Home User CP Browse Members Calendar Register Today!  
Get New posts Faq / Help? Community Menu
   

Go Back   Hookah Pro - Hookah Forum > Hookah Stuff > Hookah Discussion

Hookah Discussion General discussion related to hookah ...

IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Hookah Discussion

Reply Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th, 2010, 08:42 PM
uglybiker's Avatar
uglybiker
Status: Offline
Quantum Bubblenautics,PhD

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Dread Pyramid of Itzilichlitlichlitzl
Posts: 7,366
Default IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

[FONT=Arial]IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS[/FONT]

an online book by:
Lauren A. Colby


[FONT=Arial]I wrote this book to refute the wild, irresponsible and untruthful anti-smoking propaganda which obscures the truth. I do not expect it will ever make any money, nor do I want it to make any money. Copies of the book were sent to numerous publishers, but even the subsidy publishers, who print and promote books for money, were unwilling to take it. All of which proves that in this country, "If you want a free press, you'd better own a press".[/FONT]

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html
__________________
FroYo = Phatt Azzd Kaloudz Yo!

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 6th, 2010, 08:44 PM
Drewzi's Avatar
Drewzi
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 758
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

I will be looking into this over the next couple weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 6th, 2010, 10:26 PM
brybry642
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 408
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Is this book trying to make me believe that smoking will make me live longer or something?

Conspiracy theorists are the craziest of the bunch....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 7th, 2010, 12:44 AM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by brybry642 View Post
Is this book trying to make me believe that smoking will make me live longer or something?

Conspiracy theorists are the craziest of the bunch....
No, it doesn't say that smoking is good for you.

Simply evoking conspiracy theories is simply a means to misrepresent any opinions or facts that contradicts group think as nonsensical without critically looking at what is said. It’s a rhetorical device for lemming and a means to prevent thoughtful discourse that works extremely well.

I've been posting links & excerpts from this book for years and it's great stuff actually. Tons of great info and a really nicely done criticism of the Attorney General’s Reports and a great deal of stuff about the politicalization of science.

Thing is that most people are far more comfortable listening to the propasphere and believing as they told then actually reading what Colby has to say.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 7th, 2010, 10:33 AM
Ignited's Avatar
Ignited
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 321
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by brybry642 View Post
Is this book trying to make me believe that smoking will make me live longer or something?

Conspiracy theorists are the craziest of the bunch....
Agreed.

Edit. Just read a paragraph or two and I had to stop, this guy must be one delusional person. I'm actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking.

Last edited by Ignited; May 7th, 2010 at 10:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 7th, 2010, 10:36 AM
Dreamer1917's Avatar
Dreamer1917
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Jax, Fl
Posts: 394
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Lauren A. Colby and UglyBiker on behalf of all of hookahpro we thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 7th, 2010, 11:28 AM
A_Teator1's Avatar
A_Teator1
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 618
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

I haven't read it but i might just give it a shot of hajo likes it, he seems to be one knowledgeable dude when it comes to smoking
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 7th, 2010, 02:10 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignited View Post
Agreed.

Edit. Just read a paragraph or two and I had to stop, this guy must be one delusional person. I'm actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking.
Lets see, you agree with brybry642 who not only hasn't read the book but misrepresents it by making a rhetorical strawman and engages in a bit of ad hominem attacks and that is something you agree with which pretty much says it all as far as how your mind is sealed tightly against reason.

I guess since you read all of two paragraphs you think you can actually say something about a book which again demonstrates quite a bit about how narrow minded you are and how unwilling you are to actually consider a position other then your own.

Let's take a look at those two paragraphs that "actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking"

Here they are:

"I am a 64 year old male and I have been smoking cigars and pipes since I was 18. Recently, however, like other smokers, I have found myself hounded, bullied and repressed by a government-sponsored campaign against smoking and smokers. In fact, I've been thrown out of some of the best restaurants in the country, because of my smoking habits!"

So, what is so far fetched and non-nonsensical about that paragraph? Is there or is there not an active government campaign against smokers in the U.S.? Is likely that someone would get thrown out of a great restaurant for smoking? The answer in both cases is yes to anyone that has been conscious in the last 15+ years which makes the paragraph reasonable and ignited's criticism not reasonable.


“What particularly galls me is the prejudice against cigar and pipe smokers! The original Surgeon General's Report, released in 1964, showed no ill effects from pipe smoking, or moderate cigar smoking. Indeed, studies relied upon by the SG actually showed that pipe smokers lived longer than non-smokers. The only exception was pipe smokers who quit smoking. They died somewhat sooner than the non-smokers or the active pipe smokers. The SG speculated that the pipe smokers who quit might have done so because they were ill.”

Given that you never bothered to read the chapter that actually addressed the contents of the The 1964 Surgeon General's Report you failed to actually notice what the report said with respect to pipe and cigar smokers. If you actually read the chapter in question you note what was said on pages 57 & 58 of the report with respect to benz(a)pyrene, inhaling and non-inhaling smokers and cancer rates. Of course all of those things need to be taken into account within the overall context of the report and statistical errors and numerous methodological problems with the report that Colby addressees and backs up his position with clear thinking and credible citations .

By contrast you simply make inane and fallacious statements while admitting a complete unfamiliarity with the text.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 7th, 2010, 02:18 PM
Nick
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 904, Florida
Posts: 1,851
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
Lets see, you agree with brybry642 who not only hasn't read the book but misrepresents it by making a rhetorical strawman and engages in a bit of ad hominem attacks and that is something you agree with which pretty much says it all as far as how your mind is sealed tightly against reason.

I guess since you read all of two paragraphs you think you can actually say something about a book which again demonstrates quite a bit about how narrow minded you are and how unwilling you are to actually consider a position other then your own.

Let's take a look at those two paragraphs that "actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking"

Here they are:

"I am a 64 year old male and I have been smoking cigars and pipes since I was 18. Recently, however, like other smokers, I have found myself hounded, bullied and repressed by a government-sponsored campaign against smoking and smokers. In fact, I've been thrown out of some of the best restaurants in the country, because of my smoking habits!"

So, what is so far fetched and non-nonsensical about that paragraph? Is there or is there not an active government campaign against smokers in the U.S.? Is likely that someone would get thrown out of a great restaurant for smoking? The answer in both cases is yes to anyone that has been conscious in the last 15+ years which makes the paragraph reasonable and ignited's criticism not reasonable.


“What particularly galls me is the prejudice against cigar and pipe smokers! The original Surgeon General's Report, released in 1964, showed no ill effects from pipe smoking, or moderate cigar smoking. Indeed, studies relied upon by the SG actually showed that pipe smokers lived longer than non-smokers. The only exception was pipe smokers who quit smoking. They died somewhat sooner than the non-smokers or the active pipe smokers. The SG speculated that the pipe smokers who quit might have done so because they were ill.”

Given that you never bothered to read the chapter that actually addressed the contents of the The 1964 Surgeon General's Report you failed to actually notice what the report said with respect to pipe and cigar smokers. If you actually read the chapter in question you note what was said on pages 57 & 58 of the report with respect to benz(a)pyrene, inhaling and non-inhaling smokers and cancer rates. Of course all of those things need to be taken into account within the overall context of the report and statistical errors and numerous methodological problems with the report that Colby addressees and backs up his position with clear thinking and credible citations .

By contrast you simply make inane and fallacious statements while admitting a complete unfamiliarity with the text.
I love you.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 7th, 2010, 02:37 PM
DaSebsch's Avatar
DaSebsch
Status: Offline
Hookah Aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kentucky/Germany
Posts: 1,808
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
Lets see, you agree with brybry642 who not only hasn't read the book but misrepresents it by making a rhetorical strawman and engages in a bit of ad hominem attacks and that is something you agree with which pretty much says it all as far as how your mind is sealed tightly against reason.

I guess since you read all of two paragraphs you think you can actually say something about a book which again demonstrates quite a bit about how narrow minded you are and how unwilling you are to actually consider a position other then your own.

.
Are you really unable to have a debate without actually making offensive remarks and personal attacks?

The guy has a different opinion from yours, and voiced it. Obviously you're not very accepting of his opinion since it differs from yours, yet you accuse him of being narrow minded.

Questioning that burning something and inhaling it into your lungs has a negative effect on your body is nothing but wishful thinking. While smoking shouldn't become the great evil it is seen as in the US today, one has to be aware that second hand smoke not only disturbs other people's comfort, but can also bring forth allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and other such things. You have a right to smoke, but you have no right to bother other people with your smoke.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 7th, 2010, 03:28 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

The fellow's opinion is based on nothing in particular and he even admitted to not bothering to read more then two paragraphs before declaring that he was "actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking". That demonstrated a willful disregard for any semblance of understanding the text and I replied in a manner such an attitude deserves. If that offends you that is your problem. If someone wants to condemn something without actually reading it I won't talk about how poster's erudition leaves just a little to be be desired or how I have some common ground with willful ignorance. An opinion should be valued to the extent that it can be supported and no more. That some find my lack of a willingness to accept equality of all opinions no matter how uninformed they may be distressing illustrates nothing more then an excessively fragile temperament.

As to second hand smoke, that is another topic that Colby and a great many others i've cited have discussed in depth with copious support for their positions. I suppose I could repost them but I lack the time to do so at the moment.

Last edited by Hajo Flettner; May 7th, 2010 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 7th, 2010, 03:54 PM
xH00K4HxSN1P3Rx's Avatar
xH00K4HxSN1P3Rx
Status: Offline
Hookah Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Onalaska, TX
Posts: 1,222
Send a message via AIM to xH00K4HxSN1P3Rx Send a message via MSN to xH00K4HxSN1P3Rx Send a message via Skype™ to xH00K4HxSN1P3Rx
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
Lets see, you agree with brybry642 who not only hasn't read the book but misrepresents it by making a rhetorical strawman and engages in a bit of ad hominem attacks and that is something you agree with which pretty much says it all as far as how your mind is sealed tightly against reason.

I guess since you read all of two paragraphs you think you can actually say something about a book which again demonstrates quite a bit about how narrow minded you are and how unwilling you are to actually consider a position other then your own.

Let's take a look at those two paragraphs that "actually laughing at some of the crap this guy tries to question regarding the risk of cancer due to smoking"

Here they are:

"I am a 64 year old male and I have been smoking cigars and pipes since I was 18. Recently, however, like other smokers, I have found myself hounded, bullied and repressed by a government-sponsored campaign against smoking and smokers. In fact, I've been thrown out of some of the best restaurants in the country, because of my smoking habits!"

So, what is so far fetched and non-nonsensical about that paragraph? Is there or is there not an active government campaign against smokers in the U.S.? Is likely that someone would get thrown out of a great restaurant for smoking? The answer in both cases is yes to anyone that has been conscious in the last 15+ years which makes the paragraph reasonable and ignited's criticism not reasonable.


“What particularly galls me is the prejudice against cigar and pipe smokers! The original Surgeon General's Report, released in 1964, showed no ill effects from pipe smoking, or moderate cigar smoking. Indeed, studies relied upon by the SG actually showed that pipe smokers lived longer than non-smokers. The only exception was pipe smokers who quit smoking. They died somewhat sooner than the non-smokers or the active pipe smokers. The SG speculated that the pipe smokers who quit might have done so because they were ill.”

Given that you never bothered to read the chapter that actually addressed the contents of the The 1964 Surgeon General's Report you failed to actually notice what the report said with respect to pipe and cigar smokers. If you actually read the chapter in question you note what was said on pages 57 & 58 of the report with respect to benz(a)pyrene, inhaling and non-inhaling smokers and cancer rates. Of course all of those things need to be taken into account within the overall context of the report and statistical errors and numerous methodological problems with the report that Colby addressees and backs up his position with clear thinking and credible citations .

By contrast you simply make inane and fallacious statements while admitting a complete unfamiliarity with the text.

I laughed so hard..
__________________

KM 34" Single Pear | KM 32" Halzone | KM 30" Carnaval
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 7th, 2010, 03:56 PM
DaSebsch's Avatar
DaSebsch
Status: Offline
Hookah Aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kentucky/Germany
Posts: 1,808
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

If he doesn't wanna read, he doesn't wanna read. You gave him the response YOU think he deserves, and most people would disagree with that.
If you don't have anything positive to say, don't say anything at all. He was voicing his opinion and was commenting on the matter, which is his right to do.
An opinion is an opinion, no matter how "ignorant" it is. If you would like to sway his opinion or debate with him, you can do it in an adult, respectful matter.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 7th, 2010, 04:14 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

You are correct that everyone is free to read or not read what ever they want. However, I, and everyone else, is equally free to reject wholly ignorant mis-characterizations of unread texts as blather not to be taken seriously.

You claim that most people would disagree without the response I gave him yet as I have come to expect from you no evidence at all supporting such a notion has been presented. In any case, the mere popularity of an opinion in no way lends it credence so again we see that one is free to proclaim ignorance as the poster in question did and others are equally free to call it such.

As to having something positive to say I would say that silence in the face of willful ignorance is no vice and to condemn such ignorance is a virtue. As to debating in a respectful manner I correctly pointed out that the opinion of the poster in question is baseless and that he admitted as much. I also pointed out that ad hominem attacks and strawman fallacies are tools used by the narrow minded and willfully ignorant to suppress contrary opinions that rest upon evidence. That you fail to criticize such things while condemning me for my honesty demonstrates that my opinion of you is correct.

Since our opinions on each other won't change and another pissing contest is not in the best interest of the forum I would request that rather then continuing this off topic exchange we let people that actually want to read the text in question do so and discuss it.

Last edited by Hajo Flettner; May 7th, 2010 at 04:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 7th, 2010, 09:28 PM
DaSebsch's Avatar
DaSebsch
Status: Offline
Hookah Aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kentucky/Germany
Posts: 1,808
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
You are correct that everyone is free to read or not read what ever they want. However, I, and everyone else, is equally free to reject wholly ignorant mis-characterizations of unread texts as blather not to be taken seriously.
You didn't only reject it, you made offensive remarks as well. I'd have no problem if you just rejected him, but I'm just wondering, again, if it's too much to ask for a little respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post

You claim that most people would disagree without the response I gave him yet as I have come to expect from you no evidence at all supporting such a notion has been presented. In any case, the mere popularity of an opinion in no way lends it credence so again we see that one is free to proclaim ignorance as the poster in question did and others are equally free to call it such.
Pretty sure a lot of people here disagree with calling somebody narrow minded and ignorant since this is a respectful community where such offensive remarks are frowned upon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post

As to having something positive to say I would say that silence in the face of willful ignorance is no vice and to condemn such ignorance is a virtue. As to debating in a respectful manner I correctly pointed out that the opinion of the poster in question is baseless and that he admitted as much. I also pointed out that ad hominem attacks and strawman fallacies are tools used by the narrow minded and willfully ignorant to suppress contrary opinions that rest upon evidence. That you fail to criticize such things while condemning me for my honesty demonstrates that my opinion of you is correct.
You have your right to condemn his comments in any way and try to disprove them, I don't agree with them myself. My only question is if it is that hard to do so in an adult matter without personal attacks. Present your evidence all you want, that is not what we are talking about at all, it's about showing respect to fellow members and being mature about proving somebody wrong or telling him that he's wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post

Since our opinions on each other won't change and another pissing contest is not in the best interest of the forum I would request that rather then continuing this off topic exchange we let people that actually want to read the text in question do so and discuss it.
If it's really that much to ask to show a little respect.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old May 7th, 2010, 10:14 PM
brybry642
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 408
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Hajo...I bet you find the movie "Loose Change" accurate as well? Michael Moore?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 7th, 2010, 10:55 PM
Nick
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 904, Florida
Posts: 1,851
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

You guys are getting out of hand....

DONT FLAME BUT IM GONNA FLAME YOU!
Stop.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 7th, 2010, 11:00 PM
BIGPOPPA's Avatar
BIGPOPPA
Status: Offline
I call it hypocritical BS
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: VAIL, AZ
Posts: 3,615
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Lets get this thread back on topic please.
__________________
Hi, my name's John. You are in violation of the balance. Leave immediately or I will deport you.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old May 7th, 2010, 11:08 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

DaSebsch, I've had my say on the inanities expressed here and rather then be redudant i'll allow you to the last word you so deperately want.

brybry642, I've no idea what loose change is but given the Micheal Moore referance i'll assume it's another snide backhanded afront aimed at me. When you actually have soemething to say or ask that is on topic i'd like to hear it. For the record I don't like Micheal Moore but since that is off topic as well I won't elaborate.

BP, I agree fully which is why I ask if anyone actually has bothered to read Colby yet or intends to?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old May 7th, 2010, 11:18 PM
KoRnKitten's Avatar
KoRnKitten
Status: Offline
Moderator Kitteh
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jax
Posts: 3,984
Send a message via AIM to KoRnKitten Send a message via Yahoo to KoRnKitten
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

Guys again. Stop with the bantering, poking and prodding back and forth. You two seem to get in a virtual pissing match with each other, no matter where the subject is posted or what the subject is on. It's not very becoming (to either one of you!) There is no reason to do this to one another. You both are very intelligent people and it seems like you guys are always try to " one up " each other.

So come on. give it a rest.

I'm a little late to the party * sorry!* at work and it took me a few minutes to write a response!
__________________


GLaDOS: "You euthanised your faithful companion cube more quickly than any test subject on record. Congratulations!"
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old May 24th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: IN DEFENSE OF SMOKERS

It's a bummer that this topic got derailed by the willfully ignorant. I'd like to see some comments by people that actually read some of what Colby had say and find out if anyone actually learned a bit about the methodology of the anti-tobacco movement.
Reply With Quote
Reply Share
Share with your friends on facebook

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DFW smokers mbwanderski Hookah Discussion 3 March 8th, 2010 05:31 PM
any uk smokers about ?? lucas Hookah Discussion 17 January 27th, 2009 02:24 PM
What up smokers? oclor Introductions - Forum Members 5 July 15th, 2008 04:29 PM
Zup Smokers! Savage Smoker Introductions - Forum Members 9 May 20th, 2008 10:57 PM
Smokers in Jax, FL. joshmeyer Hookah Discussion 3 January 20th, 2008 02:23 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM.

Skin Design By vBSkinworks



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2012, Hookah Pro Inc.