Cuba Mall beggars

[Akzle]

the smokes will give you cancer, or emphysema, or COPD, or screws up your cardiovascular system, or your brain,

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

[unstuck]

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

Agreed.

[Ulsterkiwi]

ever met a fat (practicing) alcoholic? or any alcoholic for that matter?

yes to both questions. I am curious why you would think I do not know anyone who is an alcoholic.

if you drink and don't eat (because you're poor or some shit) your body will actually change to burn the fuel you're giving it. thus, alcoholics are skinny.

if you drink a fuck ton of lion red and eat a stack of white bread slathered with polyunsaturated monoassenaise and bad mutcher "sausages" with 60% sugar 40% salt budget "tomato sauce", then yes. you'll get fat, because your meat suit is fucking confused.

what goes in does entirely affect how the body performs, alcohol alone, in no way leads to being a fattie.

Apply your own standards to your own comments Akzle. Dont twist what I said and don't respond with half the story. I didnt say that that alcohol alone leads to being a fattie. What I said was alcohol intake can be and is linked to body fat status. There is a high carb content with alcoholic drinks, too high a carb intake and the body stores the excess energy it does not need right then as fat. Nutrition 101.

If you drink alcohol and dont eat (whatever the reason, as poverty is potentially only part of the story) then yes your body will change. Those changes will include alterations in your neuro-endocrine status which will suppress the body in a general sense. The changes also include influencing the digestive systems ability to process food, even healthy food. To simply say "your body will to burn the fuel you're giving it. Thus, alcoholics are skinny" shows that once again you know a little bit and because of that are convinced of knowing the complete story. That is a vast oversimplification of what happens when a person becomes dependent on alcohol. Likewise not all alcoholics are skinny, which was my point.

[Akzle]

yes to both questions. I am curious why you would think I do not know anyone who is an alcoholic.

did i say that or are you infering more than what was said?
a functioning alcoholic may be fat. they may also hold down a job, so yes, i was speaking more to the other end of the spectrum, ie, those on the street, those genuinely poor, ie, what the thread is about.

Apply your own standards to your own comments Akzle. Dont twist what I said and don't respond with half the story.

i don't believe i did in any large way.. certain... extrapolation and some artistic license... but not twisting your balls.

What I said was alcohol intake can be and is linked to body fat status. There is a high carb content with alcoholic drinks, too high a carb intake and the body stores the excess energy it does not need right then as fat. Nutrition 101.

can ≠ does.
and this is entirely pertinent to the comments concerning diet. carbohydrates should not be the base of any diet.
and it is only SOME beverages that have the carb content (like beersies) whereas the distilled beverages, and i'm going to poke a guess at the RTDs, do not.
RTDs= high sugar (short chain carbs) but these are processed man-mediately, and not stored.

If you drink alcohol and dont eat (whatever the reason, as poverty is potentially only part of the story) then yes your body will change.

mhm

Those changes will include alterations in your neuro-endocrine status which will suppress the body in a general sense. The changes also include influencing the digestive systems ability to process food, even healthy food.

distracto-bullshit

To simply say "your body will to burn the fuel you're giving it. Thus, alcoholics are skinny" shows that once again you know a little bit and because of that are convinced of knowing the complete story.

again, i'm speaking to the poor end of the spectrum. and i believe i qualified it with a replacing food with alcohol scenario.

Likewise not all alcoholics are skinny, which was my point.

if that were your only point we wouldn't be having this repartee.

[Ulsterkiwi]

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

ok, I will bite

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors. Absolutely there will be "old cunts" who smoked all their life and didn't get cancer. In much the same way not everyone who does dangerous shit dies doing it but they ran a risk all the same.
When a person dies, there will be factors which have contributed to that death. Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.
Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life? I have, its not pretty. What happens is the cellular mechanisms to remove the rubbish and detritus accumulated when we breath gets shut down. The macrophages responsible for keeping our lungs clean get overwhelmed by the crap in the smoke. Thats bad enough but eventually the epithelial cells responsible for gaseous exchange become overwhelmed, we have fewer of them available which are functioning properly and eventually we have trouble breathing. Thats COPD. Throw in a tumour which physically invades and destroys the surrounding tissue and your troubles just got a whole lot worse.

Who said smoking is the cause of all problems?

Anyway, you dont want to hear about that, it doesnt suit you.

Heres a suggestion. You want facts? Try this

Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.
If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.


Here is an example of why you need to try the above....

and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures, explain to me how they have got it so wrong and why thousands of people are not dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD, diabetes, infection or suicide but actually what took them out was death by vehicular manner. How have they got away with this scandalous lie for so long!

[Ulsterkiwi]

distracto-bullshit

whatever that is, but its still true

if that were your only point we wouldn't be having this repartee.

yes be we both enjoy robust discussion and it makes your days go by quicker before you bury your latest hooker.

[Akzle]

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors.

so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?

Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.

never seen it.

Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life?

no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.

Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.

If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.

i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands. the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change

Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures,

again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)
one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

[ElCoyote]

Pity they don't congregate outside the Beehive....

Actually I thought they all congregated inside the beehive,
in particular the top floor

[Edbear]

ok, I will bite

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors. Absolutely there will be "old cunts" who smoked all their life and didn't get cancer. In much the same way not everyone who does dangerous shit dies doing it but they ran a risk all the same.
When a person dies, there will be factors which have contributed to that death. Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.
Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life? I have, its not pretty. What happens is the cellular mechanisms to remove the rubbish and detritus accumulated when we breath gets shut down. The macrophages responsible for keeping our lungs clean get overwhelmed by the crap in the smoke. Thats bad enough but eventually the epithelial cells responsible for gaseous exchange become overwhelmed, we have fewer of them available which are functioning properly and eventually we have trouble breathing. Thats COPD. Throw in a tumour which physically invades and destroys the surrounding tissue and your troubles just got a whole lot worse.

Who said smoking is the cause of all problems?

Anyway, you dont want to hear about that, it doesnt suit you.

Heres a suggestion. You want facts? Try this

Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.
If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.


Here is an example of why you need to try the above....


Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures, explain to me how they have got it so wrong and why thousands of people are not dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD, diabetes, infection or suicide but actually what took them out was death by vehicular manner. How have they got away with this scandalous lie for so long!

so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?


never seen it.


no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.



i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands. the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change



again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)
one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

So I guess that's a "No" to doing any proper research on it for yourself, then?

[Akzle]

Actually I thought they all congregated inside the beehive,
in particular the top floor

nono. that's the fat buggers( and fat cats), not the fat beggars.

[Akzle]

So I guess that's a "No" to doing any proper research on it for yourself, then?

do you smoke, ed?

[Ulsterkiwi]

so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?

selective quoting, no, I am saying it is a risk factor AND has also been clearly demonstrated to be a contributing factor. The link is a correlation and has been shown to be causation. What I am NOT saying is that all who smoke will die directly from the effects of smoking. Risk however is significantly raised.

no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.

yes you did. Would this be distracto-bullshit? I am fairly sure I did not say other particulates will not contribute to respiratory pathologies.

i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

No, that's cool. Not that you need my permission but if you want to reject science that is up to you.
What I find ironic is you ask for someone to show you evidence, you even use the word empirical (that is how to spell it btw) and when an offer of such evidence is made, you reject it because you give very few fucks.
Presumably you either never get sick or when you do going to see a doctor or other health practitioner is not what you do?
For sure there have been people who perpetuated myth, does that mean we should reject new knowledge or understanding if it explodes the myth? I tend to think that my education first and foremost reminds me that my education and learning is a process, not a goal and there is always something new to be learned.
I also find it ironic that you make noises about rejecting science but will discuss that on the net, via a computer.

so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands.

sure, lived experience is of equal importance to knowledge.

the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change

again, fair choice. The risk of course is that the time you need to change will happen long before you can no longer run said rings. Not a very empirical way to make that assessment.

again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)

not all data is produced by the government. Its disingenuous to suggest that all those engaged in scientific enquiry are by definition engaged in an agenda to control and suppress.

There are thousands of individuals who work within the health system who would be a bit offended by your inference that there is no genuine interest in the health of the community. You might say that's not what you said. You are clearly smart enough to know that language is a subtle thing and inference can be made without directly stating things. As a net troll you have achieved semi-professional status in getting under people's skins but it would be admirable if you could at least acknowledge the vast majority are genuinely doing their best for others in this respect.

Its not a nutty conspiracy. I believe in democracy, I believe in the ability of people to question and probe and call to account. I believe there are ways to do that which are more helpful or constructive but somewhere in the mix someone has to be cynical enough to call foul. The problem with your approach I believe is that its more akin to crying wolf.

one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

I don't know enough about this idea to comment. I would however be willing to learn.

[Edbear]

do you smoke, ed?

Nope! And don't say, "Don't knock it until you've tried it," either, as that is the dumbest thing to say.

[Big Dog]

I used to smoke. Life got a lot better when I got out from under that millstone.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Ulsterkiwi]

one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

if that's the one you are talking about its a pretty frickin bleak outlook on life. Sure its possible that we are simply farm animals. If I was to accept the argument however I would be just as well off to take myself out now.

Have you ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? George Orwell's "1984" (alluded to in the video) or "Animal Farm" Have you ever watched "The Matrix"? Heck, what about Thomas More's "Utopia" that was written in 1516. I guess I am saying its not like this is a new idea. "We are controlled, its not right, lets refuse to buy into this way of life." The video itself demonstrates historical cases of societal systems which have broken down and been replaced. This is evidence that corruption will eventually cause self-destruction, not evidence that the maker of the video has had a new idea.

Will our current society eventually collapse? Probably. Does that mean every aspect of that society is inherently a conspiracy or evil? I do not believe so.

I also do not see any practical coherent alternatives presented, nor explanation of how one might actually exist after "opting out"