|
On February 03 2012 22:57 SomniGiggles wrote:OH LOOK! Another thing that we have been doing countless years that is now suddenly bad for us. Quick guys get more starcraft in before there is a ban on using the mouse due to 1% of users getting diarrhoea > 
Just a week ago i was wondering, there hasnt been any public fearmongering like the acrylamide "scandal" lately.
Here it goes i guess. Its a bit too late to distract from sopa and pipa now though, so it must be something else.
|
Lol, this is a funny thread, didn't know so much of TL was smoke fundies.
|
Not really surprised that inhaling the smoke is bad for you (duh), but I am surprised that it can be up to 30 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke.
|
On February 03 2012 18:48 bigwig123 wrote:
me and my 16 dollar heating bill last winter laughed
Eh, 16 dollars? You must cut your own wood, because heating with wood is definitely not that cheap. It also takes an insane amount of time to cut the wood, make tinder, start the fire, clean the stove, haul the wood - so even free wood isn't quite 'free'
|
Belgium8305 Posts
On February 03 2012 23:56 vasculaR wrote:
i think a few people missed the point...
lol
yeah, about ninety percent of them.. this thread is so depressing
|
Fire stove are actually an issue in some towns here. Depending on the temperature in winter, sometimes a smog of wood smoke forms over the town, and while I appreciate a good fire, I won't deny that smoke is toxic.
|
I feel a little bit of nanny state happening here but remember guy here related the whole article back to how fundamentalists perceive people when they are told that their religion is wrong. Its actually a very interesting take on the whole atheism vs religion argument and is rather insightful.
All this having been said i am completely indifferent to the wood smoke argument, if its bad for me so be it.
EDIT:On February 04 2012 00:07 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 23:56 vasculaR wrote:
i think a few people missed the point...
lol yeah, about ninety percent of them.. this thread is so depressing
well i read though the thread for the most part and... just... ergh..... come on guys i though starcraft players were smarter than this!
|
On February 04 2012 00:07 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 23:56 vasculaR wrote:
i think a few people missed the point...
lol yeah, about ninety percent of them.. this thread is so depressing
Well to be fair, people have performed reading experiments on TL before with similarly pathetic results. :p
I do wonder about the wood burning aspect. From what I've looked at you see this correlation but there are so many variables that its hard to pin down which are combustion conditions that make the combustion product worse.
|
On February 04 2012 00:07 vGl-CoW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 23:56 vasculaR wrote:
i think a few people missed the point...
lol yeah, about ninety percent of them.. this thread is so depressing
I'm so progressive that I don't even burn wood for recreational purposes. Even if I did, it's time to put some heavy taxation on burning wood obviously.
|
Did you even read any of this thread? The article? Anything? If you did, I'm terribly sorry but you missed the entire point of it. It's a metaphor used to show how we are inherently resistant to facts that contradict our own beliefs, to such an extent that we actively deny and ignore the facts to continue believing what we want to believe.
I know, people like Sam Harris will continue to believe whatever they wish to believe regardless of how the facts contradict their opinion. It's a big failing among the academics who are the quickest to point it out when it exists in others.
|
|
|
On February 04 2012 00:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Did you even read any of this thread? The article? Anything? If you did, I'm terribly sorry but you missed the entire point of it. It's a metaphor used to show how we are inherently resistant to facts that contradict our own beliefs, to such an extent that we actively deny and ignore the facts to continue believing what we want to believe. I know, people like Sam Harris will continue to believe whatever they wish to believe regardless of how the facts contradict their opinion. It's a big failing among the academics who are the quickest to point it out when it exists in others.
What are you talking about? You're saying Sam Harris will keep disregarding the facts after reading an article about how Sam Harris believes it's wrong for people to disregard facts?
|
On February 04 2012 00:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Did you even read any of this thread? The article? Anything? If you did, I'm terribly sorry but you missed the entire point of it. It's a metaphor used to show how we are inherently resistant to facts that contradict our own beliefs, to such an extent that we actively deny and ignore the facts to continue believing what we want to believe. I know, people like Sam Harris will continue to believe whatever they wish to believe regardless of how the facts contradict their opinion. It's a big failing among the academics who are the quickest to point it out when it exists in others.
Projecting much? This sort of "drive-by" dismissal doesn't advance conversation in any constructive direction unless you mention what "people like Sam Harris" are ignoring.
|
The OP's blog post falls apart at this point:
The unhappy truth about burning wood has been scientifically established to a moral certainty
If it had been scientifically established to a moral certainty that indoor fireplaces are a scourge to community health, they would already be illegal. Chimeneas and outdoor fireplaces are banned are in Toronto for this very reason. People moaned about their rights for a while, but got over it pretty quickly.
But the dangers of indoor fireplaces have been judged mitigatable through regulation of their construction and installation, so that's why they're still around (and a hell of a lot more expensive than before).
People don't use asbestos or DDT anymore because the scientific case against them was so overwhelming that it became immoral to support their use. If the case against fireplaces is as good as the OP's blog suggests, he should take it to the government.
|
Controlled fire always gives me a pleasant feeling. And it's not like i'm trying to inhale ALL the smoke.
Don't see what could be bad for ones health other than that.
My opinion in short: fire is life.
|
On February 04 2012 00:18 Vegalive wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 00:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Did you even read any of this thread? The article? Anything? If you did, I'm terribly sorry but you missed the entire point of it. It's a metaphor used to show how we are inherently resistant to facts that contradict our own beliefs, to such an extent that we actively deny and ignore the facts to continue believing what we want to believe. I know, people like Sam Harris will continue to believe whatever they wish to believe regardless of how the facts contradict their opinion. It's a big failing among the academics who are the quickest to point it out when it exists in others. What are you talking about? You're saying Sam Harris will keep disregarding the facts after reading an article about how Sam Harris believes it's wrong for people to disregard facts?
Yes, he probably will, because People (as in all of them) do that.
Part of the problem is the limited nature of those facts... ie wood smoke more dangerous than cigarette smoke
That was a single fact... he didn't talk about the different concentrations that people are exposed to though. (although that doesn't affect the environmental argument much)
And while it may be true that there is no safe level of smoke, there are levels of risk. (ie wood smoke probably shouldn't be banned, but there should probably be a tax involved to accomodate the environmental effects.)
|
Why I could never have guessed that inhaling smoke from burning materials could be harmfull !
I was wondering why it hurts like hell to get smoke in your eyes for example... now I know, marvelous things these "scientists" can come up with eh ?
But will I stop making campfires ? of course not, I won't stop eating slightly burnt food, sugar, fat, salt, alchohol either. Just beacuse I like it 
|
In general the burning of anything is bad.
|
On February 03 2012 23:11 Krowser wrote:
This is ridiculous. I grew up in a house heated by firewood and I never got any breathing disease.
I cross the highway everyday blindfolded and I never got hit by a car.
|
In terms of the actual analogy the blog author is making, convincing someone that their beliefs are wrong is not a matter of science. Science has its limits - it can't determine what is moral or make value judgments. It fails us even when we're presented with simple ethical puzzles like the trolly car I was reading about on TL just a few days ago. And the simple fact that billions of people around the globe hold fiercely to their belief systems means that either humanity as a whole has not evolved past mass delusion and hysteria, or that humans have in them by nature a deep calling from some sort of spiritual realm. Atheist isn't a term for someone who doesn't believe in anything, it's a term for someone who believes that god(s) does not exist. We are all creatures of faith, aren't we...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
