201. Comment #99304 by octopus on December 16, 2007 at 9:38 am

As we come up to Christmas, I would just like to wish you and all the others a very happy Christmas (not Mithras-mas, or Consumer-mas Carol-mas) – but rather the kind of Christmas the shepherds had after they had seen the God-incarnate lying, rather untidily perhaps, in that draughty, very uninviting looking stable.

Of all religious nonsense, Christmas is something I can put up with. Two weeks off work during the most miserable part of the year (well, in UK that is). You can relax at home or go somewhere sunny.







Romans, thank you very much!

Other Comments by octopus

202. Comment #99309 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:43 am

Cool, knew we had some on board for sure.

Me too! *raises hand*

I remember as a teenager thinking that John Lennon's "Imagine" was such a wicked song...

It was my interest in science that did it for me. I was taught to reason and to need evidence. It was a painful process, but the world I discovered through science was infinitely more awesome and amazing...

Other Comments by steve99

203. Comment #99342 by Paine on December 16, 2007 at 11:24 am

Best video on the site!

I think RD nails it on the head when he tells Christopher in hour 2 "you're confusing the fact that it will never be eradicated with whether you would want it to be eradicated. You want it to be around for you to argue and sharpen your wits"

HAHAHAHAHAHA....Got to love Hitch. He just likes to argue!

Other Comments by Paine

204. Comment #99346 by Zaphod on December 16, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I think Sam's point at the end when he said that Christopher may have more people agreeing with him if it wasn't Iraq that America was invading. To think that America entered this war for the reasons Hitchens seems to, is naive. Perhaps he has written it print but I'd like to know what he thinks the reasons are. Iraq probably isn't in the top 3 countries to blame for fermenting terrorism at the time American invaded.

Great 2 hour session. Enjoyed it.

Other Comments by Zaphod

205. Comment #99357 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Briancoughlanworldcitizen,
I think my comment was misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't challange Hitchens on his idiosyncratic views on Iraq. I for one think that no matter how much he apparently knows about that issue, he is still on the wrong side. You point that going into Iraq was unjustified given the fact that it was not implicated in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is sound.

My complaint was directed towards previous posters who made disparaging comments about his loudness, arrogance, and smoking. Hitchens is a little rough around the edges... not the type of guy a girl would bring home to mom. However, the Atheist movement needs its charismatic rakes! I find his bad boy persona a worthy addition to "the four horsemen" and his bitting wit both hilarious and necessary.

I like the point that Dawkins made early on in the conversation that it is good that there is so much variety among Athiests. How boring would it be if we were all your typical wimpy vegan, non-boozing, "holier than thou", Peter Singer types (not to say that they aren't necessary as well). Throughout history some of humanity's most colorful characters have been rough around the edges (Hemingway, Churchill, Alexander the Great, etc). I for one stand by my comment that I would want Hitchens at my party. I don't agree with him, but I'd love to debate him and share a couple of whiskeys. I'm sure that beyond his undoubtable erudition on literature and religion, he also has some great stories/experiences that he could share.

Other Comments by empyrean

206. Comment #99358 by kennykyles on December 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Three horsemen and one venomous bug hitching a ride.
Time to ditch hitch, for godsake.

Other Comments by kennykyles

207. Comment #99361 by Goldy on December 16, 2007 at 12:47 pm

As we come up to Christmas, I would just like to wish you and all the others a very happy Christmas (not Mithras-mas, or Consumer-mas Carol-mas) – but rather the kind of Christmas the shepherds had after they had seen the God-incarnate lying, rather untidily perhaps, in that draughty, very uninviting looking stable.

If this story is true. I dare say, BTW, that these shepherds' descendants are still waiting for this Messiah...

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Aaaah, the power of religion. Sort of happened in Saudi Arabia - I believe the graves of Mohammed's family were destroyed and are now a car park

We all know that the Wahhabis, like their Taliban pupils, are fanatical iconoclasts. But it's rarely noted that they have always been fanatical iconoclasts. In 1925 Ibn Saud, the patriarch of the current Saudi dynasty, ordered the destruction of all the tombs, monuments, and shrines in Mecca and Medina. Crowds of fanatics destroyed the graves of Mohammed's family and even his house. Mosques were torched. Traditional Muslims barely stopped the Wahhabis from destroying Mohammed's grave itself

From http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmI1ZjU5YTRkZGEzYWYzZTMwOTY5MjU4YzAzYzg3OGI=
Of course, there is a bit of a difference between discussing something and doing something. Please explain to me how a religious person, fired with the "glory of God, who has entered the presence of God, who has had their life completely turned around by the grace of God" different to those to whom a rational expplanation of things is paramount? Oh, hang on... "is going to be convinced even to the slightest degree by so-called evidence of God's non-existence, or of the so-called negative effects of "faith" on an individual's or community's life. It would be like trying to convince one of the shepherds who visited stable on the day after Christ's birth that he had seen nothing special, just another baby in a not particularly clean cattle-manger." Aah, yes - you don't listen...at all. Unlike a rational person, your mind is completely closed. Sad.

Other Comments by Goldy

208. Comment #99363 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Three horsemen and one venomous bug hitching a ride.

Yet another just-joined troll.

You won't find posts like this welcome on this site. Ad-hominem attacks don't carry much weight here. If you have some particular points to argue, then go ahead.

Other Comments by steve99

209. Comment #99365 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I find it absolutely incredible anyone on here is getting themselves twisted up about Hitchens smoking . The antismoking sentiment has gone so far beyond reasonable that we actually have posters here blatantly stating that "bad guys" smoke and that it's shameful to be seen smoking. As Reed commented above, virulent antismoking sentiment is truly and literally religious, with all religion's sanctimony and moral rhetoric.

Let me be clear: no one is arguing that smoking is good for you or others. It isn't, although people in the room aren't going to drop dead after spending an afternoon with a smoker, hysterical rhetoric to the contrary. No one is arguing that people should smoke willy-nilly around those who find it offensive. I smoke in my own house, but I wouldn't even dream of asking to smoke in a nonsmoking friend's house or car. But likewise, my nonsmoking friends wouldn't dream of presuming that I will not smoke in my house if they choose to visit me there.

As others have pointed out, this was Hitchens' own house. If Dennett, Dawkins, or Harris objected to him smoking, you can bet they would have requested an alternate nonsmoking venue for the filming. Clearly, that wasn't important enough to them, but that seems to rankle the sanctimonious who assume the poor gentlemen were trapped against their will. Oddly, it actually seems to disappoint the most virulent antismokers when they see others actually tolerating smoking - they need to make up a story that the poor, blighted nonsmokers were trapped in a carcinogenic hell because they were too polite to plead for their lives.

I can certainly understand people who object to being smoked around; decency and consideration for others demand that you respect that. But it works both ways, and antismokers would do well to remember that smokers are people too. It may surprise you, but many of us are quite nice, moral people who pay taxes, contribute to charity, and care just as much as you about the state of the world around us. Being insulted and cast as moral pariahs not only offends us, but makes people like me want to thumb my nose all the more at the paternalistic sanctimony.

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

210. Comment #99370 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm

207. Comment #99357 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I don't agree with him, but I'd love to debate him and share a couple of whiskeys. I'm sure that beyond his undoubtable erudition on literature and religion, he also has some great stories/experiences that he could share.

Looks like we are both on the same page then.:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

211. Comment #99375 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Former faith heads, raise your hands!!

Me, too.

The formerly religious who have reasoned themselves into apostasy are legion around here.

Other Comments by _J_

212. Comment #99376 by pkruger on December 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm

..good thing they weren't passing around a doob.

Other Comments by pkruger

213. Comment #99385 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Look. It was Hitchens' house, so he was damn well entitled to smoke if he wanted.

However, the guy who pointed out that Dennett was a recent heart patient had a good point.

Nevertheless, Hitch's house, Hitch's rules.

Nice house too, by the looks of it...

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

214. Comment #99387 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 2:23 pm

"However, the guy who pointed out that Dennett was a recent heart patient had a good point. "




What is that "good point?" I assume Mr. Dennett was well aware of his heart condition, don't you? If Dennett was worried about this, isn't it likely he would have declined to be there? Perhaps you're worried that Mr. Dennett was too intimidated to say no, and just sat in fear that his "enforced" presence in a smoking room might trigger a heart attack? This is all really quite silly.




Why, I remember Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris *voluntarily* getting a table in the smoking pub at the hotel hosting the AAI convention in October in Washington DC. Yes, astonishingly, even nonsmokers are allowed to make these choices, and even more astonishingly, they're not in mortal terror of dying.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it ought to be absurdly obvious to the "concerned" here that these gentlemen are smart, accomplished men who are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not they wish to be in Hitchens' smoking house. None of them have a problem with self expression or deciding when and where they spend their time. They were not there at gunpoint. I know it's shocking, just shocking, but it looks like Dennett decided he wasn't afraid of having a heart attack from some cigarette smoke. Mercy sakes, I think he lived, too.

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

215. Comment #99391 by the great teapot on December 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Adh said
"needless to say there is religion that is delusion"
Obviously that wouldn't be your religion, ADH.
Care to name these delusional religions and contest that their adherents don't recieve this wonderful sense of fullfillment that you do.
You seem to believe that this sense of euphoria is proof of truth or worthiness. Ever tried heroine?

Other Comments by the great teapot

216. Comment #99392 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

joshuaslocum, I think you're being over-sensitive and reading too much into my comments. I was *defending* Hitch there, after all.

I'll say it a *third* time: Hitch's house, Hitch's rules.

*Of course* Dennett can expose himself to tobacco smoke if he wants to.

The one things that annoys me almost as much as "political correctness" is over-sensitive reactions to it.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

217. Comment #99399 by joshuaslocum on December 16, 2007 at 2:52 pm

"The one things that annoys me almost as much as "political correctness" is over-sensitive reactions to it. "

I suspect we agree more than we disagree. No offense intended to you, Atticus. I just happened to disagree that the heart-patient comment was a "good point." You're probably right about me being sensitive on this topic - it's difficult to convey to nonsmokers how over the top the conversation frequently becomes when tobacco is raised. You might not see it as over-sensitive if you could be a fly on the wall for the routine rudeness, often escalating to public verbal abuse, smokers endure despite our best efforts to have a small space of our own. None of this would be obvious to people who haven't been the target of this all-too-common behavior.

Again, I meant no offense to you, and I apologize if I came on rather strong.

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

218. Comment #99402 by the great teapot on December 16, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I hope Hitchens doesn't have an expensive carpet.
The fag ash must have done it more harm than Dennett.

Other Comments by the great teapot

219. Comment #99405 by tman on December 16, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Really cool.. But too much Hitchens. More Dawkins. Hitchens just wants to be provocative. It seemed to end a bit abruptly. Maybe due to the tape and not the proper end of the discussion.

Other Comments by tman

220. Comment #99408 by Downunder on December 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm

re Jayday's 195, thank you. I've googled him now. He appears to be on leave. My email will be awaiting his return.

Other Comments by Downunder

221. Comment #99411 by JeyDee on December 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm

steve99: What's up with the "troll"- whine from you? Grow up.

Hitchens motor mouthing, with his ears obviously completely plugged, may impress you. May impress a bunch of bums on a street corner. But i am not impressed. Simple as that.

Other Comments by JeyDee

222. Comment #99415 by tman on December 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm

I want to see these guys chat next.....




Richard Dawkins

Steven Weinberg

David Attenborough

Louis Wolpert

Other Comments by tman

223. Comment #99419 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm

joshuaslocum,

No apology required, mate.

As an occasional smoker myself, I get it.

My view is that smokers should be allowed to smoke outdoors, in their own homes and in enclosed public areas that have special air conditioning systems and special non-smoking areas. Those are the rules in most States here in Australia.

I used to think that people should be allowed to smoke in bars with impunity (indeed, that's where I've done most of my smoking). But there are occupational health and safety concerns for people who work in bars that have persuaded me, reluctantly, to my current view.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

224. Comment #99422 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Hitchens motor mouthing, with his ears obviously completely plugged, may impress you. May impress a bunch of bums on a street corner. But i am not impressed. Simple as that.

I am impressed by someone clearly more literate, and educated, and experienced than me.

But perhaps you have the literacy, education, or experience not to be impressed.

Other Comments by steve99

225. Comment #99427 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I'd just like to add my own little condemnation of the anti-smoking sparts. I've had it with those people, and I say that as a lifelong non-smoker (well... okay, just ignore that cigar I'm holding in the pic there...). Get a sense of proportion, for pity's sake. Don't dictate so. It's unbecoming.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

226. Comment #99442 by Paul Creber on December 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Christopher Hitchens is a man of formidable intellect, outstanding eloquence and rare literacy. Yet a little over halfway through this conversation, he abruptly displayed a piece of contradictory nonsense which I very much hope was inspired more by Jack Daniels than by sober analysis. On the one hand, there he was re-asserting that religion poisons everything; on the other, god help us, here was the same Hitchens confessing that he wanted religion's poison to continue its contamination of humanity so that he could sharpen his wits in confronting it. Did I misunderstand this segment or does Hitchens really believe that our quest for truth is, in reality, merely a means of massaging his own ego? Or was he simply pissed?

Other Comments by Paul Creber

227. Comment #99459 by 35bluejacket on December 16, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Hitchens reminds me of G. Patten. The pure warrior. Cast perfectly in history at the right time and place. We should be thankful for our luck.

As for Hitchens drinking; A. Lincoln said about Gen. Grant bingeing: find out what he is drinking and pass it to the other Generals, he fights.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

228. Comment #99464 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 5:50 pm

This thread is quickly becoming a rant of pro and anti Hitchens arguments. Did he utter a nonsequittur? YES... was he sauced? YES... was he entertaining, witty, and surprisingly lucid for most of the conversation? YES.

He is on our side and that is what is important. Does it matter if he expresses a desire to have opponents for his dialectic? No. The fact that Hitchens would prefer to have a few faith head stragglers around 1,000 years from now doesn't in the least affect whether there will in fact be any around. Although I agree with the sober and reflective Steven Weinberg on most points, didn't he also express some wistfulness at the death of that "crazy old aunt who tells lies and causes us all kinds of trouble, but was beautiful once and was with us a long time." Hitchens was right to state that some of the poetry of John Donne or George Herbert would not exist but for religion. The brash atheist responds "but they could have created those works in the name of secularism"... well, they could have created "some" works in the name of secularism, but definitely not the cannonical masterpieces that we have inherited.

Three cheers for Hitch! Keep fighting the good fight, don't let the lamers try to contrain you, and live it up until the end! Hes a pugnacious bastard and I for one appreciate it.

Other Comments by empyrean

229. Comment #99472 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 16, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Yes 35bluejacket, the Hitch is a rhetorical warrior. With all teh advantages and disadvantages that entails.

He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's *our* son-of-a-bitch!

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

230. Comment #99473 by alovrin on December 16, 2007 at 6:10 pm

It is really hard to put one's self in such an artificial situation, as this obviously was and not end up sounding like a pratt.
These four did so 95% of the time (manage to not look like pratts).

95 - 97% of the time fantastic, not perfect, but who is?
Besides you know who.
Nice setting, could have edged the four away from camera a bit into the sunlight from the window so the contrast between Hitch/Harris in the FG and Dennett/ Dawkins BG wasnt so great. But nice use of the natural lighting, Hitch would have looked wicked with a bit of soft back light. And if the sun hurt Sam's eyes maybe a 1/2 or full stop net.

Anyway congrats to all involved and really good content
Merry solstice

Other Comments by alovrin

231. Comment #99476 by the great teapot on December 16, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hitchens is a different animal to scientists, he is a journalist and as such coverts controversy and enjoys the argument for the arguments sake. Nothing wrong with that. He also brings different arguments to the table. I am not a great fan but I love it when he points out that the religious claim to know the mind of god, non of the other celebrity atheists point this out in such a succinct pithy manner and I am grateful to him for that alone.

Other Comments by the great teapot

232. Comment #99478 by SurfDude on December 16, 2007 at 6:26 pm

All I can say is, MORE!

With that in mind, (and unless someone else has suggested this already as I have not yet read all the comments) I would request that this foursome meets at the very least quarterly for regular RDFRS publication.

Other Comments by SurfDude

233. Comment #99479 by walk on December 16, 2007 at 6:30 pm

I could be way off here, but it seemed to me that Dawkins jokingly accused Hitch of wanting to keep faith around just to give him someone to debate, and Hitch jokingly went along, wink, wink. I thought he was really saying something like, 'It's always going to be here, and truthfully, some people seem to need it to handle life's uncertainties'.

At any rate I love Hitch's bad boy attitude, coupled with his amazing grasp of literature and history. After spending some of my time during the day around believers, I really need a good dose of Hitch (preferably video) to feel right again.

Other Comments by walk

234. Comment #99481 by Ben Jennings on December 16, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I could be way off here, but it seemed to me that Dawkins jokingly accused Hitch of wanting to keep faith around just to give him someone to debate, and Hitch jokingly went along, wink, wink.

I agree.

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

235. Comment #99488 by doubter on December 16, 2007 at 7:12 pm

This was a great video. It is wonderful to hear the flow of conversation and even the disagreements between the four. I particularly enjoyed Hitchins' point that he would not wish to eradicate religion, rather that he wants the argument to go on. Always feisty! It is a bit sad to see quite a few comments about what they are drinking rather than the substance of the video. I thought this video to be a banquet of ideas.

Other Comments by doubter

236. Comment #99492 by dragonfirematrix on December 16, 2007 at 7:37 pm

This foursome needs to schedule prime-time discussions on the major American television networks.

America is in serious need of enlightenment!

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

237. Comment #99498 by FrankWilliams on December 16, 2007 at 8:27 pm

What a wonderful treat. Thank you so much for making this discussion available!

The talk was informative, witty, and lucid.

Other Comments by FrankWilliams

238. Comment #99500 by empyrean on December 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Now... I hate to be presumptuous? But is there another round table discussion in the works between these superalative four horsemen? The cover page seems to indicate that this is "Episode I"... I sincerely hope (not pray!) that there are more conversations on the way between these four fellows!

It would be wonderful if Fox News would play this during the O'Reilley time slot. Think of how many people could be reached. To say the least they would be challanged... possibly even aroused from their soma like slumber.

Other Comments by empyrean

239. Comment #99503 by Diacanu on December 16, 2007 at 10:45 pm

*Spoils all 6 episodes*

Anakin is Vader, Palpatine is Emperor, Leia is Luke's sister, Vader is their dad, Jar-Jar never gets his come-uppance.

Other Comments by Diacanu

240. Comment #99504 by mumbles on December 16, 2007 at 10:59 pm

I apologize if someone has addressed it and I missed it.

This is labeled Episode 1, anyone know how many episodes are in the works?

Other Comments by mumbles

241. Comment #99505 by Roy_H on December 16, 2007 at 11:08 pm

The God Delusion!!!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071217/tod-uk-israel-religion-syndrome-cb1d00a_1.html

Other Comments by Roy_H

242. Comment #99516 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 12:35 am

I'm sure this has been said in one way or another but who can check through 243 posts?

More than anything this video is a much needed demonstration of the outright inadequacy of the debate format.

Whenever we see one of our guys debate a theist for an audience, it's always the same old questions and the same old answers. It can be entertaining, sure, but it's also depressing in its outright lack of progress.

And yet here we have a discussion with four men who are broadly like-minded but differ greatly in the details and in backgrounds, and we actually start to see some new and interesting discourse emerge.

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

243. Comment #99549 by BMMcArdle on December 17, 2007 at 3:20 am

I would be very interested to hear how they each felt about the title of this series.

Does it really help to label them as the personification of characters in one of the books whose influence they are trying to weaken?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

244. Comment #99555 by USA_Limey on December 17, 2007 at 3:38 am

Comment #99500 by empyrean:

It would be wonderful if Fox News would play this during the O'Reilley time slot

Please don't hold your breath empyrean.

Anyway, what we had here were four great thinkers who broadly agree but have some differences of opinion and emphasis.

Now try imagining four theists who broadly agree, (on the existence of God), but have some differences of opinion and emphasis, (Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Evangelical), and imagine how that conversation would have gone compared to our four protaganists.

I conducted that thought experiment and any minor qualms I had with the arguments of one or more of our guys melted away.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

245. Comment #99559 by Ben Jennings on December 17, 2007 at 3:47 am

Does it really help to label them as the personification of characters in one of the books whose influence they are trying to weaken?

I think you're taking it a little too seriously, but in any case remember it's the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and in this case the apocalypse is meant to be religion's...

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

246. Comment #99591 by etny on December 17, 2007 at 6:27 am

Pleasant to watch, but ultimately nothing very interesting or novel came out of it. The discussion would have been far more fruitful without Hitch in the mix. Too much ego, politics, and too little science on Hitch's part (and what a silly and egotistical point: "I want religions to survive so I can have someone to argue against"). And please, enough of the "4 Horsemen" media bull! Enough with the adoration! Aside from the annoying groupie "wow" factor, this was a very average and ordinary conversation, at best.

Other Comments by etny

247. Comment #99599 by Cartomancer on December 17, 2007 at 6:51 am

Smoking. Horrible passtime. Utterly indefensible.

Yes, it was Hitchens' house. Yes, the other three seem to pay it no heed (in Dennett's and Dawkins's cases I suspect it's because they grew up in a time when it was considered unremarkable to smoke). Nevertheless, smoking is a blight upon our societies and has a real, demonstrable impact on the health both of those who do it and of those forced to put up with inhaling the toxic, carcinogenic fumes. It is no exaggeration to say that billions of pounds are spent needlessly every year because of smoking-related health problems, and that's before we reckon up the economic impact of lost productivity or the environmental impact of all those trees being chopped down to provide for this nauseating habit.

The question here is not one of personal freedom but one of public image. It is vitally necessary to discourage smoking as strenuously as possible in society, and showing respected, intelligent individuals - role models even - doing so blatantly and without remorse runs completely counter to this goal. The more smokers are made to feel like moral pariahs the more will kick the habit and the fewer of them there will be. This can only be a benefit to both the individuals concerned and society in general.

I am actually in favour of making cigarettes completely illegal myself, in line with other life-destroying drugs and with very harsh sentences for the traffickers. Alas, given the amount of money that finds its way into government pockets from this irresponsible vice that is sadly not going to happen. All we can do, therefore, is to make it as socially difficult as possible to smoke in order to encourage people to stop of their own accord. And to hell with the disingenuous and mendacious pro-smoking lobby who try to present themselves as an oppressed minority deserving of respect. I don't respect murderers and allow them to continue with their hobby, I see no reason to allow you to continue with yours. Especially given that it kills far more people each year.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

248. Comment #99604 by AllanW on December 17, 2007 at 7:00 am

Re; Comment #99599 Cartomancer

I have rarely read a more intolerant diatribe.

Get some facts on mortality rates from different causes and costs of treatment for smoking-related diseases and other causes whilst then gathering taxation data by source before attempting to discuss morality in the same breath as costs and benefits, please. Your attempts to justify your repressive mentality through spurious and unsupported allusions are risible.

Other Comments by AllanW

249. Comment #99609 by Cartomancer on December 17, 2007 at 7:17 am

I think the pronouncements of the UK's chief medical officer and the vast majority of other scientists and clinicians in the field (even the ones employed by the government) and top economists are sufficient evidence for me at the moment, if good old common sense doesn't win out.

Does smoking cause health problems and lead to unecessary deaths? Answer, yes.
Does smoking have any benefits which might offset these problems? Answer, no.

It really is that simple. And yes, I am intolerant of smoking. I am proud to be intolerant of smoking. I am intolerant of murderer and rape too, and see nothing wrong with that. Of course I understand that chemical addiction can be hard to overcome, and will extend any help I can toward those trying to do so, but I have nothing but scorn and pity for those who try to defend the indefensible.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

250. Comment #99627 by AllanW on December 17, 2007 at 8:07 am

Cartomancer: I am proud to be intolerant of smoking.

Ah! Just two words too many for brevity and transparency.

Other Comments by AllanW