Is the health care reform racist?

[Blake]

Link to me mentioning drowning?

you didn't. I did.

Drinking too much water too fast can result in water intoxication, which in effect produces the same effect as drowning in fresh water.

Exactly. Among them are the prevention of Parkinsons, Alzheimers, certain forms of breast cancer. It can speed up your reactions...

So yes, it can have some health benefits. It fact it's not even a matter of can...it does have certain health benefits.

This does not mean it's automatically good for you.

Your line of reasoning has been made crystal clear.

Synaptic growth is a painful experience, I understand your anger, but gratu y would be much more appropriate.

I don't do anger on a silly messageboard.

You however have already been known to put others on ignore. If there is any sign of anger, that would be it.

Who in the said about drowing...

This is exactly what I mean when I said sense is never common in a discussion with you. You actually think being obtuse is some kind of cleverness.

I did. Water intoxication would happen faster than any kind of synaptic growth you think might happen.

You actually think starting a thread on how the tanning tax is racist and lauding the supposed health benefits of artificial tanning is some kind of cleverness.

[rjv]

No, I'm stating that tanning proctects you from UV radiation.

of course, in order to get a tan, and maintain a tan you have to expose yourself to that very UV radiation to begin with.

[Blake]

I'm not the guy that changes peoples quotes, or back pedals from arguing position. That is you.

What position have I taken that I have backpedaled on?

Please provide.

You know in that smoking argument you completely contradicted yourself in the span of two posts, in fact you made a direct statement that I quoted, and then you turned right around and reversed.

It was at that point I stopped arguing with you about it.

You don't even realize you did it do you?

Please explain clearly how you feel I contradicted myself.

[Blake]

So blake, when I say to you, smoking does have some health benefits...

How do you respond to that statement?

Go ahead...respond. I want to see if your response changed from the first time I said it. Since I am such a liar.

You lie about me believing in absolutes. I can repost that lie for you if you would like to read that lie again.

I get the way you do business now.

If I ask you if smoking is good for you, you get really hung up on the word "is" because "is" makes you scared and is too big of an absolute word for you to handle.

Yes, smoking tobacco does have some health benefits.

Do those benefits outweight the possible dangers of smoking? In my opinion, which coincides with the Surgeon General's, my answer is no.

Do you feel that the health benefits of smoking tobacco outweigh the possible dangers of smoking that tobacco?

[whottt]

You lie about me believing in absolutes. I can repost that lie for you if you would like to read that lie again.

By all means...

All I have to do is post the true false question you asked me...and I didn't automatically claim you believed in absolutes so much as I considered it a condition of re ed cognition.

I get the way you do business now.

After multiple arguments that began with you reinterpreting a statement of mine into something...we'll just call it a lie for now...I don't really give a what you think.

If I ask you if smoking is good for you, you get really hung up on the word "is" because "is" makes you scared and is too big of an absolute word for you to handle.

But I am not saying smoking is ngood for you. I am saying it has health benefits. Why is it necessary for you to change the statement?

Yes, smoking tobacco does have some health benefits.

I'm glad you say that now because previously I was posting them and you were flatly denying htem as I posted htem.

Do those benefits outweight the possible dangers of smoking? In my opinion, which coincides with the Surgeon General's, my answer is no.

And you are certainly en led to your opinion.

Do you feel that the health benefits of smoking tobacco outweigh the possible dangers of smoking that tobacco?

Yes, for some people in fact I do think the health benefits outweigh the dangers. And it's also has to do with what you consider a worse fate...

I myself consider Parksinsons and Alzheimers a much worse fate than any kind of cancer you can get. You feel otherwise...your perogative.

I've seen enough people with both to know which one I prefer.

Cancer can be death.

Alzherimers and Parkinson are imprisonment and slow torturous death.

In my personal case, I've seen multiple family members get Parkinsons...aint no ing way I am spending the last 10 years of my life with that .

Sign me up for cancer

[Blake]

By all means...

All I have to do is post the true false question you asked me...and I didn't automatically claim you believed in absolutes so much as I considered it a condition of re ed cognition.

And blake, well blake reinterprets "some health beneifts" to "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoover".

I have never used the words "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoever."

You are a liar.

After multiple arguments that began with you reinterpreting a statement of mine into something...we'll just call it a lie for now...I don't really give a what you think.

I didn't reinterpret anything.

I said you have stated that "smoking is good for you".

You went all bent saying I am talking in absolutes.

Does smoking have health benefits? You say yes. Therefore you think "smoking is good for you" on that level........whatever that level may be.

For you to assume I meant you stated "smoking is good for you with no negative side effects" is a case of re ed assuming.

I'm glad you say that now because previously I was posting them and you were flatly denying htem as I posted htem.

I was flatly denying some of your claims and how you were alluding to how the Japanese seemed to healthy regardless of how much they smoked.

I said "smoking has no health benefits". I never stated that "smoking tobacco" has no health benefits. I clearly stated in that thread that tobacco in and of itself has some benefits.

Smoke, i.e. burning combustible matter, in and of itself has no health benefits. The dangers of using smoke to ingest the tobacco outweighs any positives one might get out of it, imo.

And you are certainly en led to your opinion.

which is the same as the S.G.

Yes, for some people in fact I do think the health benefits outweigh the dangers. And it's also has to do with what you consider a worse fate...

I myself consider Parksinsons and Alzheimers a much worse fate than any kind of cancer you can get. You feel otherwise...your perogative.

I've seen enough people with both to know which one I prefer.

Cancer can be death.

Alzherimers and Parkinson are imprisonment and slow torturous death.

In my personal case, I've seen multiple family members get Parkinsons...aint no ing way I am spending the last 10 years of my life with that .

Sign me up for cancer

"April 16, 2008 --...In what is being lauded as a significant finding, research presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 60th Anniversary Annual Meeting this week in Chicago shows that smoking and drinking are among the most important preventable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease.....

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news...rly-alzheimers

I'll sign you up for Alzheimer's as well.

[whottt]

I have never used the words "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoever."

You are a liar.

Who is lying? I didn't say that was a direct quote, it was a paraphrasse signified by quotes. I am not going to look back in the thread where you made the statement.

I didn't reinterpret anything.

I said you have stated that "smoking is good for you".

You went all bent saying I am talking in absolutes.

Does smoking have health benefits? You say yes. Therefore you think "smoking is good for you" on that level........whatever that level may be.

For you to assume I meant you stated "smoking is good for you with no negative side effects" is a case of re ed assuming.

whatever.

I was flatly denying some of your claims and how you were alluding to how the Japanese seemed to healthy regardless of how much they smoked.

I said "smoking has no health benefits". I never stated that "smoking tobacco" has no health benefits. I clearly stated in that thread that tobacco in and of itself has some benefits.

Smoke, i.e. burning combustible matter, in and of itself has no health benefits. The dangers of using smoke to ingest the tobacco outweighs any positives one might get out of it, imo.

Whatever. I know what you did in that thrread and it's not important enough to go back and prove.

which is the same as the S.G.

Don't care. I don't have any doubt you do as you're told in many aspects of life.

"April 16, 2008 --...In what is being lauded as a significant finding, research presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 60th Anniversary Annual Meeting this week in Chicago shows that smoking and drinking are among the most important preventable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease.....

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news...rly-alzheimers

I'll sign you up for Alzheimer's as well.

Well I know for a fact there is conflicting data and I posted it in that thread, and that thread was more recent than 2008.

[Blake]

Who is lying? I didn't say that was a direct quote, it was a paraphrasse signified by quotes. I am not going to look back in the thread where you made the statement.

Quotes generally signify direct quotes, not paraphrasing.

You getting shown up as a liar is on you.

What's hilarious is how you blast other posters for paraphrasing you, and here you try to do it yourself and fail.

whatever.

translation: I failed at trying to play a semantics game.

Don't care. I don't have any doubt you do as you're told in many aspects of life.

I don't have any reason to doubt the surgeon general's claims. I have plenty of reasons to doubt your claims.

Well I know for a fact there is conflicting data and I posted it in that thread, and that thread was more recent than 2008.

It was slightly important enough for me to look up in that thread but I failed to find your conflicting data.

That thread's last post was 12/7/09.

I'm just posting this 3/5/10 article as an fyi. You can take it for what it's worth, which I will guess won't be much:

Smoking prevents Alzheimer's? It depends who you ask

Papers by people with links to the tobacco industry play down the risks of Alzheimer's associated with smoking

Ben Goldacre guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 March 2010 21.00 GMT

If the media were actuarial about drawing our attention to the causes of avoidable death, newspapers would be filled with diarrhoea, Aids and cigarettes every day. In reality we know this is an absurd idea. For those interested in the scale of our fascination with rarity, one piece of research looked at a period in 2002 and found that 8,571 people had to die from smoking to generate one story on the subject from the BBC, while there were three stories for every death from vCJD.

So you've probably heard that smoking may prevent Alzheimer's. It comes up in the papers, sometimes to say it is true, sometimes to say it has been refuted. Maybe you think it's a mixed bag, that "experts are divided". Perhaps you smoke, and joke about how it will stop you losing your marbles.

This month, Janine Cataldo and colleagues publish a systematic review on the subject, but with a very interesting twist. First they found all the papers ever published on smoking and Alzheimer's, using an explicit search strategy which they describe properly in the paper – because they are scientists, not homeopaths – to make sure that they found all of the evidence, rather than just the studies they already knew about, or the ones which flattered their preconceptions.

They found 43 in total, and overall, smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimer's. But they went further. Eleven of the studies were written by people with affiliations to the tobacco industry. This wasn't always declared, so to double check, the researchers searched on the University of California's Legacy Tobacco Do ents Library, a vast collection of scanned material which has been gathered over decades of legal action.

If you ever want to spend a chilling afternoon in the head of an industry whose product has been proven to kill a third of its customers, this is the place for you. "The importance of younger adults" uses financial modelling to explain the importance of recruiting teenage smokers to replace the dying older ones before it's too late, and explains that "repeated government studies have shown less than one third of smokers start after age 18 [and] only 5% of smokers start after age 24." "Youth cigarette – new concepts" from Marketing Innovations Inc takes these ideas further, into cola and apple flavour cigarettes, because "apples connote goodness and freshness".

How much did it matter if the researchers worked for the tobacco companies? A lot: the risks of Alzheimer's associated with smoking reported by these papers were on average about a third lower than those conducted by others, and they produced many papers showing cigarettes were protective. If you exclude these 11 papers, and look only at the remainder, your chances of getting Alzheimer's are vastly higher: comparing a smoker against a non-smoker, the odds are higher by 1.72 to 1.

So does that mean we can ignore all research that comes from people who disgust us? In Nazi Germany two researchers, Schairer and Schöniger, worked on biological theories of degenerate behaviour under Professor Karl Astel, who helped organise the operation that murdered 200,000 mentally and physically disabled people.

In 1943 the researchers published a well-conducted study demonstrating a relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Their paper wasn't mentioned in the classic Doll and Bradford Hill paper of 1950, it was referred to only four times in the 60s, once in the 70s, and then not again until 1988, despite providing a valuable early warning on a killer that would cause 100 million early deaths in the 20th century. It's not obvious what you do with evidence from untrustworthy sources, but it's always worth appraising its untrustworthiness with the best tools available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...re-bad-science

[whottt]

Quotes generally signify direct quotes, not paraphrasing.

But I am not attempting to claim they are direct quotes and admit I am paraphrasing a 4 month old argument because I don't give a enough to actually look up thread. I don't really care if you consider that lying, because I already thought you were and are deceptive first. And a an obtuse head.

You getting shown up as a liar is on you.

What am I lying about?

What's hilarious is how you blast other posters for paraphrasing you, and here you try to do it yourself and fail.

Because their parpahrasing is leading to the argument. For instance one idiot claimed I said tanning beds don't admit UV radiation. And you did something similar that argument....I don't give a if you agree with me or not, obviously you are either deliberately self deceived or else you aren't aware you did it. And I know did it then just like I know Duncansownkobe and El Nono did here. There is a certain type of head that does it...and that is you.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from having no respect for you with.

translation: I failed at trying to play a semantics game.

Translation: I am not going to look up that thread to get the details. And I do not care what you think.

I don't have any reason to doubt the surgeon general's claims. I have plenty of reasons to doubt your claims.

And I do not give a .

It was slightly important enough for me to look up in that thread but I failed to find your conflicting data.

I don't doubt that you couldn't find it. You couldn't find it when I posted it originally either. That's one of the mean reason you rate as nothing more than an obtuse head IMHO

That thread's last post was 12/7/09.

I'm just posting this 3/5/10 article as an fyi. You can take it for what it's worth, which I will guess won't be much:

You guessed right on that. As I said already there are conflicting data....and I could post that something contradcicts it and you will still be an obtuse head in the discussion.

Fact.

[Blake]

But I am not attempting to claim they are direct quotes and admit I am paraphrasing a 4 month old argument because I don't give a enough to actually look up thread. I don't really care if you consider that lying, because I already thought you were and are deceptive first. And a an obtuse head.

you obviously don't understand how quotes work or how the question "is water good for you" in practical terms can be answered with a simple "yes" because the dangers of water are well known.

You have definitively proven to be obtuse.

What am I lying about?

Already clearly posted.

More proof of you being obtuse.

Because their parpahrasing is leading to the argument. For instance one idiot claimed I said tanning beds don't admit UV radiation. And you did something similar that argument....I don't give a if you agree with me or not, obviously you are either deliberately self deceived or else you aren't aware you did it. And I know did it then just like I know Duncansownkobe and El Nono did here. There is a certain type of head that does it...and that is you.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from having no respect for you with.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from, only to find you using the same ridiculous "but it has some health benefits" logic in this thread.

Luckily for me, I'm not here to get your respect.

Translation: I am not going to look up that thread to get the details. And I do not care what you think.



And I do not give a .

Are those absolutes? I don't think so. I think you care and give just enough of a to post a response to what I say.

I don't doubt that you couldn't find it. You couldn't find it when I posted it originally either. That's one of the mean reason you rate as nothing more than an obtuse head IMHO

I couldn't find it because it's not there.

This was your direct quote to me regarding the 08 article:

So like I was saying, smoking tobacco prevents Parkinson's disease, thanks for the link, but it really wasn't necessary, I already knew that. In fact I the told you that. And I am betting you were totally unaware of it prior to me doing so...

more proof of you being a liar.....or obtuse.....take your pick

You guessed right on that. As I said already there are conflicting data....and I could post that something contradcicts it and you will still be an obtuse head in the discussion.

Fact.

I don't doubt you will continue to believe the big companies' research and data in regards to smoking and tanning beds.

43 studies done, 11 by ones with affiliations to tobacco companies, show smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimers.

You are very clearly the obtuse head in this discussion. That is a fact.

[whottt]

you obviously don't understand how quotes work or how the question "is water good for you" in practical terms can be answered with a simple "yes" because the dangers of water are well known.

You have definitively proven to be obtuse.



Already clearly posted.

More proof of you being obtuse.



It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from, only to find you using the same ridiculous "but it has some health benefits" logic in this thread.

Luckily for me, I'm not here to get your respect.



Are those absolutes? I don't think so. I think you care and give just enough of a to post a response to what I say.



I couldn't find it because it's not there.

This was your direct quote to me regarding the 08 article:





more proof of you being a liar.....or obtuse.....take your pick





I don't doubt you will continue to believe the big companies' research and data in regards to smoking and tanning beds.

43 studies done, 11 by ones with affiliations to tobacco companies, show smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimers.

You are very clearly the obtuse head in this discussion. That is a fact.

So this means you'll be engaging in future discussions with those on your level? By all means...don't let me stand in your way. Hop to it......

[LnGrrrR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte


Either that article is going over you guys heads or ya'll aren't reading it.


If if is that you just simply don't understand that article let me know I willl be happy to clarify it.

But I already posted the scientific proof, a very detailed description in fact. The most detailed description I could find.

Ok, I'm going to assume you're trolling here. There's nothing in that wikipedia article about melanocyte that references protection.

The fact that you used sunblock once and it "messed up your skin" in no way backs up your claim that it causes cancer.

And you also expect us to believe that the vast majority of professionals are wrong when they state tanning beds can cause cancer.

[whottt]

Ok, I'm going to assume you're trolling here. There's nothing in that wikipedia article about melanocyte that references protection.

I'm sorry you don't see it. You could always google the info for yourself. I am not some infinite link provider. It's not that hard to google and find out.

The fact that you used sunblock once and it "messed up your skin" in no way backs up your claim that it causes cancer.

Can't find that info either? Ok, we'll just say I totally made it up. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sunblock causes skin cancer. I pulled it totally out of my ass and you have exposed this.

Much like you have seen through my grand charade that exposure to UV rays helps protect the body from UV rays.

Well done sir

And you also expect us to believe that the vast majority of professionals are wrong when they state tanning beds can cause cancer.

You have also deftly exposed my blatant lie that tanning beds do not cause cancer. Something I admit to claiming at least 50 times in this thread. I should have known better than to match wits with you on that

Never again will I attempt to pull the wool over your perceptive eyes, and now that you have exposed me for the misleading link poster I truly am, I understand why you would not want to engage in further debate with someone you know lies and make false claims of fact. So I blew my chance to be taken seriously as a poster by you and you see me for what I truly am.

Accepted.

And congrats again...I can only tip my hat and say well done

[Blake]

So this means you'll be engaging in future discussions with those on your level? By all means...don't let me stand in your way. Hop to it......

I probably will. I'll probably engage in future discussions with thos above my level.
, as evidenced by this thread, I don't even mind engaging in discussion with those beneath my level.

Just curious, is the le of the thread an absolute yes or no question? Do you feel that this question is an absolute yes or no question as well?

ing hypocrite. ing idiot.

Entertaining thread though

[Blake]

I'm sorry you don't see it. You could always google the info for yourself. I am not some infinite link provider. It's not that hard to google and find out.

And then when someone finds information from a legi mate source, you dismiss it......

which is acceptable for you to do in your own personal life, but to do it during a discussion makes you a bag.

Can't find that info either? Ok, we'll just say I totally made it up. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sunblock causes skin cancer. I pulled it totally out of my ass and you have exposed this.

Much like you have seen through my grand charade that exposure to UV rays helps protect the body from UV rays.

Well done sir

Just curious, if you make claims but put in on the reader to verify your claims, why do you even bother making the claims?

You have also deftly exposed my blatant lie that tanning beds do not cause cancer. Something I admit to claiming at least 50 times in this thread. I should have known better than to match wits with you on that


Never again will I attempt to pull the wool over your perceptive eyes, and now that you have exposed me for the misleading link poster I truly am, I understand why you would not want to engage in further debate with someone you know lies and make false claims of fact. So I blew my chance to be taken seriously as a poster by you and you see me for what I truly am.

Accepted.

And congrats again...I can only tip my hat and say well done

I don't think you convinced anyone in this thread that the health care reform is racist.

I can only tip my hat and say well done, bag.

[whottt]

I probably will. I'll probably engage in future discussions with thos above my level.

Those are going to be very difficult to find...

, as evidenced by this thread, I don't even mind engaging in discussion with those beneath my level.

Too bad....

Just curious, is the le of the thread an absolute yes or no question? Do you feel that this question is an absolute yes or no question as well?

Why bother asking when you already know the answer?

ing hypocrite. ing idiot.

Entertaining thread though

I didn't find it entertaining at all. I wish I hadn't started it, and doubt I will start one like it again. It's like I started it expecting to shake up the world and instead was overwhelmed with massive intellects

Getting busted on my outlandish and irresponsible claim that tanning beds don't admit UV radiation should have sent signals to me I wasn't dealing with the usual patsies I find in this forum.

[whottt]

And then when someone finds information from a legi mate source, you dismiss it......

which is acceptable for you to do in your own personal life, but to do it during a discussion makes you a bag.



Just curious, if you make claims but put in on the reader to verify your claims, why do you even bother making the claims?

Because if people really want to see know if something is true or not, they'll be willing to look for it themselves and not ask someone to feed it to them. It's not like it's any harder to do than making a post.

I don't think you convinced anyone in this thread that the health care reform is racist.

. And I had such high hopes when I started it...

I can only tip my hat and say well done, bag.

And I can only ask if blake wants a cracker

[Blake]

Getting busted on my outlandish and irresponsible claim that tanning beds don't admit UV radiation should have sent signals to me I wasn't dealing with the usual patsies I find in this forum.

You really overuse the phrase (to paraphrase) "show me where I said that".

You're not really into finding truth. You're more into playing silly games.

[Blake]

Because if people really want to see know if something is true or not, they'll be willing to look for it themselves and not ask someone to feed it to them. It's not like it's any harder to do than making a post.

This is the way it has gone in general, in my opinion, when I get into it with you:

you make a claim

I say what's your proof

you say find it yourself

I say I found proof that the opposite is true

you say no, there is conflicting data on the subject

I say what is the conflicting data

you again say find it yourself


it's just games.

I'm comfortable with the information I have gathered on subjects, but if someone makes a claim to the contrary, I like to read it to see if my mind gets changed.

You making the claim but then say to find it yourself does me no favors and makes you a huge , imo.

If you are posting just to play games, just say so and be done with it. Otherwise back up your so that some of us might actually get a little closer to truth in the world.

And I can only ask if blake wants a cracker

you may as well ask me "yes or no, how many stars are in the sky?"

[Blake]

I didn't find it entertaining at all. I wish I hadn't started it, and doubt I will start one like it again.

It's probably better you don't

[whottt]

You really overuse the phrase (to paraphrase) "show me where I said that".

Coming from you that means a lot.

You're not really into finding truth. You're more into playing silly games.

I'll try to be a more a skillfull intelligent debator like yourself. Be paitent though, it's not something that's easy to do.

[whottt]

It's probably better you don't

I'm more worried about what's best for SpursTalk, and SpursReport, than I am what's best for myself.

[Blake]

I'll try to be a more a skillfull intelligent debator like yourself. Be paitent though, it's not something that's easy to do.

I don't really care what you do. I just want to know if you are posting to be jackass or if you really believe some of the stupid crap you post.

This way I'll know for future reference whether or not to even bother reading failed threads you start or replies you make.

[word]

[whottt]

I don't really care what you do. I just want to know if you are posting to be jackass or if you really believe some of the stupid crap you post.

Depends on who I am arguing with.

This way I'll know for future reference whether or not to even bother reading failed threads you start or replies you make.

You're just gonna have to figure that one out for yourslef Blakey.