The "other" danger of playing in most casinos

[ChefJJ]

Cigarette Smoke Is A Nuisance

Beyond the debate of whether the anti-cigarette science is bunk or not, having to inhale others' smoke is a nuisance. And if there are more non-smokers who feel that way than those who want to suck down 20 or 40 heaters a day, then we will continue to see laws and policies restrict smoking.

And yes, like Arrando said, one can get a contact high off of others' pot smoke.

 

[Katweezel]

Hmmmm. So the Uni of Minnesota had an agenda? As (obviously) did a vast number of integrity-driven other studies over the past three decades that all reached the same conclusion about smoking and side-stream smoke? Sheeesh. There are none so blind...

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Is smoking like splitting 10's?

Hmmmm. So the Uni of Minnesota had an agenda? As (obviously) did a vast number of integrity-driven other studies over the past three decades that all reached the same conclusion about smoking and side-stream smoke? Sheeesh. There are none so blind...

They may or may not have had an agenda, I'd have to do some independent analysis of the study before I could make a statement like that about a researcher. Unlike certain others here, who have suggested that the researchers who have concluded the smoke is not harmful to non-smokers were paid off by tobacco companies.

In order to say "This causes that" with a responsible level of certainty requires numerous, well-controlled studies that all say the same thing. Or at least close enough to "all" to be attributable to variance. Maybe the University of Minnesota study did suggest that second-hand smoke can make you sick. And maybe 3 or 4 other studies didn't come to that conclusion. To run around waving the one that says what you want to believe and say "See? See? Second-hand smoke can make you sick!" makes one something between disingenuous and an ignoramus. I'm sorry to use those words, it is not natural for me to say them but I can't think of any better. Such behavior degrades science and exposes us all to the risks of pseudoscience.

Let's take a statement we are all familiar with: "Splitting 10's makes everyone at the table lose." Probably every one of us has had that said to us by an angry civilian, who swears it is true, and to the best of his limited recollection it may very well be true. It may be true that the last 10 times he was at the table and someone split 10's he lost. But we have simulators that ran the experiment billions of times and those experiments say it's not true. No one has a properly-functioning simulator that says "Splitting 10's makes everyone at the table lose." The person who makes this statement might not be fully an idiot, in fact he may not be an idiot anywhere other than the blackjack table, and even there he's only an idiot relative to us. Nonetheless he is going to jump up and say "See? See? You split 10's and we all lost!"

Please, pay as much heed to realism in all science as you do to mathematical science before you place a bet.

 

[arrando]

They may or may not have had an agenda, I'd have to do some independent analysis of the study before I could make a statement like that about a researcher. Unlike certain others here, who have suggested that the researchers who have concluded the smoke is not harmful to non-smokers were paid off by tobacco companies.

In order to say "This causes that" with a responsible level of certainty requires numerous, well-controlled studies that all say the same thing. Or at least close enough to "all" to be attributable to variance. Maybe the University of Minnesota study did suggest that second-hand smoke can make you sick. And maybe 3 or 4 other studies didn't come to that conclusion. To run around waving the one that says what you want to believe and say "See? See? Second-hand smoke can make you sick!" makes one something between disingenuous and an ignoramus. I'm sorry to use those words, it is not natural for me to say them but I can't think of any better. Such behavior degrades science and exposes us all to the risks of pseudoscience.

Let's take a statement we are all familiar with: "Splitting 10's makes everyone at the table lose." Probably every one of us has had that said to us by an angry civilian, who swears it is true, and to the best of his limited recollection it may very well be true. It may be true that the last 10 times he was at the table and someone split 10's he lost. But we have simulators that ran the experiment billions of times and those experiments say it's not true. No one has a properly-functioning simulator that says "Splitting 10's makes everyone at the table lose." The person who makes this statement might not be fully an idiot, in fact he may not be an idiot anywhere other than the blackjack table, and even there he's only an idiot relative to us. Nonetheless he is going to jump up and say "See? See? You split 10's and we all lost!"

Please, pay as much heed to realism in all science as you do to mathematical science before you place a bet.

Agreed. And maybe 3 or 4 studies didn't come to this conclusion. However, many, many more studies did and that constitutes an "overwhelming body of evidence", enough evidence for causation like you say. So what are you trying to say here? That for every one study that shows a correlation there are 3 or 4 that don't? Uh, I don't think so. And what do think "vast number of integrity driven other studies over the past 3 decades that all reached the same conclusion" mean?

 

[Katweezel]

They may or may not have had an agenda, I'd have to do some independent analysis of the study before I could make a statement like that about a researcher. Unlike certain others here, who have suggested that the researchers who have concluded the smoke is not harmful to non-smokers were paid off by tobacco companies.

In order to say "This causes that" with a responsible level of certainty requires numerous, well-controlled studies that all say the same thing. Or at least close enough to "all" to be attributable to variance. Maybe the University of Minnesota study did suggest that second-hand smoke can make you sick. And maybe 3 or 4 other studies didn't come to that conclusion. To run around waving the one that says what you want to believe and say "See? See? Second-hand smoke can make you sick!" makes one something between disingenuous and an ignoramus. I'm sorry to use those words, it is not natural for me to say them but I can't think of any better. Such behavior degrades science and exposes us all to the risks of pseudoscience.

Recent history can show some examples of Tobacco companies paying off researchers - if you look hard enough; although this issue is a sensitive one Big Smoke would like to keep secret. But alas, their corrupt practices were in vain. The jury came back in, a long time ago and... there is absolutely no doubt that smoking (and second-hand smoke) is harmful to human health.

The Dark Ages (when the church ruled) kept science fettered for about 1500 years, until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe and the Earth was also, not flat. Time, science and evolution have moved on into the Scientific Age of Reason; and probably not even you would take much notice of what a modern-day Catholic theologian might pontificate.

You seem to have been defending your nasty little smoking habit. I suggest there are such things as common sense, uncommon sense, inner knowing, and ignoramus scientists. If you spot one, let me know.

 

[aslan]

Recent history can show some examples of Tobacco companies paying off researchers - if you look hard enough; although this issue is a sensitive one Big Smoke would like to keep secret. But alas, their corrupt practices were in vain. The jury came back in, a long time ago and... there is absolutely no doubt that smoking (and second-hand smoke) is harmful to human health.

The Dark Ages (when the church ruled) kept science fettered for about 1500 years, until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe and the Earth was also, not flat. Time, science and evolution have moved on into the Scientific Age of Reason; and probably not even you would take much notice of what a modern-day Catholic theologian might pontificate.

You seem to have been defending your nasty little smoking habit. I suggest there are such things as common sense, uncommon sense, inner knowing, and ignoramus scientists. If you spot one, let me know.

Actually, the Church was at the forefront of science, but many like to jump on one instance where a prevailing fundamentalist view caused the persecution of one particular scientist. (And actually it did not hold science back so much. Scientists still believed what scientists believed, regardless of what the Church said. They just kept it to themselves.) I guess it supports the popular and prejudiced view of "Science Good, Church Bad." Intelligence requires that we go beyond such gross oversimplifications.

 

[Katweezel]

Actually, the Church was at the forefront of science, but many like to jump on one instance where a prevailing fundamentalist view caused the persecution of one particular scientist. (And actually it did not hold science back so much. Scientists still believed what scientists believed, regardless of what the Church said. They just kept it to themselves.) I guess it supports the popular and prejudiced view of "Science Good, Church Bad." Intelligence requires that we go beyond such gross oversimplifications.

You have something to defend, on behalf of your church? Intelligence also requires that we learn the facts about what happened in history. And in your church's case, the facts are, it is a history of horrors. As for forefront of science; who are you trying to kid?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Recent history can show some examples of Tobacco companies paying off researchers - if you look hard enough; although this issue is a sensitive one Big Smoke would like to keep secret. But alas, their corrupt practices were in vain. The jury came back in, a long time ago and... there is absolutely no doubt that smoking (and second-hand smoke) is harmful to human health.

Marxist conspiracy theory? :sleep:

The Dark Ages (when the church ruled) kept science fettered for about 1500 years, until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe and the Earth was also, not flat. Time, science and evolution have moved on into the Scientific Age of Reason; and probably not even you would take much notice of what a modern-day Catholic theologian might pontificate.

I take notice of all thoughtful work I come in contact with. (Which makes me wonder why I notice yours. The Dark Ages was when what church ruled? The Dark Ages I'm familiar with were ruled by wandering mobs of Visigoths and Vandals and not many of them went to church.)

You seem to have been defending your nasty little smoking habit. I suggest there are such things as common sense, uncommon sense, inner knowing, and ignoramus scientists. If you spot one, let me know.

Are you illiterate? I have smoked exactly one cigarette in my life, sometime around 6th grade.

 

[aslan]

You have something to defend, on behalf of your church? Intelligence also requires that we learn the facts about what happened in history. And in your church's case, the facts are, it is a history of horrors. As for forefront of science; who are you trying to kid?

What was I thinking!!! :whip:

 

[Katweezel]

A cigarette a day? Lower stress, lower appetite, that alone is a health benefit, and statistically significant increase in lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, last research I read that started at around 10 cigs a day.

Oo, you are one crafty Visigoth Monk. Here I was mistakenly drawing the wrong conclusion on this post. Even now, when I read it again I get the distinct impression you are championing your small personal habit. But I guess you are only championing somebody's small personal habit. :sad:

 

[Katweezel]

Marxist conspiracy theory? :sleep:

I take notice of all thoughtful work I come in contact with. (Which makes me wonder why I notice yours. The Dark Ages was when what church ruled? The Dark Ages I'm familiar with were ruled by wandering mobs of Visigoths and Vandals and not many of them went to church.)

Are you illiterate? I have smoked exactly one cigarette in my life, sometime around 6th grade.

AutoMonk, I appreciate very much indeed how you notice my thoughtful work. I'll have you in mind from now on, especially whenever I post something nonsensical. I must admit that whenever I read a post of yours, something always happens which distracts me from your thoughtful, witty, educational, enlightening and informing message: I look at your avatar... :laugh:

As for the Dark Ages, I read on the Internet it was mostly the Catholic Church that ruled Europe during the Dark Ages. I believe the Internet.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Oo, you are one crafty Visigoth Monk. Here I was mistakenly drawing the wrong conclusion on this post. Even now, when I read it again I get the distinct impression you are championing your small personal habit. But I guess you are only championing somebody's small personal habit. :sad:

Whatever. If you're an adult I don't care if you smoke, drink, masturbate or sniff glue. If your habit works for you, go ahead.

I thought the question was if a non-smoker sitting in a room with the smoker faces the same health risks as the smoker. It's clear to me he doesn't and I as an AP do not worry about this. Criticizing the smoking habit itself- is that a worthwhile topic for a thread here?

 

[aslan]

Recent history can show some examples of Tobacco companies paying off researchers - if you look hard enough; although this issue is a sensitive one Big Smoke would like to keep secret. But alas, their corrupt practices were in vain. The jury came back in, a long time ago and... there is absolutely no doubt that smoking (and second-hand smoke) is harmful to human health.

The Dark Ages (when the church ruled) kept science fettered for about 1500 years, until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe and the Earth was also, not flat. Time, science and evolution have moved on into the Scientific Age of Reason; and probably not even you would take much notice of what a modern-day Catholic theologian might pontificate.

You seem to have been defending your nasty little smoking habit. I suggest there are such things as common sense, uncommon sense, inner knowing, and ignoramus scientists. If you spot one, let me know.

Galileo-- hmmm, I didn't realized that the 17th century was part of the dark ages. But let's see how backward that century was when Galileo stood trial.

Lippershey invented the first refracting telescope. The first human powered submarine was invented by Drebbel. Oughtred invented the slide rule. Denys invented a method for blood transfusion. Branca invented the steam turbine. Gascoigne invented the micrometer. Pascal invented an adding machine. Torricelli invented the barometer. Von Guericke invented the air pump. Gregory and Newton invented reflecting telescopes. Leibniz invented a calculating machine. Van Leeuwenhoek first saw and described bacteria using a microscope. Huygens patented the pocket watch. Hooke invented theuniversal joint. Papin invented the pressure cooker. Savery invented the steam pump. And probably more to your liking, the first candy cane came into existence and Dom Perignon invented Champagne. Quite a backward century.

BTW, while under house arrest, Galileo "dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the "father of modern physics"."

 

[arrando]

Whatever. If you're an adult I don't care if you smoke, drink, masturbate or sniff glue. If your habit works for you, go ahead.

I thought the question was if a non-smoker sitting in a room with the smoker faces the same health risks as the smoker. It's clear to me he doesn't and I as an AP do not worry about this. Criticizing the smoking habit itself- is that a worthwhile topic for a thread here?

Believe what you want to believe am, the evidence is there...shs is a statistically significant health risk, especially for someone like an ap, casino dealer etc. who spends countless hours in a toxic environment. Now, I have given evidence to back up my belief while you have just given..well..your opinion.

 

[Katweezel]

Galileo-- hmmm, I didn't realized that the 17th century was part of the dark ages. But let's see how backward that century was when Galileo stood trial.

Lippershey invented the first refracting telescope. The first human powered submarine was invented by Drebbel. Oughtred invented the slide rule. Denys invented a method for blood transfusion. Branca invented the steam turbine. Gascoigne invented the micrometer. Pascal invented an adding machine. Torricelli invented the barometer. Von Guericke invented the air pump. Gregory and Newton invented reflecting telescopes. Leibniz invented a calculating machine. Van Leeuwenhoek first saw and described bacteria using a microscope. Huygens patented the pocket watch. Hooke invented theuniversal joint. Papin invented the pressure cooker. Savery invented the steam pump. And probably more to your liking, the first candy cane came into existence and Dom Perignon invented Champagne. Quite a backward century.

BTW, while under house arrest, Galileo "dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the "father of modern physics"."

Who invented slavery? :devil:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Who invented slavery? :devil:

Whoever invented agriculture, probably somebody in the warm parts of the continent of Asia about 10K years ago.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Full Circle to Where?

Who invented slavery? :devil:

The Egyptians, Romans and Greeks had slaves. Perhaps we will next be discussing the 40 plus hr work week slaves whom toil to pay for a government that takes their money and gives it to those who don't work among others, buying their votes!

Are we now full circle in this discussion?:laugh:

 

[aslan]

Who invented slavery? :devil:

The Australians? :whip: Maybe not. Hmmm. I do remember that black slave traders sold black men and women into slavery. The blacks? Hey. I also remember that the Hebrews were slaves under the Egyptians. Hmmm! I think it goes back further than anyone can remember. And we still have economic slavery. The banks own people's homes and cars and if they don't pay the monthly tribute, they cast them into gutter of utter impoverishment. My take on Christianity is that it saw slavery as an ongoing institution, one to which it was opposed, but one to which it did not advocate rebellion against in the same vein as Christ Jesus who went to the cross even though he had the power to avoid such punishment. In the Christian approach, leaders of countries have power derived from God, which if they misuse or abuse, they are then accountable to God for. That is not to say that Christian philosophy necessarily rejects the notion of standing up against oppressors, especially in the mode of passive resistance exemplified by a non-Christian, but very Godly man, Mahatma Ghandi. So to answer your original question, mankind invented slavery, and through the evolution of moral thought, as championed by many institutions, including the Christian Church and Christian writers, we have finally eradicated it in most civilized nations. Maybe it would have been gone much earlier had the Church not been so tolerant of it, but you have to ask yourself, at what price? Violence, except in the defense of human life, is where I am at now, with the option of willingly giving up one's own life in the interest of breaking the chain of violence. Apparently the world is not there yet, seeing how nations so easily go to war for reasons other than self defense. I hope I answered your question. Now you can shoot back to me a thousand examples of why Christianity is the cause of this and all the other ills in the world. :laugh:

 

[Katweezel]

The Australians? :whip: Maybe not. Hmmm. I do remember that black slave traders sold black men and women into slavery. The blacks? Hey. I also remember that the Hebrews were slaves under the Egyptians. Hmmm! I think it goes back further than anyone can remember. And we still have economic slavery. The banks own people's homes and cars and if they don't pay the monthly tribute, they cast them into gutter of utter impoverishment. My take on Christianity is that it saw slavery as an ongoing institution, one to which it was opposed, but one to which it did not advocate rebellion against in the same vein as Christ Jesus who went to the cross even though he had the power to avoid such punishment. In the Christian approach, leaders of countries have power derived from God, which if they misuse or abuse, they are then accountable to God for. That is not to say that Christian philosophy necessarily rejects the notion of standing up against oppressors, especially in the mode of passive resistance exemplified by a non-Christian, but very Godly man, Mahatma Ghandi. So to answer your original question, mankind invented slavery, and through the evolution of moral thought, as championed by many institutions, including the Christian Church and Christian writers, we have finally eradicated it in most civilized nations. Maybe it would have been gone much earlier had the Church not been so tolerant of it, but you have to ask yourself, at what price? Violence, except in the defense of human life, is where I am at now, with the option of willingly giving up one's own life in the interest of breaking the chain of violence. Apparently the world is not there yet, seeing how nations so easily go to war for reasons other than self defense. I hope I answered your question. Now you can shoot back to me a thousand examples of why Christianity is the cause of this and all the other ills in the world. :laugh:

Yeah well, it was a ting-in-cheek question. But it was taken seriously by some, and I better set the record straight. Sorry AM. GOD INVENTED SLAVERY. It was not the Asians or the Australians. Your Church was more than tolerant of it because G*D gives clear instructions in the bible on how you should treat your slaves. AND how it's OK to sell your daughters into slavery. These bible passages were much loved by the Southern Baptists and the KKK for proving G*D loves SLAVERY.

 

[Katweezel]

Galileo-- hmmm, I didn't realized that the 17th century was part of the dark ages. But let's see how backward that century was when Galileo stood trial.

Lippershey invented the first refracting telescope. The first human powered submarine was invented by Drebbel. Oughtred invented the slide rule. Denys invented a method for blood transfusion. Branca invented the steam turbine. Gascoigne invented the micrometer. Pascal invented an adding machine. Torricelli invented the barometer. Von Guericke invented the air pump. Gregory and Newton invented reflecting telescopes. Leibniz invented a calculating machine. Van Leeuwenhoek first saw and described bacteria using a microscope. Huygens patented the pocket watch. Hooke invented theuniversal joint. Papin invented the pressure cooker. Savery invented the steam pump. And probably more to your liking, the first candy cane came into existence and Dom Perignon invented Champagne. Quite a backward century.

BTW, while under house arrest, Galileo "dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the "father of modern physics"."

This list of Catholic heroes from the Not Dark Ages must have taken you forever to compile. Congrats... I brought some cigars with which you can enjoy your much-needed break from all that puter scholarly research. Oh wait! I forgot you don't smoke... Never mind, light up anyway, just say this; "Yes I did smoke the stuff but I didn't inhale." Sound familiar?