Nice clean finish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Just because it makes some kind of sense, Rand, doesn't mean that it actually works this way. http://www3.uni-bonn.de/Press-releas...cking-images-1

Ironically, that's the same thing you just told Lewk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The evidence is ambiguous. Changes to packaging seem to have contributed to some of the reduction in smoking rates but the magnitude of any sustained impact on overall smoking rates and how they relate to other contributing causes isn't easy to figure out.

---

Absolutely the evidence is ambiguous, in any nebulous discussion like this it will be inevitable. Two facts though are not in dispute.

1: Shocking cancer images are being used to try and scare smokers.
2: Smoking rates are going down in a long-term trend.

Correlation does not equal causation of course, but the idea of using shocking cancer images is far from unprecedented or unacceptable or indisputably counter-productive. It is in fact a legal requirement. To link Lewk's suggestion to that is to put Lewk's batshit crazy ramblings on the same level as what we actually do by law. Do either of you really think that Lewk's suggestions are equivalent to our existing legal requirements?

There's nothing nebulous about it. You're using very broad observation level data in order to imply a causal relationship. That's the same quality of science which suggests that milk causes cancer.

And I'm not quite getting why you're all gung-ho for this while rejecting Lewk's notions when they're based on the same idea. Can't have one without the other.

There is a clear casual relationship between negative consequences and avoidance of an activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I count two threads regarding similar subject matter on page one of the forum. Also while I admit they are similar there are different points of discussion. Here are a few of the items:


* Police justified in using force
* Use of deterrence through mass distribution to at risk youth of video
* Support of the 2nd amendment
* Support of private citizens defending property

While *similar* they aren't all the same point. Lets not go crazy with thread consolidation, whats next all discussion on the election in one thread? The election (primaries included) is a huge topic that has room for many threads.

---

All but the second point center around the same basic theme: crime should be punished ferociously, and people should have the right to defend themselves ferociously.

This is a perfectly acceptable view to have, but by my count 15 of your last 25 threads make the same point. I think the complaint is that you could keep a running tally of your point, and keep a substantive discussion going instead of creating multiple threads that seem to be emotionally exhausting people a bit.

Wanna test the idea?

15 out of 25? :bulb:

Dread, one thread,

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/e...61696e2e6a7067

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

UK election was within one thread.

One vote here for a Lewk criminal-death-troll thread, and any new troll threads he starts on the subject to be moved to that thread.

---

Absentee vote in favour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

This is a perfectly acceptable view to have, but by my count 15 of your last 25 threads make the same point.

---

Huh. It felt like a lot more.

That's because Dread's analysis was unweighted, you have to account for the creepiness multiplier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

There's nothing nebulous about it. You're using very broad observation level data in order to imply a causal relationship. That's the same quality of science which suggests that milk causes cancer.

And I'm not quite getting why you're all gung-ho for this while rejecting Lewk's notions when they're based on the same idea. Can't have one without the other.

---

So you're saying that our legal requirements that actually exist are fundamentally both wrong and on the same par as Lewk's idea.

I've never seen someone justify Lewk as quickly as you. Well done Lewk, apparently your idea isn't batshit crazy its the same as what we already do by law.

I'm not justifying Lewk. You are. You just don't comprehend it.

And since when has "based on scientific facts" been a requirement for a law to come to pass? It's usually a happy coincidence if that happens. Just because it's a law, Rand, doesn't make it true or actually worthwhile. Isn't this exact problem something you're complaining on a regular basis about? Ineffective or even counterproductive laws and regulations?

(A "scientific fact" being something where numerous studies have been done, beyond the observational level, and a strong correlation has been shown between the law's mechanisms and the intended effects)

I think I stopped accounting for that at least 20 threads ago, though the Edgelord Tediousness Co-efficient (co-efficient? whatever, I'll go with that) is definitely in operation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Absolutely the evidence is ambiguous, in any nebulous discussion like this it will be inevitable. Two facts though are not in dispute.

1: Shocking cancer images are being used to try and scare smokers.
2: Smoking rates are going down in a long-term trend.

Correlation does not equal causation of course, but the idea of using shocking cancer images is far from unprecedented or unacceptable or indisputably counter-productive. It is in fact a legal requirement. To link Lewk's suggestion to that is to put Lewk's batshit crazy ramblings on the same level as what we actually do by law. Do either of you really think that Lewk's suggestions are equivalent to our existing legal requirements?

---

Firstly, do you believe that all laws are 100% evidence-based or that truth is determined by whether or not something is legislated?

Secondly, in addition to legal requirements to make cigarette packaging less sexy, other changes over the past decades have included significant increases in the cost of cigarettes, crackdowns on the provision of cigarettes to minors, large-scale educational and medical interventions (therapy, drugs) to help people quit smoking, bans on pro-smoking advertising, etc.

You're right, correlation does not equal causation. I say that the evidence is ambiguous because I believe that unsexy packaging has contributed to the reduction in smoking prevalence but the extent to which it has done so and the relationship between the gruesomeness of the images and impact on smoking remain unclear.

Indeed. For instance, the same effect (if such an effect exists, after all) might possibly be had by a simple plain white wrapping with the brand name in Arial font on it.

And be greatly increased by switching arial to Comic Sans

Now, that would be plain evil towards anyone and probably drive the poor cashiers to drinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

All but the second point center around the same basic theme: crime should be punished ferociously, and people should have the right to defend themselves ferociously.

This is a perfectly acceptable view to have, but by my count 15 of your last 25 threads make the same point. I think the complaint is that you could keep a running tally of your point, and keep a substantive discussion going instead of creating multiple threads that seem to be emotionally exhausting people a bit.

Wanna test the idea?

---

Not particularly and its not like my thread titles are ambiguous. (Well maybe one or two). I have a hard time believing people are getting "emotionally exhausted." If I completely cluttered the front page and/or never had any discussion within the threads I could see the reason. But most threads typically have some discussion (even if they wander a bit) and the front page is definitely not cluttered with my threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Not particularly and its not like my thread titles are ambiguous. (Well maybe one or two). I have a hard time believing people are getting "emotionally exhausted." If I completely cluttered the front page and/or never had any discussion within the threads I could see the reason. But most threads typically have some discussion (even if they wander a bit) and the front page is definitely not cluttered with my threads.

---

Yeah but it's basically the same discussion every time, so you might as well keep it in one thread.

Er the exhaustion stems from the discussion, duh. Are you a little dense or what??