans have an inborn desire to fuck. They don't have an inborn desire to smoke cigarettes.
Sex isn't a product (unless you buy one of those Japanese robots, but robots wont give you AIDS) and can't be taxed, as it's something you could go out and start doing with your neighbor 30 seconds after reading this. Cigarettes are a product that are purchased in stores, and that makes them taxable.
The anecdotes were just personal experiences that have molded my outlook on life, not some inviolable end of everyone.
Just like I've been "influenced" by people who have survived being shot in the head vs those who have died from a single punch to the face.
But speaking of inviolable, we are all going to die some day, Whether it be from smoking, a massive heart attack, COPD, or Alzheimer's, or base jumping or in a car wreck. or maybe in our bed at 150 years old, peacefully.
I'm sure there are motorcycle riders who, when asked why they don't wear helmets, point out that people die in plane crashes ever year. Yet a.00005 second glance at statistics would show that to be a mountains-to-molehills comparison of risk. Silly and tedious indeed.
The medical problems older people go through tend to be more expensive to treat than those caused by smoking
That tends to be nonsense on it's face, as dying of cancer is one of the costliest deaths you can have. Hundreds of thousands spent on cancer treatments will buy a lot of years in an assisted living facility for osteoporosis or alzheimers, just much later on in life.
There have been many studies which show both smoking and obesity end up saving money in the long term
Which are the same as the "studies" showing that driving a Hummer is better for the environment than driving a Prius: lying with statistics. That's what it takes to pretend that getting lung cancer at 55 - spending the rest of your life on disability - is better in terms of cost than developing early onset dementia at 70.
Everybody dies. Your death is a sunk cost socially speaking
Hand waving.
Smoking deaths are not more costly, just earlier.
Cancer is one of the costliest deaths you can have. What does smoking bring on again? Hundreds of thousands spent on your surgery/chemo will buy a lot of years in a memory unit for alzheimers....20 years later on in life.
The question is how many years of useless sucking on social security.
Why didn't you say you were a willfully ignorant sociopath to start with? Those people using the benefits they paid for are still buying cars, computers, and day-to-day goods. You know....putting money into the economy while no longer competing with younger workers for jobs.
Be careful of false equivalencies and slippery slope fallacies as well as your anecdotes on parents and in laws. Smoking is a choice. What genes you have is not.
No he wouldn't, because you're equating a literally once in a war occurrence with common aging results.
Because you're ignoring that arguing-by-anecdote is a logical fallacy.
Many people have been shot in the head and suffered no lasting consequences. Yet, others have died after a single punch to the head. Therefore: being shot in the head is no big deal, but boxing should be banned immediately.
Yeah.. then we can ban alcohol. And Big Macs. And soda. Yeah.. that's the ticket.
Yeah....more butthurt false equivalency hand waving. It is possible to eat a Bic Mac every day of your life and otherwise maintain a healthy diet. It is not possible to do the same with a pack of cigarettes.
Funny how making people responsible for their own debt can reduce the impact on society of such costs.
So you want the poor to die in the streets if they can't pay $50,000 for that heart surgery out-of-pocket. Noted.
They are just self-righteous, selfish, useless idiots.
Consider the hit to social programs and public services if all the smokers (10-20% of the population, generally) stopped dying early.
Painfully facile. Smokers use no social programs and social services as they are going through treatment? Because chemo, surgeons and cancer drugs are free?
And if you want a law change to mandate pricing on people's behavior, then it better include
Brace Yourselves: false equivalencies are coming.
include clauses for alcohol consumption, unprotected sex and not praying
A glass of wine a day is healthy for you - cigarettes are not. Unprotected sex might land you with a new set of obligations for the next 20 years, but it's not going to give you cancer in 30. The only comparison there is if you get AIDS, but the infection rates for that are far lower than smoking-induced cancer, so you can put down both the slippery slope and the Randian butthurt.
You completely miss the point sir... the person who caries becomes more polite, not the neighbor.
You misspelled "more aggressive and more likely to imagine threats".
Likewise, the person who commits crime is less inclined to do so because he/she can't tell who carries and who does not.
Because a mugger lets you know in advance that he's going to rob you so you can pull your piece out first? Put your codpiece away man, no one's impressed.
Of 8k for the most part? I mean, ok if it's for VR I get it. But for a TV you'd have to have something the size of an Imax screen to appreciate that resolution in any way whatsoever. Heck even for 4k you need a 100"+ screen to actually care at all.
Because it's easier to maintain quality when post-processing if your shoots and edits take place in a higher resolution, and you downsample to get the final product. 8k edited to 4k is going to look better than 4k to 4k. Same as why movies are shot in 5k or higher when BluRay is "only" 2k.
That depends on the well. A lot of old ones were being opened for fracking not just because of new methods of extraction, but the high price of oil. Now it's just a matter of mathematics: oil costs $X dollars per barrel, and this well here costs $Y per barrel to tap. If Y lt X, they wont do it.
Then you are correct, Sir. Solar thermal is a waste of time at this point...but nuclear power is still the most expensive source built by man when all costs are considered.
Number of nuclear plants under construction around the world: More than 60 Number of large solar thermal plants under construction around the world: 0
Relevance of this comparison: also 0.
You don't need huge plants with solar. Until the advent of Mr. Fusion, nuke power means huge plants. As for cost effectiveness, get back to us when the full cost of insurance, security, maintenance, plant decommission, and storing nuclear waste for thousands of years is rolled into rates charged for nuclear power.
Slashdot Mirror
I take apart logical fallacies, not make them. The point about helmets and planes is a direct response to the "we're all gonna die anyway" non-response to the impact of smoking on health.
Speaking of logical fallacies, you have both a Straw Man and a Slippery Slope in there. No one is proposing to "eliminate all risk", and efforts to reduce smoking will no more lead to the state micro-managing your bacon consumption than seat belt laws did.
You wish. Note the example they chose to use.
It never went anywhere. Argument-by-anecdote is a non-starter.
Nellie is an elephant. Nellie is pink. Therefore, elephants are pink.
Obama is black. Obama is president. Therefore all presidents are black.
John Smith is a Catholic priest. John Smith was a pedophile who molested kids. Therefore, all priests are pedophiles.
Aunt Nellie smoked. Aunt Nellie lived to 80. Therefore, smokers live to 80.
Uncle Jack never smoked. Uncle Jack died from an heart attack at age 52. Therefore, not smoking causes heart attacks.
Or are anecdotes....just anecdotes?
You mean a single study from a single journal? Even if that turns out to be the case, there's still 186,000 miles between Product X having no benefit and Product Y causing cancer.
Too lazy to read? Everything you are hand waving about has already been addressed.
Your prudish ignorance is not my problem.
Lacking a remedial understanding of logical fallacies, are you? Their choice of anecdote to lampoon is an added bonus.
I see "false equivalence" is a Big Word for some people.
As much as you "choose" not to marry a supermodel or buy the Yankees. There are real choices in life (smoking), and then there's choice according to Randian cultists, where everyone has unlimited housing and job options.
And if we're going to be pedantic, smoking wont give you crabs or the clap either. It's still a bad comparison for plenty of other reasons.
There's a vaccine for HPV. There isn't one for lung cancer.
The only way to get HPV or AIDS via sex is to....have sex with someone that already has HPV or AIDS. Cigarettes will give you cancer all by themselves.
You can bring prostitutes into your bedroom every night with every STD known to man, but you wont pass them on to your kids just because you live in the same house. Whereas second hand smoke has long been proven to harm non-smokers as well as smokers.
You can have unprotected sex without fear of infection if you and your partner get tested for STD's. There is no "test" that will let you smoke without risking cancer.
Humans have an inborn desire to fuck. They don't have an inborn desire to smoke cigarettes.
Sex isn't a product (unless you buy one of those Japanese robots, but robots wont give you AIDS) and can't be taxed, as it's something you could go out and start doing with your neighbor 30 seconds after reading this. Cigarettes are a product that are purchased in stores, and that makes them taxable.
So, yeah: false equivalence.
That's the point. Arguing by anecdote is very weak.
Just like I've been "influenced" by people who have survived being shot in the head vs those who have died from a single punch to the face.
I'm sure there are motorcycle riders who, when asked why they don't wear helmets, point out that people die in plane crashes ever year. Yet a .00005 second glance at statistics would show that to be a mountains-to-molehills comparison of risk. Silly and tedious indeed.
That tends to be nonsense on it's face, as dying of cancer is one of the costliest deaths you can have. Hundreds of thousands spent on cancer treatments will buy a lot of years in an assisted living facility for osteoporosis or alzheimers, just much later on in life.
Which are the same as the "studies" showing that driving a Hummer is better for the environment than driving a Prius: lying with statistics. That's what it takes to pretend that getting lung cancer at 55 - spending the rest of your life on disability - is better in terms of cost than developing early onset dementia at 70.
Hand waving.
Cancer is one of the costliest deaths you can have. What does smoking bring on again? Hundreds of thousands spent on your surgery/chemo will buy a lot of years in a memory unit for alzheimers....20 years later on in life.
Why didn't you say you were a willfully ignorant sociopath to start with? Those people using the benefits they paid for are still buying cars, computers, and day-to-day goods. You know....putting money into the economy while no longer competing with younger workers for jobs.
Be careful of false equivalencies and slippery slope fallacies as well as your anecdotes on parents and in laws. Smoking is a choice. What genes you have is not.
Because you're ignoring that arguing-by-anecdote is a logical fallacy.
Many people have been shot in the head and suffered no lasting consequences. Yet, others have died after a single punch to the head. Therefore: being shot in the head is no big deal, but boxing should be banned immediately.
Logical. Fallacy.
It is for your friendly neighborhood fusion center. Just ask Ross Ulbricht.
Yeah....more butthurt false equivalency hand waving. It is possible to eat a Bic Mac every day of your life and otherwise maintain a healthy diet. It is not possible to do the same with a pack of cigarettes.
So you want the poor to die in the streets if they can't pay $50,000 for that heart surgery out-of-pocket. Noted.
Projection: also noted.
Painfully facile. Smokers use no social programs and social services as they are going through treatment? Because chemo, surgeons and cancer drugs are free?
The same sort of "studies" that show that Prius is worse for the environment than a Hummer. Otherwise known as lying with statistics.
Brace Yourselves: false equivalencies are coming.
A glass of wine a day is healthy for you - cigarettes are not. Unprotected sex might land you with a new set of obligations for the next 20 years, but it's not going to give you cancer in 30. The only comparison there is if you get AIDS, but the infection rates for that are far lower than smoking-induced cancer, so you can put down both the slippery slope and the Randian butthurt.
Do you also poo-poo the relevance of parachutes to the health of a skydiver, because Nicholas Alkemade, because anecdotes? If not, why not?
You misspelled "more aggressive and more likely to imagine threats".
Because a mugger lets you know in advance that he's going to rob you so you can pull your piece out first? Put your codpiece away man, no one's impressed.
Because it's easier to maintain quality when post-processing if your shoots and edits take place in a higher resolution, and you downsample to get the final product. 8k edited to 4k is going to look better than 4k to 4k. Same as why movies are shot in 5k or higher when BluRay is "only" 2k.
That depends on the well. A lot of old ones were being opened for fracking not just because of new methods of extraction, but the high price of oil. Now it's just a matter of mathematics: oil costs $X dollars per barrel, and this well here costs $Y per barrel to tap. If Y lt X, they wont do it.
Then you are correct, Sir. Solar thermal is a waste of time at this point...but nuclear power is still the most expensive source built by man when all costs are considered.
Relevance of this comparison: also 0.
You don't need huge plants with solar. Until the advent of Mr. Fusion, nuke power means huge plants. As for cost effectiveness, get back to us when the full cost of insurance, security, maintenance, plant decommission, and storing nuclear waste for thousands of years is rolled into rates charged for nuclear power.
You mean the crazy issues created by Enron, which has been gone for more than a decade?