Saturday, 30 October 2010
The Video In Full
I make no excuse for reposting this morning's post and making it easier for you to view what I consider to be a valuable contribution to the 'fake charities' debate.
Can I thank Sue for all her hard work and patience on how to download the video to here. Unfortunately, because I use Mac, I only managed it so far myself. Without such kindness and help from other bloggers, (you too Microwave Dave), I'd be struggling into next week with this problem and even then it could well never be resolved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
Have linked SR and nicked video - damn good spot!
My pleasure WfW. The effort was Sue's though.
And well done Sue too - as I shall tell her when I next email.
Aside: I see Harriet Harman's favourite word came up on verification: hatemen
Very interesting video.
Bad science is bad science. Lying is lying.
The righteous, 'we know better' propaganda is becoming very tiresome now.
Great find, Rosie. Pinched. :)
He's a psychologist - he doesn't know anything about science.
The reality is that smokers disregarded all attempts to appeal to their better nature - smoking is disgusting, it pollutes the air other people breathe, it stinks, it's anti-social, etc. So we're kinda forced into shouting 'you will DIE if you do this and other people will DIE too.'
It's not completely untrue and the health of the nation will improve as a result.
What do you mean, "He's a Psychologist - he doesn't know anything about science"?
He knows about research methodologies, statistical significance and data analysis. More importantly he knows about behaviour modification, conditioning and social engineering, of which you are a prime example.
Clearly, it is his ignorance of science that has led him to being a member of the special Health Board, Quality Improvement Scotland, the NHS 24 Review Group and working for the WHO, the DoE, the Scottish Executive and the Social Work Services Directorate.
And who are you again? Someone who says "smoking stinks."
Just admit you're a bigot and stop pretending that passive smoking exists. The studies are out there, people can read them themselves. Just admit that you hate smoking and that is your opinion and nothing more. Invoking fake science is THE thing that really gets me about the whole tobacco control movement. I could care less about smoking in pubs nowadays, but this perversion of science threatens to return us to the Dark Ages.
Ah ha WFE, I thought it would be 'gingerrats'. :)
I think so too tinks. Tiresome indeed but they won't give up. Think of the number of jobs created by our money for a start.
William, the video wasn't just about smokers, you obviously missed the whole point of what he was saying.
To say a psychologist is not a scientist is like saying Tesco isn't a supermarket chain. Pathetic anology yes but not as bad as your statement.
Mr A, thanks so much for your contribution. Of course you're correct in assuming William doesn't like smoking. I've often wondered what habits he has, but have decided perhaps it's better I don't ask. ;)
I've used this too, thanks so much for digging it up:
http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2010/10/bad-science-in-good-cause-is-bad.html
excellent joint effort on this people, thanks Rosie will come and nick it tomorrow for inclusion elsewhere/elsewhen
The credit goes to my 'devoted follower' Clams Linguin Belinda. He sent it to me. Many thanks for posting it. I just read your blog a couple of hours ago. I'll come back now. :)
Indyan, I should go off to Spain with my pc laptop and get some tuition. Sue has the patience of a saint.
Nice SR thanks for that.
About time people started calling the mistruths of the last 13 years what they really are.
Bogus lies and scaremongering.
Yes i know it has been going on for longer than that, but latterly it has gone into turbo charged overdrive.
One comment though , smoking is not a disease, addiction on the other hand can be called an involuntary illness.
Extraordinary!
"...but latterly it has gone into turbo charged overdrive."
Hopefully, in the same way that it's always darkest before the dawn..
It's all about context.
Alcoholism is regarded as a disease in Alcoholics Anonymous and its related organisations. This is because the alcoholic and those around them live in a state of continuous despair because they have low self-esteem and blame themselves for the way they are. Whilst they blame themselves they never get better, so using the disease context helps to take the pressure off them and allow them to gain hope and take responsibility for getting better.
The mistake that policy makers are making is taking this practice and trying to apply it more widely in society. I would agree that this is a mistake, because in the wider world it has the opposite effect, and allows people to avoid responsibility for their free choices.
Sandy - see http://tinyurl.com/34aoaoq when you speak of addiction. Smoking is associated with drug dependence which is not addiction.
I think nicotine addiction is a small part of smoking Sandy. Habit is far greater.
Yet the Righteous continue to say it is an addiction.
That's only my personal view.
Or before the vehicle grinds to a halt Julia.
It is about context Techno. Some people don't feel comfortable with the AA's 'translation' I know, yet other's find a label is a great help.
Entirely agree with your last paragraph.
That's along the lines of my thoughts John.
"What do you mean, "He's a Psychologist - he doesn't know anything about science"?
It means that psychology is a bogus science. It has no real facts or laws that underpin it like a true science. Most of psychology theory is simply interpreting statistics - not repeatable, observable experiments. It's a 'science' for people who lack the mathematical and logical skills to learn a real science. Real scientists don't invoke the gas chambers when talking about banning smoking!
I don't think I pretended that I didn't like smoking. Unfortunately, smokers are so utterly selfish that even when you tell them that you regard it as disgusting and you'd rather they didn't smoke in front of you, they carry on regardless. So the health risks have to be rammed home to them. It's the only way they'll listen.
I don't accept it is bad science. Smoking does cause lung cancer; passive smoking will carry a greater risk than avoiding smokers altogether.
Smokers just don't like the plain fact they they're a public menace.
"To say a psychologist is not a scientist is like saying Tesco isn't a supermarket chain."
No, it isn't, SR.
I'll try and find the link but I'm almost certain that psychology has lost its scientific funding for university students. So, someone else must agree with me.
Auch William, psychology a bogus science? What nonsense. It's the study of human behaviour. What other science studies the workings of the mind to such a degree.
I agree. You certainly did not pretend you liked smoking. I'm not particularly fond of quite a few things, such as people stuffing themselves with revolting smelly hamburgers in the street, but then I perhaps have a higher tolerance level than you and I believe in the freedom to choose.
Public menace indeed. There's more threat to my health from being pushed to the ground by impatient commuters when I'm trying to get on a bus other than you and your nonsense about second hand smoke harming you. There's more threat to your health too from the exhaust of said bus.
Even Wiki calls it a science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
In that case then William Strathclyde would have disbanded the department. They certainly wouldn't be running any department at a loss. I know that university too well.
What never ceases to amaze me Rosie is how all the anti-smokers are so quiet about nuclear fission reactors and the attendant pollution (cancer causing, PROVEN) of all the releases of radiation through'accidental' and deliberate deployment of nuclear weapons, there is a world map somewhere on the web that shows all the nuclear 'tests conducted since the first detonation and they are so wide spread and so many that jumping up and down and yelling at the top of your voice at the 'dirty smokers' is reallly just completely farcical.
According to them if you can't see it, smell it, then its not a problem....dimwitted to say the least , go protest something real like your governments perfidious mendaciousness and let those who wish to have a smoke live in peace , jumped up little t*ts!
Oh yes , and what about the creeping menace of Islamisation and Sharia law ...they WILL cut off your head if you don't join em...worry about the right things....
Try this ,and then think about it William
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk
Yay. Go Prof! Go viral!
slapped it on my site with a kink back Rosie , Thanks!
Ah but Indyan, the Righteous wlll tell you they can do nothing about such pollution. It's needed for our survival don't you know.
Out of sight, out of mind - you're right, that's their mentality. You can't blame them because they believe the drivel pumped into the media. Not that I would call them trusting of the media, just people who are unable to evaluate and think for themselves. That's what our education system is best at these days - creating fear instead of the excitement and challenges in life.
Clams, there is that possibility indeed.
My pleasure Indyan.
Scientists involved in the GNome project have identified a quirk in the genetic makeup which can make people susceptible to alcoholism.
Obviously William suffers from a far more common quirk that as yet the scientists have not been able to identify and isolate.
So Alex, go find yourself a bar where the owner has the right to limit his clientel to non-smokers"
Oops forgot, at least over here, the poor bloody bar owner doesn't have any right of choice! Something you wish to remove from those who choose to smoke!
So you appear to have friends that smoke? Oh dear, so you believe they have no choice whether to smoke or not?
Or is it none of your friends smoke? In which case you believe you have the right to stop the enjoyment of those who do?
So it is difficult for you to find a bar that does not bar smoking? Now, what does that tell you?
Alex, I suggest you 're-value' your values - or go find another planet! Aka, in plain English: Piss Off!
(Apologies SR, for the language, but this dipstick has really wound me up!)
Alex, Oh dear.......
If public spaces are the preserve of everyone then surely everyone has the right to use them as they wish?
So your non-addiction means that I have to limit my civil and human rights?
"Should those who don't desire public nudity have to go to bars which specifically forbid it?" They don't, cos they have the choice not to! Exactly the same choice you have not to go into establishments that permit smoking!
I know it's annoying for non-smokers and I'm sorry about that but you simply should NOT be allowed to interfere with my ability to live and smoke - end of story!
No, Alex, YOUR argument is total fallacy - now be a good chap, either come back with a logical argument, or Foxtrot Oscar - or are you training to be a Lib/Lab/Con politician? In which case the same suggestion applies!
Oh and Alex, I speak as an Asthmatic - now cured!
@Alex Porter you said "Nice try by Mr Davies but for me, it doesn't wash!"
You missed the point completely. If in 2006 parliament had been voting on banning smoking in public places because non smokers don't like the smell on their clothes and in their hair, some find that it irritates their throat and eyes, and some cannot even be in a smoky atmosphere because of a respiratory condition, that is a different matter.
They did not however. The vote was based on bad science. I am not in a position to give true statistics, but what I do know is this. If, and it is a BIG if, one non smoker in a million people got lung cancer every generation because they had been surrounded by tobacco smoke 24/7, that would be about 60 people every 40 years. The anti smoking lobby said it was 66000 a year.
OK, maybe the fairy tales varied, and the figure I gave was one of the more ridiculous. I am however incensed that the Health Act was based on pure garbage, a quarter of the population had their social and everyday lives, in many cases their working lives, totally ruined by bad science. A law based on lies and fabrication.
Hello Alex, lost your voice, or got a problem with your internet connection?
Yes RA, there has been talk about a gene which makes some more prone to forms of addiction. I've followed it with interest recently.
"No, just got bigger fish to fry.." C'mon Alex, I am just a little itch on your back you can't scratch and get rid of!
"If a public space is for everyone then you don't do something which prevents EVERYONE from enjoying it."
In which case you don't do something which prevents anyone from enjoying it - no? Equality & Choice - remember them?
"To enjoy a public space basic human exploits rank far higher than the taking of drugs which affect others' breathing. EVERYONE has to breath fresh air but no-one has to smoke"
And the percentage of smoke in a public space, lets say an open-air park, is what? And exactly how much is detectable? And of that that is detectable, it causes how much harm? And do please quote the scientific study which shows that second-hand smoke is hamful. To save you time and effort - there isn't one! Likewise, show me the autopsy procedure that proves that second-hand smoke was the cause of death - again there isn't one!
"As a human being people smoking denies me intrinsic freedoms." And those like you who deny smokers the same 'intrinsic values'? And the difference is??
"I am very against government telling people what to do but those of you on the side of the smokers in this debate are not being the libertarians you think you are because the most important freedoms are being compromised by you. This is just selfishness dressed up as freedom."
And you are not compromising the same important freedoms, ie the freedom of choice? Is that not just selfishness dressed up as freedom, on your part - of not having to suffer smoke? You have the choice and ability to 'move away' - so why don't you?
And lastly, when have I insulted you? All I have done is respond to your uneducated, ill-informed, unfounded and spurious arguments.
Quote some verifiable facts Alex - or Foxtrot Oscar!
The bars I frequent in Spain Alex have separate areas for smokers but perhaps the ones round your way don't.
I've every sympathy with asthmatics and the one friend knows those of us will smoke away from her.
My clothes stink after walking round Dundee for a couple of hours but I don't complain that it's violence.
Surely you can have a word with the bar owner and suggest he may have a part of the bar which is smoke free or at least well ventilated.
WfW, last time I was in Spain a few years ago bar owners were able to choose whether to be a smoking place or not.
Auch WfW, Alex's lovely, he's just bothered by smoke. There are plenty other smells which are more troublesome to many asthmatics but they can't affect him.
I certainly agree with your analysis timbone and I too would have voted for a ban in these situations.
Personally, as a smoker myself, I still don't understand why they didn't ban smoking outright. Then as many say 'follow the money'.
Gentlemen, please agree to disagree without upsetting each other.
Not that I'm trying to substantiate smoking Alex because I won't, but I've just remembered my asthmatic friend is far more troubled by certain air conditioning than smoking. She's also mentioned since planes stopped smokers, her breathing isn't so good when flying. She discovered the air isn't cleaned with fresh air nowadays and it's only cabin stale air recirculated during flights.
There's a nice little flame-war going on SR, I hope it won't contribute to Global Warming.
Personally, I've no objections to smokers, it's just them exhaling that I don't like.
Long gone are the days when I smoked in the house Joe or at the computer. But if I had been having a puff I wouldn't have choked reading your comment. :)
I have requested that my posts from last night be deleted.
Thanks to Rosie for letting me escape :O)
Alex
Post a Comment