"Um, read what you linked to. They said that the meeting had taken place, now they're saying that it didn't. These statements are mutually exclusive, at least one is a lie. At best, there's a 50/50 chance that the meeting didn't take place based on the information that you have."
That's false. There is no chance the meeting occurred, because it didn't occur. The newspaper never bothered to do its followup research.
"I'm sorry for have scientific illiteracy. I better tell my boss that I can no longer carry out my duties because some random person on the internet is too lazy to read the governments own reports and would attack me instead of the facts."
So you're claiming to be an expert in all the relevant fields who can not only verify your claims, but verify that the supposedly leaked documents aren't fake?
You are not a skeptic. You are an evidence-denying anomaly hunter. There is a difference.
Rather than get lost in the minutiae of details you can twist to make it look like you're right, kindly give us the big picture. Tell us who did it, who planned it, why they did it, and how they've gotten away with it.
"Pleasure from smoking is the primary effect and whatever danger comes from it is accidental."
You're out of your goddamn mind. Nobody starts smoking because they think it's pleasurable. And the danger that comes from it is the primary effect it has on the body.
Since the government has a vested interest in keeping people alive, it makes sense for it to get involved in activities that do nothing but cause harm.
You'll notice I haven't mentioned if I even CARE if people hurt themselves. I just think it's stupid that the government allows it. If unstable people off themselves, all the better for the gene pool.
Only because they're forced by law to do that. Back in the '50s and before, they all used advertisements with quotes from fake doctors talking about how cigarettes were basically good for you.
Putting a warning label on a product that does nothing but kill and injure people is an abdication of responsibility, not an acceptance of it. It doesn't change the fact that the producer is responsible for the product's existence in the first place.
Everyone who has replied to me has failed to notice one basic difference between their examples and alcohol/cigarettes: Alcohol and cigarettes exist to perform a function that SOLELY does damage to the body. There is no other function. Anything beneficial is incidental and caused by things that are there entirely by accident.
So I'm guessing you think sex outside of procreation should be illegal also. The only function it serves is pleasure and it is deadly beyond compare with all the STD's these days. How many have died of AIDS?
Who the hell do you think you are that you should be the judge of what other people do for pleasure? You're a pompous ass is who you are. People like you seem to think the rest of the world should be as miserable and self loathing as yourself.
Argument failed.
Reason for failure: reductio ad absurdium (sex is only deadly if you're an idiot about it, alcohol and cigarettes are NOTHING but harmful) and ad hominem. Have a nice day.
I could argue that the only function of skiing is bodily harm. You're obviously discounting the "fun" and "social" aspects of alcohol and cigarettes, so it's only fair to do the same for skiing. And at that point skiing just looks like an outdoor activity designed to sometimes kill or injure people.
Except, no. That's just ridiculous. Take "fun" and "social" out of skiing and you still have exercise. There is, flat out, no comparison there.
Yes, I think people who choose to poison themselves are taking responsibility for how short a life they have. What, exactly, is your problem? Live you own damn life.
You're trying to tell me the manufacturer has NO responsibility for the deadliness of their product?
There's a reason we have laws regulating things that can be deadly, and that is because we, as a culture, accept that manufacturers can be responsible for deaths caused by their deadly products.
Besides the fact that your counter-argument to what I said is an argument based on the fallacy of reductio ad absurdium, you've conveniently ignored that seeing relatives, skiing, swimming, and eating junk food serve alternative purposes. Drinking and smoking don't.
And don't say "oh, but red wine has beneficial properties!" because that's post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.
Driving is fun.
Skiing is fun.
Alcohol is a whole hell of a lot of fun.
Cigarettes are also fun, just ask a teenager.
Your problem is that freedom and personal responsibility scares you.
Freedom and personal responsibility?
A company makes a product that does nothing but kill people, and you think the people who use it are responsible?
Alcohol and smoking GO ALONG with things that are fun. They are not fun in and of themselves.
Alcohol and cigarettes have no function apart from bodily harm. People who sell these things are selling bodily harm.
Don't be silly. Of course they have functions apart from bodily harm. Nobody drinks to hurt themselves, they drink because it feels good, because it releases inhibitions, because it helps them sleep, whatever. People smoke because it makes them feel better, gives them something to fiddle with, etc.
Yes, people who sell those things are selling bodily harm. So are motorcycle manufacturers, fast food joints, and the company that makes B-1 bombers. Only the last of those items is specifically intended to cause bodily harm.
Fast food feeds people. Motorcycles provide transportation. And you won't see me defending bombers.
The things you said about smoking and drinking are a bit odd. Why should something deadly be OK just because it helps people feel good? People cut themselves because they say it's the only thing that makes them feel good. Should we just let them go on doing it?
Skiing is an athletic activity that can promote good health. It is also entertaining. Smoking and drinking are damaging activities that go along with entertainment. They are not entertainment themselves.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
They don't.
Neither do alcohol companies have anything to do with alcohol related deaths.
Neither do car companies have anything to do with driving related deaths.
Neither do skiing companies have anything to do with skiing deaths.
What is so fucking hard to understand here? Everything has risk, if you choose to engage in an activity then it is your choice and you are responsible.
The fact that you equate skiing and driving with two activities that serve no function apart from destroying the human body is pretty amazing.
Alcohol and cigarettes have no function apart from bodily harm. People who sell these things are selling bodily harm.
Slashdot Mirror
"Um, read what you linked to. They said that the meeting had taken place, now they're saying that it didn't. These statements are mutually exclusive, at least one is a lie. At best, there's a 50/50 chance that the meeting didn't take place based on the information that you have."
That's false. There is no chance the meeting occurred, because it didn't occur. The newspaper never bothered to do its followup research.
Curse you and your government shill doublespeak! Double-darn you! How dare you question the TRUTHERS? They're the TRUTHers after all, not the LIARS!
"I'm sorry for have scientific illiteracy. I better tell my boss that I can no longer carry out my duties because some random person on the internet is too lazy to read the governments own reports and would attack me instead of the facts."
So you're claiming to be an expert in all the relevant fields who can not only verify your claims, but verify that the supposedly leaked documents aren't fake?
Damn, I was about to post that. That guy did an awesome job of digging into the REAL truth, not the Truther truth.
You are not a skeptic. You are an evidence-denying anomaly hunter. There is a difference. Rather than get lost in the minutiae of details you can twist to make it look like you're right, kindly give us the big picture. Tell us who did it, who planned it, why they did it, and how they've gotten away with it.
'People who smoke are not doing "nothing but cause harm", be it to themselves or others.' Name a tangible benefit of smoking.
"Pleasure from smoking is the primary effect and whatever danger comes from it is accidental." You're out of your goddamn mind. Nobody starts smoking because they think it's pleasurable. And the danger that comes from it is the primary effect it has on the body.
Since the government has a vested interest in keeping people alive, it makes sense for it to get involved in activities that do nothing but cause harm.
You'll notice I haven't mentioned if I even CARE if people hurt themselves. I just think it's stupid that the government allows it. If unstable people off themselves, all the better for the gene pool.
Only because they're forced by law to do that. Back in the '50s and before, they all used advertisements with quotes from fake doctors talking about how cigarettes were basically good for you.
Putting a warning label on a product that does nothing but kill and injure people is an abdication of responsibility, not an acceptance of it. It doesn't change the fact that the producer is responsible for the product's existence in the first place.
Everyone who has replied to me has failed to notice one basic difference between their examples and alcohol/cigarettes: Alcohol and cigarettes exist to perform a function that SOLELY does damage to the body. There is no other function. Anything beneficial is incidental and caused by things that are there entirely by accident.
Argument failed. Reason for failure: reductio ad absurdium (sex is only deadly if you're an idiot about it, alcohol and cigarettes are NOTHING but harmful) and ad hominem. Have a nice day.
Except, no. That's just ridiculous. Take "fun" and "social" out of skiing and you still have exercise. There is, flat out, no comparison there.
And?
Do them alone sometime and see how entertaining it is.
You're trying to tell me the manufacturer has NO responsibility for the deadliness of their product? There's a reason we have laws regulating things that can be deadly, and that is because we, as a culture, accept that manufacturers can be responsible for deaths caused by their deadly products.
What, pray tell, does ethyl alcohol do to a human being that is beneficial?
Besides the fact that your counter-argument to what I said is an argument based on the fallacy of reductio ad absurdium, you've conveniently ignored that seeing relatives, skiing, swimming, and eating junk food serve alternative purposes. Drinking and smoking don't.
And don't say "oh, but red wine has beneficial properties!" because that's post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.
I do drink. I'm just not deluded enough to think it does anything but damage brain cells.
Driving is fun. Skiing is fun. Alcohol is a whole hell of a lot of fun. Cigarettes are also fun, just ask a teenager.
Your problem is that freedom and personal responsibility scares you.
Freedom and personal responsibility? A company makes a product that does nothing but kill people, and you think the people who use it are responsible? Alcohol and smoking GO ALONG with things that are fun. They are not fun in and of themselves.
Alcohol and cigarettes have no function apart from bodily harm. People who sell these things are selling bodily harm.
Don't be silly. Of course they have functions apart from bodily harm. Nobody drinks to hurt themselves, they drink because it feels good, because it releases inhibitions, because it helps them sleep, whatever. People smoke because it makes them feel better, gives them something to fiddle with, etc.
Yes, people who sell those things are selling bodily harm. So are motorcycle manufacturers, fast food joints, and the company that makes B-1 bombers. Only the last of those items is specifically intended to cause bodily harm.
Fast food feeds people. Motorcycles provide transportation. And you won't see me defending bombers. The things you said about smoking and drinking are a bit odd. Why should something deadly be OK just because it helps people feel good? People cut themselves because they say it's the only thing that makes them feel good. Should we just let them go on doing it?
The fact that red wine contains some chemicals that can be beneficial is incidental. You could get the same benefits without the alcohol.
Skiing is an athletic activity that can promote good health. It is also entertaining. Smoking and drinking are damaging activities that go along with entertainment. They are not entertainment themselves.
That's pretty close to saying that cigarette companies have nothing to do with smokers dying of cancers and other smoking related illness.
They don't.
Neither do alcohol companies have anything to do with alcohol related deaths.
Neither do car companies have anything to do with driving related deaths.
Neither do skiing companies have anything to do with skiing deaths.
What is so fucking hard to understand here? Everything has risk, if you choose to engage in an activity then it is your choice and you are responsible.
The fact that you equate skiing and driving with two activities that serve no function apart from destroying the human body is pretty amazing.
Alcohol and cigarettes have no function apart from bodily harm. People who sell these things are selling bodily harm.
Misleading headline. They favored him in terms of covering him more, not in terms of supporting him. Also, 1337th comment.
Oh, brother. Score: -5, Obvious Joke