So apparently, smoking is good for you

Personally I don't smoke, I gave it up a few years ago when I my body said it was time. It was easy to quit. If we go back fifty years, to the present, the hard reality data says everyone who ever smoked did not die of smoking. It also shows that many did die and get sick. This is being objective to hard data. I would prefer science be based on this hindsight, instead of the predicting the future without any accountability.

What is interesting, alchemy used a version of statistics and randomness. To them anything could happen. Their approach differed from modern statistics in that they did not yet have the math to go along with in. But their assumptions and experimental approach was similar. The age of enlightenment was a push to overcome this random view and learn to reason. This is why it was also called the age of reason and not the age of chaos and chance. It would be better for smoking to reach the age of reason.

I would ask questions like how can some people smoke and do fine? Why dwell on the fear that spreads like a mist and then apply it too people who the hard data shows were not part of the doom and gloom?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because there is a clear logical correlation between knowing car maintenance and being old. Hey man, I understand your frustration when we run into mysteries what science can't explain, but being silly isn't the solution.

The bottomline is, science can't explain why so many old people who smoked for 6-7 decades can live up to that age, when others doing the same die much earlier. Now when you can explain that to us, we will sign up the smoking is a slow killer bandwagon... And this isn't just my question, the poster above me also asked:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So this is all just trolling? Fair enough, and we're definitely on the same page about your comedy club: I'd never go to a comedy club that isn't funny.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Smoking is an example of science stereo-typing, where a negative stereo type is applied to all even if it does not apply to all. Even though there are more examples where this does not apply, these examples are dismissed and one can get attacked for pointing this out. It is almost like everyone is being conditioned not to be objective, but to have faith in the Lord of chaos, with objectivity being electro-shocked via peer pressure.

Say we throw dice. Over time, each side of the dice has equal likelihood of showing. That is, unless the dice are loaded so it falls on one or more sides most of the time. In the case of smoking these dice are loaded and fall on certain people with other sides rarely showing. What loads the dice in favor of certain people and to the detriment of others and why is loading the dice or stacking the deck kept under a smoke screen?

Oe answer is liberal social policy uses this tactic and don't wish to the fraud to be seem. For example, according to liberalism, white males are accountable for all the woes of the world, even though many were not even there when the woes appear. The Lord of Chaos controls all the white males even of they don't know it and don't do anything. If you throw these dice enough all sides will show over time. It has nothing to do with loading the dice and the scam calling it random.

 

Not just. It is asking for proving your point. If you say, smoking is bad for you and causes you die younger, you also have to explain the people who smoked for decades and DIDN"T die younger, and actually they lived way longer than average and they way outlived doctors (who said smoking is bad for you).

So any explanation how a 6 decades smoker can live up to 90? You see if every smoker dies under 60, now that is a definite proof. But when you have thousands of Italian very old geezers happily puffing away, you have a problem on your hand....

 

You said it was all tongue in cheek - that means not serious.

Again, you have the burden of proof shoe on the wrong foot, but the answer you seek is in the math of probability.

 

How would I have the burden of proof? YOU are making the claim (that smoking is bad for us). But alright, the proof is dozens of octogenarians happily smoking away and dying at 90. That is proof enough for me that smoking can not be that bad for you...

 

Here is a total bullshit from lung.org:

"Just cutting down on cigarettes, but not quitting entirely, does not reduce mortality risks from tobacco-related diseases."

So in plain English, it doesn't matter if you smoke 3 packs a day or only 2-3 cigarettes, your chances of dying are the same. If it was true, that would mean that smoking causes no harm, because only a harmless habit can have such a huge range without effect on your health...

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/smoking-and-older-adults.html

 

This is real trolling: disingenuous repetition of a silly argument that has already been addressed in the thread, for the sake of inflaming an argument - it can have no other purpose.

 

Of course - as clear as the correlation between smoking and being old. After all, someone who has made it to age 100 can obviously maintain his car safely.

Of course it can.

Simple. Aging is not a deterministic process; it is a chaotic process. There is a huge amount of randomness in someone's age at death. Science gives you statistically valid conclusions; it is foolish to expect statistically valid numbers to be true in every case.

You can drive drunk every day of your life and not get into an accident. That is not proof that drunk driving is safe.
You can roll sixes ten times in a row. That does not mean your eleventh roll will be a six.
You can play Russian roulette five times in a row and not die. That does not mean it is a safe thing to do.
A man can have unprotected sex with as many women as possible, and never get an STD. That does not mean that using a condom is a waste of time.

Let me know if you'd like more examples.

 

But seriously, if smoking is bad for you, how come they made it to 100?

I am listening. How did they made it to 100?

Up to a point. I have never seen 100 year old heroin users. Or very fat people over 80. So there must be something bad about being overweight or abusing heroin. You are basicly saying, we don't know shit about health, some people live long, others die young, good luck with your life....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unfortunatelly that isn't a good scientific answer to me....

 

I understand that a fact that you can't explain away or understand completely makes you feel frustrated so keep reading the thread and you might learn something...

"When biologists research the process of aging, they keep encountering a pesky question that simply won't die, or at least takes its sweet time doing so: How do such hard-living folks seem to live such long lives? Is diet, genetics, or luck at work here? Let's find out, starting on the next page."

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/diet-aging/oldest-people-unhealthy.htm

"Centenarians (people who are 100 years of age or older) like Madame Jeanne Calment, who smoked until she was 100 and died in 1997 at age 122, aren't supposed to live as long and certainly not in good health, as Calment did. ...But a 100-year-old who smokes and is still alive -- healthy and happy, even -- defies science. Why aren't people like Calment riddled with cancer or felled by heart disease? Why aren't they hooked up to all manner of life-support devices and kept alive by the sheer will of their physicians?"

 

Facts are stubborn things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

"Jeanne Louise Calment 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997)[2] was a French supercentenarian who had the longest confirmed human lifespan in history, living to the age of 122 years, 164 days.Her lifespan has been thoroughly documented by scientific study. She was reportedly neither athletic nor fanatical about her health.
Calment smoked from the age of 21 (1896) to 117 (1992),though according to an unspecified source, she smoked no more than two cigarettes per day. Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil, and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end."

And this clearly disproofs what I posted earlier from lung.org. Of course there is a huge difference between smoking 2 packs and 2 cigarettes a day...

 

…..zzzzzzzz……...

 

Same way a driver can make it to a ripe old age by driving drunk every day.

They made it to 100 the same way everyone makes it to 100 - by not dying before then.

Probably because they make up a very small part of the total population.

I have seen a LOT of them! Go to any hospital.

Uh . . . . . no, that's not what I am saying at all. We know a lot about nuclear physics, but still cannot predict when a single unstable isotope will break down.

 

You started the thread, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Beyond that, you're also making a claim counter to the accepted/conventional wisdom. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Since you already acknowledged this is a troll thread and you aren't serious, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are smarter than that and actually do understand that anecdotes are not statistics, no matter how many of them you have. I'll assume you've read and understood the evidence presented and you're just playing a game, while knowing what you are saying is wrong. Frankly, I think that's disrespectful and the forum managers should not allow you to continue trolling, but that's up to them.

 

You are grasping at straws here...

Very bad analogy. A drunk driver still can be a good driver, but smoking should affect your health and mortality no matter how you behave.

bullcrap.We still should see at least a few old heroin addicts and we see NONE.

Bullcrap. Over 80? Obese ones? Not a chance. maybe occasionally 1-2, but lots of them? fat is a bigger killer than smoking... There are literally no obese octogerians...

"According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic."

"The risk of mortality increased with increasing BMI at all ages and for all categories of death. The strongest association between obesity and death from all causes was found among study subjects who had never smoked and had no history of disease, with the highest rates among the heaviest men and women, i.e., those with a BMI of 40+. "

http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm

 

I already provided with the:

1. There are lots of very old smokers. (aka fact)

therefore

2. Smoking can not be that bad for you. (conclusion)

What was so hard to understand? About the trolling issue, I want you guys to prove your point and explain a seeming contradiction. Once you are able to do that, this thread will die...

 

Given that you have ignored the evidence provided and the explanations of why what you provided is invalid (not just didn't respond well - gave no response at all), no, I don't believe you will quit. I believe you intend to keep this troll going until it is forceably shut down.

 

Well said.