Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 25th, 2008 #21
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default No contest...

Quote:
Let me ask you a question.
Who would you rather have on your side a virulent anti-semite who smokes, such as my self, OR a zealous anti-smoking JEW who works at a high level within the ZOG bureaucracy?
First of all, it's about the dumbest question I've heard yet, and I've heard plenty. But what the heck, I'll play...

Second of all, I have no use for smokers... like one poster said, there's a mentality there that pervades other thoughts and actions in life, and someone who can't control their appetite for what is palpably harmful to them and others around them means they have no respect for their own bodies, hence no respect for just about anything.

Third of all, I have no use for virulent anti-semites, because that's just a 180 degree version of the same mentality that said anti-semite feels justified in hating, and both rabid Zionists and virulent anti-semites are pretty much cut from the same cloth.

I prefer a thinking man with sound logic and a sense of justice, so that he respects right and wrong and fears God first and foremost. I'm not going to embrace a guy like Michael Moore merely because he's white, nor will I disparage a man like Bill Cosby if what he's saying and doing is correct and just.

I likewise have no use for politicians, no matter how high level. They are agents of this system of things, a system that is corrupt to the core and an affront to God.
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #22
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default Yeah, but...

Quote:
People make cost/benefit decisions on a whole host of things. I might eat that apple pie even though it will raise my cholesterol.
Yeah, but nobody else ever got sick or gained weight from your second-hand crumbs!
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #23
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Yeah, I figured you for a nigger lover!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #24
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default Being insulted by the likes of you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Yeah, I figured you for a nigger lover!
An insult from someone of your caliber is a mark of honor, as far as I'm concerned.

You talk about TNB and TJB and then you yourself indulge in it, Monsieur Hypocrite?

Avaunt, thou impious fool... you just gained the IGNORE list... any true Aryan community with hope for the future doesn't need your kind.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #25
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
First of all, it's about the dumbest question I've heard yet, and I've heard plenty. But what the heck, I'll play...

Second of all, I have no use for smokers... like one poster said, there's a mentality there that pervades other thoughts and actions in life, and someone who can't control their appetite for what is palpably harmful to them and others around them means they have no respect for their own bodies, hence no respect for just about anything.

Third of all, I have no use for virulent anti-semites, because that's just a 180 degree version of the same mentality that said anti-semite feels justified in hating, and both rabid Zionists and virulent anti-semites are pretty much cut from the same cloth.

I prefer a thinking man with sound logic and a sense of justice, so that he respects right and wrong and fears God first and foremost. I'm not going to embrace a guy like Michael Moore merely because he's white, nor will I disparage a man like Bill Cosby if what he's saying and doing is correct and just.

I likewise have no use for politicians, no matter how high level. They are agents of this system of things, a system that is corrupt to the core and an affront to God.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #26
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
An insult from someone of your caliber is a mark of honor, as far as I'm concerned.

You talk about TNB and TJB and then you yourself indulge in it, Monsieur Hypocrite?

Avaunt, thou impious fool... you just gained the IGNORE list... any true Aryan community with hope for the future doesn't need your kind.
Thank you,
come again!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #27
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
tuisto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odin View Post
What are the benefits of smoking?
The only benefit for the (mass produced and poisonous) cigarette smoking idiot is his/her accelerated disappearance/premature death.

Hitler knew this too but Linder thinks he is wiser than Hitler.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #28
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default Nice try, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
I didn't say I cared for Bill Cosby's personal habits, I said (as an example in the discussion about the racial loyalty issue, which followed the smoking issue... do try to keep up, there's a good fellow) that I wouldn't disparage a man LIKE Bill Cosby, who is not of my race, nor side with a race traitor like Michael Moore, simply because he's white...

I chose the name of Cosby as an example because he is well-noted for his no-nonsense approach to the problems of the black community by telling them the truth about themselves, whether they want to hear it or not, and placing the blame for their problems squarely on their own behavior, and not on 'whitey'.

And if you really want to get technical, when people talk about smokers, they're more concerned with the cigarette smokers who go through a pack or more a day, and light up everywhere and anywhere they can... cigar smoking is a whole different can of worms, but at least it's usually done in a 'gentlemen' club type atmosphere after a dinner or amongst a gathering of men in social settings, and not a constant all through the day annoyance amongst the general public.
 
Old July 26th, 2008 #29
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

So tell us, O pompus one, when was the last time, in this day and age, that you were so discomfited by suffering the immediate presence of a smoker?
(And don't tell me the guy next to you at a stop light.)
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #30
Leshrac
Mad Science
 
Leshrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,686
Leshrac
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odin View Post
What are the benefits of smoking?
It is a proven fact that smoking dramatically reduces the chances to have :

- Parkinson's
- Crohn's
- Alzheimer's

And ulcers, too

I'm too lazy to dig it up, do it.
__________________
Thinking... Please wait.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #31
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default I doubt it, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshrac View Post
It is a proven fact that smoking dramatically reduces the chances to have :

- Parkinson's
- Crohn's
- Alzheimer's

And ulcers, too

I'm too lazy to dig it up, do it.
Quit spreading disinformation, Dr. Numbskull. Anything which constricts the amount of oxygen to the brain and extremities cannot reduce the risk of anything worth the trade-off. "Nicotine-like" drugs are not the same things as the nicotine one gets from smoking cigarettes, and DUH!

It actually INCREASES the likelihood of Alzheimers (not forgetting all the other heinous heart and lung diseases already accounted for by the research on the subject which, when contracted, would make the subject WISH for Alzheimers, even if your claim were true... which it palpably is NOT!).

Bogus claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/720903.stm

Doubles the risk:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/115829.stm

Impairs intelligence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/718160.stm

Leads to premature aging (as if we didn't already know!):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/710447.stm

As far as Parkinsons, well, let me quote the doctors from the studies themselves:
Quote:
Although the detrimental health effects of cigarette smoking would far outweigh any possible protective effect for smoking and Parkinson's disease, the association of smoking with apparent protection may contribute to understanding the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms.
Ulcers, you say? Again, you must have read the bizarro-world version of the results:

http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...lth-risks.html

Quote:
Smoking and the Gastrointestinal Tract

Smoking increases acid production in the stomach. It also reduces blood flow and production of compounds that protect the stomach lining.
Now please, guys, stop the insanity... there is NO WAY, NO HOW smoking is beneficial to the human body... and any minute possibility, real or imagined, that it may prevent certain maladies is FAR OUTWEIGHED by its deleterious and proven effect on a boatload of other more heinous maladies.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #32
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
I chose the name of Cosby as an example because he is well-noted for his no-nonsense approach to the problems of the black community by telling them the truth about themselves, whether they want to hear it or not, and placing the blame for their problems squarely on their own behavior, and not on 'whitey'.

Second of all, I have no use for smokers... like one poster said, there's a mentality there that pervades other thoughts and actions in life, and someone who can't control their appetite for what is palpably harmful to them and others around them means they have no respect for their own bodies, hence no respect for just about anything.

I prefer a thinking man with sound logic and a sense of justice, so that he respects right and wrong and fears God first and foremost. I'm not going to embrace a guy like Michael Moore merely because he's white, nor will I disparage a man like Bill Cosby if what he's saying and doing is correct and just.
so...
1. you have no use for smokers because they have no respect for themselves and therefore no respect for anything else
2. you respect the opinions of bill cosby because he is honest
3. you give him a pass on smoking because he is honest

If a white nationalist was noted for his no nonsense approach to problems facing the white race, but smoked would he be as respectable as cosby? or as useless as other smokers?

Quote:
And if you really want to get technical, when people talk about smokers, they're more concerned with the cigarette smokers who go through a pack or more a day, and light up everywhere and anywhere they can... cigar smoking is a whole different can of worms, but at least it's usually done in a 'gentlemen' club type atmosphere after a dinner or amongst a gathering of men in social settings, and not a constant all through the day annoyance amongst the general public.
So your objection has more to do with where people smoke rather than smoking itself or it's health risks?
If cigarettes were outlawed and people switched to cigars and pipes what would your opinion be?
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #33
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default Rather than splitting hairs....

Quote:
1. you have no use for smokers because they have no respect for themselves and therefore no respect for anything else.
That's right... in speaking about my personal relationships and those with whom I would or would not spend considerable time under social circumstances.

Quote:
2. you respect the opinions of bill cosby because he is honest
Yes, and funny in a for-the-most-part wholesome way, but I digress. Certainly more than I respect the opinions of a Michael Moore and his ilk, which was the original comparison pole I chose in my earlier post because I believe these two individuals served the point well.

Quote:
you give him a pass on smoking because he is honest
I don't associate with him personally, so no, I don't 'give him a pass on smoking'... but what's more pertinent to the discussion is the example I gave (and now I'm repeating this point for the second time... most tedious of you) was about blind racial loyalty, already past the point about cigarette smoking... and if you want to stay on the smoking angle, at least a guy that has an occasional cigar is not doing the same type of damage to himself and others as the 24/7 cigarette smokers, so while I still wouldn't hang around a cigar smoker for any period of time, it's apples-to-oranges when compared to cigarette smoking... but like I already said, the Cosby-Moore comparison was not about smoking, it was about the blind racial loyalty question originally asked.

Quote:
If a white nationalist was noted for his no nonsense approach to problems facing the white race, but smoked would he be as respectable as cosby? or as useless as other smokers?
Someone can speak the truth and be admirable... if he/she has personal habits that I don't condone, that merely means I wouldn't care to associate with them overlong in a social setting, but I could still admire what they say on other topics.

This isn't a binary either/or world... sheesh, you guys have to learn to think in multiple dimensions.

Quote:
So your objection has more to do with where people smoke rather than smoking itself or it's health risks?
Not more, no... my objection is first and foremost about the health issues to the smoker and to those around him/her... much like I would hate to see or be around a person that walked through town sticking needles into him/herself, even if they weren't sticking needles into anyone else... but the fact that smokers DO stick needles into others only adds to the disdain.

Those smokers who AT LEAST have the courtesy to smoke in places where they will not bother non-smokers do have a slight edge in the behavioral sweepstakes... but they're still doing something for which the downside is SO steep that it still merits disdain and one has to suspect their mentality, like an earlier poster so wisely observed.

Quote:
If cigarettes were outlawed and people switched to cigars and pipes what would your opinion be?
My opinion would be that immaterial and irrelevant 'what if' questions that serve only as an attempt to 'trip up' the responder (rather than address the true point of the issue, namely, admitting that first- and second-hand smoke are IRREFUTABLY harmful) are inane, indeed, and reflect a Philistine-like mentality with which I likewise have little truck.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #34
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

I'm actually not arguing with you, I'm asking you to clarify your position, and I have yet to state mine.
When you say have no use for, the implication is that these people are useless, I was asking for clarification as to how useless they are. You then say you could admire them but wouldnt associate with them. I can understand this position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
Someone can speak the truth and be admirable... if he/she has personal habits that I don't condone, that merely means I wouldn't care to associate with them overlong in a social setting, but I could still admire what they say on other topics.

This isn't a binary either/or world... sheesh, you guys have to learn to think in multiple dimensions.



Not more, no... my objection is first and foremost about the health issues to the smoker and to those around him/her... much like I would hate to see or be around a person that walked through town sticking needles into him/herself, even if they weren't sticking needles into anyone else... but the fact that smokers DO stick needles into others only adds to the disdain.

Those smokers who AT LEAST have the courtesy to smoke in places where they will not bother non-smokers do have a slight edge in the behavioral sweepstakes... but they're still doing something for which the downside is SO steep that it still merits disdain and one has to suspect their mentality, like an earlier poster so wisely observed.



My opinion would be that immaterial and irrelevant 'what if' questions that serve only as an attempt to 'trip up' the responder (rather than address the true point of the issue, namely, admitting that first- and second-hand smoke are IRREFUTABLY harmful) are inane, indeed, and reflect a Philistine-like mentality with which I likewise have little truck.
Ok then a real situation... cigars are becoming more and more popular, many cigarette smokers quit only to take up cigars. For many of the reasons you have given, cigars are seen as classy gentlemanly sophisticated and cigarettes are seen as low class coffin nails.
Yet cigars pose the same health risks, especially to former cigarette smokers who will inhale cigar smoke. Other than the fact that they are less common how are cigars any less of a problem than cigarettes?
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #35
Jett Rink
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Squaresville
Posts: 7,502
Default

Cigars smell a whole hell of a lot better than the noxious fumes that cigarettes emit.

I could live in a cigar shop, but my eyes water and my throat gets sore when having to spend 5 minutes in a smoking suite at a hotel.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #36
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default Something lost in translation...

Quote:
When you say have no use for, the implication is that these people are useless, I was asking for clarification as to how useless they are. You then say you could admire them but wouldnt associate with them. I can understand this position.
I can't help what you infer... to my generation, the expression "I have no use for X" is the same as saying "I don't like X" or "I would not associate with X", nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean X is totally useless in all aspects or for all others.

Quote:
Other than the fact that they are less common how are cigars any less of a problem than cigarettes?
That's like saying "Other than the fact that it's incurable, why is herpes any more of a problem than gonnorhea." That's a pretty significant "other than", my friend.

But again, the true issue here is there's no point in turning the original thread into a cigar-vs-cigarettes debate... totally immaterial to the point of the original thread, where the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke were claimed to be unproven.

I'm not campaigning pro-cigar... I recommend people eschew all forms of tobacco... but if I HAD to make a case for, just for the sake of debate, then (at fear of belaboring the obvious)...

Less common = less problems it may cause to the users and surrounding non-users (with commensurate benefits in alleviating the current burdens caused to the national health care systems and insurances)... that's the major factor.

If you wish to pursue further the "other than that" angle, well, it's obvious... most cigar smokers don't inhale, most only smoke one or two a day, most only smoke after dinner or amongst other male associates in 'club' settings, e.g., poker games, sports events, brandy-after-dinner gentlemen clubs, etc., etc. (and please note the use of the term 'most', which <> 'all').

And as Jett so wisely observed, cigars are, in fact, far more redolent during the act, if one must be caught in the environs of a smoker... although the aftermath in the clothing and hair is equally offensive.

This is about all I really care to discuss on the topic of cigars... which has already carried on far longer than it ought to have.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #37
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
I can't help what you infer... to my generation, the expression "I have no use for X" is the same as saying "I don't like X" or "I would not associate with X", nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean X is totally useless in all aspects or for all others.
Which is why I was asking for clarification, you use strong words and only half mean them, I was wondering which half.

Quote:
That's like saying "Other than the fact that it's incurable, why is herpes any less of a problem than the common cold." That's a pretty significant "other than", my friend.

But again, the true issue here is there's no point in turning the original thread into a cigar-vs-cigarettes debate... totally immaterial to the point of the original thread, where the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke were claimed to be unproven.

I'm not campaigning pro-cigar... I recommend people eschew all forms of tobacco... but if I HAD to make a case for, just for the sake of debate, then (at fear of belaboring the obvious)...

Less common = less problems it may cause to the users and surrounding non-users (with commensurate benefits in alleviating the current burdens caused to the national health care systems and insurances)... that's the major factor.

If you wish to pursue further the "other than that" angle, well, it's obvious... most cigar smokers don't inhale, most only smoke one or two a day, most only smoke after dinner or amongst other male associates in 'club' settings, e.g., poker games, sports events, brandy-after-dinner gentlemen clubs, etc., etc. (and please note the use of the term 'most', which <> 'all'This is about all I really care to discuss on the topic of cigars... which has already carried on far longer than it ought to have.
Well, you were the one to make the distinction.
As for your herpes comparison, it’s more like saying being struck by lightning is ok because car crashes are more common. Both are not good.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #38
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default

Quote:
Which is why I was asking for clarification, you use strong words and only half mean them, I was wondering which half.
I use words exactly as they are meant to be used, given my frame of reference.

If you infer things that are not there, or otherwise misinterpret and then choose to bandy about even more words in picayune observations about cigars versus cigarettes, I can't help that... a tedious reality of internet threads, I suppose.

Quote:
As for your herpes comparison, it’s more like saying being struck by lightning is ok because car crashes are more common. Both are not good.
Excuse me, but your previous question was posed more along the lines of, given one's druthers, would you rather see people take their chances on a lightning strike (cigars) or a car crash (cigarettes)?

The correct answer would be, since car crashes are far more common than getting struck by lightning, I'd pick taking my chances with the latter... assuming, for the sake of debate, those were the sole choices.

As far as BOTH being bad, well... DUH, and thank you, Captain Obvious.

For the sake of friendliness and "getting acquainted" I deigned to extend the conversation... but forewarned, in the future I will not be so liberal with my time on Philistine "let's see if we can trip him up" Q&A.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #39
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
I use words exactly as they are meant to be used, given my frame of reference.
Except that your frame of reference was not given, you simply said no use for them. In what regard, who knows?

Quote:
If you infer things that are not there, or otherwise misinterpret and then choose to bandy about even more words in picayune observations about cigars versus cigarettes, I can't help that... a tedious reality of internet threads, I suppose.
I inferred no use to mean no use, how silly of me and again, you were the one that made the distinction between cigars and cigarettes.


Quote:
Excuse me, but your previous question was posed more along the lines of, given one's druthers, would you rather see people take their chances on a lightning strike (cigars) or a car crash (cigarettes)?

The correct answer would be, since car crashes are far more common than getting struck by lightning, I'd pick taking my chances with the latter... assuming, for the sake of debate, those were the sole choices.
Yet encouraging people to go out in a storm would cause an increase in fatal lightning strikes, as encouraging or excusing the use of cigars would lead to the same health risks for which you oppose cigarettes.
Quote:
As far as BOTH being bad, well... DUH, and thank you, Captain Obvious.

For the sake of friendliness and "getting acquainted" I deigned to extend the conversation... but forewarned, in the future I will not be so liberal with my time on Philistine "let's see if we can trip him up" Q&A.
I didn’t realize you were using the term philistine in a friendly manner, my apologies.
 
Old July 27th, 2008 #40
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default

Quote:
Yet encouraging people to go out in a storm would cause an increase in fatal lightning strikes, as encouraging or excusing the use of cigars would lead to the same health risks for which you oppose cigarettes.
What part of "assuming for the sake of debate those were the sole choices" did you NOT understand?

Quote:
I didn’t realize you were using the term philistine in a friendly manner, my apologies.
I've noticed that irony seems to be lost on many posters around these parts... in the future, I'll strive, really I will, to be less sardonic.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 AM.
Page generated in 0.16344 seconds.