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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Malgus got pretty much launched into the side of a mountain or something
His lungs were damaged by an exploding grenade. I think he inhaled the fumes during the explosion.
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.
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.
Linking only feeds his masturbation.
I know. But there is no way to stop him!
I mean your masturbation. And your posts.
You mean wrong.
Linking only feeds his masturbation.
I know. But there is no way to stop him!
I thought that Frink said that this was ImperialScum’s masturbation thread. . . .
You got that wrong…
My thread about your masturbation. JEEZ!
Now now! There is nothing to be embarrassed about here. After all, you are turned on by great stuff.
Yeah yhwx loves objectifying women, he’ll really get into anime.
Don’t be ignorant. Anime has an enormous range. You can find just about any kind of genre.
That’s true, and they all suck.
Okay. I hope you live happily ever after in your silly little world.
but please get off your high horse.
That is a bad metaphor for his case. “Get out of your cave” is the correct one.
Yeah yhwx loves objectifying women, he’ll really get into anime.
Don’t be ignorant. Anime has an enormous range. You can find just about any kind of genre.
I’ve heard that some are good.
There are great many good anime. Try Cowboy Bebop (1988) or Ghost in the Shell (1995).
I thought that Frink said that this was ImperialScum’s masturbation thread. . . .
You got that wrong…
Being fat is never healthy.
What is your universal definition of fat?
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.
They can increase a chance to become unhealthy, but it doesn’t make you automatically unhealthy as idiots tried to claim.
Even if an individual person is healthy under these circumstances, it’s still an unhealthy lifestyle and idolizing such a person also promotes this lifestyle, which will lead to other people becoming unhealthy due to the statistically proven correlation of this lifestyle and various diseases.
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.
That’s like if I said people in the UK should pronounce “garage” like the civilized people do in the states. It’s a bunch of pretentious shite.
It doesn’t work that way. When savages take a civilised language and use it improperly, you cannot blame the civilised language users for that.
It’s not about the content, it’s about the attitude.
The content is always the truth, so it is not easy to go after the content.
I’d like to see your evidence showing that neither smoking nor being overweight causes health problems for the vast majority of people.
I do not care about statistics here.
Clearly.
Because it is useless when it comes to an individual under huge variety. Humans are not robots made in a factory under equal conditions using a single blueprint. We are a product of evolution and one of the key elements of evolution is production of varieties. Certain body mass ratio might be problematic to one specimen, while completely harmless to another. The smoke can case cancer to some specimen, while others’ immune system is strong enough to kill all the tumour cells. Some people get fat despite doing lots of exercise and not eating sugar/fat, while others stay skinny without exercise even though they eat lots of sugar/fat.
I’d like to see your evidence showing that neither smoking nor being overweight causes health problems for the vast majority of people.
I do not care about statistics here. I am speaking about individual specimen.
These things can increase your chance of various diseases and may increase the chance of an early death.
They can increase a chance to become unhealthy, but it doesn’t make you automatically unhealthy as idiots tried to claim.