INTENSITY²
Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Peter on April 16, 2006, 05:01:27 AM
-
Postperson gives bullshit excuse for smoking
I smoke because I don't want a long life. My maternal grandmother had dementia in her eighties and I just don't want to get that old. ugh, I can't imagine how horrible it is to be 90something. I have no children so I can go with a shorter life.
Peter calls bullshit on Postperson's rationale
That sounds like a pretty terrible bull-shit rationalisation for smoking. I cringe whenever I hear the "I don't want to spend 20 years being old, arthritic and senile" argument, since smoking will just bring that on all the sooner, so instead of having dementia from age 70-90, you'll have it from 60-75, the last 5 of which will be spent in a wheelchair because your legs were amputated and with a tube in your trachea. That's a fairly extreme outcome, and you might live to a happy old age with nothing more major than a spot of smoker's cough, but then you might never get dementia either, and could be as bright as a button until you're 100, then die of a stroke in your sleep. If smoking doesn't kill you though, it'll make dementia a lot more likely as it hardens and corrodes the blood vessels in your brain and accelerates neuron death.
Postperson ignores the content of Peter's rebuttal and attempts misdirecton through "If you have a poison too, there's nothing wrong with mine".
SInce everyone HAS a 'poison' of their own, even though they think they don't, I think you can only ask 'wowsers' like Peter Mac: What is your poison and will it kill you?
Peter falls for misdirection and explains that his life has a fairly minimal level of 'poisons'.
My life is as poison-free as I can reasonably make it. My diet is excellent, I'm fit, I don't smoke, my alcohol consumption is very moderate, I'm risk-averse and there's really not much more I can do to boost my chances of a long, healthy life with a graceful decline as I age. About the only thing I could do would be to lower my calorie intake, which is quite high, since that can significantly slow the ageing process, but I prefer to retain my muscle mass and physical capabilities; burning a little brighter, even if it means dying a little sooner. To see accelerated aging as a postive effect in itself is something rather strange to me. Why not live healthily until you're 60 and jump off a building if you're so afraid of getting old, or at the first signs of dementia?
<Drinks green tea with cloves from his giraffe mug.>
Postperson accuses Peter of ignorance about his poisons.
Peter, you just don't know what your poison is yet, or you are unable to see it.
Peter attempts to explain that not everyone has to have a poison in the sense of smoking.
Everyone has to die from something, but not everything will shorten your life, and there's no universal requirement for people to have 'a poison'; especially not one that they're pre-ordained to die from.
Postperson asserts that everyone does indeed have a poison and that Peter is in denial.
No it's not a univeral requirement, it's a universal phenomenon. like denial.
Peter challenges Postperson's assertion of denial, provides a rebuttal to her argument that smoking will save her from dementia and shows the weakness of her poison argument.
I can play psychologist too, if you'd like. Denial isn't a universal phenomenon; it's a feature of the human mind. Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) is another feature of the human mind, and I believe that you're currently in a dissonant state over your smoking habit. On one side, you have your enjoyment of smoking and your current justification for the continuation of smoking, and on the other side is the alternate analysis I've put forth, which if you accepted as true, would supplant your old justifcation for smoking and force you to either give up smoking or accept it as a harmful activity.
Since this would be a major change for you, you're challenging my position in order to protect your current belief that smoking will save you from dementia, and thus resolve your dissonance. If you can't challenge it to your satisfaction, you'll then have the options of living with the discomfort of a dissonant state, denial, accepting it and incorporating it into your beliefs, or creating a third, more acceptable position as a compromise.
Your argument that everyone has a poison is flimsy at best. We live in a toxic soup of oxygen and radiation that slowly kills us, but adding cigarrette smoke to the mix certainly doesn't help, so the sum total of all my poisions is likely a lot less harmful than the sum total of all your poisons, and your argument that it'll save you from dementia just plain flies in the face of the evidence.
http://www.wisegeek.com/is-there-a-link-between-alzheimers-disease-and-smoking.htm
In 1998, a prospective study from Erasmus Medical School in the Netherlands, showed that smokers were twice as likely as those who never smoked to develop dementia associated with Alzheimer's Disease. All of the participants started out without symptoms of dementia, and were tested two years later to determine their mental acuity. This study also considered the "gene-environment" factors. It looked separately at people who carried the apolipoprotein E-4 gene that indicates they are more likely to develop Alzheimer's in their lifetime. Surprisingly, these carriers who smoked were not more likely than non-carriers to get dementia.
The same Medical Center published another study in 2004, showing that year to year, the rate of mental decline was significantly worse among those who smoked. In fact, they could even measure a difference between individuals who had smoked in the past, but since quit, and those who had not smoked their entire adult lives. The study was much larger than previous studies, involving almost 10,000 people over 65 years old. There is also increasing evidence that Alzheimer's Disease, as a neurological disorder, might also be considered a vascular disease. There are numerous, indisputable studies that prove smoking is detrimental to vascular health.
One complication in these studies is the tendency of smokers to die earlier than non-smokers from stroke, cancer, or heart disease. Thus, the studies are skewed toward those relatively healthy smokers that have not suffered serious health problems. Also, these studies rely on people's own reporting about their smoking habits, rather than collecting independent verification. Lastly, it has been shown that nicotine, when injected and not inhaled, can improve mental faculties, such as memory recall, of Alzheimer's patients. Certainly, further studies are needed to fully understand the causal relationship between Alzheimer's Disease and smoking.
Comment from Calloway criticising Postperson's dementia argument
No it's not a univeral requirement, it's a universal phenomenon. like denial.
You are obviously an expert on the subject of denial if you use the stupid reason that you want to die young so you don't get dementia as your rationale for smoking.
My grandmother smoked for as long as I can remember and guess what? She started becoming obviously affected by Alzheimers Dementia at the age of 60. She died at 68 in a nursing home, where she had to go live after falling and breaking her hip. Her family was able to care for her at home until then. If you really are so terrified of developing dementia, please stop smoking and stockpile some potassium cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide) instead. There is plenty of time for you to kill yourself more quickly and relatively painlessly after the onset of dementia and smoking only makes the dementia you fear more likely for you.
By the way, if you think lung cancer is a better way to die, then you are an idiot. My other grandmother died of lung cancer.
Postperson accuses Peter and Calloway of being puritanical curtain-twitching grannies
If you don't like me just say so Mulloway, no need to hide it behind a debate.
I can't believe what a bunch of curtain-twitching grannies some of you young people are. I have heard of the term new puritanism. Spare me the finger wagging, It's like a missionary zeal and about as appealing.
Peter explains that the criticisims aren't based on any moral judgement about smoking, but on the inconsistency and denialism of Postperson's position.
This isn't about morals; I have absolutely no objection to you smoking, but when I see a bullshit argument, it's in my nature to challenge it. If I believed that running accross the road without looking was going to save me from broken legs, would it be a moral judgement of my activity if you pointed out that, actually, it increases my chance of broken legs? Would you not feel compelled to make such an observation, even if you had no moral objection to my activity?
Postperson attempts again to dodge rational argument by claiming to be persecuted for a second time, employs a misdirecting rant about the religosity of science, and claims that her physical body is unimportant.
I do find the phenomenon of anti-smoking hysteria intriguing though, partly because it affects me personally, and partly because there is so much bogus moralising that goes with it, which in itself says a lot about social trends and the state of the world.
I guess it's evidence of the huge shift away from faith based moral judgement to science based moral judgement. I totally reject any science based claims to tell me what is morally good or bad, as though they were a priesthood, or as though I shared their values, or believe in them. Science is a tool, that is all, it does not dictate to me whether I am a good person or not. That's why I use terms like missionary zeal and new puritanism, I've always believed that science is a pseudo-religion with it's own priesthoods and it's own fanatical believers. It's interesting to see it played out though. I suppose I am a heretic against the holy sacred science scriptures. shrug.
Also as a christian, my own sense of cleanliness or purity or health is not based on the physical body. I don't seek physical perfection, I'm far more interested in spiritual perfection. I could be as healthy and as scientifically pure as any science worshipper, but I don't have faith in science. I don't believe it will save me or get me to a better world.
====================================================
Postperson, the only consistent thing about your argument is your avoidance of rational discourse. Every challenge has been met with misdirection, faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and claims of being the victim of persecution. I'm challenging you to defend your position that smoking will protect you from dementia. I'm not judging you on your choice to smoke, but I am accusing you of using a faulty dementia argument as a cover for your true reasons for smoking, and of employing underhand debating tricks to wriggle out from confronting that truth.
-
euww I been called!
Just because Bland is too busy, I dunno, I feel like second choice here.
Well, your a very wordy guy pete and I'll have a look at your world of words stuff a bit later.
-
I don't really know what you're on about Pete, a lot of people found you laughable in that thread, I know I wasn't the only one.
So...exactly what is it you want to take me on over? I don't think it's clear to me or anyone else.
"Postperson, the only consistent thing about your argument is your avoidance of rational discourse."
Your opinion only, not fact.
"Every challenge has been met with misdirection, faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and claims of being the victim of persecution."
Must've struck a nerve with you somewhere.
"I'm challenging you to defend your position that smoking will protect you from dementia."
I don't feel that it will. That is not what I said, it's what you inferred. I said that I find it preferable to die from smoking related illness to dementia, not that it would prevent it. duh.
" I'm not judging you on your choice to smoke,"
not much.
"but I am accusing you of using a faulty dementia argument as a cover for your true reasons for smoking"
gosh, what are they?
"and of employing underhand debating tricks to wriggle out from confronting that truth."
UNDERHAND DEBATING TRICKS? gosh that's awful, I'm sure everyone is shocked by that assertion. I know I am.
THIS WHOLE FAKE FIGHT IS AN UNDERHAND DEBATING TRICK.
I think you're wasting everyone's time here. There is no 'fight' here, there's selective quotes from a thread in which you came out of it looking like a loser and you want to cry about it here.
I don't think this is any kind of 'fight' it's a whinge.
-
I don't really know what you're on about Pete, a lot of people found you laughable in that thread, I know I wasn't the only one.
So...exactly what is it you want to take me on over? I don't think it's clear to me or anyone else.
I'm challenging you to defend your position that smoking will protect you from dementia. I'm not judging you on your choice to smoke, but I am accusing you of using a faulty dementia argument as a cover for your true reasons for smoking, and of employing underhand debating tricks to wriggle out from confronting that truth.
Seems clear to me.
"Postperson, the only consistent thing about your argument is your avoidance of rational discourse."
Your opinion only, not fact.
Would you care to show how my opinion is flawed? Unless you refute my opinion, other people may agree with it and adopt it as their own.
"Every challenge has been met with misdirection, faulty logic, ad hominem attacks and claims of being the victim of persecution."
Must've struck a nerve with you somewhere.
Yes, you struck a nerve. My mother has a problem with selective cognition; if something is inconvenient, she simply fails to understand or remember it. Case in point: My uncle gave her his cacti collection to take care of, but since she didn't want to fill up the window shelves with them, she convinced herself that putting them on a table in the coldest, wettest, darkest spot in the garden would be ok (she simply avoided thinking of it as the coldest,wettest, darkest spot in the garden). Surpise surprise, they all died. She does that sort of thing a lot, and it really pisses me off to see her or anyone else ignore key facts simply because they're inconvenient or uncomfortable. It's just a thing I have.
I don't seek to stop you from smoking; I seek to make you understand your reasons for smoking.
"I'm challenging you to defend your position that smoking will protect you from dementia."
I don't feel that it will. That is not what I said, it's what you inferred. I said that I find it preferable to die from smoking related illness to dementia, not that it would prevent it. duh.
Your argument is that smoking will make you more likely to die before you get dementia, but this is not supported in the studies I cited. Smoking increases your risk of dementia despite lowering your life expectancy. This argument was also thoroughly refuted by Calloway when she suggested that suicide upon recieving a dementia diagnosis would be a more sensible approach if avoidance of dementia was truly your goal.
" I'm not judging you on your choice to smoke,"
not much.
"but I am accusing you of using a faulty dementia argument as a cover for your true reasons for smoking"
gosh, what are they?
Addiction, habit and simply liking it.
"and of employing underhand debating tricks to wriggle out from confronting that truth."
UNDERHAND DEBATING TRICKS? gosh that's awful, I'm sure everyone is shocked by that assertion. I know I am.
THIS WHOLE FAKE FIGHT IS AN UNDERHAND DEBATING TRICK.
I doubt the irony of your comment will escape the observers, but for yourself and the observers who've not yet had their morning caffeine, your response to my challenge that you've used underhand debating tricks has been to mock me, feign shock and denounce my whole challenge as a fake. Are you going to qualify why you think it's a fake, or should I just assume it's another crude attempt at misdirection?
I think you're wasting everyone's time here. There is no 'fight' here, there's selective quotes from a thread in which you came out of it looking like a loser and you want to cry about it here.
I don't think this is any kind of 'fight' it's a whinge.
I only removed what I felt was superfluous to the debate, but if you think I missed something important, please post it here. It's up to you to find the damning evidence to hang me with, and if this is really a meritless whinge on my part, a rebuttal should be fairly easy for you to produce.
-
I produced a 'rebuttal'. I have nothing further to add.
As I understand it people vote who won/lost. It's up to them.
-
Very well then. The voting system hasn't really been sorted out yet, so I'm going to create a poll for the thread. To prevent any accusations of cheating, I'll vote for myself and you can vote for yourself. Anything after that will be from the other members. Is this ok with you?
-
Sure, yeah. I thought if it was up to the Peanut Gallery to comment and/or vote, so have a go, even if it just clarifies the process. Should voting should be public (ie named, not anonymous)? I think the role of the Peanut Gallery is to point out any flaws/weaknesses in the debate for clarification.
Some 'fights' aren't going to attact much interest, I suspect this is one of them.
-
It's done. My understanding was that polls were meant to be added to the debate threads once the debate itself had finished, and that other members could also post in them afterwards.
-
ok worth doing just to see how/if it works. Have other debates had the poll added or not? I don't recall.
-
The other debates have been unsatisfactoraly resolved; a lot are joke call-outs or degenerated into garbage, and in my thread with peegai, he forfeited, thus no polls. This is the first debate that was a proper one-on-one fight with a start, middle and ending.
-
I don't think I would call it a 'proper debate' at all.
-
That's debatable. ;)
It was rather brief, but you were the one who called an end to it. You could have put up more of a fight if you'd wanted too.
-
I put up my fight in the original thread. I see this as superfluous and a 'whine'.
-
Polls close one week after the debate is ended, correct? (ie April 24 in this case)
-
Sounds about right, though I couldn't find anything about it when I made the poll. I'll lock it on the 24th.
-
Sounds about right, though I couldn't find anything about it when I made the poll. I'll lock it on the 24th.
When you make a poll there is an option for how many days you want the poll to run
-
Voting locked at 6:6.
-
Do You want Me to cast vote as President?
-
Didn't your term end last week Kevv?
I think you need to campaign for reelection
-
Nobody has told Me when the term ends yet though that is a good question?
-
Perhaps McJ can answer that question - I can't remember when your term began, and how long it was for.
-
his original term began on the 17th of months last.
supposed to be 1 month term.
but...
we started I? on april fools day, so it can go either way. i just figured for the sake of convenience that we should just start anew each first of the month.
but either way you slice it, kevv was presidentt during the debate, so i think he should cast the tie breaking vote. unless the two parties involved would like to keep a split decision.
once again, either way you slice it, there was no clearcut winner, bragging rights aren't due. but, this would be the last occasion to give a custom title out.
PostPerson and Peter, would you care to have that chance and let kevv cast the tie breaking vote?
-
"Sounds about right, though I couldn't find anything about it when I made the poll.? I'll lock it on the 24th."
voting ended about 5 days ago. Can you check what the vote was on the 24th?
-
The vote was 6 for PP and 6 for Peter on the 24th.
-
PostPerson and Peter, would you care to have that chance and let kevv cast the tie breaking vote?
I think it's best left to the next Main Event to decide a winner; this one should be kept as it is.
-
The vote was 6 for PP and 6 for Peter on the 24th.
Hmm, seems might suspicious that Peter locked the vote a day late. I suspect sabotage. :police:
-
The vote was 6 for PP and 6 for Peter on the 24th.
Hmm, seems might suspicious that Peter locked the vote a day late. I suspect sabotage. :police:
I assure you, it'd been 6:6 since about the 22nd, IIRC. Someone made a post about it, if you want to check their timestamp. Callaway maybe; I'll go look for it.
-
The vote was 6 for PP and 6 for Peter on the 24th.
Hmm, seems might suspicious that Peter locked the vote a day late. I suspect sabotage. :police:
I assure you, it'd been 6:6 since about the 22nd, IIRC.? Someone made a post about it, if you want to check their timestamp.? Shima maybe; I'll go look for it.
Yeah, now that you mention it i think you're right.
-
I'm always right, sweetie :-*
Fairs fair though, as Peter and Postperson have a poll from when prizes were still part of the rules, the loser still gets a new custom title in this case. ;D
I've got the balls for whatever Posperson cares to slap on me. My current title is 'The gerbil worrier!'; a birthday request by Omega which I could have changed when I won the anti-philosophy, but chose to keep for her benefit,, so some unimaginative slur by Postperson wouldn't be much of a trauma.
Why would Postperson give you an unimaginative slur for a custom title, Peter? The last I looked, the two of you were tied, unless Omega_female decides to rig the vote in addition to rigging your karma.
-
That doesnt completely rule out sabotage, persay. :P
-
It also doesn't rule out that angels will fly out my arse and smite Postperson, so one can always hope. I think it's looking pretty unlikely that I sabotaged it.
-
Stranger things have happened. :police:
-
So should I vote or not?
-
I vote no; don't tie-break.
-
It sounds to let the vote stand as is unless Postperson wants Me to vote.
-
I think it would be too late for you to vote now Kevv, since the poll was locked on the 24th. No matter who you vote for, the other may think you are just playing favorites. Unless both Peter and Postperson agree for you to break the tie, it would be better to just leave it alone.