By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Stop Smoking - thats srsz business 0o

theprof00 said:
Porcupine_I said:
theprof00 said:
Porcupine_I said:

you are no fatalist. a fatalist doesn't argue, he doesn't need to make excuses for what he does and  that is what you do!

you make lots of points, but they ultimately are just excuses for you to keep smoking. i wonder why you need those excuses? i'm not judging you, i'm just tired of people bringing up things that are completely unrealated to the subject at hand.

 

I'm not arguing for myself nor making excuses. I'm arguing against the idea of this topic and the responses to it.

I've quit smoking for an entire year, just to see if I could do it. For me, I simply enjoy smoking.

Perhaps you may see my points as simply excuses for smokers in general, but I strongly believe that people are a product of their environment for bad or for worse, people often do not have a choice in what they do.

The pourpose of this thread was the OP asked us to support him to quit smoking and i tried to help, so you telling me i should not have done that because...?

ah, you'll have to excuse me then, I was responding to other comments within the thread, moreso than the OP.

The only problem I have with helping someone quit is by telling them they won't die, or showing lungs, etc. In the mind of a smoker, those things don't work.

What works is actual help. You tell yourself, "I'm going to do this because I said I would do it, and my word means nothing otherwise", or "substitute smoking with pushups. Everytime you feel the urge to smoke, go to the bathroom and do 10 pushups", or "continue as normal, but don't inhale once you taste how disgusting the cigarettes are, you will easily kick the habit".

To me these "solutions" of showing a cancerous lung etc, are simply the solutions of people who have never smoked a day in their life.

i cannot speak for me, but i can tell you it worked for my father. you can not claim to know what helps for a person, as you cannot claim to know that "nothing will help"

but of course nothing will help if you don't want to quit.

but one thing i know for sure. telling him it's ok to smoke for whatever reason, is the least helpful of things in this thread!



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network
theprof00 said:

 

- You're a major douche to everyone around you that doesn't smoke (This is why, as soon as someone starts to smoke at a busstop where I am, I start to violently fake-cough and walk away, because the smell makes it unbearable for me to be there)

 

actually, that makes YOU a major douche. :P

When I smoke at a bus-stop I always smoke downwind and away from other people, and when people do what you describe I find it extremely annoying. I don't tell you how to live your life, and I do my best with what I'm given, but there's always someone out there who thinks it's their job to tell me how to live mine.

Posts like these are just the kinds of posts why i wished there was a like function on the forum.

anyway, thats exactly what i think



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY

Porcupine_I said:
theprof00 said:
Porcupine_I said:
theprof00 said:
Porcupine_I said:

you are no fatalist. a fatalist doesn't argue, he doesn't need to make excuses for what he does and  that is what you do!

you make lots of points, but they ultimately are just excuses for you to keep smoking. i wonder why you need those excuses? i'm not judging you, i'm just tired of people bringing up things that are completely unrealated to the subject at hand.

 

I'm not arguing for myself nor making excuses. I'm arguing against the idea of this topic and the responses to it.

I've quit smoking for an entire year, just to see if I could do it. For me, I simply enjoy smoking.

Perhaps you may see my points as simply excuses for smokers in general, but I strongly believe that people are a product of their environment for bad or for worse, people often do not have a choice in what they do.

The pourpose of this thread was the OP asked us to support him to quit smoking and i tried to help, so you telling me i should not have done that because...?

ah, you'll have to excuse me then, I was responding to other comments within the thread, moreso than the OP.

The only problem I have with helping someone quit is by telling them they won't die, or showing lungs, etc. In the mind of a smoker, those things don't work.

What works is actual help. You tell yourself, "I'm going to do this because I said I would do it, and my word means nothing otherwise", or "substitute smoking with pushups. Everytime you feel the urge to smoke, go to the bathroom and do 10 pushups", or "continue as normal, but don't inhale once you taste how disgusting the cigarettes are, you will easily kick the habit".

To me these "solutions" of showing a cancerous lung etc, are simply the solutions of people who have never smoked a day in their life.

i cannot speak for me, but i can tell you it worked for my father. you can not claim to know what helps for a person, as you cannot claim to know that "nothing will help"

but of course nothing will help if you don't want to quit.

but one thing i know for sure. telling him it's ok to smoke for whatever reason, is the least helpful of things in this thread!

Those pictures do help, but they are only temporary solutions. They do not address underlying problems.

I agree that I'm not being helpful to the OP. 



oldschoolfool said:
HappySqurriel said:
Porcupine_I said:

guess which one is your lung

Just on a side note about this ...

I once talked to a pathologist and he was complaining about CSI myths and other misconceptions people had about his job and he said that one of his biggest annoyances was this exact type of propaganda from anti-smoking groups. His point is that if you live in a major city the amount of smoke and grime in everyone's lungs makes it impossible to determine who is a smoker based on outward appearance of the lungs.

Basically, most of these anti-smoking groups are taking two extreme cases (a two pack a day smoker who works on a loading dock around diesel trucks and someone who lives in an extremely remote rural area) and is using them to scare people.

Let me guess smoking cigs have great benefits and it's all a consipracy. lol


Is your reading comprehension that poor?

Saying that the anti-smoking campaigns involve heavily misleading and manipulative imagery to influence people is dramatically different from saying that smoking is not unhealthy.



Porcupine_I said:
HappySqurriel said:
Porcupine_I said:

guess which one is your lung

Just on a side note about this ...

I once talked to a pathologist and he was complaining about CSI myths and other misconceptions people had about his job and he said that one of his biggest annoyances was this exact type of propaganda from anti-smoking groups. His point is that if you live in a major city the amount of smoke and grime in everyone's lungs makes it impossible to determine who is a smoker based on outward appearance of the lungs.

Basically, most of these anti-smoking groups are taking two extreme cases (a two pack a day smoker who works on a loading dock around diesel trucks and someone who lives in an extremely remote rural area) and is using them to scare people.

so, basically he is saying it doesn't matter if you smoke or not and that it is the city that gives you lung cancer? does that really sound reasonable?

ok, two questions:

does he smoke?

and

does he realize by stating this he is actually spreading propaganda as well, just in another direction?

 

oh, and by the way, here is a link comparing city dwellers lungs to smokers lungs, but of course that's all lies and propaganda, right?

http://www.healingtalks.com/health/alternative-healing/detoxification-health/stop-smoking/pictures-of-smokers-and-non-smokers-lungs/

I think you need to re-read what I wrote ... No where did I claim that smoking was healthy, or that just living in a city caused cancer.

Besides that, don't you think that people who breath in air like the following image might end up with grey/black lungs that make it difficult to determine whether they smoke?



Around the Network

it does get harder and it also gets easier in about 2 weeks, you will go through Withdraws and anger .. because i quit smoking last year in march and its nearly been a hole year and i'm still thinking about cigarettes... it takes a very long time before it gets out of your system completely, i see my mum smoking and i kinda get pissed off because i can smell it a mile away and it makes me want one but  luckily i dont lol




theprof00 said:
Baalzamon said:

If you really say so, trust me, even if I was tired, I'd still be making my own meals working that much because fast food gets disgusting after a while.


specifically, I, agree with you. I find it hard to eat out all the time, and I make most of my own food. But I also do not presume that other people have as much choice in the matter as I do.

Except it takes almost no time or effort to make healthy food.  Those people do have a choice.  Not having time isn't a valid excuse in the slightest.  A lot of health food takes all the time of "Drop ingreidents into pot and wait a half hour."    To make salad you drop lettuce in a bowl.  You can get bagged lettuce with carrots and stuff inside and it's more cost effective then anything you'll get at fast food.  Outside like, Del Taco and their 39 cent tacos.

There is a good reason SOME people don't eat healthy but it's got shit to do with "not having time."


The reason some people don't eat healthy is because they don't own a car.  Which means it's a lot harder to get to grocery stores as you can't carry more then two-three bags on the bus, and more often then not fast food places and convience stores that carry mostly unhealthy stuff are likely to be located next to areas where such people live.

If you've got a car, you've got no excuse.



Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Baalzamon said:

If you really say so, trust me, even if I was tired, I'd still be making my own meals working that much because fast food gets disgusting after a while.


specifically, I, agree with you. I find it hard to eat out all the time, and I make most of my own food. But I also do not presume that other people have as much choice in the matter as I do.

Except it takes almost no time or effort to make healthy food.  Those people do have a choice.  Not having time isn't a valid excuse in the slightest.  A lot of health food takes all the time of "Drop ingreidents into pot and wait a half hour."    To make salad you drop lettuce in a bowl.  You can get bagged lettuce with carrots and stuff inside and it's more cost effective then anything you'll get at fast food.  Outside like, Del Taco and their 39 cent tacos.

There is a good reason SOME people don't eat healthy but it's got shit to do with "not having time."


The reason some people don't eat healthy is because they don't own a car.  Which means it's a lot harder to get to grocery stores as you can't carry more then two-three bags on the bus, and more often then not fast food places and convience stores that carry mostly unhealthy stuff are likely to be located next to areas where such people live.

If you've got a car, you've got no excuse.

I simply meant to show that barriers exist with these kinds of things that are beyond simple choice. It was an oversimplification using one reason.



HappySqurriel said:
Porcupine_I said:
HappySqurriel said:
Porcupine_I said:

guess which one is your lung

Just on a side note about this ...

I once talked to a pathologist and he was complaining about CSI myths and other misconceptions people had about his job and he said that one of his biggest annoyances was this exact type of propaganda from anti-smoking groups. His point is that if you live in a major city the amount of smoke and grime in everyone's lungs makes it impossible to determine who is a smoker based on outward appearance of the lungs.

Basically, most of these anti-smoking groups are taking two extreme cases (a two pack a day smoker who works on a loading dock around diesel trucks and someone who lives in an extremely remote rural area) and is using them to scare people.

so, basically he is saying it doesn't matter if you smoke or not and that it is the city that gives you lung cancer? does that really sound reasonable?

ok, two questions:

does he smoke?

and

does he realize by stating this he is actually spreading propaganda as well, just in another direction?

 

oh, and by the way, here is a link comparing city dwellers lungs to smokers lungs, but of course that's all lies and propaganda, right?

http://www.healingtalks.com/health/alternative-healing/detoxification-health/stop-smoking/pictures-of-smokers-and-non-smokers-lungs/

I think you need to re-read what I wrote ... No where did I claim that smoking was healthy, or that just living in a city caused cancer.

Besides that, don't you think that people who breath in air like the following image might end up with grey/black lungs that make it difficult to determine whether they smoke?

and these people riding their bikes in the middle of the road, they are in danger of getting run over by a truck, but that is not relevant either to the case at hand. did you even look at my link?



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Porcupine_I said:

and these people riding their bikes in the middle of the road, they are in danger of getting run over by a truck, but that is not relevant either to the case at hand. did you even look at my link?


Yes, but do you think that the lungs on display there are more typical smokers (smoking about 1/2 a pack a day for a decade) or an extreme case (2 to 3 packs a day until the day they died)? If you think it is a typical smoker, I've got ocean front property in Montana to sell you ...