Could the world be smoke free by 2040? Campaign to ban tobacco to save 1B lives

a reply to: greencmp

That is an opinion presented as a fact and I would say is indoctrination. Telling you that smoking is bad for you is a fact and is indisputable.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

What would it take for you to be at peace with allowing other people to live their lives unmolested?

Some amount of money? I think not.

Therefore, you will not be satisfied until other people fall into line with what you think is acceptable behavior.

I believe this is at the core of social engineering, a precursor to fully realized socialism and non-criminal behavior modification.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I rest my case. Clearly you know how others should live their lives better than they do.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I rest my case. Clearly you know how others should live their lives better than they do.

No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Indoctrination is presenting an unfounded assumption or opinion as fact (America is number 1, God is real, the government does no wrong, republicans are the best political party). Education is presenting facts to the students and letting them do what they want with them (algebra, cell theory, physics, etc). Smoking is dangerous for you health IS a fact. This has been proven with countless scientific studies. You can't argue this. Telling someone that smoking is bad for their health isn't indoctrinating them.

For instance, telling someone that eating fast food is unhealthy for you is also education. That is a true statement. You may not LIKE that statement and want to continue eating the fast food, but that is on you. You've been warned of the dangers and proceed at your own peril.

I hope this helps illuminate to you the difference between true indoctrination and education. My friend, don't fear education just because it may tell you something that you don't want to hear.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My argument is supported by the whole history of humanity on this planet and is philosophically as well as quantifiably defensible as a result.

Your argument is conjecture and emotional busy-bodyism and is not supported by evidence.

a reply to: dawnstar

I used to live in Rochester back in the 60's - 70's. I remember well all the stink from the Kodak factories. It was a boom town back then but apparently gone down the tubes since with an exodus of people leaving. My brother still lives there and has a shop off University ave. I've heard even the Lilac festival isn't safe anymore.
Back on topic it was filthy air everywhere. People smoking only made it worse indoors and I hated the smell as a kid.

I don't miss the mountains of brown ice and endless cold at all.
Virginia suits me fine.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My argument is supported by the whole history of humanity on this planet and is philosophically as well as quantifiably defensible as a result.

Your argument is conjecture and emotional busy-bodyism and is not supported by evidence.

Uh... No... My argument is based in science.

Ok, let me give you an example of two arguments. One is educational and the other is indoctrinational.

Educational: Smoking is bad for your health.
Indoctrinational: Smoking is evil and a scourge on the planet. If you start smoking you are a bad person.

The first statement is short and limited to the facts. The second statement is biased and doesn't present any facts. Please learn the difference, because you are making yourself look foolish.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Governments will kill you if you award them the power and the authority to do so.

Fussbudgets, meddlers and busybodies will drive you to suicide unless their resources remain finite and voluntarily donated for the purpose.

Are you challenging the factual nature of these statements?

a reply to: greencmp

Those are opinions. Your first one is probably true and I'd be willing to say is educational (you and I could probably produce tons of evidence of governments with unrestricted power mistreating their citizens). Your second one is just straight up opinion and not educational.

My only problem with the first statement is that it is a fact presented as an opinion. I think that has to do with the certainty you used in the statement. The reality of the situation isn't a certainty though. There ARE examples of governments with unrestricted power that haven't abused their citizenry. If you presented as such: "Governments with too much power have a tendency to mistreat their citizens". This drops the certainty from your statement, while keeping the idea that it is likely to happen given to much power. This presents the statement in as much factual light as possible making it educational instead of bland anti-government propaganda/indoctrination.

originally posted by: dawnstar
Are you sure I pollute more than you??

That's not the point.
Undeniable fact : You as a smoker polluted more than if you didn't smoke.

Case closed.

a reply to: theMediator

Have you ever had a fire in your fireplace?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

-Lord Acton

What is your point?

a reply to: greencmp

My point is that I'm trying to show you the difference between indoctrination/opinion/propaganda and actual education. You CAN actually educate people about things without blindly indoctrinating them into leftist causes you know?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not just leftist, if I ran an anti-government propaganda campaign, you would accept it as 'education'?

Be honest with yourself.

If I actively prevented that point of view from being taught in public school, would I still be an 'educator'?

Please define the word 'education' as both a noun and a verb for posterity.

I am eager to hear your definition.

Smoking has declined in the last decade or two. This will be more pronounced as the next generation grows up with e-ciggs, and other ways of getting that upper effect. It simply doesn't make sense anymore. It's been not so cool for a while as well. I don't think much else needs to be done. If we continue along the same trend line, only the most dense will choose to take on smoking within a generation. Let the old lungs die out, and the more vibrant will choose something that makes more sense.

tobacco is a not a mind altering drug. Though highly addictive it has its medical purposes such as loosening up flem.
native americans used it cerimonialy. Its a persons right to use any substance, but not all substances are beneficial in its organic state to the body. Leave a persons right to try something or enjoy an vice alone. There are alternatives to smoking ciggarrettes such as gum/patches/electronic cigs. America is supposed to be a free market-democratic republic. Not a fascist empire run by law or medical conglomerates. Lets get back on track.

a reply to: sanitizedinfo

Thank you for the straight forward statement of truth which seems lost on most around here.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: theMediator

Have you ever had a fire in your fireplace?

I don't have a firepalce, I don't have a car, I don't fart FFS.

Stop your worthless excuses, if you we're exactly the same and didn't smoke;
You
Would
Pollute
Less

a reply to: theMediator

I believe you.

Those countries that tax tobacco, like the British, to fund their health service, will either not ban it, or ban it, and give its citizens even more tax demands to pay for the British health service, the Brits pay 43 percent of their incomes in tax now!!(well, the ordinary guy/lady in the street).