Why have people been so successful with spreading the "smoking is bad for you/diseased lung" junk-science meme? How did people fall for it so easily? I don't smoke but the fear surrounding it is ridiculous. It's like global warming. How can it be stopped?
This link proves a lying intent behind the surgeon general and other anti-smokers who were trying to draft laws and anti-smoking strategies during the time.
Because science is subject to funding and democracy. The more people agree with something, the more it becomes accepted as the undeniable truth. Just like climate change or whatever stupid theories they had in the past.
Noah Taylor
Anti-smoking isn't even a theory though. They were wrong from the very beginning and people still believed them. The studies were clearly garbage and no one with credibility would even bother supporting it.
Jordan Stewart
>one guy's op eds somehow discounts decades research Just because anti-smoking uses hyperbole in its arguments does not mean smoking isn't bad for your health.
You two reek are /pol/ bleedover.
Austin Carter
Oh look its another one of these threads where OP tries to rationalize self destructive behavior
Gavin Russell
>decades of research
Look around, the WHO, EPA, CDC, and other sources of info have all been debunked as well. The research that started modern anti-smoking in the west is based on faulty science and dumb surveys. The links even point it out.
Though since you've made up your mind regarding this ideological issue I know of wont bother going through any of the links I posted in this post or the OP, so I can safely call you an ignorant idiot regarding this matter.
>/pol/
1.) Poisoning the well 2.) Roughly half of /pol/ is filled with national socialists who hate smoking. So no.
Of course Veeky Forums picks facts over feelings, except for when it comes to smoking and global warming/climate change.
Caleb Russell
for fuck's sake can a thread go more than a few minutes without /pol/ accusations flying around. Disregarding the total idiocy of the OP, his visible same-fagging all those various forum posts and desperate attempts to validate his own conspiracy theories, it's getting quite old to see so many posters point to a /pol/ boogeyman the second someone shitposts.
This shit isn't even racist, it's just retarded. Don't turn this into another drop in the ocean of /pol/-centered threads.
Nathan Jones
I realize this is a troll, but there are between hundred to thousands of papers on the effects of smoking on different pathologies, many of them of excellent quality. OP counters with one RESPONSE to a paper on passive smoking by a "self-employed" scientist with no medical or scientific training. This is like taking all the principles of EBM, and turning them upside down. It's clear that OP himself is a troll, but it is sad to realize how many people may actually buy this crap and engage in what is possibly the most verified self-destructive behavior we currently know of.
Connor King
Why don't you cite studies to prove your point instead of opinion pieces.
Zachary Allen
why cite studies when I can lead you to academic havens such as smokers.tripod.com
Nice bit of nostalgia from that site design, though.
Brandon Hill
>but there are between hundred to thousands of papers on the effects of smoking on different pathologies, many of them of excellent quality
Are you trying to suggest that having a majority is more important than the science itself? There's a majority of global warming reports too, it's too bad most of the major findings regarding that subject have been shit.
He also has credentials. Too bad you didn't bother to look.
>He has a B.Sc.(Hons.) from the University of Western Australia. From 1967 to 1970 he was a Ph.D. student in physiology at Monash University. Dr Johnstone has published widely on neurophysiology and public health.
And it's clear that he points out the flaws in several highly important studies to the field of smoking related research, and breaks them down effectively, pointing out why they're so fucking bad.
>most verified self-destructive behavior we currently know of.
Well damn, at least I know what side you're on. Do you only believe in wind energy and refuse to use fossil fuels too?
Joseph Morales
>"It is bad for you to literally inhale aerosolized tar into your body" >How did people fall for it so easily?
Yeah shit man I don't know either that hypothesis sounds wack.
Caleb Collins
I take it you've never seen a smoker's lungs open.
Liam Evans
>majority is more important than the science itself?
Since at least the ancient Greeks, concensus was important in reaching conclusions. Right now concensus says smoking is bad for your health. It's certainly possible that concensus could change, but not based on what you've supplied.
Zachary Sanchez
How do you know the "disgusting" appearance of a smoker's lung is actually related to the causes of poor health? It could just be a coincidence, don't trust feelings alone when it comes to science.
Thomas Nguyen
Sure.
I unfortunately cannot post every link due to formatting and spam, but this link:
Has many discussions regarding studies and incompetence on the part of the researchers trying to desperately find a tobacco-disease link. Ctrl+f "albie" and go to the second result. There's eighteen different discussions on studies related to smoking and what they prove. If you really aren't interested in going through all of the links then I'll try and greentext the results and see if that works.
Basically anti-smokers are shit.
Jack Powell
Statistics
It is coincidental to a very high degree.
Kayden Ward
>It could just be a coincidence,
Owen Reed
>using coincidences when dealing with science
Elijah Brown
Science is the quantification of consistent circumstantial coincidences if you consider probability and the method itself allows for chance.
Isaiah Parker
>for fuck's sake can a thread go more than a few minutes without /pol/ accusations flying around. We're the two smartest boards on the 4chins, there's bound to be cross-talk.
Jackson King
>Nice bit of nostalgia from that site design, though. Nice pop-up ad too. How many Veeky Forums-fags have to load that site for OP to eat dinner tonight?
Adrian Barnes
It's interesting you mention global warming. I actually got a detention in school for expressing doubt over the orthodox global warming theory. Had to write an essay recanting my views. Reeks of the same modes of thought responsible for Christian persecution of heretics to be honest.
Matthew Ramirez
>/pol/ >Smart
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
let me guess, you think you're "red-pilled" on a lot of things.
Wyatt Ross
i think pol is dumb too but you sound like a faggot desu
Michael Bailey
Was this a private school?
I'd have taken legal action in the public school system.
Hudson Peterson
>find idiotic conpiracy theory on internet >believe without question >because no education >becaue no critical thinking skills >because it gives you a vehicle to pretend to yourself that it's really everyone who's retarded, not you >spend rest of life in denial, refusing to accept reality because the consequence of that would be also accepting that all this time you've been telling everyone you've got it all figured out, you've just been making a complete fool of yourself
Parker Turner
While it may be possible that the consensus on climate change (back in my day we just called it global warming until idiots insisted that a few places getting cooler negated the concept) could be exaggerated, it's a process we've well understood for a century. Claiming it's not happening at all or not man-made is tin foil level of truthers and moon landing hoaxers.
Alexander Williams
This. I managed to get my conspiro-whackjob at work to stop in my presence when I said, "Wow, it sure must be nice to have that feeling od being in on a secret that the rest of us haven't realized the truth of."*
*Not an exact quote. This was a few years ago.
Ryder Harris
>Claiming it's not happening at all or not man-made is tin foil level of truthers and moon landing hoaxers. Be that as it may, disagreeing with obvious truths got me a detention where I had to recant my opinions via essay precisely zero other times, and I did it more than once just for the lulz. One has to find this at least mildly suspicious.
>Was this a private school? It was, although funnily enough despite it being a generally Anglican school I never got in trouble for disagreeing with their religious views.
Chase Watson
>let me guess, you think you're "red-pilled" on a lot of things. Mostly just shitposting, but it's not THAT wrong. Your main objection should have been Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums probably should be listed ahead of /pol/. But don't assume people who disagree with you are dumb just because they disagree with you.
FYI, I spend most of my time on Veeky Forums, and /n/. /b/ and /g/ get some of my time too.
