nany state based on morals

Siuin

IM0 wrote: »

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

How am I trying to put words in your mouth? You said in your OP;

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

I said: It's not as simple as "my money, I'll do what I want with it." Your actions have consequences on wider society and therefore it is fitting that these actions are monitored within reason.

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

and ok now were getting somewhere, the problem is most modern life is based on statistics, the problem is not so much what the statistics say, but more the for example lets use smoking, people of die of lung cancer smokers and non smokers alike, but please tell me you can see the difference between dying while doing something [smoking for during life] and dying, but then looking retrospectively at a life and saying they smoked, and putting 2 and 2 together and getting 46 until someone debunks what has been said, and suddenly a new truth comes to light that actually they were wrong.

That would be better appreciated in the Conspiracy Theories Forum, mainly because like most conspiracy theories is is utter rubbish.

IM0

WileyCoyote wrote: »

That would be better appreciated in the Conspiracy Theories Forum, mainly because like most conspiracy theories is is utter rubbish.

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

there is a very simple experiment to prove it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

You're either nuts or you should live under a bridge and eat goats!:D
Paradigm me arse!

mikemac1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Insufficent to meet the cost of alcohol/tobaccco related illnesses, fact.

Aren't you constantly asking other posters for links and references and evidence for their posts and now you add fact after your own.


Yes there are hospital costs.
There are also people dieing younger so no paying out pensions for decades.

Lou.m

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Doctors do not claim you cannot get cancer of the lungs by other means. They say that smoking is a leading cause of cancer of the lungs.

Causation has been established legally and scientifically. They understand that the carcinogens cause a mutation in the cells in your lungs.

No one ever claimed it was the sole cause it is the LEADING CAUSE of cancer .

It is not merely a correlation it is a causation relationship between smoking and cancer (and many other diseases too).

If you choose to smoke you have to face up to the consequences...you can't just hide in the warm fuzziness of make believe.

Death and Taxes

mikemac1 wrote: »

Aren't you constantly asking other posters for links and references and evidence for their posts and now you add fact after your own.


Yes there are hospital costs.
There are also people dieing younger so no paying out pensions for decades.

You are disputing the fact?
If you want links ask for links like a good little boy:p

IM0

Lou.m wrote: »

Doctors do not claim you cannot get cancer of the lungs by other means. They say that smoking is a leading cause of cancer of the lungs.

Causation has been established legally and scientifically. They understand that the carcinogens cause a mutation in the cells in your lungs.

No one ever claimed it was the sole cause it is the LEADING CAUSE of cancer .

It is not merely a correlation it is a causation relationship between smoking and cancer (and many other diseases too).

If you choose to smoke you have to face up to the consequences...you can't just hide in the warm fuzziness of make believe.

as oppose to the warm fuzziness youre hiding in of unfounded notions, something is unfounded untill it is proven to be 100% and no statistic will ever say that something causes something because the truth is alot of assumptions have been made to arrive at the data they arrived at.

Pherekydes

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Maybe the truth is somewhere between those two ridiculous extremes?

Lou.m

IM0 wrote: »

no science works on the notion of paradime, its all right up untill someone later somes along and proves otherwise

that is a FACT, and there is no getting away from it, the most truthfull science is physics, its very hard to argue with something that in many ways doesnt exist, have emotions, ect. but there is no two ways about it, the laws of physics are the cornerstone of the universe and anything that was ever created.

there is a very simple experiment to prove it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

Science is that which can be falsified. It does not use paradigms as it rarely uses words. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation. The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.
This is rudimentary explanation , I am only a lay person.

Also the theory that science occurs in revolutions ( a theory remains until another opposing one more fitting to the current needs arises) is based on 'science' and methods from hundred of years ago.Science does not really occur in revolutions any longer it has not for a long time You are not distinguishing an untested unproven theory and a proven theory.

Modern science is a much steadier progression. Also you are using the concept of a theory or the idea of a scientist interchangeably with what has been proven. Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causational relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy). This causation was established between smoking and cancer. You could possibly say that it is possible that a few smokers who had lung cancer got it from another root cause but that does not negate the statement that smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer. An the odds are that smoker got cancer from smoking.

The theory of relativity.....was accepted because it was thought to be the best theory at the time...it is not a proven fact. No scientist claims it is. The


Science does not really occur in revolutions any longer it has not for a long time.
When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses. In addition to testing hypotheses, scientists may also generate a model based on observed phenomena.

But again if you are going to attack science you have to distinguish between proven and unproven hypothesis and theory and proven and unproven models.
Otherwise you are attacking something that science does not clam to have proven in the first place.


It is sad though we see with research into the human genome and with the discovery of the Higgs Bosson that science and scientists have progressed so far beyond the minds and intelligence of the ordinary layperson that comprehension is difficult and people's imagination paranoia, suspicion and arrogance takes over.

e it, take yourself to the top of something high in the air, and walk off it [cartoon style] so that when you finish moving you come to a very sudden stop at the bottom of the fall. and the impact you experience is measured at 50g

I am no expert but I always thought G-force was a unit of measurement of any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass" The g-force acceleration acts as a multiplier of weight-like forces for every unit of an object's mass, and (save for certainelectromagnetic force influences) is the cause of an object's acceleration in relation to free-fall.

This acceleration experienced by an object is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces acting on an object free to move. The accelerations that are not produced by gravity are termed proper accelerations, and it is only these that are measured in g-force units.

Also I imagine in you scenario the acceleration would depend on the distance travelled.
More fascinating stuff here
http://www.hazardcontrol.com/factsheets/pdfs/falling-objects-calculations.pdf

Boombastic

Why do people think they have to dictate to others what they should and shouldn't do?

Power mad control freaks??

Lou.m

IM0 wrote: »

as oppose to the warm fuzziness youre hiding in of unfounded notions, something is unfounded untill it is proven to be 100% and no statistic will ever say that something causes something because the truth is alot of assumptions have been made to arrive at the data they arrived at.

Read my above post. It is a founded fact. Your arrogance is astounding. Thousands of brilliant minds working for years , thousands of legal minds working for years to construct a case all to get the damned truth printed on the side of a paper packet to save your ignorant ass so you don't die horribly!
It has been proven. These are not assumptions but hypothesis.....which they proved one by one to make up a theory which they could again prove to make up a proven model.

Scientists are not using statistics. That was not what they used to understand the the fact that carcinogens in cigarettes cause mutations in human cells that result in cancer.

The fact that smoking is a leading cause of cancer is based of proven hypothesis making up a proven theory which makes a proven model.

If you don't want to have a high risk of wheeling a canister of oxygen around stop smoking.

If you want to debate that risk...I'll take that bet!

Irish Guitarist

I'd like to see smoking banned. I couldn't care less if people want to give themselves lung cancer or other diseases but I'm sick of seeing hundreds of cigarette butts on every street I walk down.

P_1

An ideal scenario would have JS Mill's harm principle in action in society. It's a wonderful theory, the only problem is that it's a rare theory that survives interaction with the human race

RayM

I'd like to see a Europe-wide ban on the manufacture, sale and supply of tobacco products, with massive penalties for those caught attempting to smuggle them. I know some people would whine about the "nany state" (sic) taking away their "right" to ingest the highly carcinogenic chemicals to which they are addicted, but shouldn't the families of smokers have rights too? Like the right not to have to watch someone they love fading away as a result of a smoking-related illness.

Dwork

Can I book a place in the queue to give them a kick, in the sack.

P_1

RayM wrote: »

I'd like to see a Europe-wide ban on the manufacture, sale and supply of tobacco products, with massive penalties for those caught attempting to smuggle them. I know some people would whine about the "nany state" (sic) taking away their "right" to ingest the highly carcinogenic chemicals to which they are addicted, but shouldn't the families of smokers have rights too? Like the right not to have to watch someone they love fading away as a result of a smoking-related illness.

What about individual liberty?

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

What about individual liberty?

What specific liberty are we talking about here? When did smoking become a matter of individual liberty? People smoke because they're addicted, and because giving up is incredibly difficult. The "freedom" argument is bullshit. If anything, the freedom of the smoker is being hampered by their addiction.

P_1

RayM wrote: »

What specific liberty are we talking about here? When did smoking become a matter of individual liberty? People smoke because they're addicted, and because giving up is incredibly difficult. The "freedom" argument is bullsh[COLOR="Black"]i[/COLOR]t. If anything, the freedom of the smoker is being hampered by their addiction.

People have the liberty to make their own choices in life for better or worse and nobody should have the right to tell people what choices they should and should not make

Nonoperational

Lol at this thread.

Who's "nany" anyway?

This is the first google result https://twitter.com/NanyMTV .... I'd get in the sack with her...

Death and Taxes

P_1 wrote: »

People have the liberty to make their own choices in life for better or worse and nobody should have the right to tell people what choices they should and should not make

No, the liberty of the individual surely must be tempered by the public good.

somefeen

IM0 wrote: »

ah the language of the the new religion. statistics!!

all hail statistics!!

you have a 50% chance of everything in life, stuff will or wont happen
regardless of what statistics will have you believe

No, that's binomial probability.

It only works in cases with two possible outcomes e.g. flipping a coin where the probability of either heads or tails is equal to 0.5.

We know smoking contributes to cancer risk because a statistically significant amount of smokers get cancer.
In this case the probability of the numbers of smokers who get cancer being a coincidence is <0.005.

You're the one who dragged statistics into this

P_1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

No, the liberty of the individual surely must be tempered by the public good.

Well yes that's where the harm principle comes into things

somefeen

RayM wrote: »

I'd like to see a Europe-wide ban on the manufacture, sale and supply of tobacco products, with massive penalties for those caught attempting to smuggle them. I know some people would whine about the "nany state" (sic) taking away their "right" to ingest the highly carcinogenic chemicals to which they are addicted, but shouldn't the families of smokers have rights too? Like the right not to have to watch someone they love fading away as a result of a smoking-related illness.

If you did that no one would bother smoking.
Its actually a really **** drug and it wouldn't be worth the risk of prosecution to get it.
Thats all they have to do, ban it and no one will start smoking fags, because why smoke tobacco when you could smoke weed with the same legal consequences?

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

People have the liberty to make their own choices in life for better or worse and nobody should have the right to tell people what choices they should and should not make

You've missed my point completely. Smoking isn't a choice. It's an addiction.

bedrock#1

RayM wrote: »

You've missed my point completely. Smoking isn't a choice. It's an addiction.

Is it not a question of logic? How can you be addicted to something before you do it?? The initial choice to smoke is exactly that - a choice.

RayM

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Is it not a question of logic? How can you be addicted to something before you do it?? The initial choice to smoke is exactly that - a choice.

And one usually made by people who are legally too young to make such a choice.

P_1

RayM wrote: »

You've missed my point completely. Smoking isn't a choice. It's an addiction.

For some it is. For others its an enjoyable past time

P_1

RayM wrote: »

And one usually made by people who are legally too young to make such a choice.

Again, by some not by all. Why punish the majority for the actions of the minority?

bedrock#1

RayM wrote: »

And one usually made by people who are legally too young to make such a choice.

What about the people you aren't? What about parental responsibility? Also, the attribution of 'responsibility' to children is not a fixed idea. 'Doli incapax' varies wildly around the world. It used to be 7 here, now 12. How can we say that on the one hand children aren't capable of knowing right from wrong yet claim they are capable of knowing right from wrong?

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

For some it is. For others its an enjoyable past time

I've yet to encounter a regular smoker for whom it is merely an enjoyable pastime. It's disingenuous to suggest that otherwise intelligent people would partake in such a dangerous habit simply because they find it pleasurable and not because they're satisfying a severe craving.

P_1 wrote: »

Again, by some not by all. Why punish the majority for the actions of the minority?

The average age for starting smoking in Ireland is 16.4 years. And while we're talking about punishment, it seems quite unfair to punish someone (via a serious addiction, serious long-term health problems and then a high risk of a lingering, painful death) for a decision taken when they were very young.

bedrock#1 wrote: »

How can we say that on the one hand children aren't capable of knowing right from wrong yet claim they are capable of knowing right from wrong?

The decision to start smoking is a life-changing (and usually life-shortening) one. Can you really trust someone to make an informed decision about something so profound when they're only a teenager, and the consequences of their actions are probably a few decades away? Teenagers are idiots. I mean, I bought a Coldplay album when I was 18. Would it be fair if that decision was to follow me through the rest of my life?

P_1

RayM wrote: »

I've yet to encounter a regular smoker for whom it is merely an enjoyable pastime. It's disingenuous to suggest that otherwise intelligent people would partake in such a dangerous habit simply because they find it pleasurable and not because they're satisfying a severe craving.

I'm sure you'll find a nice intelligent group of people over here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=609

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

I'm sure you'll find a nice intelligent group of people over here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=609

...none of whom are addicted to cigarettes. They all smoke because they enjoy it...

P_1

RayM wrote: »

...none of whom are addicted to cigarettes. They all smoke because they enjoy it...

But weren't you just after making the point that people can't enjoy smoking without getting addicted to it?

Does. Not. Compute.

RayM

P_1 wrote: »

But weren't you just after making the point that people can't enjoy smoking without getting addicted to it?

Does. Not. Compute.

I'm going to be really kind here and assume that you're just sarcastically failing to recognise my sarcasm.

P_1

RayM wrote: »

I'm going to be really kind here and assume that you're just sarcastically failing to recognise my sarcasm.

Sarcasm doesn't tend to come across very clearly in the written form of the English language so I'm going to be kind and assume that you have your argument and I have mine and there's little point in going around in circles arguing the same points over and over.

Czarcasm

RayM wrote: »

I've yet to encounter a regular smoker for whom it is merely an enjoyable pastime. It's disingenuous to suggest that otherwise intelligent people would partake in such a dangerous habit simply because they find it pleasurable and not because they're satisfying a severe craving.

Hi Ray.

P_1 wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn't tend to come across very clearly in the written form of the English language so I'm going to be kind and assume that you have your argument and I have mine and there's little point in going around in circles arguing the same points over and over.

Tell me about it.

JupiterKid

It seems to me that Ireland is a society that in just a few short decades has gone from being unduly influenced by a stifling religious moralistic near theocracy to being a nanny state without the libertarian period in between that most modern societies have experienced. There are plenty of people out there who can't seem to be able to allow others to make decisions for themselves.

I would really prefer if the busybody self appointed so called "moral guardians" who lobby to dictate policy minded their own business.