Are smokers an unrightfully persecuted minority?

[KMRblue1027]

Hell no. Until every smoker feels ashamed to smoke in public areas that they not designated to be in and not blow smoke in my face than for all extensive purposes they are a public nuance and should be jailed. Anyone who openly defies public smoking bans is a despicable horrible human being. I don't care about the economic augment, the irremovable smell that permeates every area they touch makes me ill, I'm not even allergic it's just that nasty.

 

[Core Imposter]

Hell no. Until every smoker feels ashamed to smoke in public areas that they not designated to be in and not blow smoke in my face than for all extensive purposes they are a public nuance and should be jailed. Anyone who openly defies public smoking bans is a despicable horrible human being. I don't care about the economic augment, the irremovable smell that permeates every area they touch makes me ill, I'm not even allergic it's just that nasty.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Edit: Oh right forgot you were a parody account. Oh well this still applies:


Link to video.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm a smoker and that is total BS.

No it is not. Read up smartass.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is why statistics are more important than anecdotes when trying to learn the truth.

 

[Zack]

I'm a smoker and that is total BS.

You're 20 and think that makes you qualified to speak on the long-term effects smoking has had on your life?

 

[Camikaze]

You're 20 and think that makes you qualified to speak on the long-term effects smoking has had on your life?

I don't believe age was cited as the source of civver's claim.

 

[Zack]

I don't believe age was cited as the source of civver's claim.

He refuted one of the LONG-TERM effects of smoking by saying he was a smoker. I pointed out that, since he's 20, he really has no grounds to refute any long-term effects based on personal experience. Plus anecdotal evidence is meaningless, anyways.

 

[Camikaze]

I think civver saying he is a smoker was an attempt to demonstrate that he's not biased against smokers, and yet still believes the claim is BS. That is, the second part of his post is not the product of the supposed persecution this thread is about. I don't think his claim was that smokers are best placed to determine the long-term effects of smoking, and that therefore he is an ultimate authority on the issue. In fact, it'd seem more logical to think smokers are the worst placed, what with their smoking.

 

[Zack]

I think civver saying he is a smoker was an attempt to demonstrate that he's not biased against smokers, and yet still believes the claim is BS. That is, the second part of his post is not the product of the supposed persecution this thread is about. I don't think his claim was that smokers are best placed to determine the long-term effects of smoking, and that therefore he is an ultimate authority on the issue. In fact, it'd seem more logical to think smokers are the worst placed, what with their smoking.

No, looking back at the post, if anything I simply misinterpreted which part of the statement he was responding to, since he didn't specify. Your statement here doesn't really make any sense, in any case, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm trying to make the point that civver didn't cite his age or his smoking as a source, but so as to demonstrate that he's not biased against smokers. You are correct to say that neither his age nor his smoking nor the two in combination grant him the expertise necessary to be an authority on the long-term effects of smoking (or even the short-term effects, such as stimulating the brain). Luckily he didn't claim that those factors did. This makes your question in post #66 seem a little odd; it assumes civver holds a particular view, despite the quoted post not expressing it.

 

[Zack]

He replied to a post citing a long-term affect of smoking and said "as a smoker, that's BS." Please refrain from plain making stuff up to make me look bad.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is a lot of fuss over a statement of so little worth.

 

[Camikaze]

He replied to a post citing a long-term affect of smoking and said "as a smoker, that's BS." Please refrain from plain making stuff up to make me look bad.

The quote you have in post #66 is not "as a smoker, that's BS". It's "I'm a smoker and that is total BS", which is quite different. In the same way that, if responding to a post about e.g. homosexuality being an abomination, there would be a difference between "as a Christian, that's BS" and "I'm a Christian and that is total BS". The former implies that the poster's Christianity makes them an authority to speak about homosexuality, whereas the latter states that the poster thinks it's total BS, and that such an opinion is coming from a Christian point of view. The latter is noting that they're not biased against Christian views, but they nevertheless disagree. If there were a post about brain surgery, a reply which stated "I'm a neurosurgeon and that is total BS" would be an appeal to authority, given it's logical to assume that such a person would be relying on their authority. There is an implied "...and therefore my opinion is that what you are saying is...". But when there is no such connection, when it would beggar belief for someone to say "I am a smoker and am therefore an expert on smoking's long-term effects", it's strange to interpret such a comment as an attempt to point out expertise, as opposed to an attempt to dismiss the possible impression of bias. If civver had stated that "as a smoker, that is BS", then his comment might be more readily interpreted as an attempt to express expertise on the basis of anecdotal evidence (the 'as' word being quite crucial in making such a connection). But he didn't, and nothing in what he said indicates that he believes his age or his smoking grant him expertise on the matter, contrary to the assumption in your question.

This is a lot of fuss over a statement of so little worth.

Yep, but it'd be unfair to see civver incorrectly maligned for such a small statement.

 

[Zack]

Christ dude, whatever. This is so trivial, I'm not reading your dissertation on it.

 

[Camikaze]

So long as you recognise the fault in post #66, fine by me.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Christ dude, whatever. This is so trivial, I'm not reading your dissertation on it.

As a non-smoker, I can tell you obviously mis-interpreted that smoker's comment.

 

[Zack]

As a non-smoker, I can tell you obviously mis-interpreted that smoker's comment.

Yeah, I already said it's possible. He didn't specify which part of the post he disagreed with.

 

[Farm Boy]

... a public nuance and should be jailed. ... I don't care about the economic augment, the irremovable smell that permeates every area they touch makes me ill, I'm not even allergic it's just that nasty.

Whoa there buddy. It takes time for the dirty lower classes to respect the fact the street belongs to their betters.

 

[CavLancer]

I became a smoker in my teens and was thoroughly addicted by my 20s. This was back when smoking was not perceived as being bad for you or the people around you. A lot of people smoked, it was normal. As I got older and the news came out that smoking was killing people I could also feel the detrimental effects in my own body. People started quitting so the cigarette companies started playing with the chemistry to make their product more addictive. I know I was hooked like a fish. Tried multiple times to quit and failed multiple times. Withdrawal changes ones thinking, everything becomes catastrophic. Let me tell you something about smoking. People light up when they are concerned about something or in deep thought. So, if every little thing is blown out of proportion by withdrawal it amplifies the desire to smoke until you do, and then you calm down and the feeling of failure sets in. To me this is why people are in denial, they don't want to think of themselves as weak slaves to their addiction. "I can quit any time." No, you can't.

So, I had to quit apart from the rest of the human race so that nothing could cause me stress. I took time off from doing construction, stayed at home and got the place cleaned up beforehand. Stocked up on aspirin and Tylenol which cut the signals to the brain of every cell in your body freaking out and vitamin C to sooth things. Btw you first have to cut out coffee completely. One cup during this process and its over.

So I went through 2 weeks of hell with days 2-8 being the worst, but I finally quit, do or die. For 5 years. Then I got back with a smoking ex gf and out at a bar had "just one". Maybe 4 years later I quit once more and never made that mistake again. This time around I was helped by the flu which really got into my lungs and for 4 days it was impossible for me to smoke. With 4 days in I stuck with it, do or die. So it is to this day, I'm a recovered smoker. I like to be downwind of someone smoking because to me it smells great. If you are a smoker the things stop tasting good. They do something to the ability to taste and smell. Food doesn't taste like it used to. When you quit these senses revive and cigarettes smell great. They will continue to smell great for me because I'll never smoke again.

I was never delusional, I knew what I was doing and what I had to do. Do or die...