You can't help but admire someone who instead of just smoking because he enjoys it and rationalizing it afterwards like most people do,he actually did all the research first and then started smoking.
It's almost never how it works. Humans in my experience are rarely rational creatures, although we excel at post-hoc rationalisations. The queen of hearts had it right "Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
You seem like you have a very high disgust response, so I'm surprised that you would pick up a habit that stains your teeth and nails, makes you wrinkle faster, gives you an unpleasant odor, and produces a huge amount of litter. I've heard most of these high IQ smoking rationalizations before, but the cognitive performance stuff was new to me. Though that seems like an argument for chewing nicotine gum or putting on patches at the most, not smoking fags. Your argument that the costs of smoking are lower if you just do it less is of course a double-edged sword. The less you do it, the less you get to enjoy the benefits too. I concede there is definitely something weird about the anti-tobacco bias that's developed in the West in the past 60 years, and especially the last 30 as it's become a huge part of the religion of elite left-liberals. Western governments have put more and more legal restrictions on tobacco while removing restrictions on cannabis. As a libertarian who thinks adults should be allowed to do both, the inconsistency is bizarre to me. I guess it's because tobacco is the drug of choice of Archie Bunker (American version of Alf Garnett) and the Western world for the past 30 years has been ruled by Meathead (American Mike Rawlins). The unwillingness of the public health priesthood to say "X is less dangerous than Y, but still dangerous" wrt cigars and other things is equally bizarre. I guess the explanation is that they view the public as children who can't understand simple English sentences (true for many people, I guess).
The longevity uber alles aspects of the modern left-liberal religion is also very problematic, I concede that. But lung and oral cancers are some of the nastier ways to go out. I think the correct approach in the modern world is to stay as healthy as you can for as long as you can by eating healthy, exercising regularly, and avoiding alcohol and drugs. It's most reliable path to still having a life worth living when you're 75. The argument that the enjoyment of tobacco is worth the actuarial cost falls flat when you consider all the other pleasures it robs from you, dulling your taste buds, making you impotent, physically isolating you from the non-smoking majority, and just generally accelerating physical decline. And of course the financial costs will only get worse as Western governments escalate their jihad against it. If you have nothing you want to spend the money on, you will gain tremendous merit by donating all the money you now spend on cigarettes to charity. The comparison to driving you made in the earlier thread is wholly specious. Driving is pretty terrible, but unfortunately most modern countries are organized in a way that it's necessary to function in society. See Peter Hitchens' writing on the subject. I'd probably be a fulltime bikechad like him if I wasn't American. And If you need something to help you destress, there's a million better ways. Praying more, exercising as someone else recommended, drinking tea, listening to music, and just generally trying to adopt a chill, stoic attitude towards life. I find that works great for me. For you specifically I'd recommend less time sperging out online about arsim, Zionists, and the aesthetic demerits of Israeli high-rises. Most of the negative health effects of smoking are nullified by the way if you quit before you turn 45. You've got a few years left to rethink your decision.
Isn’t the missing data point here the incidence or frequency with which people smoked - before the rise of cigarettes. You seem to wave away smoking as causal due to people having smoked before cigarettes, but it seems intuitive that the creation of cigarettes would have dramatically increased the frequency with which people smoked, making smoking itself the thing creating the crazy rise in lung cancer
The not smoking when your otherwise not feeling well is sound advice. The week long break also gives your body a chance to repair any damaged lung cells.
Regarding the explosion of lung cancer cases in the 20th century, how can we be sure that this wasn’t to do with the increased availability of tobacco to smoke for the average citizen rather than cigarettes introducing the practice of inhaling? While ppl smoked before, if thy started smoking way more than they did before, this could still be the explanation rather than smoking vs. Smooking
The more obvious point in favour of cigars is that the good ones are expensive, time-consuming, occasional luxury items, not something you can habitually smoke (much less smook) every other minute of the day. Had no idea they helped with thinking as well though.
This blog is virtually all the health advice i am receiving, so please Dr, if taste and aesthetics are no objection, is there any reason man shouldn't be vaping all the time? I could use 6 IQ point increments every now and then.
Say you were fighting in Gaza and had to clear a building with an indeterminate number of enemies with a martyr complex, the building is definitely booby-trapped and has tunnel entrances, yeah I think you would press the magic button that flattens the building so you can go home to your family. You could even light up a cigarette while you wait
> If there was some sort of way of ensuring that would happen rather than spending years sitting in my own shit until the nurse does her afternoon inspection, unclear on who I am or who these people are sitting around my bed, I would take it, even if it means shaving 10, maybe 20 years off my life
Fortunately, in spite of all the griping about seed oils, microplastics, and the sundry other elements of modernity to which humanity is exposed, the age-adjusted prevalence of dementia has plummeted: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2045572898220310941.
Cremieux is bogus and a coward, but anyway don't see how that really changes the point. If I live longer, I'm more likely to get senile. The second study says that tachlis smokers are less likely to become senile.
I like my pipes, and typically am complimented on the sweet smell, as well as the style of my lighters.
Easy upshlug of this whole post: "Your love of the haflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind."
You can't help but admire someone who instead of just smoking because he enjoys it and rationalizing it afterwards like most people do,he actually did all the research first and then started smoking.
It's almost never how it works. Humans in my experience are rarely rational creatures, although we excel at post-hoc rationalisations. The queen of hearts had it right "Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
Just use nicotine patches. Even if they’re gay no one has to know.
The reply of an atheist.
You seem like you have a very high disgust response, so I'm surprised that you would pick up a habit that stains your teeth and nails, makes you wrinkle faster, gives you an unpleasant odor, and produces a huge amount of litter. I've heard most of these high IQ smoking rationalizations before, but the cognitive performance stuff was new to me. Though that seems like an argument for chewing nicotine gum or putting on patches at the most, not smoking fags. Your argument that the costs of smoking are lower if you just do it less is of course a double-edged sword. The less you do it, the less you get to enjoy the benefits too. I concede there is definitely something weird about the anti-tobacco bias that's developed in the West in the past 60 years, and especially the last 30 as it's become a huge part of the religion of elite left-liberals. Western governments have put more and more legal restrictions on tobacco while removing restrictions on cannabis. As a libertarian who thinks adults should be allowed to do both, the inconsistency is bizarre to me. I guess it's because tobacco is the drug of choice of Archie Bunker (American version of Alf Garnett) and the Western world for the past 30 years has been ruled by Meathead (American Mike Rawlins). The unwillingness of the public health priesthood to say "X is less dangerous than Y, but still dangerous" wrt cigars and other things is equally bizarre. I guess the explanation is that they view the public as children who can't understand simple English sentences (true for many people, I guess).
The longevity uber alles aspects of the modern left-liberal religion is also very problematic, I concede that. But lung and oral cancers are some of the nastier ways to go out. I think the correct approach in the modern world is to stay as healthy as you can for as long as you can by eating healthy, exercising regularly, and avoiding alcohol and drugs. It's most reliable path to still having a life worth living when you're 75. The argument that the enjoyment of tobacco is worth the actuarial cost falls flat when you consider all the other pleasures it robs from you, dulling your taste buds, making you impotent, physically isolating you from the non-smoking majority, and just generally accelerating physical decline. And of course the financial costs will only get worse as Western governments escalate their jihad against it. If you have nothing you want to spend the money on, you will gain tremendous merit by donating all the money you now spend on cigarettes to charity. The comparison to driving you made in the earlier thread is wholly specious. Driving is pretty terrible, but unfortunately most modern countries are organized in a way that it's necessary to function in society. See Peter Hitchens' writing on the subject. I'd probably be a fulltime bikechad like him if I wasn't American. And If you need something to help you destress, there's a million better ways. Praying more, exercising as someone else recommended, drinking tea, listening to music, and just generally trying to adopt a chill, stoic attitude towards life. I find that works great for me. For you specifically I'd recommend less time sperging out online about arsim, Zionists, and the aesthetic demerits of Israeli high-rises. Most of the negative health effects of smoking are nullified by the way if you quit before you turn 45. You've got a few years left to rethink your decision.
Praying more .... yeah that'll do it.
I was going to say meditating, but you'd probably say that's for pagans and apikorsim.
I think it's good as long as it isn't accorded religious significance. I would like to start, but would learn via sam Harris.
The favorite apikoros of the frum gay lib race realist.
Huh, I learned something today. Thank you!
In response.
https://vitalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/maskil-bina-should-lift-weights?r=4fpiyu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
My solution was to find a wife who hates smoking. Problem solved
That worked in the beginning
Isn’t the missing data point here the incidence or frequency with which people smoked - before the rise of cigarettes. You seem to wave away smoking as causal due to people having smoked before cigarettes, but it seems intuitive that the creation of cigarettes would have dramatically increased the frequency with which people smoked, making smoking itself the thing creating the crazy rise in lung cancer
The not smoking when your otherwise not feeling well is sound advice. The week long break also gives your body a chance to repair any damaged lung cells.
Regarding the explosion of lung cancer cases in the 20th century, how can we be sure that this wasn’t to do with the increased availability of tobacco to smoke for the average citizen rather than cigarettes introducing the practice of inhaling? While ppl smoked before, if thy started smoking way more than they did before, this could still be the explanation rather than smoking vs. Smooking
The more obvious point in favour of cigars is that the good ones are expensive, time-consuming, occasional luxury items, not something you can habitually smoke (much less smook) every other minute of the day. Had no idea they helped with thinking as well though.
This blog is virtually all the health advice i am receiving, so please Dr, if taste and aesthetics are no objection, is there any reason man shouldn't be vaping all the time? I could use 6 IQ point increments every now and then.
It seems it should be fine.
Well, no. You still inhale when you vape, which is the thing he claims is harmful
`It’s better to smoke a pipe if you have time for that, but these will do.`
What was the assertion based on? I couldn't it in the article or the data brought. Just asking out of interest, not to start shlogging up :)
I mean it tastes better, it's more satisfying.
Say you were fighting in Gaza and had to clear a building with an indeterminate number of enemies with a martyr complex, the building is definitely booby-trapped and has tunnel entrances, yeah I think you would press the magic button that flattens the building so you can go home to your family. You could even light up a cigarette while you wait
Yeah that's what the IDF does already.
> If there was some sort of way of ensuring that would happen rather than spending years sitting in my own shit until the nurse does her afternoon inspection, unclear on who I am or who these people are sitting around my bed, I would take it, even if it means shaving 10, maybe 20 years off my life
Fortunately, in spite of all the griping about seed oils, microplastics, and the sundry other elements of modernity to which humanity is exposed, the age-adjusted prevalence of dementia has plummeted: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/2045572898220310941.
A likely significant contributor to that trend is the decline in smoking (cf. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118333).
Cremieux is bogus and a coward, but anyway don't see how that really changes the point. If I live longer, I'm more likely to get senile. The second study says that tachlis smokers are less likely to become senile.