Quitting Smoking

Originally posted by BackFire
Hahaha, we've established that "Smoking is someone's own personal responsibility, and whatever negative side effect they get is as well" isn't an argument? When did that happen? And why would I change my argument when it's still the correct one? What you want me to just change my argument because you're getting sick of getting defeated by the same thing over and over again? And what's this "we've" crap, you're the only person in the thread arguing against me. It's just you, everyone else who has posted in this thread has agreed with me. Is this the 'metaphorical we', the 'royal we'? Or are you actually seeing posts that don't exist? No. If "we've" proven anyone wrong, it's you.

I don't think anyone's mind is boggled by you saying that free will doesn't exist as you've said it before and failed to back it up. What is mind boggling, and what you've failed to provide evidence or even simple reasoning for your initial argument that smoking is not a choice, even though the person has to at some point make the choice to begin smoking before he's even addicted.

And that entire post of yours is you attempting to create a red herring argument to get focus off of the fact that you just totally and completely failed to retort ANYTHING I said in my last post. Instead making goofy and vague claims and expecting them to somehow fly. You really expect to win an argument by ignoring all specific arguments of your opponent and just lazily claim "I've proven you wrong"?

Either actually retort something specific that someone says or just stop posting.

Here, retort this: The guy wouldn't have cancer if he didn't smoke. He chose to start smoking. And really since your entire argument is based soley on a theoretical scenario that is extraordinarily unlikely (what if someone smokes their whole life and has no negative side effects) it shows how weak your claim is. If someone smokes they will almost always end up having some kind of health problem down the road. Maybe not cancer, but lung problems, weight problems, coughing, etc. And just like if they were to get cancer, that's their fault because they could have simply not smoked, they could have quit or they could have never started.

Go on. Do it.

no we havent and that is a perfect demonstration of what my previous post was drawing attention to. youve been saying you have demonstrated that along with your two buddies for god knows how many pages, and yet, you HAVENT, you keep repeating your original argument which had already been dealt with at the TIME you posted it, being in denial is another thing altogether than being right or even HAVING an argument.

i wud only have failed to back it up if every link ive posted about the philosophy concerning lack of free will was bullshit/non existant. do you REALLY wanna call every major philosopher whove preseneted the case against it as bullshiting, because that is what those links and my examples are based on, or you know, what, go ahead and deny that too in your bid to think you know what ur saying anymore.

actually, until now, ive been replying to every SPECIFIC argument and pointing out the individual flaws in them, {e.g. you neglecting to differentiate LUCK with DECISION and hence the amount of responsibility one shud bear} it does NOT fly to say that luck is PART of the initial decision and the person's responsibility when by DEFINITION it is an uncontrollable, random OUTSIDE influence. so not only are you wrong, but youve resorted to flat out lying to win your non argument.

and calling me goofy after pages and pages of all THAT doesnt speak well for you. and it really is funny how far off topic a mod is willing to go simply to try and prove his version of the argument when he isnt even ready to consider the counterargument. i mean, arent members discouraged to do that?

p.s. it isnt that exceptional, and exceptions are always the first line of attack against an argument base on the norm, specially if that argument claims that people are a 100% to blame for their decesions, which is a totally black and white argument.

And they are 100% responsible for their decisions. Who else would be? By definition they have to be since a decision is something that someone knowingly decides to do by their own free will. If someone decides to drive drunk then they are responsible if they kill someone. If someone starts skipping work they are responsible if they get fired. And if someone smokes they are responsible if they get cancer. Because that cancer would be brought about directly by their smoking, wouldn't it? And smoking is a choice they made, full well knowing what could happen.

As for the rest of your post it's completely false and anyone who has been following this argument will immediately know that. You've not been replying to everything, that is your second time committing the red herring logical fallacy. And you even now admit by saying 'until now I've been replying to every argument (submitting to the fact that you right now are not). Also I never said that luck was part of the initial decision, that is the decision to start smoking. Where the hell did you get that from? Luck and chance has to do with whether or not someone gets cancer from smoking, but that luck or chance can be completely overruled altogether by simply not smoking in the first place. Luck is secondary to the decision to start smoking, meaning that if they didn't smoke, they'd not have cancer, regardless of their luck.

This is all ironic because very proof of smoking and not smoking being a choice is in your very first post in this thread, where you said you quit. You CHOSE to quit. You made that decision because you didn't want to continue doing it. You and everyone else who smoked/smokes has that power to stop if they really truly dedicate themselves to it. If smoking was beyond your control and if it wasn't a decision or a choice and just something that was beyond your will then you would not have been able to do so.

Oh and it is extraordinarily exceptional that a person who smokes their whole life not have some kind of health problems as a result. But even so, that person is still responsible for their decision to start smoking.

So please answer this question: If someone gets cancer as a direct result of their choice to start smoking, who has responsibility? If not them, then who?

And they are 100% responsible for their decisions. Who else would be? By definition they have to be since a decision is something that someone knowingly decides to do by their own free will. If someone decides to drive drunk then they are responsible if they kill someone. If someone starts skipping work they are responsible if they get fired. And if someone smokes they are responsible if they get cancer. Because that cancer would be brought about directly by their smoking, wouldn't it? And smoking is a choice they made, full well knowing what could happen.

As for the rest of your post it's completely false and anyone who has been following this argument will immediately know that. You've not been replying to everything, that is your second time committing the red herring logical fallacy. And you even now admit by saying 'until now I've been replying to every argument (submitting to the fact that you right now are not). Also I never said that luck was part of the initial decision, that is the decision to start smoking. Where the hell did you get that from? Luck and chance has to do with whether or not someone gets cancer from smoking, but that luck or chance can be completely overruled altogether by simply not smoking in the first place. Luck is secondary to the decision to start smoking, meaning that if they didn't smoke, they'd not have cancer, regardless of their luck.

everything you said before luck is a verifyable lie then {see what happens when i start arguing like you}. in the second part, you are also misrepresenting since you said they make that choice KNOWING that they can get cancer, so the chance also becomes part of the choice. please be lucid atleast about what YOU are saying.

This is all ironic because very proof of smoking and not smoking being a choice is in your very first post in this thread, where you said you quit. You CHOSE to quit. You made that decision because you didn't want to continue doing it. You and everyone else who smoked/smokes has that power to stop if they really truly dedicate themselves to it. If smoking was beyond your control and if it wasn't a decision or a choice and just something that was beyond your will then you would not have been able to do so.

Oh and it is extraordinarily exceptional that a person who smokes their whole life not have some kind of health problems as a result. But even so, that person is still responsible for their decision to start smoking.

So please answer this question: If someone gets cancer as a direct result of their choice to start smoking, who has responsibility? If not them, then who?

but not for the sideaffects that afflict others, i see.

that is a loaded question and you know it. if you had understood even a bit of what i was saying, youd know that i am arguing that no1 CHOOSES to get cancer, they choose to SMOKE! and that choice in itself is not their uncaused/unconditioned/uninfluenced/unmotivated decision to take up smoking {like perhaps god creating this world out of nothing and no motivation}, it has been conditioned and caused by things outside the person which the person never created or asked for.

as for who is responsible, its more correct to say WHAT is responsible, and chance is mostly responsible in this scenario. and this chance is to blame for a mojor part in the person getting cancer{again if we arent also considering the inherent problems with free will}.

again, im not saying that practically, we shud look at things this way, since it wud be maddening, but its not sumthing that shud be denied when your considering such huge things as putting the blame of onews own mortality on their shoulders. similar arguments against the death penalty etc.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no they are not. and CHANCE wud be greatly responsible. the cancer wud be brought upon in a smaller part to their decision to smoke and in larger part due to chance. chance and their initial decion are not interchangeable.

What a monumentally stupid thing to say. If someone gets cancer from smoking then obviously the smoking has a larger part to do with it than chance, proven by the fact that they would not have that cancer had they not smoked. The two things don't need to be interchangeable, they can be occur at the same time. The decision to smoke led to their cancer.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
everything you said before luck is a verifyable lie then {see what happens when i start arguing like you}. in the second part, you are also misrepresenting since you said they make that choice KNOWING that they can get cancer, so the chance also becomes part of the choice. please be lucid atleast about what YOU are saying.

Then verify it. Prove your claim and show me specifically with verifiable evidence and my quotes where I lied. If you do not prove your claim I will consider this segment of your post trolling and you will be banned as you've already admitted earlier to the fact that you have trolled simply by saying that you only started portraying this argument because someone challenged you - trolling.

I misrepresent nothing here. Again, show me what I misrepresent. And they do start smoking knowing that they might get cancer. They know it's possible to get cancer directly from smoking. Explain how the chance is part of the choice to begin smoking.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
language is deceptive and has forced definitions. choice doesnt have just one meaning any more than unconditional choice and forced choice are the same. the second part is a falsified claim.

And there we have it. Proof for all to see that you can not retort the fact that you yourself are proof that smoking is a choice because you stopped doing it. You not liking the meaning of a word carries no weight, we are going by what words actually mean according to their definition in the language in which we are speaking. If you don't like it then contact Websters and have the meaning of the word changed. Until then the meaning of the word is the meaning of the word regardless of whether or not you like it or not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but not for the sideaffects that afflict others, i see.

They are responsible for everything that happens as a result of their smoking.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that is a loaded question and you know it. if you had understood even a bit of what i was saying, youd know that i am arguing that no1 CHOOSES to get cancer, they choose to SMOKE! and that choice in itself is not their uncaused/unconditioned/uninfluenced/unmotivated decision to take up smoking {like perhaps god creating this world out of nothing and no motivation}, it has been conditioned and caused by things outside the person which the person never created or asked for.

Jesus Christ, of course no one chooses to get cancer. No one has said they do. They do choose to smoke, though. And if that is what causes their cancer then they are ultimately responsible for it. There, you just admit that they choose to smoke. Motivational factors or cause don't alter whether or not something is a choice. You seem to have the disillusioned idea that something isn't a choice unless it's made completely randomly without any outside influence. This is of course incorrect and you can look no further than the definition of the word (which again is the ultimate authority of the meaning of the word, regardless of whether or not you agree or not). Just because something influences your choice to smoke doesn't mean it wasn't a choice. Influence doesn't mean you were forced to do it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as for who is responsible, its more correct to say WHAT is responsible, and chance is mostly responsible in this scenario. and this chance is to blame for a mojor part in the person getting cancer{again if we arent also considering the inherent problems with free will}.

Chance is responsible if someone chooses (it is a choice, as you've now admitted) to smoke?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
again, im not saying that practically, we shud look at things this way, since it wud be maddening, but its not sumthing that shud be denied when your considering such huge things as putting the blame of onews own mortality on their shoulders. similar arguments against the death penalty etc.

So now you admit that your entire argument has been unpractical.

And just because a person dies because of a choice they made doesn't mean it's any less tragic. For someone to die of smoking is very sad and I'm not trying to lessen that, but the fact is they died because of something they chose to do, knowing full well the risks and possibilities. They still took that first smoke and they could have simply said no.

The exception here is for older people who began smoking before it was known how addicting and dangerous smoking was. They are not responsible for their health problems. But if you started smoking within the last 25 or so years then yes, sorry to say but you chose to do something that you know might lead to your death. And thus it is absolutely on your shoulders should that come to pass.

How exactly would you make sure that he got the cancer from smoking, rather than something else, since obviously non-smokers can get cancer as well.

Also, if you go the route of there's no free will, you'd also have to do so for rapists and murderers, are you willing to do that, leo, or just for this argument, for smokers?

Keep in mind Leon has already now said that his argument is unpractical so he probably won't be able to answer you.

As for proving that the cancer is from smoking, doctors can usually tell what led to the cancer. But that doesn't really matter, it's all for the sake of argument in this thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How exactly would you make sure that he got the cancer from smoking, rather than something else, since obviously non-smokers can get cancer as well.

Also, if you go the route of there's no free will, you'd also have to do so for rapists and murderers, are you willing to do that, leo, or just for this argument, for smokers?

there is an obvious discrepancy between the subjective and objective approach to free will. at one point, there seems there is, at another, there seems like there isnt, one is based on analysing predictability and cause-effect as an objective observer, and the other depends on the inability to do so since your conclusion also becomes part of that predictable system - questioning the validity of the conclusion. also, its very hard as a human to feal like you arent choosing when presented with a crossroads, perhaps its wud be easier to say that we are responsible but WE are not seperate from the universe in a way that we can be unbiased and are part of the predictable system. still as long as FREE will referes to their being no writtern/predictable future, i dont think it strictly exists even though i feal like it does.

and yes, i am willing to do that, although i think there isnt too much point in beings who have little{or no} free will CONTEMPLATING free will{rather funny and maddening}, i do think that PRACTICALLY, they shudnt be punished, but rather, imprisoned etc to stop them from repeating the same offence and spreading suffering, similar to how you would quarantine a diseased individual or lock up a dangerously insane innocent person. the problem of BLAME is not one i am very confortable associating to people. however, i will say this though, free will or not, the factors that influence us, CHANGE us, for the better or worse, and a person who has conciously{whether that be because he truly had free will or merely PERCEIVED that he did} committed murder/rape is all the more worse for it/more ****ed up for it and has hurt him/herself a lot too by defying their better emotions etc. {srry for the long answer, it just isnt an easy topic to make sense of}

Originally posted by BackFire
What a monumentally stupid thing to say. If someone gets cancer from smoking then obviously the smoking has a larger part to do with it than chance, proven by the fact that they would not have that cancer had they not smoked. The two things don't need to be interchangeable, they can be occur at the same time. The decision to smoke led to their cancer.

Then verify it. Prove your claim and show me specifically with verifiable evidence and my quotes where I lied. If you do not prove your claim I will consider this segment of your post trolling and you will be banned as you've already admitted earlier to the fact that you have trolled simply by saying that you only started portraying this argument because someone challenged you - trolling.

I misrepresent nothing here. Again, show me what I misrepresent. And they do start smoking knowing that they might get cancer. They know it's possible to get cancer directly from smoking. Explain how the chance is part of the choice to begin smoking.

And there we have it. Proof for all to see that you can not retort the fact that you yourself are proof that smoking is a choice because you stopped doing it. You not liking the meaning of a word carries no weight, we are going by what words actually mean according to their definition in the language in which we are speaking. If you don't like it then contact Websters and have the meaning of the word changed. Until then the meaning of the word is the meaning of the word regardless of whether or not you like it or not.

They are responsible for everything that happens as a result of their smoking.

Jesus Christ, of course no one chooses to get cancer. No one has said they do. They do choose to smoke, though. And if that is what causes their cancer then they are ultimately responsible for it. There, you just admit that they choose to smoke. Motivational factors or cause don't alter whether or not something is a choice. You seem to have the disillusioned idea that something isn't a choice unless it's made completely randomly without any outside influence. This is of course incorrect and you can look no further than the definition of the word (which again is the ultimate authority of the meaning of the word, regardless of whether or not you agree or not). Just because something influences your choice to smoke doesn't mean it wasn't a choice. Influence doesn't mean you were forced to do it.

Chance is responsible if someone chooses (it is a choice, as you've now admitted) to smoke?

So now you admit that your entire argument has been unpractical.

And just because a person dies because of a choice they made doesn't mean it's any less tragic. For someone to die of smoking is very sad and I'm not trying to lessen that, but the fact is they died because of something they chose to do, knowing full well the risks and possibilities. They still took that first smoke and they could have simply said no.

The exception here is for older people who began smoking before it was known how addicting and dangerous smoking was. They are not responsible for their health problems. But if you started smoking within the last 25 or so years then yes, sorry to say but you chose to do something that you know might lead to your death. And thus it is absolutely on your shoulders should that come to pass.

in as long as mean that a choice = picking one path WITH attached conditions and accepting that you the PERSON's decision will depend mostly{if not completely} on conditioning and pre determined outside influences, and the path itself is one out of a finite number of paths that have been defined by outside factors than the chooser, than yes, its technically a CHOICE.

HOWEVER, if you want to define choice as a FREE expression of the user's ability to follow whichever ORIGINAL path occurs to their mind, which in itself has the ability to WRITE the future without being influenced{or denying its already decided nature or nurture} by factors outside itself in a way that can NOT be predicted {which is TRUE freedom, the inability for predestination or predictability to work on decisions}. and by extension hold the entity in question, RESPONSIBLE for the remifications of the said decision instead of the nurturing influences{since you can only really hold the AUTHOR of events truly responsible, not a weak pawn which flows to the whims of things other than himself and has inherent weaknesses which facilitate this mode of actions} . then NO, it isnt a CHOICE. the problem is always one of responsibility and the way you define choice.

this applies to every real argument your making here. and is the very reason your not understanding my posts.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind Leon has already now said that his argument is unpractical so he probably won't be able to answer you.

As for proving that the cancer is from smoking, doctors can usually tell what led to the cancer. But that doesn't really matter, it's all for the sake of argument in this thread.

Can they? I wonder how.

To be honest, I am not sure what you guys are really arguing about, it seems like pointless back and forth to me.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
there is an obvious discrepancy between the subjective and objective approach to free will. at one point, there seems there is, at another, there seems like there isnt, one is based on analysing predictability and cause-effect as an objective observer, and the other depends on the inability to do so since your conclusion also becomes part of that predictable system - questioning the validity of the conclusion. also, its very hard as a human to feal like you arent choosing when presented with a crossroads, perhaps its wud be easier to say that we are responsible but WE are not seperate from the universe in a way that we can be unbiased and are part of the predictable system. still as long as FREE will referes to their being no writtern/predictable future, i dont think it strictly exists even though i feal like it does.

and yes, i am willing to do that, although i think there isnt too much point in beings who have little{or no} free will CONTEMPLATING free will{rather funny and maddening}, i do think that PRACTICALLY, they shudnt be punished, but rather, imprisoned etc to stop them from repeating the same offence and spreading suffering, similar to how you would quarantine a diseased individual or lock up a dangerously insane innocent person. the problem of BLAME is not one i am very confortable associating to people. however, i will say this though, free will or not, the factors that influence us, CHANGE us, for the better or worse, and a person who has conciously{whether that be because he truly had free will or merely PERCEIVED that he did} committed murder/rape is all the more worse for it/more ****ed up for it and has hurt him/herself a lot too by defying their better emotions etc. {srry for the long answer, it just isnt an easy topic to make sense of}

No, I get what you are saying, it's just that you'd have to treat both those equally. As such, I don't see the difference really. Whether you have free will or not, has no bearing on the argument as such, since, like you said, you'd treat a murderer just the same for it being their choice or a determined incident. Therefore I don't see why a smoker should be treated differently in either case.

^i do, but its only when flamers with previous vendettas come in this thread banded together and start making statement like "lol, the guy who doesnt beleive in free will is at it again" among other off topic things and THEN translate it into practical statements like "just choose to quit, dont buy the next ***, the ONLY reason your not quitting is because you dont WANT to, if you did, you wud quite, so stop bitching" etc, that i felt the need to argue. and then our dear mod picked it up totally ignoring the offtopic nature of the discussion and the very thinly veiled personall attacks and flaming/trolling of the people in question. so here we are. i only made this thread for people to share their experiences with other about smoking and quitting, not for non smokers to come in and start making judgements on those who smoke and consider/want to quit.

Well I don't Smoke,this is very good to see that some of you try to quit smoking,really it's very tough to quit after getting addicted to it but In order to stay fit it's the best choice.

I quit smoking about 3 1/2 months ago. Finally! The first two weeks sucked! Ask Impediment! I was crabby and a total ***** to everybody! But I feel SO much better now. Kinda gained some weight too. Not too much though!

The $20k dollar question, was the act of smoking a choice you made?

Don't worry, just more of your to have sex with.

Is this still happening?

Leon is wrong. Let's let him insist he is right and just look silly.

-AC

shoo!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can they? I wonder how.

To be honest, I am not sure what you guys are really arguing about, it seems like pointless back and forth to me.

I dunno, but I assume they have a way. Probably through just deduction and if a person gets cancer in a specific way or a specific type of cancer.

And yeah, it sorta is pointless back and forth. You clever German, you.

its good tht u hv quit smokin.. i kw i can understand tht u are gettin tempted to it some times... drugs always have this problem.. just be strong from inside and make ur decision not to have it..
nothin on earth can then stop you from living long...

Originally posted by megna03
its good tht u hv quit smokin.. i kw i can understand tht u are gettin tempted to it some times... drugs always have this problem.. just be strong from inside and make ur decision not to have it..
nothin on earth can then stop you from living long...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not using vowels, for example, is the primary cause of death in the US today.

everyone i know that quit did it cold turkey..