- Time
- Post link
I might have taken that joke too far.
No might about it.
The Person in Question
The imperialscum "Furiously Doing His Taxes" Thread — Page 19
- Time
- Post link
imperialscum is the poor man’s twooffour.
- Time
- Post link
What exactly is “unhealthy lifestyle”? For an unfavourable variation/specimen it can simply be being born and living as even the mild environmental conditions will cause unsustainable damage. On the other hand, a strong specimen can withstand extreme environmental conditions without any long-term damage. As I said, statistics is completely useless here.
A lifestyle that has a high correlation to a disease in otherwise healthy individuals. For example smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, shooting heroin, being anorexic, being morbidly obese.
If you tell people it’s ok to smoke since you know that one guy who lived 100 years while being a heavy smoker, people following that advice will statistically more often die of lung cancer than people who don’t smoke.I never disputed that something may be unhealthy lifestyle for some or even majority of specimen. I merely disputed that you cannot claim something is universally unhealthy lifestyle.
Where did I say “universally”?
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Here: http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/958784
If an individual remains healthy under certain circumstances that means healthy lifestyle for that individual. There is no “still an unhealthy lifestyle” crap.
真実
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
*hits crtl+f*
*types universal*
*hits enter*
no results
The lifestyle is still unhealthy for the majority of people. If you smoke and you don’t have lung cancer, you’re healthy, but it doens’t mean that you won’t get lung cancer in a few months. You can have an unhealthy lifestyle and simply be not unhealthy, yet.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
For majority yes, but not universally for everyone. Some never gets it, despite smoking. So for some it is never unhealthy lifestyle. End of story.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Just because I have lung cancer from smoking 8 packs of ciggarettes daily, and I’ve had about 3 heart attacks because I eat nothing but McDonalds, doesn’t mean I’m not healthy and fuck you for telling me I should try to live a healthier life or I won’t live long enough to turn 60. End of story.
- Time
- Post link
For majority yes, but not universally for everyone. Some never gets it, despite smoking. So for some it is never unhealthy lifestyle. End of story.
Empirically unhealthy lifestyle™
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- Post link
For majority yes, but not universally for everyone. Some never gets it, despite smoking. So for some it is never unhealthy lifestyle. End of story.
Empirically unhealthy lifestyle™
Yes, with infinite variance.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Just because I have lung cancer from smoking 8 packs of ciggarettes daily, and I’ve had about 3 heart attacks because I eat nothing but McDonalds, doesn’t mean I’m not healthy and fuck you for telling me I should try to live a healthier life or I won’t live long enough to turn 60. End of story.
I don’t smoke or eat at McDonald’s.
真実
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
An unhealthy lifestyle is a lifestyle that increases your chances of becoming ill. If you smoke, you have a higher risk of getting cancer. Regardless of you getting cancer or not, your risk is increased. It has been proven that cigarette smoke contains substances that can cause cancer and the biochemical mechanism how these substances interact with your DNA and can turn a cell cancerous has also been proven. There is a certain propability by which such a reaction happens and another propability that this reaction happens in a place in your DNA that makes the cell grow abnormally. It should be obvious that having more of these substances in your body will increase the chances that these reactions occur and the chances that they occur in a crucial place in your DNA. It should also be obvious that smoking more cigarettes means consuming more of these substances. Therefore, if you smoke, you have these substances in your body and your risk is increased even if you never get cancer.
Another example. I have three balls, one is red, one is blue, one is green. I put them in a bag and you pick one without looking. If you pick the red one, you win, if you pick one of the others, you lose. This way, you have a 33% chance to win. Because I’m nice, I remove the green ball before you pick one. You now have a 50% chance to pick the red ball and win or pick the blue ball and lose. You have bad luck and pick the blue one. Does that mean removing the green ball was not a nice thing to do, since it didn’t make you win the game?
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
An unhealthy lifestyle is a lifestyle that increases your chances of becoming ill. If you smoke, you have a higher risk of getting cancer. Regardless of you getting cancer or not, your risk is increased. It has been proven that cigarette smoke contains substances that can cause cancer and the biochemical mechanism how these substances interact with your DNA and can turn a cell cancerous has also been proven. There is a certain propability by which such a reaction happens and another propability that this reaction happens in a place in your DNA that makes the cell grow abnormally. It should be obvious that having more of these substances in your body will increase the chances that these reactions occur and the chances that they occur in a crucial place in your DNA. It should also be obvious that smoking more cigarettes means consuming more of these substances. Therefore, if you smoke, you have these substances in your body and your risk is increased even if you never get cancer.
You are basically assuming all specimen are the same, which is where your wrong assumption comes from. For example, if you have some mutation in DNA that prevents a certain substance/virus from affecting/entering the cell, your cell will never be affected. Therefore your chance of obtaining the disease/damage from that specific thing is zero, regardless of how susceptible the majority of other specimen might be to it.
Another example, when our distant ancestors made the step from aquatic to terrestrial living environment, to the majority the air was probably casing damage (cancer). However, those varieties that had mutations that prevented air from doing any cell damage survived and propagated.
Another example. I have three balls, one is red, one is blue, one is green. I put them in a bag and you pick one without looking. If you pick the red one, you win, if you pick one of the others, you lose. This way, you have a 33% chance to win. Because I’m nice, I remove the green ball before you pick one. You now have a 50% chance to pick the red ball and win or pick the blue ball and lose. You have bad luck and pick the blue one. Does that mean removing the green ball was not a nice thing to do, since it didn’t make you win the game?
A wrong example. The correct example would be having an individual bag that has three red balls inside, instead of red, blue and green that the majority of other bags have. In that case your chance of getting a blue or green from that individual bag is zero.
真実
- Time
- Post link
If you show me a person that is immune to cigarette smoke and scientifically prove how this immunity works on a biomolecular level, I will withdraw my statement.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- Post link
Just because I have lung cancer from smoking 8 packs of ciggarettes daily, and I’ve had about 3 heart attacks because I eat nothing but McDonalds, doesn’t mean I’m not healthy and fuck you for telling me I should try to live a healthier life or I won’t live long enough to turn 60. End of story.
I don’t smoke or eat at McDonald’s.
Why not?
Do you do (or not do) anything with an eye towards being “healthy”?
- Time
- Post link
I don’t smoke or eat at McDonald’s.
Why not?
Do you do (or not do) anything with an eye towards being “healthy”?
I do not do it because both taste like shit. Not because they might be unhealthy.
真実
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
I don’t smoke or eat at McDonald’s.
Why not?
Do you do (or not do) anything with an eye towards being “healthy”?
I do not do it because both taste like shit. Not because they might be unhealthy.
Ok so what about the second question?
- Time
- Post link
He’s not wrong.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
If you show me a person that is immune to cigarette smoke and scientifically prove how this immunity works on a biomolecular level, I will withdraw my statement.
As much as I would love to produce a circumstantial proof of evolution of our lungs, I do not do research in that field. But there is plenty of research on virus immunity and cancer that supports what I said.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Defendant at Court: “If you only listen to other people, it sounds like I was wrong, but trust me, I am right.”
- Time
- Post link
People should just stop labelling different things healthy and unhealthy in the first place because it is extremely stupid. You can be underweight, overweight or whatever and you can still be healthy and live 100 years (the term over/underweight itself is stupid). The same goes for eating sugar, fat, carbs, meat, etc.
That was your original statement that kicked this whole stupid thing off. Let’s say you are right and certain people can eat like shit and smoke all they want and never have any problems because of it. Those people are clearly outliers, there is tons of research to prove it. It is not stupid to label things unhealthy when research proves exactly that. Research proves that smoking is unhealthy for the vast majority of people who do it. When you smoke and you die later from lung cancer, it wasn’t just bad luck.
I have no idea what you are trying to prove with your current line of reasoning but you’re never going to get to your original ridiculous premise with it.
- Time
- Post link
It is stupid to label something simply “unhealthy”. It is not stupid to label something “unhealthy for vast majority”. That is the big difference and that was my argument all along.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Smoking is almost universally bad for smokers. Any evidence to the contrary?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Smoking is almost universally bad for smokers. Any evidence to the contrary?
A bold claim. Universe is unimaginably huge. Perhaps there is a planet with cigarette-smoke like atmosphere inhabiting aliens who live in it. But at least you put “almost” in your claim, unlike Frink in his original statements.
真実
- Time
- Post link
We’re only talking about Earth here.