CreateDebate


Hmicciche's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Hmicciche's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

......................................................................................................................................okey-doeky

1 point

Just hire strippers at the 7-11!

(keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible!)

1 point

"You don't have to believe something has a soul to believe it should have rights one way or another."

The logical possibilities are:

1. Animals have minds, even souls, and so should have certain rights.

2. Animals have minds, even souls but should not have certain rights.

3. Animals do not have minds, even souls but should have certain rights.

4. Animals do not have minds, even souls and should not have certain rights.

I'm sorry, which position are you arguing?

"What something is called has little bearing on what it is in many instances."

Yes, but what something is should have some bearing on what it is called.

"I don't understand, is this debate about animal rights or about what to call animals?"

It is about what to call animals if they have no soul. :)

I'll concede the rights part.

1 point

Damn! I was looking forward to my mentopause!

(It's satire)

1 point

Use of this is contraindicated for those who have already achieved mentopause. Sarah Palin, for example, will not be needing this pill.

Otherwise, anyone who show signs of independent judgment are good candidates. Expect that a lot of liberals to be required to use Lybrel.

0 points

I think that the "Eyes" have it. No doubt, John Wayne walked like a girl.

1 point

"So, your suggesting that the British Medical Journal is rubbish and the Mayo Clinic is far superior. OK!! Those are not flaws, but only Criticism."

The British Medical Journal simply publish a study other scientists found to be flawed. That's not me suggesting anything about the journal itself. And no, its not just criticism by these other scientists. Its criticism that the study is flawed.

Flawed.

Not scientifically valid.

No fucking good.

No truth to the claims it makes.

But hey, the Surgeon General works for the government as so is a scientific whore for some position you have yet to prove the government holds. But a scientist funded by the tobacco industry is beyond reproach,even if his study is flawed. Nice logic there buddy.

You amaze me. You simply amaze me. If you were to argue against yourself, you couldn't do any better than this.

1 point

Thanks for outlining the administrative structure of all these pertinent bodies. However, your reply was not pertinent to this question:

"Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?"

Yes, you proved that there is a government. You have not proved there is a government position separate from the generally accepted science on the question of the harmfulness of smoke.

0 points

"How is the government destroying the tobacco industry? The anti-tobacco campaign in public places that they created and fueled by people like yourself."

The anti-smoking campaign is largely paid for by the tobacco industry.

"As part of a $206 billion dollar settlement, major tobacco companies like Philip Morris agreed to pay for advertising campaigns to educate consumers about the dangers of tobacco. Not only were they barred from advertising their own products or sponsoring events geared towards teenagers, they also had to contribute millions annually to support these anti-smoking ads in every state." [1]

Cigarette manufacturers engaged in a 50 year massive racketeering scheme that included falsely denying the adverse health effects of their products, falsely denying that nicotine is addictive, falsely representing that “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes present fewer health risks, falsely denying that they marketed to kids, and falsely denying that secondhand smoke causes disease.

Says one commentator:

"Like smoking, lying is a tough habit to break. Tobacco companies have been lying to the American people for decades about the harmful nature of their products "

1 point

..............................Hell, I just like Winter .....................

WINTER (VIVALDI FOUR SEASONS)
2 points

:::::::::::::::::::: I like Johnny Winter :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Johnny Winter
2 points

........................I love the Winter Wonderland.............................

Winter Wonderland
1 point

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ I like the Winter Solstice }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

PaGaian Winter Solstice 2009
1 point

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ I like the Winter wind ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Chopin Etude op.25 no.11
1 point

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I like Winter Bells //////////////////////////////

Winter Bells
1 point

I like songs about winter:

5 little Snowman standing in a row,

Each had a hat and a big red bow.

Out came the sun and it shone all day,

1 Little snowman melted away.

4 Little Snowman standing in a row,

Each had a hat and a big red bow.

Out Came the the sun and it shone all day,

1 Little snowman melted away.

1 point

------------I have my moments..................................

1 point

"The Surgeon General is an partial opinion because he works for the government; what a surprise that he supports it."

Proof for the claim that there is a government position as opposed to a scientific position on this issue?

"The government will stop at none to destroy the tobacco industry."

Proof of that claim?

James Enstrom's study, published in the British Medical Journal, is flawed for several reasons:

There's no information on smoking habits after 1972, even though the observation period went another 26 years. "We don't know if the nonsmokers continued to be exposed to secondhand smoke, or if their spouses continued to smoke," Thun tells WebMD.

Since the participants were an average of age 52 when the study began in 1959, many smoking spouses could have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage before 1972, when Enstrom started his observation phase. This would have affected the secondhand smoke exposure of the nonsmokers. In addition, environmental factors such as secondhand smoke are less apparent in older ages.

Participants were first enrolled in 1959, when secondhand smoke was pervasive. "Most people were exposed to it, pretty much everywhere, whether or not they were married to smokers."

The finding is based on only 10% of the original study participants.

* The tobacco industry funded the study as part of an ongoing campaign to publish studies that question the dangers of secondhand smoke. "It views secondhand smoke as one of the most dangerous components against it, since it's what causes cities and states to restrict public smoking," says Thun. "And it actively seeks out this kind of research to confuse the public."

This from the link you proved to support your argument that second-hand smoke is a government conspiracy against the poor picked on tobacco industry. So, hey, way to undercut your own argument!

0 points

"Are we going to outlaw guns just because it kills people too?"

No, we are going to outlaw using guns to kill people. Oh, we already have.

In the same way, we are going to outlaw tobacco when it is harmful to others. Pay close attention to my argument. I am calling for the regulation of the industry and the banning of smoking in public places, due to the document dangers of second hand smoke.

0 points

The Mayo Clinic, a very reputable source, has this to say about second hand smoke:

"The Surgeon General reported in 2006 that scientific evidence shows there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

"Tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 250 of which are toxic. And more than 50 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known or suspected to cause cancer."

"Health experts have recognized the relationship between secondhand smoke and health risks for decades."

Any questions?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

1 point

"Okay, I have to ask: What the hell is 'Tea Party.'"

Well, that's helping to come to a debate knowing nothing and not bothering trying to find out.

A tip. Google is your friend.

2 points

Oh. My. God.

Saddam was behind 9/11, huh?

Invading Iraq after 9/11 is like invading Iceland after Pearl Harbor.

What Bush needed to do was not nothing, but the right thing. One word. Afganistan.

1 point

And so...the facts to support your suspicion about Muslims being offended by the opportunity to swear on the Koran in court?

I didn't realize that Joe had pointlessly amassed points recently. Didn't you say that unlike Joe, you went for quantity, not quality. Stop using Joe to try to justify your point-mongering ways.

1 point

"Vegetarians are trying to win the war. You're trying to win the battle."

That's a rather odd statement, considering the fact that at one time I was a "professional vegetarian" so to speak, serving as Director of EarthSave International.

"I hope you're not using PETA as your vegetarian/vegan visions."

I hope you can read what I wrote about the basis of the strategy behind the programs I encouraged our chapters to follow. Its based on my professional experience helping people make positive changes in their life, and the positive results of an particular approach used by an organization that was able to help people quit smoking.

"You're basing most of your ideals in western worlds"

I don't have ideals so much as I have the facts about how a moving more toward a plant-based diet has beneficial results for your health, the health of the planet and for the ethical treatment of animals, as well as a practical strategy for helping people change their dietary habits.

One of those facts, in fact, is a landmark study done in China, comparing people who had adopted the Standard American Diet (SAD) to people who maintained a traditional diet, low in the consumption of meat.


1 of 19 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]