Planning a smoking area?

[Lieva]

Wrong, it's well proven that passive smoking is bad, that it can cause things like asthma and so forth. The only thing in debate is about whether passive smoking can cause cancer and the argument generally seems to come down to how much passive smoke you inhale.

Hmm..
i did say it increases the chances so we technically agreeing
which kinda kills off my 'passive smoking hasnt been proven to be harmful' in the same sentence i made

i swear my brain only half works when i make posts sometimes

[Lieva]

i spose its difficult for them to prove passive smoking actually kills kids off because the only way to prove it is..well..to kill off a few kids..
i spose they could use mice..

[Sharkith]

the problem is similar to the censorship argument. Where do you draw the line? How much risk are you prepared to accept? It is all very difficult to decide about because we are confronted with a myriad of risks many of which we don't even know about.

Yeah the reason why the evidnece is poor is because the good research would basically involve possibly killing people. Something like what the Nazi's did with people during the second world war and the Nuremburg trials. Have you ever read the content of those?

[Xest]

Your argument is based on you redefining the term risk to suit your own personal view. Once again Sharkith, you're wrong.

[Tuthmes]

[quote="Xest"]No I think you missed my point, he mistakenly thought I was from the US too. Regardless, I've updated the location portion of my profile to aid people from making this mistake in future

Still I think we'll have to agree to disagree as at least in the UK it's out of our hands anyway, Labour does whatever the fuck they want no matter what we think ]

Hmm whas quite sure you where, anyhow thats something i thought i remembered about you oO (born there, lived there perhaps). Though quite funny how to completly different persons on this board suggest you are from the same country then.
Anyways even if not, the statement still stands about americans.

Also it's always the same with you and your statements. You will never admit your wrong, but always will try to prove your point, regardless of how ridiculess it is, or will start the usuall flaming.

And what Sharkith said

[Lieva]

Yeah the reason why the evidnece is poor is because the good research would basically involve possibly killing people. Something like what the Nazi's did with people during the second world war and the Nuremburg trials. Have you ever read the content of those?

nope but i can imagine pretty gruesome stuff.

[Tuthmes]

Your argument is based on you redefining the term risk to suit your own personal view. Once again Sharkith, you're wrong.

LoLzzzZZzzz

[Sharkith]

Your argument is based on you redefining the term risk to suit your own personal view. Once again Sharkith, you're wrong.

I think you will find Xest that citing the argument I used again only proves I was right.

Lieva check this link out - the details are further down the page.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergDoctorTrial.html

[Xest]

Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not? That's rather idiotic logic.

Unfortunately however the majority of people are stupid, this is as per your example why people like George Bush get into power.

[Lieva]

Also it's always the same with you and your statements. You will never admit your wrong, but always will try to prove your point, regardless of how ridiculess it is, or will start the usuall flaming.

actually you started the flaming on him in this case..as is usual...

and he has tried to prove his point..

both shark and xest are on the same wavelength but saying it different..

Shark says passive smoking has never been proved to be bad but can increase the chances of getting ill.
Xest says passive smoking has been proved to be bad and can increase the chances of being ill..

theyre both right so neither can say theyre wrong.


the only argument seems to be wether it has been proven or disproven to be bad or not