Quitting Smoking

Originally posted by inimalist
A diagnosis of psychological abnormality MUST rule out intoxication as a source of the behaviour 😉

It also good to check into lying at least a little bit.

Originally posted by inimalist
A diagnosis of psychological abnormality MUST rule out intoxication as a source of the behaviour 😉

and seriously, **** that, I hate losing all my lighters in like 42 hours

I guess we should just stick to the vape stoned

Originally posted by inimalist
only if your lower brain regions produced the behaviour of reaching out and grabbing cocks.

You would also still feel it, so its not like the numb "stranger"

crylaugh

You KNEW what the stranger was? You're cool people.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
😆
He's always last to hit it, and its gone before we even get to hit it.

I guess we should just stick to the vape stoned

ha, ****ing Jimmy Bogard

Originally posted by dadudemon
crylaugh

You KNEW what the stranger was? You're cool people.

lol, ya, we cover that in 2nd year

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It also good to check into lying at least a little bit.

I'm almost more interested in seeing people who are trying to fake a disorder like AHS.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm almost more interested in seeing people who are trying to fake a disorder like AHS.

Kleptomaniacs? Compulsive liars? Assholes?

Not sure if being an @sshole is a disorder, as it is a way of life.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Kleptomaniacs? Compulsive liars? Assholes?

more just to see how complete of a failure their performance would be, not for any investigative reason.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
there is nothing wrong with empowerment and seeing one's shortcomings, however, that isnt the same as having to take full responsibility for all the outcomes of your chosen path.

but you are waving away a very serious contradiction based on LUCK. if it was LUCK then it wasnt due to the CHOICE the person made dont you see???? you can only blame as much on a person as their CHOICE is directly responsible for {in this case, you cud say, it was a reckless thing to do because there was a CHANCE that cancer cud follow}, you CANT however, say that the cancer was the direct responsibility of the person who got it, simply because it was his MISFORTUNE more than his knowing/intended CHOICE that was responsible for the cancer in this case.

yes i didnt. because i dont think thats a helpful way of going about living your life in any case. but the people with their agenda in question, forced a fusing of the ULTIMATE questions of free will with the question of smoking and i wasnt going to let them force me into saying that i beleive, at its core, that complete unconditional free will exists. now, obviously, your fond of rob and AC, but your inability to see faults in their way of debating and their plain rudeness is well..... your fault.

I didn't say they had to take responsibility for all outcomes. Somethings ARE beyond their power, obviously. Whether or not you smoke is not one of those things, though. That's my point right there, simplified to its basest boil.

It's not a contradiction. Whether or not you get cancer from smoking is luck, you can negate that all together though by simply NOT SMOKING. By making the choice to never ever start. If they do take that puff then they know full well the possible outcome. Just because luck happens to also be involved doesn't mean that they now have no responsibility. The responsibility for smoking is fully theirs, and that act is what directly led to the cancer. Thus, he is responsible for his cancer. I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy or sad, but he is responsible, the cancer ultimately happened because of something he chose to do.

It's not a helpful way of living your life until someone says something you don't like, and then it is helpful?

What does their way of debating have to do with anything? I'm not debating ways of debating, I'm debating something that is stupid - that smokers are somehow not responsible for what happens to them as a result of their smoking.

^i honestly GIVE UP. your making the case for my point of view in your OWN WORDS, and you cant even see it.

If we share the same point of view then perhaps you need to learn how to share your views in a relevant and clear manner, because my view is that smokers are completely responsible for their own actions and their outcomes. You seem to have been arguing the contrary for the last 10 pages.

^but you are admitting in the same post that LUCK is responsible and then you turn on and say that smokers are COMPLETELY responsible. not even seeing the contradiction.

Because that's not a contradiction. I explained why in a previous post.

There is no rule that says that something involving chance can't also be based on responsibility. By your logic people who lose all their belongings gambling are not responsible because hey, it was luck. Not their fault they lost, someone else could have won.

Getting cancer from smoking is based on chance and luck, but again, you can negate that luck completely by making the choice not the smoke, thus taking luck out of the equation completely.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

You make a choice to smoke the cigarette, regardless of why or who is influencing you. You are not physically forced to inhale the smoke and smoke it.

Why are you even here, still? You lost this debate the minute it started.

-AC

no

but there is, with FULL responsibility. and the chance to win is SIGNIFICANTLY less in gambling than smoking, but yes, a gambler isnt 100% the reason for his follies JUST like you wudnt say that a gambler who WON BIG, was 100 responsible for his SUCCESS and completely deserving of it therefore. get my point of view now?. ofcourse, this isnt even CONSIDERING, why he/she took up gambling in the first place.

that can happen, yes, but it still doesnt make people fully responsible for the paths they choose. its nurture not nature{which we still dont have a choice in}.

There is nothing about the nature of human decision making that removes personal responsibility.

Regardless of the motivating factors, a person is still responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Is a drunk driver not responsible for those they injure?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no

but there is, with FULL responsibility. and the chance to win is SIGNIFICANTLY less in gambling than smoking, but yes, a gambler isnt 100% the reason for his follies JUST like you wudnt say that a gambler who WON BIG, was 100 responsible for his SUCCESS and completely deserving of it therefore. get my point of view now?. ofcourse, this isnt even CONSIDERING, why he/she took up gambling in the first place.

that can happen, yes, but it still doesnt make people fully responsible for the paths they choose. its nurture not nature{which we still dont have a choice in}.

You keep altering the scope of the discussion back and forth. You keep talking about universal choices involving all things that happens to them, where as the discussion is JUST about smoking.

A gambler is the reason for his follies if he doesn't know when to stop. Or if he takes a stupid bet that he knows he in all likelihood won't win. And you can win big in gambling without taking much risk, where as to lose everything you have in gambling you have to make a series of increasingly bad choices. If someone keeps gambling they know they're probably going to lose at some point, and it does become their fault of they do lose. Same is true with smoking. If someone doesn't want to take the chance of getting addicted and dying then they can factually and provably make the choice not to start smoking or to quit. That's a choice right there.

^not in perception, but in fact, i think there is. they are responsible only because society cant function if accepted that we arent as in control as we like to think. its just a very confusing topic that messes with your mind.

i dont know how to answer that. but honestly, i cant say that he is, in sincerity, i think he is at best responsible for ENDAGERING the lives of others with as concious a decision as i can push it. hard to reconcile you see.

You are unbelievably idiotic.

Originally posted by BackFire
You keep altering the scope of the discussion back and forth. You keep talking about universal choices involving all things that happens to them, where as the discussion is JUST about smoking.

A gambler is the reason for his follies if he doesn't know when to stop. Or if he takes a stupid bet that he knows he in all likelihood won't win. And you can win big in gambling without taking much risk, where as to lose everything you have in gambling you have to make a series of increasingly bad choices. If someone keeps gambling they know they're probably going to lose at some point, and it does become their fault of they do lose. Same is true with smoking. If someone doesn't want to take the chance of getting addicted and dying then they can factually and provably make the choice not to start smoking or to quit. That's a choice right there.

but you dodged my question. wud u THEN extend the same courtesy to the gambler who wins BIG with his "choice" to gamble and say that he is 100% responsible{and arguably deserving} of the reward which sets him for life?????

I answered your question. Please read properly -- " And you can win big in gambling without taking much risk, where as to lose everything you have in gambling you have to make a series of increasingly bad choices."