General Politics Discussion Topic [closed]

Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

as Mark said, it's your own fault if you die of lung cancer caused by smoking.

Originally posted by stj0691:May I interject here?

Cigarettes kill. Every 8 seconds, somebody dies from tobacco use. And DON"T SAY it's the person's fault either. That's what tobacco companies do. How much do these companies spend on advertising? Billions. They even spend money to advertize against smoking! However those anti smoking ads also get people to smoke. Tobacco is the 2nd biggest marketed product in the world, next to cars. In 2002, $12.47 billion was spent annually, 34 million a day to advertise these cancer sticks. And these advertisements one way or another trick people into smoking. Even Hollywood is in on this. Go watch a movie. Odds are you will see someone smoking.

Plus, cigarrettes are now more addictive. The companies added in 10% more nicotine from 1998-2004. This makes them easier to get addicted to. And this was in 2004. Who knows how much more nicotine is in there now. Tobacco companies are making these products more addictive, and they only care about one thing. Profit. Do they care if you get cancer? Only if you bring your case to court, where they try to blame environmental factors and whatnot. They figure you'll settle for some amount, be happy with the money, and forget the entire thing happened. Well, for one, I care about people, not money. I'm sure we all do as well.

Here's another thing about advertising that'll get ya sick. Tobacco companies are allowed to deduct the cost of advertising and promotion from their taxes as a business expense, which saves them $1 billion plus a year in taxes. And who ends up paying for their promotions? The taxpayer. Is this fair that we have to pay for their advertising which kills people? Think about that word. Kill. Think about the word Murder. Kill/Murder/Kill/Murder. Same thing aren't they if you think about it? So the tobacco industry not only kills people, they murder people. And last time I checked, murder was a felony.

So is it really the person's fault they were subjected to advertising which is practically everywhere? Is it their fault they were subjected to such an addictive product purposely created to get people 'hooked' onto such products? And people smoke everywhere. Are you suggesting I live as a hermit so I don't inhale any smoke? Is it their fault that the person unknowing pays for such advertisings? I don't think so. If Big Tobacco wants to blame someone, the only people they can blame are themselves.

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
If smoking ads are so overwhelming and indoctrinating etc., how comes a whole load of people across the world don't smoke...?

Originally posted by stj0691:You have to take in account the # of people and their ages around the world. Does an infant smoke? No. Second, those people who don't smoke are either aware of the dangers of smoking, don't want to smoke at all, or it is not offered near them.

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
I'm well aware that infants don't smoke mate, and I'm taking into account all the stuff you've mentioned above, but when you put that against all that which you mentioned about tobacco companies and their advertising, they seem to be fairly contradictory. On the one hand, you've got the almost bourgeois tobacco companies who indoctrinate with their overwhelming and overpowering campaigns which would seem to suggest we are powerless to resist, whereas on the other hand you've wrapped up an awful lot of people within a few small categories which would make it seem that most people have nothing to do with it

Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

It's not "of course". They're respected people, so it would be insane in their position to claim that government killed 3000 people.

And if you know at least a little physics, you know that it would be impossible for towers to crumble in a way the Twin Towers did.

Try to build tower out of Lego's. Hit it on the top and only part on the top will tear down. Bottom will be untouched. But hit it on the bottom and whole thing will collapse. Simple as that. Towers were hit on the top and still they collapsed like they were hit on the bottom. Weird, isn't it?

Originally posted by haytrain:[..]

I'm afraid your analogy isn't making any sense to me. Are you saying that, because the airplane hit higher up in the tower, the building should have just collapsed at the top and not come crashing all the way down? The top floors fell onto each other within the building because of the intense heat of the fire from the jetfuel, then came, pancaking all the way down, which in turn caused the building to collapse. Watch this footage and you can see the top of the building collapsing onto the floors beneath it. [YouTube Video]

No offense to you, but I put absolutely no stock in whatever those guys are saying. In fact, I find it so absurd, I won't even watch it. To me, having the viewpoint you say they do makes it look like they're just trying to cover their own ass for bad structural design, and I find it offensive to suggest that the government attacked citizens just take the heat off themselves.

Originally posted by haytrain:[..]

I'm afraid your analogy isn't making any sense to me. Are you saying that, because the airplane hit higher up in the tower, the building should have just collapsed at the top and not come crashing all the way down? The top floors fell onto each other within the building because of the intense heat of the fire from the jetfuel, then came, pancaking all the way down, which in turn caused the building to collapse. Watch this footage and you can see the top of the building collapsing onto the floors beneath it. [YouTube Video]

No offense to you, but I put absolutely no stock in whatever those guys are saying. In fact, I find it so absurd, I won't even watch it. To me, having the viewpoint you say they do makes it look like they're just trying to cover their own ass for bad structural design, and I find it offensive to suggest that the government attacked citizens just take the heat off themselves.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:What a random thought, but my random answer is under what circumstances? You can't just go "oh yeah, here's a gun, go break a leg''.

I'm not for or against gun use, it just needs to be done under circumstances and only then in the right situation. How do you know that law-abiding, mentally sound individual suddenly doesn't go off their perch and becomes a non-law-abding, unmentally sound individual? Gun use is as bad in America as it is in Europe, Australia, Asia, Russia, France, Germany, New Zealand - all those places.

You'd be surprised how many people in the world were stable as a pie floater and later went to prison, for a long time. Why? For owning and using a gun, and more than likely injuring people. Possibly the person who took the revenge attack had a motto: an eye for an eye. The penalties in America compared to Australia are pretty damned harsh. One case was a delivery guy who was out doing his morning deliveries at 5am, as he did every morning, and this man (psycho) comes and shoots him in the eye, rendering him blind in that eye. What was the gunman's excuse?

''I thought he was another guy''. What punishment did he recieve? A $100 fine and one year good behaviour bond. Would you call that guy, who a lot of people thought he wouldn't harm a fly, is he the kind of guy you'd give a gun? Laws on gun ownership do not work...it doesn't work before and during the incident. But this gunman then admits he was going after another guy, to shoot him.