PDA

View Full Version : cecil=retard and google user


tards
02-16-2004, 05:12 AM
regarding your deal with possible health benefits of smoking....ummmm, the risk will always be much greater then benefit regarding smoking. jeez..what a retard you are.

I Love Me, Vol. I
02-16-2004, 05:16 AM
Tards--

WeLcOmE t0 tHe BoArRrdDzZz

C ya.

tards
02-16-2004, 05:17 AM
cut and paste plagiarist!

tards
02-16-2004, 05:18 AM
race car
navy van
no melon no lemon
no lemon no melon

thanks

Grey
02-16-2004, 05:56 AM
A link so we can actually figure out what tards is going on about.

Does smoking have any health benefits? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html)

As to your point From a big-picture standpoint smoking is definitely bad for you, and nobody wants to give people an excuse to do more of it.

Dunderman
02-16-2004, 07:30 AM
Yep, that's the dumbest column comment ever. Well, it's in the top ten, anyway.

The PHB
02-16-2004, 07:46 AM
I think Cecil overlooked something. There are health benefits from smoking ... but it's the non-smokers who get them.

Say you smoke. You're going to die early. You won't consume any of the nation's undoubtedly limited healthcare resources in your old age, because you won't have an old age. All the more healthcare resources for non-smokers like me. That sounds like a benefit.

Dunderman
02-16-2004, 07:50 AM
Well, the smokers consume a lot of resources before they die. Lung cancer and the like costs quite a bit to treat.

jjimm
02-16-2004, 08:03 AM
Well, the smokers consume a lot of resources before they die. Lung cancer and the like costs quite a bit to treat.We pay a lot of taxes, too.

Dunderman
02-16-2004, 08:43 AM
Yes, jjimm, but the matter was health benefits and the poster said smoking was a health benefit for nonsmokers because smokers didn't consume healthcare resources. They do.

The PHB
02-16-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Priceguy
Well, the smokers consume a lot of resources before they die. Lung cancer and the like costs quite a bit to treat.
Interesting point, Priceguy. Has anyone done any research as to whether smokers cost more or less than non-smokers over their lifetimes? The best debate I've seen on the subject was in an episode of the classic BBC sitcom "Yes Minister". The plot synopsis is here (http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm#YPM%201.3) but the key exchange is:
Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, we are talking about 100,000 deaths a year."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."
By the way, if there are any SD Staff Moderators reading ... this might be a much more lively and interesting discussion if the OP could be re-titled. Is that posible? Ta.

jjimm
02-16-2004, 10:35 AM
Yes, jjimm, but the matter was health benefits and the poster said smoking was a health benefit for nonsmokers because smokers didn't consume healthcare resources. They do.Read again: the poster said "You won't consume any of the nation's undoubtedly limited healthcare resources in your old age". Never made any claim that resources wouldn't be used before then.

Anyway, this is a silly argument, you're probably correct anyway, and since I have neither the figures nor the incination to look them up, I point upwards to the Jim Hacker quote and leave it at that. :)

tards
02-16-2004, 05:55 PM
A link so we can actually figure out what tards is going on about.

Does smoking have any health benefits? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html)

As to your point
lol grey, not really intended for you, or cecil actually, or anyone! i thought this was the type of board where biting, insulting schtick was required, especially as an initiation for noobs (yours truly). and this guy cecil seemed the most salient target for obvious reasons. i don't even know the guy, but i'm sure he i a pretty decent gentleman. this wasn't really to catalyze a debate on the benefits of either smoking or not. lol---thought i was being funny. guess i have to temper my typing. sorry. pretty cool discussions, however!

thank you---todd

Grey
02-16-2004, 06:05 PM
tards, welcome to the boards. Cecil and Staff reports should be linked to so people know what you're talking about.

It's a fairly fun place, but the vitrol tends to be in the Pit.

Little Nemo
02-16-2004, 07:04 PM
And please put a little more effort into your insults. This is Cecil Adams you're insulting, the man who penned such classics such as "if stupid were cereal, you'd be General Mills" and "did your mother take a lot of thaliomide when she was carrying you?" He deserves something more than "jeez what a retard you are."

tards
02-16-2004, 09:16 PM
And please put a little more effort into your insults. This is Cecil Adams you're insulting, the man who penned such classics such as "if stupid were cereal, you'd be General Mills" and "did your mother take a lot of thaliomide when she was carrying you?" He deserves something more than "jeez what a retard you are."
lol......now that's what i'm talking bout....i think i'm gonna like this board!

Frank
02-16-2004, 09:27 PM
Yes, jjimm, but the matter was health benefits and the poster said smoking was a health benefit for nonsmokers because smokers didn't consume healthcare resources. They do.
So the question really is: which is more costly, an expensive but early death, or drag out the health care for another 20 or 30 years and then likely have an expensive death anyway? Intuitively, it seems the smokers would cost the system less, but I'm hardly an expert on this. We got any out there?

Should it be factored in that smokers do pay more taxes, and are also subsidizing the tobacco settlement?

Lynn Bodoni
02-16-2004, 09:28 PM
Interesting point, Priceguy. Has anyone done any research as to whether smokers cost more or less than non-smokers over their lifetimes? The best debate I've seen on the subject was in an episode of the classic BBC sitcom "Yes Minister". The plot synopsis is here (http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm#YPM%201.3) but the key exchange is:

By the way, if there are any SD Staff Moderators reading ... this might be a much more lively and interesting discussion if the OP could be re-titled. Is that posible? Ta. The only figures I've seen have been in print, not online...but those figures show that smokers consume many times over the resources that they pay in cigarette taxes. However, these figures were for the United States, so of course they won't apply to the rest of the world.

As for retitling the thread, I think that I'd rather have someone start it fresh. And I might require the OP to change his name and attitude.

Lynn

tards
02-16-2004, 09:44 PM
The only figures I've seen have been in print, not online...but those figures show that smokers consume many times over the resources that they pay in cigarette taxes. However, these figures were for the United States, so of course they won't apply to the rest of the world.

As for retitling the thread, I think that I'd rather have someone start it fresh. And I might require the OP to change his name and attitude.

Lynn
OMG spaz. don't bother.. just lock me out. i'm done. you obviously either didn't read ALL my posts, or didn't understand one or more. either way, i think you/this site lacks the sophistication i originally thought/hoped it had. thanks, anyway. please don't respond to this....i'm out for good and won't be back.....i know you'll have the urge to 'save face' amongst your peers by rejoining, but assure this tard is running away-----fast

Frank
02-16-2004, 09:54 PM
OMG spaz. don't bother.. just lock me out. i'm done. you obviously either didn't read ALL my posts, or didn't understand one or more. either way, i think you/this site lacks the sophistication i originally thought/hoped it had. thanks, anyway. please don't respond to this....i'm out for good and won't be back.....i know you'll have the urge to 'save face' amongst your peers by rejoining, but assure this tard is running away-----fast
Oh boy, I wish I was Lynn right now.

VitriolHumor
02-16-2004, 09:55 PM
Oh boy, I wish I was Lynn right now.
why's that?

vanilla
02-16-2004, 10:04 PM
Because lynn is a good thing to be!

I'll bet 1,000,000 that tards is a guy.


No offense to any guys here..

blasphmer
02-16-2004, 10:18 PM
why's that?
So she can whack the turd, err tard, with her 1920's death ray.

jjimm
02-17-2004, 03:29 AM
this site lacks the sophistication i originally thought/hoped it hadOh deary me. From someone whose first post contains: "jeez..what a retard you are" and is incapable of capitalization or punctuation. What the feck do you expect?

It's plenty sophisticated if you don't approach it in a sophomoric manner.

C K Dexter Haven
02-17-2004, 07:33 AM
Sigh. We usually get a spate of these types when school is on break. They read a column (maybe) and see how Cecil tosses around insults, they come over here thinking this is an insult-board (a popular game amongst the junior-high school set, I am told, to insult each other, although they never do it creatively.)'

I'm closing this since there's nothing more to say. A discussion of the cost/benefit ratio to cigarette taxes, national health care, etc. can be opened in Great Debates.