|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2010 : 06:51:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
| I had a cigarette with Hitchens. |
Kil, how do you reconcile critical thinking with a personal habit of smoking?
|
Sorry to pop in all pigeon like (blame it on the SFN facebook post), and nothing against bngbuck specifically, but this reminds me of all the divisive tripe going about now in the "skeptic community."
Skepticism [the employment of critical thinking] is a set of skills or tools for measuring the truth value of claims of fact or knowledge. Smoking is an activity, not a claim of any kind. Therefore it is not incongruous for a skeptic to smoke. The one needs have nothing to do with the other.
Now carry on. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 07/20/2010 06:54:18 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 05:29:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
The same exact way one reconciles eating a bowl of ice cream or a McDonald's hamburger. Sure each of these three things is not good for our health, but we (probably) enjoy it.
|
It is even more complicated. These things could indeed be good for your health, in that food is, fat (and protein) is a dietary necessity, not just an indulgence. In fact we are genetically driven to these flavors (Fat, sugar, carmelized meat) because they contain necessary nutrients.
So while they may not be good in excess in themselves they are not bad and in many cases may be good for you, both physically and emotionally.
Whats is worse, even if we assume that there is only a negative cost to smoking tobacco and no possible benefit (not certain), we can only look at the risks through lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is entirely possible that one could smoke 10 packs a day for 50 years and die in a car crash with relatively healthy lungs.
The sad fact is you are gonna die, as said in Mad Men: It's your life. You don't know how long it's gonna last, but you know it doesn't end well." So no matter skeptic or not smoker, drinker fat ass or other, we each have to make the best of it, figure out what will make us happy, comfortable, make meaning for us and perhaps residual comfort, happiness and meaning for others (though that must come second, unless one condones enslavement). And then move on.
Smoke em if ya got em boys. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 05:41:47 [Permalink]
|
| Whats is worse, even if we assume that there is only a negative cost to smoking tobacco and no possible benefit (not certain), |
The benefit is that smoking keeps me from choking the living shit out of my co-workers. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 07:23:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
The benefit is that smoking keeps me from choking the living shit out of my co-workers.
(bolding mine.)
|
You mean without touching them right? SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 08:19:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by Ricky
The same exact way one reconciles eating a bowl of ice cream or a McDonald's hamburger. Sure each of these three things is not good for our health, but we (probably) enjoy it.
|
It is even more complicated. These things could indeed be good for your health, in that food is, fat (and protein) is a dietary necessity, not just an indulgence. In fact we are genetically driven to these flavors (Fat, sugar, carmelized meat) because they contain necessary nutrients.
So while they may not be good in excess in themselves they are not bad and in many cases may be good for you, both physically and emotionally.
Whats is worse, even if we assume that there is only a negative cost to smoking tobacco and no possible benefit (not certain), we can only look at the risks through lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is entirely possible that one could smoke 10 packs a day for 50 years and die in a car crash with relatively healthy lungs.
The sad fact is you are gonna die, as said in Mad Men: It's your life. You don't know how long it's gonna last, but you know it doesn't end well." So no matter skeptic or not smoker, drinker fat ass or other, we each have to make the best of it, figure out what will make us happy, comfortable, make meaning for us and perhaps residual comfort, happiness and meaning for others (though that must come second, unless one condones enslavement). And then move on.
Smoke em if ya got em boys.
|
Except that you are totally wrong about the consequences of smoking. There is ample evidence that demonstrates the link between major health problems (COPD, heart disease, cancer, to name a few) and smoking.
Obesity is the same and we all have to pay for the indulgences of those who refuse to keep themselves healthy and minimize their intentional exposure to risk.
That said, I'm all for letting people eat, drink, smoke as much as they want. I just want those who do to pay their own share of the cost instead of putting it off on me and/or the government. Overweight, smoking, those things should double or even tripple the cost of your health insurance (your cost and your employers cost). And that is just for starters.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 09:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Except that you are totally wrong about the consequences of smoking. There is ample evidence that demonstrates the link between major health problems (COPD, heart disease, cancer, to name a few) and smoking.
|
Show me specifically what I said that was wrong. Don't bring up statistical increased risk of a particular disease. That is statistics and while fine for epidemiology and insurance scales it does nothing to speak of particulars (except to give a statistical average risk).
Or are you saying the hypothetical smoker who died in a car crash wouldn't have if he hadn't smoked?
And talking about costs Planet money just covered that on its latest show. Apparently the actual cost (die early of smoking, live longer from not) is about a wash.
Still Gonna Die (chris's addendum: and probably if nothing else kills you first of cancer or heart disease)
So you're takin' better care of your body
Becoming more aware of your body.
Responding to your body's needs.
Everything you hear and read about diets,
Nutrition and sleeping position and detoxifying your system,
And buying machines that they advertise to help you exercise.
Herbs to revitalize you if you're traumatized.
Soaps that will sanitize.
Sprays to deodorize.
Liquid to neutralize acids and pesticides.
Free weights to maximize your strength and muscle size.
Shots that will immunize.
Pills to re-energize you.
But remember that for all your pain and gain
Eventually the story ends the same...
You can quit smokin', but you're still gonna die.
Cut out cokin', but you're still gonna die.
Eliminate everything fatty or fried,
And you get real healthy, but you're still gonna die.
Stop drinkin' booze, you're still gonna die.
Stay away from cooze, you're still gonna die.
You can cut out coffee and never get high,
But you're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
You're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
Still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
You can even give aerobics one more try,
But when the music stops playin', you're still gonna die.
Put seat belts in your car, you're still gonna die.
Cut nicotine tar, you're still gonna die.
You can exercise that cellulite right off-a your thigh.
Get slimmer and trimmer, but you're still gonna die.
Stop gettin' a tan, you're still gonna die.
You can search for UFO's up in the sky
They might fly you to Mars where you're still gonna die.
You're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
Still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
And all the Reeboks and Nikes and Adidas you buy
You can jog up to heaven and you're still gonna die.
Drink ginseng tonics, you're still gonna die.
Try high colonics, you're still gonna die.
You can have yourself frozen and suspended in time,
But when they do thaw you out, you're still gonna die.
You can have safe sex, you're still gonna die.
You can switch to Crest, you're still gonna die.
You can get rid of stress, get a lot of rest,
Get an AIDS test, enroll in EST,
Move out west where it's sunny and dry
And you'll live to be a hundred
But you're still gonna die.
You're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
Still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
So you'd better have some fun
'Fore you say bye-bye,
'Cause you're still gonna, still gonna, still gonna die.
--Written by Shel Silverstein
ETA Codicil:
Let me be perfectly clear. I am NOT arguing the health impact (good or bad) of smoking (tobacco). I am arguing that choosing to smoke or not smoke is not a question that measures critical thinking ability.
Further I could easily argue that from a strict utilitarian view, that spending any time or resources trying to limit behavior (tobacco smoking, overeating, lethargy)of relatively wealthy adults, which would perhaps allow them to go from living 70 to living 80 years on average is preposterous and unethical given that millions of children die of dirty drinking water and malnutrition and spending the same resources on that would allow them to live from one or two years to 50 or 60.
Good thing I am not Peter Singer.
If Umlaut smokes, knowing the potential health consequences, that is his business and he has done so in full congruence with critical thinking. If he has done so believing smoking is a health tonic (widely believed even by medical (ehem science) just a hundred years prior), given our current state of understanding of the substance, and statistics about probability of death and morbidity, then he is not being skeptical. But until you probe deep enough to actually understand his thought process and evaluation of fact you are being a prick (to borrow a phrase) if you say he is not using critical thinking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/ |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 07/21/2010 17:31:43 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 11:22:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Hitchens' cancer is a gift from god according to one thoroughly twisted christian (hat tip to PZ)
But to our question: how can cancer be an example of God’s grace to this suddenly stricken intellectual, who has made a career of arguing the case for atheism? A cancer which God didn’t “give,” but certainly permitted.
The short answer is this: if God really wanted to “get” Hitchens, God would just ignore the man, and let him go his blissful way, unchallenged, to a peaceful death.
At which point Hitchens would stand, face-to-face and unreconciled, with that very God. |
So this is Hitchens' opportunity to convert before dying. It always comes down to the fear of death for these morons, doesn't it? And this idiocy does nothing to explain why theists are afflicted with fatal diseases.
|
Idiotic isn't it?
There most certainly ARE atheists in foxholes!
|
Idiotic, yes it is. Anyone who ever read or heard Hitchens words on theism knows how idiotic those thoughts are.
This is one of many sticklers I have with theists. For a group of people who are so convinced that they 'KNOW' their going to heaven. I'm amazed that death is such a big deal for them. Death should be a joyous event, with what they 'claim' they believe. However death is anything but joyous for them. It's usually very traumatic and devastating for the survivors. I really don't think most completely buy their own crap. Actions always speak louder than words. Their actions on many fronts betray their beliefs consistently. Like wishing ill to non-believers and reveling with their bad news. Which we see here. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2010 : 09:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Christopher Hitchens talks about his cancer in Vanity Fair:
Topic of Cancer
| ...Working back from the cancer-ridden squamous cells that these first results disclosed, it took rather longer than that to discover the disagreeable truth. The word “metastasized” was the one in the report that first caught my eye, and ear. The alien had colonized a bit of my lung as well as quite a bit of my lymph node. And its original base of operations was located—had been located for quite some time—in my esophagus. My father had died, and very swiftly, too, of cancer of the esophagus. He was 79. I am 61. In whatever kind of a “race” life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist... |
Read the whole article.
This is a very good read. (Hitchens is always a very good read.) We didn't know much about what was going on with him except for the diagnosis of cancer of the esophagus which alone has a very high cure rate. But there is, unfortunately, more to the story. My hope is that he lives a long and cantankerous life. We will have to wait and see... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 05:22:02 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting closing. We all shouldn't be surprised to hear from theist, possible lies of his final words. I certainly won't be surprised to hear any, if I do. I would prefer last words like Joan crawford's, which were "Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me." To her housekeeper, who had begun to pray aloud.~~ Joan Crawford, actress, d. May 10, 1977. Which are not disputed as far as I know. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 11:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Ricky.......
| ...how do you reconcile critical thinking with a personal habit of smoking? |
| If you think because you've decided it's a net loss that Hitchens must also view it as a net loss, then you're a self-centered prick. |
At first blush, Ricky, it does appear that your position on this subject is a bit defensive, what with all the "self-centered prick' crap. How you could fantasize that my thinking could in any way affect that of Hitchen's is totally beyond me. I don't even know the man, although I admire his intellect.
To you, and chfcrsh, and any other apologists for the filthy anachronistic habit of smoking, I refer you to the totally correct answer of Kil to my question - "cognitive dissonance" - defined by wiki as "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously."
Anyone with functional intelligence today must understand the highly probable consequences of longterm heavy smoking. I had it dramatically demonstrated to me by being the recipient of a six-bypass coronary artery bypass surgery several years ago. No one enduring that procedure and the long and painful recovery and then being told by a cardiologist that a smoking habit was the primary etiology of heart disease could continue to defend the habit.
Unless, a person has a concious or unconscious death wish. Which is perfectly OK with me. I feel everyone has the right to choose suicide, even a long and painful one, if that is their wont.
But to state that such a decision is the result of "critical thinking" on the part of an otherwise mentally and physically healthy person is just pure bullshit. Skeptics are defined as practicioners of critical thinking. If "critical thinking" can lead one to a logical decision that painful self-destruction is the most sensible and reasonable action that one can take, and skepticism is the vehicle of critical thinking, then skepticism is a form of insanity and I would not want any part of it.
Of course, anyone who thinks this matter through and is not in some form of psychopathic denial of many decades of medical evidence, will quickly decide that smoking is suicidal and will develop the psychological strength to quit the habit (precisely like they would if they were a heroin addict.) If they cannot develop that strength - and it certainly is not easy to quit - then they are either remarkably stupid, or in a classic condition of cognitive dissonance!
Frankly, I must state that I resent being characterized as a "self-centered prick" based on a wild presumptive leap as to what my views were of Christopher Hitchens. Like Kil, he is in a condition of cognitive dissonance that, temporarily at least, prohibits full rationality about this subject. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 11:25:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
To you, and chfcrsh, and any other apologists for the filthy anachronistic habit of smoking, I refer you to the totally correct answer of Kil to my question - "cognitive dissonance" - defined by wiki as "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas simultaneously." |
What are the two ideas you are claiming to be in contradiction here, exactly? On the one hand we have the knowledge that smoking decreases life expectancy, and on the other we have the behavior of smoking. Behavior alone isn't a gauge of cognitive dissonance unless the behavior is justified with a contradictory rationale. Except I don't actually know of any smokers who fail to acknowledge that smoking is a health risk. Therefore, charges of cognitive dissonance are unfounded.
| No one enduring that procedure and the long and painful recovery and then being told by a cardiologist that a smoking habit was the primary etiology of heart disease could continue to defend the habit. |
No one can defend the habit on the grounds that it isn't a health risk, but I'm not aware of anyone who does.
| Unless, a person has a concious or unconscious death wish. Which is perfectly OK with me. I feel everyone has the right to choose suicide, even a long and painful one, if that is their wont. |
Smokers don't necessarily have to have a death wish. They may simply be uninterested in maximizing their lifespan. Lots of activities are potentially hazardous to our health. The choice to engage in them is always a trade off between risk and reward. And because different people value different things, there is considerable variability amongst individuals about what constitutes an acceptable risk.
| But to state that such a decision is the result of "critical thinking" on the part of an otherwise mentally and physically healthy person is just pure bullshit. |
Find me a single quote from anyone, anywhere that says their decision to smoke was a result of critical thinking.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/06/2010 12:20:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 13:36:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
But to state that such a decision is the result of "critical thinking"... |
Who's stating such a thing?| If they cannot develop that strength - and it certainly is not easy to quit - then they are either remarkably stupid, or in a classic condition of cognitive dissonance! |
What a bizarre dichotomy. Weakness of will to combat one's own addiction isn't an indication that one believes two contradictory things, nor is it an indication of stupidity. You've developed an either/or explanation where both options are wrong. How strange. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 13:43:58 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
| Find me a single quote from anyone, anywhere that says their decision to smoke was a result of critical thinking. |
chfcrsh states: | it is not incongruous for a skeptic to smoke. |
I have no idea if chfcrsh smokes or not. However his statement is that it is logically acceptable for skeptics to smoke. Skepticism is defined as the practice of critical thinking. So chfcrsh, at least, is stating that skeptics that smoke are smoking despite the fact that they use critical thinking to guide their cognition and actions. I see this as a statement that these "skeptics" critical thinking processes allowed them to smoke.
Obviously, critical thinking and the practice of smoking are totally incompatible. And no skeptic that truly and completely allows his thinking processes to be guided by critical thinking would smoke, because it is self-destructive and illogical.
Kil, rather sheepishly, states that "cognitive dissonance" is responsible for his smoking habit. In effect, he is admitting that his "critical thinking" fails or does not apply to his smoking habit.
But I can throw strawmen at you as well as you can make them up yourself.| Smokers don't necessarily have to have a death wish. They may simply be uninterested in maximizing their lifespan. |
Find me a quote from any true skeptic, capable of clear critical thought, and not painfully terminally ill but rather in good mental and physical health, that is not "interested in maximizing their lifespan" and in fact wants to shorten it, which is what I was talking about.
I can't apply this logic to those that are painfully dying from cancer, etc. They really have a pretty rational death wish. But I can't for the life of me understand a person in good overall health that is "not interested in maximizing their lifespan" and in fact is interested in shortening it by continuing a smoking habit that has many more negative aspects than just the health issue, although that certainly is primary. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Christopher Hitchen’s cancer
