Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 08/18/2012
Offline
4550 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Jul 30, 2013

The bone in fried chicken is worthless.....what's the point of it?


<

         photo evolve_zps9e0e8f3e.jpg

                                                 Welcoming Committee   

Message 371 of 378 (136 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14608 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

[ Edited ]
Jul 30, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

taker-77 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

taker-77 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:
 

The WHO is not going after smoking because of money. They do not get tax dollars. They are thereto raise the standard of living for people everywhere. 

 

 


 

Just for the record, the WHO does get tax dollars. In fact, last year the U.S. gave the WHO $214,918,555, almost double the amount of the next highest contributing member country.  http://www.who.int/about/resources_planning/A66_29add1-en.pdfhttp://

 

 

 

 


Let me clarify, they are not demonizing smoking to get tax dollars.



 

Are you assuming that they don't or do you have proof? I'm not necessarily saying they are but the argument could be easily made.

 

For example, it is no secret that the U.S. Government is currently pushing an anti-smoking agenda. Hypothetically speaking, if the WHO was to say that there was no conclusive evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke, that could anger the U.S. as it would be damaging to their anti-smoking agenda. The U.S. could then decide to cut it's funding to the WHO which would severely hurt. So instead they tell a little white lie about the harm of second-hand smoke, because obviously smoking is bad so who would it really hurt, and it makes the money keep flowing.

 

Obviously that is a purely hypothetical scenario, I have no proof of any impropriety, but knowing the lengths people will go to for money, it doesn't really sound that far-fetched does it? Hell, I don't believe that second-hand smoke actually kills anyone but I'd sing it from the rooftop for two hundred million dollars.


The burden of proof is on you. You have the outrageous claim to prove (as seen by the hypothetical). Not me. But I will throw some information your way.

 

You do know what the word "hypothetical" actually means, right? And why exactly wouldn't you need proof for your claims. So far, for your proof you have posted information from the CDC, which included a debunked study in their references, and the WHO who didn't bother posting any references at all.  You seem to think that something is fact because it is commonally agreed to be correct. That is dangerous ground, but then again, they say ignorance is bliss.

 

The anti-smoking campaign does what? It makes people stop smoking/never get into it. You then claim that it allows them to raise taxes on smoking. Umm...raising taxes on smoking does not require all of the people to approve of it. If it was so hard, they would have never been able to do it decades ago when it was smoking was more prevalent. Also, you would get no more tax dollars if people are paying more for the tobacco. Why? Because you are making people not smoke with the ads! It just makes people quit since costs are too high or because the ads are scary. Or they figured out it is stupid to start smoking. Only the extremely addicted will smoke and pay more. The loss in consumers will keep the tax money down, though. 

 

I'm not even sure who you are agruing with in regards to raising taxes. I know I mentioned something about cigarettes being taxed to cover healthcare costs a while ago, is that what you are referrng too? Regardless, you don't seem to be aware that the anti-smoking agenda is big business and is a powerful lobby. As a reference, take the group RWJF (Robert Woods Johnson Foundation) which donates heavily into the anit-smoking lobby. This Foundation is owned by Johnson & Johnson who, in turn, owns McNeil AB who owns the brand Nicorette, which is distributed in the US by Glaxosmithkline. These folks make lots and lots of money off people who are trying to quit smoking. So then, every time another smoking ban goes into effect or a new, higher tax is put on tobacco, these folks profit.  

 

 

For you to understand better- The US is lessening consumers of the product and raising the taxes. Less people will buy cigarettes, so the extra taxes do not make any more money. 

 

The US is pushing an anti-death agenda. The new no texting and driving, smoking being bad, etc. And I like how you make a hypothetical (a rather convoluted one since smoking is not even remotely the largest thing the W.H.O. invests in)

 

Again, do you know what the word "hypothetical" means?

 

The WHO's support from the US is only 110 million, by the way.

http://www.who.int/about/resources_planning/2012_2013_AC_summary.pdf

 

Man, am I really arguing with someone who doesn't know the difference between net and gross?

 

Also, there are no controversies over the WHO and its finances. Somehow you see smoking as the utmost importance for the United States health departments. And I just love how you believe secondhand smoking was just made up. Why would it be? The W.H.O. is now lying? 

 

I clearly said "Obviously that is a purely hypothetical scenario, I have no proof of any impropriety" and "I'm not necessarily saying they are but the argument could be easily made". I was merely offering a suggestion that the WHO could be influenced by money. I can see that you hold up the WHO as some sort of paragon of virtue, above impeachment, but it still is an organization that requires funding and is run by humans. I don't really have to explain to you the failing and corruptability of humans, do I? 

 

Oh and there are controversies over the WHO and it's finances, which a simple Google search would have revealed, but you didn't do that now did you? I wonder why......

 


 

 

 


I just googled WHO funding/finance conspiracies and did not even find a related page. So, googling it obviously would not help. Also, you avoid me going after your hypothetical by saying it was never meant to be taken seriously. The point you were trying to make is that their finances are possibly tied to it, but your point needed facts, not hypotheticals. Your hypothetical is useless when you just say I cannot attack it. Making a point with a hypothetical and then saying I cannot attack it because you it is a hypothetical is just moronic. The possibility of it being tied to finances does not matter. Give evidence, not hypotheticals. You bring up the one study by the WHO that they "suppressed" and you even threw in the bit about how Philip Morris was the one that leaked it! Did they suppress it or did they simply believe it was a bad study? This is all opinion especially with PM being the one that dug it up. And the fact PM has funded tons of biased studies to support its viewpoint does not make it a reliable source. Especially compared to an organization which is founded on the principles of extending life around the world with very few actual controversies. 

 

I said "hypothetical" a lot, but I really am just coming at you. I am not writing out a perfect essay, so I will make my point and go. 

 

And since every single source is somehow  conspiring against smoking, I really cannot post many more things. Somehow you are under the impression that someone breathing cigarette smoke containing over 60 cancer-causing carcinogens is somehow not bad for your health. I do not want my health affected by your addiction.

 

You essentially say that, because they get money from somewhere, it means that ALL their interest is based on appeasing that source. It depends on the companies/groups paying into it and how much of interest the study is. Pro-smoking studies by PM are obviously not a good source. It would be like McDonalds funding a study that says their food is not bad for your heart. Pro-smoking findings do not suddenly cut all your funding unless the source is some lung association. The WHO gets money from the US for A LOT more than tobacco studies. 

 

Also, I ask you to post your studies saying that second-hand smoke is perfectly fine. The majprity happen to be funding by smoking corporations. See, there is a difference when a company is paying you millions to study for them. You want to appease them for more millions. The differences between the WHO and Tobacco study situations? The WHO puts a lot  more effort/money into other programs. A big effort  is HIV/AIDS related. Also, the nations funding it do not fund it for the sole purpose of ending smoking. The tobacco industry does this, though. And the industry has a major history of suppressing studies/bashing them. And you mention J&J lobbying. I think it is HILARIOUS that you bring up lobbying as an argument when the tobacco industry is one of the largest lobbyers! Even then, your connection is a long string of ownerships and interests. And it does not even come close to the direct relationship of PM and smoking.

 

And since you feel each study is somehow so flawed that it is completely false, I found a site that brings out the evidence for me. Apparently I can google things after all. 

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8245/does-second-hand-smoke-cause-cancer

 

The author posts a number of META studies that evaluate a large quantity of studies and comes to an end conclusion. Sorry, but your second-hand smoke is harming people and raising their possibility of disease. Go ahead and take a look.

 

I bet these meta-studies were funded by a foundation which is owned by a corportation, which has a CEO related to the founder of another foundation which is owned by J&J which owns a company that sells nicorette. I mean, obviously it is biased.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 372 of 378 (130 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14608 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Jul 30, 2013

King_xO-AsSaSSin wrote:

The bone in fried chicken is worthless.....what's the point of it?


I use it as a handle for my fried chicken legs


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 373 of 378 (129 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Ghost of Sparta
Registered: 05/05/2010
Offline
13633 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Jul 30, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

King_xO-AsSaSSin wrote:

The bone in fried chicken is worthless.....what's the point of it?


I use it as a handle for my fried chicken legs


It also gives some flavor and helps to keep the meat moist.

Message 374 of 378 (120 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/08/2009
Offline
4918 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

[ Edited ]
Jul 30, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

I just googled WHO funding/finance conspiracies and did not even find a related page. So, googling it obviously would not help.

 

lol, I hesitate to post some of these, as they will likely make me look like (more of ) a total crackpot, but this is Unpopular Opinions, so....

 

http://rense.com/general88/megawho.htm

http://www.infowars.com/world-health-organization-manufactured-the-global-swine-flu-scare-suspected-...

http://www.naturalnews.com/028936_WHO_vaccines.html

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/engdahl/2010/0111.html

 

Those are just a few that I turned up. Please don't think I'm endorsing the opinions of any of these, as I have not researched them at all. I just post them to show that there is controversy regarding the WHO.

 

Also, you avoid me going after your hypothetical by saying it was never meant to be taken seriously. The point you were trying to make is that their finances are possibly tied to it, but your point needed facts, not hypotheticals. Your hypothetical is useless when you just say I cannot attack it. Making a point with a hypothetical and then saying I cannot attack it because you it is a hypothetical is just moronic.

 

You can attack it all you want, just don't expect me to defend it. I will say again, it was just a quick and plausible scenario that I came up with on the fly. It was not intended to be any actual claim that I was leveling against the WHO, but rather a example of a possible reason. Can you really say with 100% confidence that it is a completely impossible scenario?

 

The possibility of it being tied to finances does not matter. Give evidence, not hypotheticals.

 

Why not? Are you truly so naive as to think that people don't do all sorts of dishonest things in the pursuit of money? This wouldn't even be close to the most dishonest/terrible thing someone has done for money.

 

You bring up the one study by the WHO that they "suppressed" and you even threw in the bit about how Philip Morris was the one that leaked it! Did they suppress it or did they simply believe it was a bad study? This is all opinion especially with PM being the one that dug it up.

 

It's not just one study. It was the WHO's first study on second-hand smoke. It clearly did not show the results they wanted so they didn't release it. Obviously they thought it was a bad study as it didn't show the results they wanted. An organization without ulterior motives would have release it and then continued to search for the evidence they wanted. Instead they chose to bury it and only commented on it after weeks of public pressure. I believe it truly shows the mentality involved here. That is the exact reason why I posted that PM leaked it. You can question/attack my opinions all you want, but I wouldn't want you to attack my character. I'm sure you understand, as well as I do, that me revealing PM as the source hurts my argument. Regardless, it is the truth so I posted it.

 

And the fact PM has funded tons of biased studies to support its viewpoint does not make it a reliable source. Especially compared to an organization which is founded on the principles of extending life around the world with very few actual controversies. 

 

Please do not think that I'm defending Phillip Morris, or any of the big tobacco companies. They are evil and their business practices are deplorable.

 

I said "hypothetical" a lot, but I really am just coming at you. I am not writing out a perfect essay, so I will make my point and go. 

 

And since every single source is somehow  conspiring against smoking, I really cannot post many more things. Somehow you are under the impression that someone breathing cigarette smoke containing over 60 cancer-causing carcinogens is somehow not bad for your health. I do not want my health affected by your addiction.

 

For the record, I am a very courteous smoker. I make a true effort not to smoke too close to people, indoors or out. I will not smoke inside anyones home or car without their expressed consent and I'm more than happy to put out my cigarette if someone complains  I also have no problem with the smoking ban in most buildings, although I will add a caveat to that. It is my belief that smoking inside bars and restaurants should be up to the proprietor. Something a simple as a "smoking allowed" sign on the door would give non-smokers the option of whether or not they wish to expose themselves to smoke. Unlike office building, retail stores or government buildings, there is absolutely no reason why a non-smoker would have to go into a given restaurant or bar. They could simply choose a frequent a different establishment. This way we could preserve a bit of the freedom of personal choice, while still protecting the public. 

 

You essentially say that, because they get money from somewhere, it means that ALL their interest is based on appeasing that source. It depends on the companies/groups paying into it and how much of interest the study is. Pro-smoking studies by PM are obviously not a good source. It would be like McDonalds funding a study that says their food is not bad for your heart. Pro-smoking findings do not suddenly cut all your funding unless the source is some lung association. The WHO gets money from the US for A LOT more than tobacco studies. 

 

Please post where I said that "because they get money from somewhere, it means that ALL their interest is based on appeasing that source". I am always careful about posting blanket statements like that as I believe that there are very few universal truths in life. Clearly a non-independent study is never a reliable source. To turn that point back on you, do you believe that studies conducted by anti-smoking groups are good sources? If so, please tell me why. 

 

 

Also, I ask you to post your studies saying that second-hand smoke is perfectly fine.

 

I already did and it was a study conducted by the WHO.

 

The majority happen to be funding by smoking corporations. See, there is a difference when a company is paying you millions to study for them. You want to appease them for more millions. The differences between the WHO and Tobacco study situations? The WHO puts a lot  more effort/money into other programs. A big effort  is HIV/AIDS related. Also, the nations funding it do not fund it for the sole purpose of ending smoking. The tobacco industry does this, though. And the industry has a major history of suppressing studies/bashing them. And you mention J&J lobbying. I think it is HILARIOUS that you bring up lobbying as an argument when the tobacco industry is one of the largest lobbyers! Even then, your connection is a long string of ownerships and interests. And it does not even come close to the direct relationship of PM and smoking.

 

To correct one little mistake, the tobacco industry was one of the largest lobbies. That day has long since passed. I'm sure that they are still active to some degree, but obviously they are doing a really bad job of it. The anti-smoking lobby seems to be much more effective. To dismiss that so casually demonstrates, to me, your clear bias. You seem to think it's fine that a group pays politicians to increase their own profits, as long as it's against smoking. Me, I don't like any lobbying. The government should be only concerned with what is in the best interests of the people, not what can be done to increase a companies profits. 

 

Also, the practice of using subsidiaries or trusts to increase profits to a parent company isn't anything new. The idea is that if enough separation is used, people won't be able to connect the questionable ethics to the parent company so their reputation remains untarnished.

 

And since you feel each study is somehow so flawed that it is completely false, I found a site that brings out the evidence for me. Apparently I can google things after all. 

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8245/does-second-hand-smoke-cause-cancer

 

The author posts a number of META studies that evaluate a large quantity of studies and comes to an end conclusion. Sorry, but your second-hand smoke is harming people and raising their possibility of disease. Go ahead and take a look.

 

I'm actually glad you brought this up as this was gonna be my next area to spread reasonable doubt. First off, they are called meta-analysis studies. Secondly, there are some rather serious problems with meta-analysis studies. I'm gonna post some links to info on this, but before you get all hot and bothered, realize that these are professional criticisms of just the meta-analysis process. I don't believe any even mention anything about second-hand smoke, despite the fact that all the studies I could find claiming a link between second-hand smoke and cancer were meta-analysis studies.

 

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/metaanalysis/problems.htm

http://ghthomas.blogspot.com/2011/03/problems-with-meta-analyses-2.html

http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7126/221

http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Meta%20Beware%20gifts.htm

 

The main criticism seems to be that meta-analysis allows researchers to pick and choose what studies they want to include and which they ignore. By doing this the analyzer can easily influence the results of the meta-analysis study thus bringing the actual scientific merit into question. 

 

 

I bet these meta-studies were funded by a foundation which is owned by a corporation, which has a CEO related to the founder of another foundation which is owned by J&J which owns a company that sells nicorette. I mean, obviously it is biased.

 

You belittle yourself with this comment. You have absolutely no idea who funded these studies, yet you don't care as they support your opinion. They could very easily have been funded by corporations that stand to profit by anti-smoking laws but that doesn't seem to bother you one bit.

 

Message 375 of 378 (103 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 12/30/2011
Offline
3825 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Aug 3, 2013

the concept racial pride is stupid

KZMProductionsGT
Message 376 of 378 (88 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5476 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Aug 3, 2013

KZMProductionsGT wrote:

the concept racial pride is stupid


As is nationalism.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 377 of 378 (84 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 05/27/2013
Offline
923 posts
 

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Aug 3, 2013
Pacific Rim looks incredibly stupid -_-
.................!!!
Message 378 of 378 (78 Views)
Reply
0 Likes