water is harmful if not taken in moderation
I was going to add that too to the list of harmful things, but i thought it may have been a little too much XD
Then don’t drink any water. Let’s see how that works for you.
Still missing the point i see… Keyword: Moderation.
The amount of water you need to drink to harm yourself is considerably more than the number of cigarettes you need to smoke to harm yourself. You seem unable to grasp the degree of difference in harm. The theory behind meth and cocaine and those other drugs being illegal is that a small amount causes great harm. The claim is then that a larger amount of smoking cigarettes is needed to be harmful than marijuana, but that is shown to be patently false scientifically.
A small amount causes a great harm if you take a small amount every day for a long (how long depends on the substance) period of time (as i said before: i’m talking from experience).
Unless you’re extremely unlucky, a strip of cocaine (assuming we’re talking about quality coke) will NOT kill you. It will burn some neurons, maybe you’ll throw up a bit, but “that’s all”. Drink 5-6 liters of water in 1-2 hours and whoa: you’ll probably die of Water Intoxication.
hahaa
Do you know how many other basic substances fit into this category where too much will poison you and too little will kill you ? Like with everything there is a spectrum of degree. Anything that is essential to the body will poison if not taken in moderation (aside: any vegetable with any nutritional value also contains a cocktail of poisons via evolution that would kill if the dose response was greater, and some common vegetables need to be prepared a certain way or they are deadly: so…banhammer?). Anytihng that is not essential to pure existence will be harmful to some degree, but also helpful if it is percieved t improve quality of life. It should be up to the person to do the cost/benefit analysis.
My point is that there is a spectrum of harm (the mention of water was intended to show that the spectrum includes water and heroin and everything inbetween; did not mean to contrast water with heroin) and the decision of where to draw the line not a simple, objective task. As such, I believe it should be left up to personal responsibility.
Serpent needs to stop taking stupid pills
Fucking nonsense, if your outside in hot weather grafting on the back end of a 12 hour shift you can consume that amount of water no problem, shit you can see it evaporate from your skin as you drink the bastard!
Fuck corporations. Let them pay.
If you get butt hurt so easily stop writing stupid posts responding to me. Of course I’ll point out when you’re wrong if you bring it to my attention.
Man you new posters get butt hurt and catch feelings so easy.
What ever happened to staying on topic, arguing your side, and moving on?
Oh, the internet. That’s what happened.
This thing went all over the place. GMOs, fast food, water intake…
Overall, the argument in defense of the cigarette corporations is personal responsibility, irregardless of the damage cigarettes do to non smokers and the economy at large. The argument against the corporations is that they profited off of addicting people to a deadly product and covered up the scientific data that proved the damage they do.
That’s the core. You pick one side, tell why you believe that way, and accept that if people want to argue in defense of multi billion dollar corporations that lobby and manipulate our congress, it’s their American born right to be right -wing tools. I will almost always, in grey area arguments, fall on the side of the meek, the poor, the minority, the fooled.
A 23 billion dollar award, which will be argued down, is nothing compared to the pain and suffering the tobacco industry has inflicted upon this country. Fuck them.
the ruling has nothing to do with 2ndhand smoke victims, the ruling has nothing to do with a class action lawsuit. And as far as supprpesssing knowledge; my parents quit smoking in the 70s because it was bad for them. People knew this ish son.
And with the govt having so much power and so much money and being such a wasteful behemoth, do you really think that citizens should not be able to argue a case to the govt in favor of services (payed for with their own $$ - aka taxes)? Wouldnt be surprised if all the regulations against cigarette companies are due to lobbying by medical associasins, etc…
You complain about internet arguments devolving into nonsense, then you follow it up with condescension, strawmen, namecalling, and yes even nonsense. Hahaa
Nah man you’ve got it twisted, there’s a difference between getting butt hurt over truths, and getting called out over spewing bullshit.
The Tobacco Industry doesn’t force you to smoke, thus, it doesn’t force pain on anyone. It’s the Country itself (intended as Citizens taking the decision to smoke) that inflicted pain on itself.
Sure, we could argue about passive smoking, but again. It’s not a fault of the Tobacco Industry. It’s a consequence of irresponsible smokers that don’t respect other people.
Sure, we could go up the ladder and play the blame game, but why stop at the Tobacco Industry? The Tobacco Industry exist only because there is Tobacco in the first place. So, the natural course of action would be to sue Mother Nature, don’t you think?
This stupid fucking species.
[details=Spoiler][/details]
Uhhhhh
hmmm
what?
You really should have stopped after the first paragraph, even though you could barely make your argument clear there.
I have no problem with a good discussion of opposing views, but I also have no interest in holding one with a person that doesn’t know how to have one. Especially when that person rambles and ends his post with “Hahaa.” Really? You have all the time you need to come up with at least an interesting personal attack because, you know, it’s the internet and there’s no time limit on posts. So, you list a bunch of words you obviously know little about but you saw someone else use them and they’re bigger than your daily monotonous verbiage…and then you end with “Hahaa.” I’m surprised you managed to erase the “nuff said!” that you so wanted to add at the end.
That’s all well and good, if you addressed it in whatever thread you got butt hurt in. But as far as I can tell, I didn’t respond to you in this thread. That shows you’re butt hurt following me around in multiple threads to whine. That isn’t constructive and that certainly isn’t calling anything out. Your posts in this thread just consist of mindless whining.
That should also tell you how little I think of you. I have absolutely no idea who you are, or what I raped you so badly on that you feel the need to follow me around and whine about me. A few other people do it too, and I at best have a vague idea why they’re so angry. Although the real reason is you’re all butt hurt dumbasses.
There is nobody on this site I’d ever give a shit about enough to follow around and bitch about mindlessly. I’d at least, if I got ass raped so bad it bothered me, try to get that person back with logic and a strong flame, instead of the crap you losers do just tossing one liners in that don’t work up to anything and can’t even be responded to.
I don’t think you dorks get how funny it is to see you crying all over SRK. You really feel better about yourself doing that? You kids need to get laid.
hahaa
perhaps my post was a bit condensed, in it:
I made a point about your comment on 2nd hand smoke (which the outcome did not address)
I made a point about your allusion that this was some kind of victory for victims of cigarette-induced illness (was not a class action lawsuit)
I made a point about your comment on the state of knowledge on cigarettes in the 70s
I made a point about your misrepresentation of the history lobbying has played in this issue up to this point - notably the fact that lobbying, itself, seems to be biggest factor in slowly killing the industry (without lobbying the cigarette industry would probably be just as wild and unregulated as the nutritional supplement industry).
I expressed my choice to not to make a point about your strawman setup/nonsense that arguing for personal responsibility in this case is confirmation that one tows the line for the cigarette industry
I chose not to make a point about your faulty logic/insult that arguing for personal responsibility in the case, which means one tows the line for the cigarette industry, which necessarily makes one a 'right-wing tool’
I chose not to make a point about your self-righteous attitude that your side has the monopoly on fighting the good fight on behalf of the indefensible little people and anyone taking an opposing view is evil/wrong
Instead of addressing my points you chose to indicate that a discussion with me would be beneath you, you attacked my verbiage, you lamented my lack of personal attack, and you alluded to a lack of intelligence on my part.
You are a superstar.
Bullshit.