The anti's do the equivalent of sitting down on the floor with their fingers in their ears yelling...using their brains is completely beyond their capacity, which is why the minute they start talking their "talking points" I feel justified to walk off and pretend they no longer exist. If they can't do anything more than parrot, then what they say has no value.
"Sir, when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" John Maynard Keynes
Dr. Mike, I must say, you are a very impressive individual. Most people would have given up by now, but you keep on going. I appreciate that. It's very rare for people these days to continue to fight for even-handedness in today's world. They are too busy trying not to be offended. I really wish you were in charge of the ASM, I think happiness for all parties would actually be achievable under your leadership.
Dr. Siegel,
As I wrote in my last post regarding "Hypocrisy Awards" 2/21, Dr. Koop and all the major antismoking organizations have always stated that their aim is to create a tobaccoless society. How can you express surprise that they now are campaigning to forbid smoking in the home?
Dr. Siegel:
You write:
"There is a button on a computer called the "Delete" button. [...] You don't have to read it. No one is holding you down and forcing you to read it."
It's kind of funny you mention this, because at establishments where smoking is permitted, there's this thing called an "Exit". You don't have to be there. No one is holding you down and forcing you to be there.
Mr. Siegel--
I wish you had the same respect for private property in the the business sphere that you have for private homes.
The marginal improvement in health you think you will achieve by workplace smoking bans are not worth the tradeoff.
thank you.
the little bit of time that i've been looking for support on this issue (a week now?) i've been struck by two things - 1) how overwhelming it feels to even look at protecting my civil liberties and 2) how either nonchalant or just plain afraid other people are to begin looking at something like this for real, even when it directly concerns them.
when i eventually tried to play golf, i finally appreciated what it takes to sink a putt or drive a distance. i'm having that experience again with this.
a.c.
Hey Doc, you're not the only one who laments the death of real discussion. Actually, it's amazing what passes for discussion most of the time.
It's basic human nature to align yourself with a group and then take the path of least resistance. It's kind of the equivalent of optimal foraging; why waste energy hunting antelope when you can eat your slower-moving, less well defended neighbor? And, it *is* all about the eating.
The same thing happens on most political forums too; new forums -- the ones that are started by reasonable people who want to discuss issues -- tend to attract thoughtful and reasoned people at first. Eventually the moonbats (of all stripes) move in and generally they merely try to shout others down, while contributing littles else. All sizzle, no steak. They are not interested in scholarship, respectful debate, nor the give and take of thoughtful discourse.
It's pretty weird, but sometimes the best and most respectful contributions come from those who oppose your premise, yet still possess the rare ability to make counterpoints without ad hominem attacks. It makes one reconsider their alliances when this happens.
Really, how narcissistic and self-indulgent is it to contact someone personally, without invitation, to scold them about their posts to a public or semi-public listserv/forum? This is the essence of patronizing nannyism. Yes, I know "patronizing nannyism" is redundant.
You've now joined the ranks of people who obviously need to be spanked for "your own good". Ain't it wonderful? Here you've thought yourself to be a vibrant, intelligent, contributing member of society, when all along you've just been one of those people who are thwarting the great society.
In some ways, you have to laugh at them. Poor souls, they're clueless as to human nature and they underestimate the people who don't agree with their philosophies. I'm sure they think themselves the glorious center of the universe, but more and more of us are becoming repulsed by their intrusiveness, not to mention the undeserved affectations of sanctimony.
As always, best wishes.
"Poor souls, they're clueless as to human nature ...." ... and that's what scares me most.
Jales wrote:
"They are too busy trying not to be offended."
edit:
"They are too busy *trying* to be offended."
Unfortunately, they're NOT "clueless to human nature," They understand it too well and exploit its weakness too well. They understand that rational arguments rarely stand a chance against aroused hatred and fear, which are the easiest things to arouse. They understand the vanity of legislators, and the tribalism of mobs. And you have to admit that when they've risen up to the point where they can fearlessly state in print (without fear of a major backlash) that they're moving into your homes and fighting you on the beaches, that they've had a mighty success.
Walt,
Allow me to say you have expressed the situation well. Over the last 25 years, antismoking campaigners have craftily utilized many, if not most, of the more negative aspects of human nature.
Dr. Siegel,
Wouldn't you agree that there are very large sums of money in the form of grants from pharmaceutical interests as well as tobacco settlements that are driving the tobacco control movement into a rabid frenzy.
For instance here is everybody's good friend Stanton Glantz accepting $678,000.00 from Nicoderm interests at RWJF:
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
With financial backing from such a special interest source how could anyone view his research as objective? And how could anyone opposing the current dogma of the tobacco control movement expect to be heard above the cash register draws which keep that movement extremely well funded?
When our intelligentsia becomes systematic looters, abusing the government apparatus and law, their credibility and their claims to good will and caring for their fellow man are exposed.
I'm sorry, sir, you have thrown your reputation in with a disreputable cause.
It cannot be reclaimed, absent a total reversal of your views.
In response to Marcus' comment, yes I do think there are some serious adverse effects on the tobacco control movement of the infusion of Big Pharmaceutical money. I have outlined the details of my thinking here.
Commenting by HaloScan
