The General Political Thread

[Cazasar]

Well I’m sorry to break it to you, but allowing your kids to be in the same room as somebody smoking increases their risk of cancer.

Do you have even the slightest Idea how many fucking things cause Cancer?

[Toffee]

I do but that doesn’t mean I actively seek them out

[Furrnox]

You need to drop it down a notch.

[Piercee]

I don't smoke next to my kids, I let them smoke next to me

[Olafson]

I actually smoked my kids.

[Toffee]

You need to drop it down a notch.

What are you talking about?

Fse might be one of the few places where saying second hand smoke causes cancer is a controversial opinion...

[McPero]

I actually smoked my kids.

You just admited to incest paedophilia. Nice.

Well I’m sorry to break it to you, but allowing your kids to be in the same room as somebody smoking increases their risk of cancer.

Do you have even the slightest Idea how many fucking things cause Cancer?

Speaking german does there is a study that was made since 1250 untill now.

[StevenChilton]

You need to drop it down a notch.

What are you talking about?

Fse might be one of the few places where saying second hand smoke causes cancer is a controversial opinion...

That's because in the field of medicine it is a controversial opinion.

[Toffee]

You need to drop it down a notch.

What are you talking about?

Fse might be one of the few places where saying second hand smoke causes cancer is a controversial opinion...

That's because in the field of medicine it is a controversial opinion.

Lmao no it’s not. It’s a view supported by the NHS, WHO and CRUK but apparently they’re all wrong and you’re right.

[StevenChilton]

Appealing to authority is a debating fallacy (particularly when said authority has been caught lying on this very issue).

The medical evidence suggests passive smoking is probably not bad for you. Smoking bans in public and commercial areas have been in place in most Western countries for over a decade; if passive smoking were as bad as claimed then you'd expect significant reductions in heart attacks, lung cancers and so on among the general population over the last ten years. And yet that's not what has happened. Most studies have not identified statistically significant reductions in any of those diseases and I can cite them if you so wish.

[Toffee]

Actually you probably wouldn’t expect people’s cancer rates to go down since most people still live in heavily polluted cities. I’m not appealing to authority but simply well respected institutions who have had the same stance for a long time. If it wasn’t unhealthy then why wouldn’t they say so?

[McPero]

Appealing to authority is a debating fallacy (particularly when said authority has been caught lying on this very issue).

The medical evidence suggests passive smoking is probably not bad for you. Smoking bans in public and commercial areas have been in place in most Western countries for over a decade; if passive smoking were as bad as claimed then you'd expect significant reductions in heart attacks, lung cancers and so on among the general population over the last ten years. And yet that's not what has happened. Most studies have not identified statistically significant reductions in any of those diseases and I can cite them if you so wish.

. It is really impossible to claim that, when you have so many factors that might be increasing heart attacks (more fat people), lung cancers (more air pollution) over the last ten years.

[Theodin]

Let's get some perspective. If you live in an urban area, especially a major city like London/New York/Paris/etc, then second hand tobacco smoke is the least of your concerns regarding what your children are inhaling. Most towns and cities around the globe, including in the West, have pollution levels far above international standards that are considered safe. Me and my wife are well aware of this. It's safer for my children to be around smokers 24/7 and live in the countryside than it is for them to live in a city with non-smoking parents.

Citation please
at least in North America, air pollution in cities are way below international and national standards (some exceptions, but usually in remote regions, for a variety of reasons), per the EPA and Environment Canada.
Moreover, those pollutants are *usually* the fault of dust from unpaved roads, heat-induced ozone concentration, or forest fire smoke.
Air quality, at least in in North America (but probably in the rest of the Western world, with exceptions) has been steadily improving for the past 20 years

[StevenChilton]

They know how to account for other factors, e.g. comparing multiple US communities with similar population profiles where the major differential is one has implemented a public smoking ban and the other hasn't. These people are not amateurs.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.20548

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21877107

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2813%2900837-1/fulltext

Citation please
at least in North America, air pollution in cities are way below international and national standards (some exceptions, but usually in remote regions, for a variety of reasons), per the EPA and Environment Canada.
Moreover, those pollutants are *usually* the fault of dust from unpaved roads, heat-induced ozone concentration, or forest fire smoke.
Air quality, at least in in North America (but probably in the rest of the Western world, with exceptions) has been steadily improving for the past 20 years

Air quality in the West is generally better than elsewhere and has been improving, but most Western cities are still over international standards (though Canada is an exception, air quality there is extremely good if you take the recent forest fires as a blip). Looks like Europe is generally worse than the USA:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2017/feb/13/most-polluted-cities-world-listed-region

[ZeroNight]

That's why I cry everytime I jerk off.