Not me saying so, but science saying so. I said smokers should allowed to smoke if they want. I only pointed out that it's not reasonable to believe smoking isn't bad for you. If they were to find an alternative explanation to germs causing disease and tested the alternative, you could argue they would have to change germ theory. Keep in mind that most aren't going to see the very slight little chance of germ theory being wrong as a reason to not have any health laws assume that germs cause diseases. If it gets dark outside my windows all of a sudden, then I see rain, and then someone comes in drenched, for all I know it could be the sprinklers at the same time as the dark clouds. However, it's unreasonable to believe that it's not raining just to be doing that.You state beyond a reasonable doubt, I have the capability of reason, why cant I use my reason to decide for my self, why do I have to trust your(or their) reasoning blindly?
I never said anything was made up. I said that science is fallable(it is watched over by human beings), since it has been wrong before, and will most likely be wrong again. What if we were to blindly follow global warming, say we change our whole economy at great expense, since nothing is cheap nowdays. Then 5 yrs down the road some new evidence is found to dispute the claim, wouldnt we have been better off not to blindly follow in the first place? You can present all facts you want(without facts what good is reason) but everyone has the right nay the responsibility to reason for themselves. They dont have to believe them just because you say so.
Like you said, it's your choice to believe what you want. With that freedom in mind, something to think about: How do you explain to yourself why smokers are much more likely to develop heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than non-smokers? For the conditions it's most likely to affect http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm Also check out http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/cig_smoking_mortality/index.htm [Broken] Even after trying to rule out as many third factors as scientists can think of, you need to ask yourself why smokers are still more likely to develop these conditions? Without an explanation, you need to ask yourself why it would be reasonable that it's not bad for health?
The same could be asked about secondhand smoke. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/index.htm
Since it sounded like you don't trust the American Medical Association, the links I gave are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just something to look at.
Last edited by a moderator: