Nice clean finish

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??