VOA Appears to be Suffering from Brain Damage

[nicnik]

Voice of America has evolved from penetrating the iron curtain fighting evil propaganda, to spreading evil propaganda to the world, with one of the most delusional scare mongering headlines, yet.

As if that weren't enough, they've gone after a woman in her mid 20s (not a teenager!) vaping in an attempt to quit smoking, as opposed to a dangerous, oppressive Soviet empire. VOA's convenient editing of her video is misleading.

[URL='http://www.voanews.com/content/report-e-cigarettes-can-cause-permanent-brain-damage-for-teens/2744206.html']Report: E-cigarettes Can Cause Permanent Brain Damage for Teens[/URL]

The woman's full youtube video, which is linked to near the end of their article:

 

[bacc.vap]

Permanent brain damage, quite the fear mongering. The writer of that article has brain damage, they're something in the head.

 

[Mossy]

More rubbish re candy flavours, children,teens,nicotine...........blah blah..........VOA really is the propaganda arm of the US government and as such seems to be fulfilling it's role to a T

 

[Mossy]

Glad to see the Aussie girl in the vid doing the right thing..............I wonder if she knows they stole her video

 

[5cardstud]

All this BS is backed by big tobacco. I figured when these started getting so popular that tobacco companies and government wouldn't stand still long for all the money and tax revenue they were losing. Things are never going to change until Americans quit putting these idiots in office.

 

[caramel]

Interesting how nicotine never did any brain damage either in cigarettes or "approved" NRTs, but suddenly started doing it in e-cigs. A very tricky substance it is.

BTW I suggest that if it really happens, it should be recognized as a protected disability.

 

[DrMA]

<snip>
BTW I suggest that if it really happens, it should be recognized as a protected disability.

Excellent idea, I'm ready to retire and disability income would be quite handy

 

[Painter_]

I guess that most of the people that regularly post in the news and media area here must of ether started smoking at the magical age of 21 or have never used a nicotine product since there is some highly intelligent people posting in this sub-forum. I, myself have two degrees one BSEE and one BSCE graduated with a 3.81 and a 3.93 respectively. If it was not for the damn nicotine I consumed from the age of 12 I could of earned a 4.0 for each degree. My brain must be really damaged...

 

[Robino1]

I guess that most of the people that regularly post in the news and media area here must of ether started smoking at the magical age of 21 or have never used a nicotine product since there is some highly intelligent people posting in this sub-forum. I, myself have two degrees one BSEE and one BSCE graduated with a 3.81 and a 3.93 respectively. If it was not for the damn nicotine I consumed from the age of 12 I could of earned a 4.0 for each degree. My brain must be really damaged...

Never went to college, myself, but I did manage to learn a bunch of stuff regardless. Maybe my lack of desire to go to college had something to do with the fact that I did start smoking at 16

Nah! It just wasn't expected in my family. Never even brought up let alone being able to afford the tuition, even back then.

 

[Painter_]

Maybe my lack of desire to go to college had something to do with the fact that I did start smoking at 16

It was the dreaded nicotine that kept you from going. Trust Mechanical Engineer over in CA. He know everything.

I did not start going to school until I was 30, when I was younger I could not afford it and I also lacked the motivation. I started going and realized that I liked it and continued to go even after I graduated. I am working on my MBA now, maybe one day I can get a PhD and join Public health in the future.

 

[caramel]

Just imagine how smart this gentleman could have been if he didn't smoke:

 

[Kent C]

Put That in Your Pipe - Reason.com

The end of the last century saw the birth of two Germans who are among the most famous
individuals in history: Adolf Hitler, the bloodthirsty dictator, and Albert Einstein, the peace-loving scientific genius. Both men held strong views about smoking, and it is worth examining their opinions as we approach the end of the current century. This is especially true in light of the bills pending in Congress that would ban smoking in buildings open to the public, raise tobacco taxes by huge percentages, and regulate tobacco as a drug.

Hitler was a zealot about many things, so it is not surprising that he was an extremist on the subject of smoking, which he considered vile and disgusting. "Adolf Hitler was a fanatical opponent of tobacco," reports Time. He was fond of proclaiming that women of the Third Reich did not smoke at all, even though many of them did. In his fascinating book Cigarettes Are Sublime, Richard Klein, a professor of French at Cornell University, writes that Hitler was "a fanatically superstitious hater of tobacco smoke."

Einstein, on the other hand, was very passionate about his pipe smoking. During one lecture, he ran out of pipe tobacco and borrowed some cigarettes from his students so he could crumple the tobacco into his pipe. "Gentlemen," he said, "I believe we've made a great discovery!" He later decided that his conclusion was premature. He realized that cigarette tobacco lacks the aroma, the fullness, and the taste of pipe tobacco. But what appealed most to Einstein was the entire ritual of pipe smoking: carefully choosing from a variety of pipes and tobaccos, delicately loading the briar, puffing and tamping, and the associated contemplation. "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs," he said in 1950 at age 71, when he became a lifetime member of the Montreal Pipe Smokers Club.

...

Ed reminded me of a story about François Guizot, the French historian and statesman. A woman visited Guizot at his home one evening and found him absorbed in his pipe. She exclaimed, "What! You smoke, and yet have arrived at so great an age?" "Ah, madame," he said in reply, "if I had not smoked, I should have been dead 10 years ago." I believe we would have heard similar replies from many other famous pipe smokers who lived long and healthy lives, including Albert Schweitzer, Mark Twain, F.A. Hayek, Carl Sandburg, Bing Crosby, and Norman Rockwell.

 

[Tache]

Put That in Your Pipe - Reason.com

The end of the last century saw the birth of two Germans who are among the most famous
individuals in history: Adolf Hitler, the bloodthirsty dictator, and Albert Einstein, the peace-loving scientific genius. Both men held strong views about smoking, and it is worth examining their opinions as we approach the end of the current century. This is especially true in light of the bills pending in Congress that would ban smoking in buildings open to the public, raise tobacco taxes by huge percentages, and regulate tobacco as a drug.

Hitler was a zealot about many things, so it is not surprising that he was an extremist on the subject of smoking, which he considered vile and disgusting. "Adolf Hitler was a fanatical opponent of tobacco," reports Time. He was fond of proclaiming that women of the Third Reich did not smoke at all, even though many of them did. In his fascinating book Cigarettes Are Sublime, Richard Klein, a professor of French at Cornell University, writes that Hitler was "a fanatically superstitious hater of tobacco smoke."

Einstein, on the other hand, was very passionate about his pipe smoking. During one lecture, he ran out of pipe tobacco and borrowed some cigarettes from his students so he could crumple the tobacco into his pipe. "Gentlemen," he said, "I believe we've made a great discovery!" He later decided that his conclusion was premature. He realized that cigarette tobacco lacks the aroma, the fullness, and the taste of pipe tobacco. But what appealed most to Einstein was the entire ritual of pipe smoking: carefully choosing from a variety of pipes and tobaccos, delicately loading the briar, puffing and tamping, and the associated contemplation. "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs," he said in 1950 at age 71, when he became a lifetime member of the Montreal Pipe Smokers Club.

...

Ed reminded me of a story about François Guizot, the French historian and statesman. A woman visited Guizot at his home one evening and found him absorbed in his pipe. She exclaimed, "What! You smoke, and yet have arrived at so great an age?" "Ah, madame," he said in reply, "if I had not smoked, I should have been dead 10 years ago." I believe we would have heard similar replies from many other famous pipe smokers who lived long and healthy lives, including Albert Schweitzer, Mark Twain, F.A. Hayek, Carl Sandburg, Bing Crosby, and Norman Rockwell.

This is a big part of why I enjoy your posts so much! It is the richness of background and the interesting insights (most of which I agree with, some of which I consider with caution - perhaps I am not as brave as you). I have the heart of a libertarian, but the practicality of a realist and the emotions of altruist. These ridiculous issues around vaping inspire me to such levels of anger and indignation, I hardly know what to do about it.

My own IQ (for what it's worth), doesn't approach Albert's, but it still makes it into the 97th percentile. I'm beginning to feel like that condemns me to a lifetime of frustration at the ridiculousness of "the world".

By the way, Love the imagery of Sandburg's "Chicago" - "Hog butcher of the world". Weird for someone who depends on capitalism to ensure sufficient funding for social needs (I'm a - dare I say,"Bureaucrat"! [however, I do spend my days ensuring that the "people's" money works as hard for them as they do for it]

 

[Kent C]

I have the heart of a libertarian, but the practicality of a realist and the emotions of altruist.

Here's another realist on that subject:

[Consider the catch phrase:] “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions. (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.)

Ayn Rand "Philosophical Detection"

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Rand in "Virtue of Selfishness" (a purposefully loaded title).

In the above, she also points out that if 'the benefit of others is 'good' and the benefit for oneself is 'evil'' then look at where you put the ethics of the person to whom you are giving?

In a scenario where you have 7 altruists in the water with only a 6 man lifeboat, everyone dies because to save oneself is "selfish'. :- )

Appreciate the other comments. Thank you.

 

[Tache]

Here's another realist on that subject:

[Consider the catch phrase:] “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions. Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory. If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”? If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions. (The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.)

Ayn Rand "Philosophical Detection"

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Rand in "Virtue of Selfishness" (a purposefully loaded title).

In the above, she also points out that if 'the benefit of others is 'good' and the benefit for oneself is 'evil'' then look at where you put the ethics of the person to whom you are giving?

In a scenario where you have 7 altruists in the water with only a 6 man lifeboat, everyone dies because to save oneself is "selfish'. :- )

Appreciate the other comments. Thank you.

So perhaps my self description of altruist does not completely fit the accepted one. I know that I do put the needs of others before my own and don't always insist that my requirements of "being" are fulfilled. Having said that, I know that it is damaging to my soul/being/whatever you want to call it, to completely subsume my needs/thoughts etc.

Legitimate "selfishness" is illustrated in the instructions all of us have received - whenever anyone of us has flown on a plane. The instruction in times of extreme emergency (e.g. surviving on a lifeboat) is "put the oxygen mask on yourself before attempting to assist anyone else".

I don't believe "care of self" and care of "others" is mutually exclusive.

 

[Mossy]

Interesting article I have not seen before,thanks for posting this Kent C, even though the article goes back to 1994, it shows that nothing has really changed.

 

[Kent C]

Interesting article I have not seen before,thanks for posting this Kent C, even though the article goes back to 1994, it shows that nothing has really changed.

Yeah.... I was responding to Caramel's post and recalled the earlier Reason article :- )

 

[Kent C]

So perhaps my self description of altruist does not completely fit the accepted one. I know that I do put the needs of others before my own and don't always insist that my requirements of "being" are fulfilled. Having said that, I know that it is damaging to my soul/being/whatever you want to call it, to completely subsume my needs/thoughts etc.

Legitimate "selfishness" is illustrated in the instructions all of us have received - whenever anyone of us has flown on a plane. The instruction in times of extreme emergency (e.g. surviving on a lifeboat) is "put the oxygen mask on yourself before attempting to assist anyone else".

I don't believe "care of self" and care of "others" is mutually exclusive.

In the book Virtue of Selfishness, Rand differentiates between 'rational self interest' where sometimes caring for others fulfills that purpose, whereas 'selfishness' where one tramples on others doesn't. :- )

A mother that feeds her own child but not able to feed a stranger's, is only operating in her rational self interest. The evil of altruism is when you gain nothing by giving to others, where the mother lets their own child starve to feed a stranger's. By feeding her own child, she would also gain a value and that isn't allowed in the strictest (Kantian) version of altruism, where true 'virtue' is gained when no value is gained by self. But most people haven't read Kant or could lol....

That said, altruism has gained much favor and people are afraid of being ostracized or simply looked at as 'selfish' that some will proclaim selflessness, imo, too loudly, while their actions are different than their proclamations. Some of the meanest people I know claim to be "selfless". And yet, almost as a quid pro quo with other 'altruists', their lies are accepted by others who operate the same way, hoping to get the same acclaim themselves. They should have a red carpet too.

Case in point - Zeller, FDA, TC crowd, and the junk scientists that attempt to shore up the propaganda on ecigs with junk studies. It's 'for the children', it's for reducing the fake number of 480,000 smokers that die each year, it's for your own health and we know what's best for you! While getting tax money from those they are 'helping', getting gov't grants and tenure and fairly safe gov't jobs with rather good benefits. And when something that comes along that might endanger all of that, they're in a full court press to ban, regulate and tax it. Not very altruistic of them, is it? But they'll continue to claim that, and get 'humanitarian' awards and perhaps even Nobel prizes for it. The absolute hatred that flowed from Harkin and Rockefeller in the HELP hearings is just another example of how these altruists aren't so altruistic. Compare that with Sen. Burr's and Alexander's handling. And that's not to make it political, but just a good example of some that people here know too well. Kay Hagan (D) was fairly pro ecigs.

 

[caramel]

In a scenario where you have 7 altruists in the water with only a 6 man lifeboat, everyone dies because to save oneself is "selfish'. :- )

.

Well the scenario where 7 selfish people kill each other in a fight to get full control of the boat doesn't look any better....

 

[caramel]

Now getting to a real scenario, where a country can support all of its citizens and then some, how does it look when we throw some of them overboard......

Or just inflict pain on some (forced "quit smoking") so the others could get more trinkets for the price of "savings in healthcare".