Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 9/8/2019, As Tumbleweeds Roll Through The Deserted Streets Of Ethics Alarms…

Is anybody out there?

1. What’s going on here? The AP deleted a tweet on September 5 tweet attributing the murders of Israeli athletes  to undefined “guerrillas.” Someone complained: it then tweeted, “The AP has deleted a tweet about the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics because it was unclear about who was responsible for the killings and referred to the attackers as guerrillas. A new tweet will be sent shortly.” Finally, this was the tweet decided upon:

“On Sept. 5, 1972, the Palestinian group Black September attacked the Israeli Olympic delegation at the Munich Games, killing 11 Israelis and a police officer. German forces killed five of the gunmen.”

2. Wait: ARE there really “AI ethicists,” or just unethical ethicists grabbing a new niche by claiming that they are any more qualified for this topic than anyone else?

From the Defense Systems website:

After a rash of tech employee protests, the Defense Department wants to hire an artificial intelligence ethicist. “We are going to bring on someone who has a deep background in ethics,” tag-teaming with DOD lawyers to make sure AI can be “baked in,” Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, who leads the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, told reporters during an Aug. 30 media briefing.

The AI ethical advisor would sit under the JAIC, the Pentagon’s strategic nexus for AI projects and plans, to help shape the organization’s approach to incorporating AI capabilities in the future. The announcement follows protests by Google and Microsoft employees concerned about how the technology would be used — particularly in lethal systems — and questioning whether major tech companies should do business with DOD.

I’m hoping that the Defense Department isn’t doing this, as the article implies, because some pacifist, anti-national defense techies at Microsoft complained. [Pointer: Tom Fuller]

3. Campus totalitarians gonna totalitary!  University of Michigan students and alumni aare demanding that the University to sever ties with real estate developer Stephen M. Ross , who is the largest donor in the University’s history. This would presumably include removing his name from  Ross School of Business, which he substantially funded. (His name is on other buildings as well) Did Ross rape women willy-nilly? Has he been shown to be racist? No, he held  a re-election fundraiser for the President of the United States.

The Horror.

The new paradigm in what were once called “liberal circles” is that anyone differing from the mandated political posture must be shunned and punished. Freedom of speech is an illusion and an inconvenience. After all, Donald Trump is a danger to democracy, and if you don’t support and advance that narrative, you’re going to regret it.

Amid threatened boycotts of his companies, Ross defended the fundraiser while calling himself “an outspoken champion” of various social issues. Good—the attacks are working. He’s grovelling now.

Scott DeRue, dean of the Ross School of Business, sent an email to the Business School community after the news broke in August, emphasizing  that the school did not endorse the fundraiser—who has ever claimed that a university automatically endorses the activities and opinions of its donors?—but business school alum Kumar Rao still started an alumni open letter  asking the University remove Ross’s name from buildings campuswide.  Another graduate, Logan Drummond, created a Change.org petition with the same demands, this time open for anyone to sign. Created by University alum  , the petition has more than 200 signatures as of Wednesday night.

Drummond says he created this petition because he believes Ross’s support of Trump may impact student well-being on campus. He really said this. The fact that campus buildings include the name of a philanthropist who supports the current President of the United States threatens students. People honest-to-goodness say stuff like this now, and are not laughed into oblivion. “Particularly for marginalized students at U-M, walking around and seeing the Ross name and knowing its associations with Trump now, it’d make them feel less welcome,” Drummond said.

Two reactions: 1) Prove it, and 2) What an idiot.

If Ross had any gumption at all, and it sounds like he does not, he would tell the university that he will demand a return of all funds relating to any building that now bears his name, and will send the entire amount to the Trump campaign. That’s what I would do.

Yes, that’s what Donald Trump might do too.

4. And what does this tell you about the reliability of apocalyptic warnings by climate scientists? Yesterday we learned that the CDC had urged the public to stop using e-cigarettes because of a recent spate of illnesses related to vaping. Hey, what do they care if people weening themselves off cigarettes go back to the ol” coffin nails? Better safe than sorry!

This is a typical mentality among scientists who bear no responsibility for policy trade-offs. Just minimize risk, no matter how small or attenuated, and ignore the unintended and undesirable consequences; it’s simple! The warning about e-cigs was pure fear-mongering—you know, like saying that unless the U.S. bans fossil fuel within 12 years, we’re all dead.

All indications are that the vaping causing breathing problems are the result of  black market devices tainted with mysterious, dangerous substances. But the false correlation still prompted “public health” advocates who already are waging war against e-cigarettes (despite overwhelming evidence that they are an excellent alternative to smoking.) One  group, Parents Against Vaping, called the disease wave “terrifying” and used the tragedy to argue that “our kids should not be guinea pigs for the JUUL experiment!”

This response is the result, as so many are, of bias and ignorance. Not one identified case thus far links to an ordinary nicotine-only vaping product. E-cigarettes, meanwhile, when legally manufactured, are 95 percent safer than  cigarettes. They have found to be nearly twice as effective for quitting as nicotine patches or gum.

But hey, better safe than sorry!

5. He’s not exactly an Ethics Hero, but…Dave Chappelle’s new concert video, now streaming on Netflix, is thought-provoking, brave, and full of ethical insights and analysis. I could do a two hour ethics seminar using just his material.

Chappelle is clearly a devotee of cognitive dissonance and understands the ravages of bias, including his own. On several topics, including the “cancellation culture,” the women’s equal pay in professional sports controversy and abortion, Chappelle cuts hard and uncomfortably to the heart of the matter.

He’s also very funny.

57 thoughts on “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 9/8/2019, As Tumbleweeds Roll Through The Deserted Streets Of Ethics Alarms…

  1. Don’t kid yourself. Your stats may show only a small audience at times, but they don’t account for the times we forward them on to our friends, post on Facebook (when they let us) or just talk about and refer to your comments as a source of common sense. You’re almost as important to me as Judicial Watch and the Epoch Times, all being an important part of my day, and I just want to say thanks for all the effort your put into this blog.

  2. 4. From the linked article:

    The CDC, FDA, and state authorities are stepping in to investigate. So far, no direct link to vaping has been established by the CDC. No product has been officially identified as the cause, which has led to the CDC making broad generalizations about all vaping products, potentially contributing to the panic.

    Amazing.

    • There is a huuuuuge difference between e-cigarettes and vaping products. E- cigarettes come factory sealed while vaping products allow the user to fill the unit with the liquids by the user.

      The CDC should know that. I just believe that unless the person is inhaling cannabis products, the powers to be think you are a pariah. Maybe they think the nicotine is made by big tobacco.

      • The issue is that some of the lung injuries are caused by bootleg e-cigarettes pods with THC. So e-cigarettes are indeed contributing to the problem, albeit with a big asterisks.

  3. 1. Simple. They are whitewashing the role of Muslim terrorists. They knew perfectly well who those Unnamed Guerrillas were. The fact that they put up another tweet that identified only the obscure name of the group is proof they’re trying to protect Muslims.

    3. I’d love to see all these donors whose names are no longer welcome on campus to use their money to fund a college that treats students like adults instead of toddlers swaddled in bubble wrap.

    • Hillsdale springs to mind.

      Plus they have an ice / hockey rink in the middle of campus in the winter. Even more worthy just on that count.

  4. Cower dammit! Cower before the politically correct and biased resistance zombies of the left.

    If I were Ross I’d demand my money back and announce the refund is being used to raise a private army to protect myself against the woke herd U of M is apparently now indoctrinating. He’ll likely need it if all continues to trend this way.

    This stuff is increasingly out of control.

    BTW. I love EA weekends.

  5. Before we condemn Ross we should acknowledge that if he demanded his money back he would be accused of using his money to bully the school. I think his comment was designed to end the issue.

    With that said, he could have stated while he appreciates the fact that students at the school have a right to associate with whomever they choose they should realize that tolerance is a two way street and if he is not welcome he is sure that he can find a school that will welcome him and his contributions to higher education.

  6. This would presumably include removing his name from Ross School of Business, which he substantially funded. (His name is on other buildings as well)

    Shazbot! I thought the business school was named for Diana Ross, or Marion Ross, whose character was so warm for a stranger in a strange land. Who can forget the modest business empire of Bob Ross, whose business advice is even on Netflix? Friend Pete Ross? Cranky Dr. Ross? Betsy just wanted to make a few shillings in an unsteady economy.

    Really, outside a handful of people in all of history, there’s thousands or even millions of people with any name, and you’re hating on a name. Some businessman who gives big bucks benefitting students regardless of politics does not rate this convulsion. (I think you could name it after Nixon and get less fuss todat)

    Both the school and donor should put on their big boy pants. How many school buildings closed, teachers laid and classes closed if you demand progressive purity in donors? he gov’t can’t make it up for you, and minority students in those schools lose too… just because you’re not grown up enough to handle one lost election?

    You really show your maturity and grit when you have to deal with losing. They have failed and big time.

    • Yes, there are AI ethicists. Much in demand when it comes to the legal issues of self driving vehicles, but historically, also in military systems for anti missile defence, where human reaction times just won’t cut it.

      I’m talking 20 years ago, when autonamous systems became a thing in the military, and when evolutionary development methods and neural networks meant there was no “designer” as such, nor any way of finding out why the systems worked. This has been an issue for a while.

      It’s past time that the unofficial external consultants had an official internal counterpart for oversight. “Keeping the bastards honest” as we’d say in Australia.

    • No explanations necessary, Steve. I’m reacting to the actual traffic numbers, not comments. Obviously the veteran core here is always around. It just annoys me that the virtual conspiracy of the left-wing Borg and Facebook censors has suppressed my work here, which remains genuinely non-partisan and true to an important mission.

  7. “3. Campus totalitarians gonna totalitary!”

    These stupid people are an incurable cancer that’s dooming our society.

    “Right now the vast majority of the public is silent and that silence speaks volumes to a stupid person. Your silent apathy means that you agree with them, you approve of their words and actions.”

    “If you don’t want to live under rules created by stupid people then you need to set aside your apathy for society and politics, stand up for intelligent truths and do something about what’s happening!”

    “You can’t fix stupid but you can stand side-by-side with other intelligent people and speak out against the emotional driven lunacy that stupid people are presenting as the only valid truth.”

    Apathy Fertilizes A Breeding Ground For Stupidity

    • “Drummond says he created this petition because he believes Ross’s support of Trump may impact student well-being on campus.”

      “Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientist.” Charlotte Iserbyt September 1999

      It’s been twenty years since Iserbyt wrote that in the forward of her book and it sounds to me like that emotional snowflake imbecile Logan Drummond is the direct result of the systematic destruction of American children’s intellect and he’s likely already succumbed to the indoctrination of being controlled by behavioral and social “scientists”. Want to bet that his willingness to being controlled started with his parents putting his emotional well being well over that of being properly educated and disciplined. Ignorant participation trophy wielding helicopter parents of the past and present are the source of the problem.

      Was Iserbyt insightful twenty years ago or was she a wacko conspiracy theorist?

      • “Ignorant participation trophy wielding helicopter parents of the past and present are the source of the problem.”

        I should add to that the parents that are absent in body and/or mind expecting public schools to be the only source of education and discipline for their little angels and devils.

  8. 5.

    Sticks and Stones was also useful for giving us a clear view at just how stupid some people can be. I don’t watch comedy specials, usually… But I watched this one. Do you want to know why? Because all the usual suspects told me not to. When Vox and co make a big production about trying to get people not to see a thing, you owe it to yourself to see it.

    Better, someone in charge at Rotten Tomatoes thought that it would be a good idea to restrict normal reviews in favor of giving a rating based on the input of 5 of their certified reviewers. The RT score for Sticks and Stones: 0. Actually zero. Finally, the reviews opened up and normal shmucks were allowed to review and lo and behold: Not zero. The average review was actually 99%, but I attribute this almost entirely to the Streisand Effect, the show was good, but nothing is perfect.

    I can’t imagine what a better example of the Streisand effect looks like, in fact. I also can’t think of a better display of the disconnect between idiot progressives in positions of power, and the average person on the street.

    • Yes, yes, yes, yes. Of course it wasn’t perfect; all stand-up is a high wire act, Chappelle’s more than most. He’s a critical thinker who has sense of humor. Why would anyone oppose that, unless they are afraid of thoughts and words?

  9. 4.

    “Hey, what do they care if people weening themselves off cigarettes go back to the ol” coffin nails? Better safe than sorry!”

    I think this will age abhorrently. While vaping has been seen as being effective at weaning people off cigarettes, that’s not the primary use. Most consumers see it as a safer alternative to smoking, and use it with no plans to quit. They can be forgiven for believing that because frankly, that’s how it was marketed. Meanwhile, almost as soon as the first iteration of vaping products hit the markets, concerns around the devices heating coils surfaced, and then slightly later about the contents of the liquid. Sure enough, as the studies started to pile up, more and more evidence came to light that people were inhaling dangerous amounts of heavy metals, including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, and lead.

    Now I’m sure that as more information comes out, companies producing vape products will have to reinvent parts of their products to not give their customers lead poisoning. But I’m not convinced that breathing in unsafe amounts of aluminum, arsenic, and lead is materially better than tobacco smoke, and meanwhile, vaping has reintroduced to kids a hip way to breathe in death, because despite statistics showing youth smoking plummeting, vaping is disproportionately on the rise.

    This though? This is new. I would love to know what “Lung injury” in this context means. Did they turn their vape pens up to the highest heat level and burn themselves from the inside out, or did all the aluminum shrapnel in their alveoli interfering with oxygen transfer?

    https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20180226/toxic-metals-found-in-e-cigarette-vapor#1

    • Anecdotal, but still persuasive to me: My wife, who has struggled trying to quit smoking as long as I have known her, has found the Juul e-cig to be more effective than anything yet. She has quit for a month; she has not had anxiety or any adverse symptoms, it is cheaper than her pack-a day habit, there are no buts and ashed to get rid of; her clothes (and mine) smell better, and the devices allow a user to gradually turn down the nicotine content to zero. And the CDC is telling her to go back to cigarettes? Despicable.

      • I have the feeling they’re suggesting that she do neither.

        I think you’re arguing from the margins, if someone is able to use a vape product as a smoking cessation tool, that probably carries less risk of developing permanent health issues than someone who vapes regularly and has no intention of quitting. Meanwhile, there is a culture springing up around vaping as if it were a hip and cool thing to do while information is coming to light that vaping could be just as toxic or carcinogenic as tobacco.

        For the CDC, erring towards caution and sending bad messaging to people using vapes as smoking cessation is, in my opinion, completely offset by trying to dissuade an entire generation of young people not to inhale lead.

        • How? How hard is it to say, “There is no indication that standard e-cigarettes that are used as intended by the manufacturer pose any health dangers whatsoever, certainly not in comparison to smoking cigarettes? Kids misuse one product, and so the reaction is to warn adults not to use a completely different product properly?

          • I’m saying that quote wouldn’t be true; There IS indication that proper use of vape devices results in the inhalation of heavy metals, which pose all kinds of health issues.

            And even if the dangers of heavy metal poisoning were less than that of tobacco smoke (which… Honestly, I don’t know which way that falls), can you explain to me what the different CDC memos would look like? The one aimed at getting kids to not start huffing lead, and the other one saying “Well gee, this might not be as bad as smoking, but it still has a couple of risks you should know about” for people looking for smoking cessation plans?

            While you’re puzzling that out, I just feel like I need to remind you: You’re the guy who argued that America needs to maintain the draconian sentencing laws you have for drug crimes, because lightening those sentencing guidelines might send people mixed messages that could be construed as encouragement to do drugs.

              • Obviously the studies haven’t found sufficient evidence to declare the e-cigs as toxic, and as no cases where the lung problems turned up involved e-cigarettes (rather than vaping devices), I am puzzled at your certitude. Meanwhile, reviewing web content strongly suggests that e-cigs are the target of environmental activists using a health excuse to try to get them banned.

                • So far, I’ve found a lot of statistical hocus-pocus in reports on the heavy metal studies. For example, when I learn that e-cig users have 19% more lead in their urine, what does that mean? How much e-smoking? How much lead is “normal”? “Common”? Is 19% more of a tiny amount significant health-wise? The reports don’t tell me any of this, and when I read such things, I check my back pockets…

              • “The one aimed at getting kids to not start huffing lead, and the other one saying “Well gee, this might not be as bad as smoking, but it still has a couple of risks you should know about” for people looking for smoking cessation plans?

                Well, since the issue seems to be their huffing THC (a direct, if unanticipated result of surrendering cultural disapproval of pot), the CDC directive should be pretty straightforward.

            • E-cigarettes use a replaceable cartridge and the contents are predefined and fixed where vaporizers use a tank to hold the e-liquid and the user refills the cartridge with whatever their little heart desires, they can mix things, use unsanitary tanks, use illegal drugs (we all know how safe it is to buy from Joe dealer on 1st and Main, he’s real concerned about your health) and generally just be stupid which is exactly what we are seeing with people in hospitals.

              • Well, your relationship with Joe notwithstanding, my understanding is that the source of the heavy metals comes mainly from the heating coils, which are functionally identical in both E-cigarettes and Vaporizers. I don’t understand why anyone thinks the difference between an E-cigarette and a Vaporizer matters in the context of this conversation.

                Again, we don’t know what “lung injury” means in this context, but like I’ve said elsewhere, I think that’s most likely going to be a case of the user turning up the heat setting too high and burning their lungs with overheated air. I have no idea under God why you think that it’s specifically the…. and I love this term…. “E-Liquid” that caused the injury.

                The CDC said that THC was present, but I would love someone to try to explain to me how the devil’s lettuce caused these injuries, because… and I love this part: The exact same models of vaporizers are used for the legal consumption of THC north of the border and are deemed safe for exactly that use by Health Canada.

                I mean, put it in real plain language for me Steve; if you think I’m wrong, which I fully accept I could be, then what do you think actually happened here?

                • You seem to be the one thinking that E-cigarettes and vaporizers are the same, not me; I simply provided some information commonly found on the internet to make the point that they are not the same. Disagree if you feel you must but I’m not making any claims other than the information I found on the internet about the differences and even that’s not my claim although I didn’t make that clear in my previous comment.

                  “my understanding is that the source of the heavy metals comes mainly from the heating coils, which are functionally identical in both E-cigarettes and Vaporizers.”

                  If the problem is the heavy metals from the heating coils then why aren’t the problems wide spread instead of only an isolated few. You seem to like statistics, look at the percentages.

                  “I would love someone to try to explain to me how the devil’s lettuce caused these injuries”

                  No one claimed that it was the “devil’s lettuce” that caused these injuries. It wasn’t marijuana these patients used, it appears that it might have been the combination of THC in a concentrated vaping liquid and other factors like maybe over-heating or too much of abuse of the whole system in the use of untested fluids and what they might do. Chemistry shows us that some fluids become quite caustic in ways that can break down other substances it comes in contact with, yes even metals, and other fluids may not react the same way. There is simply not enough known about what was being vaped and how it reacted to both the vaporizer and the lungs, these people might actually be putting their life on the line to get high.

                  “what do you think actually happened here”

                  Again, no one knows definitely, neither do you, it’s all theories that have not all been proven using facts yet. Regardless if it’s misuse, abuse, caustic heated fluids, the presence of heavy metals, or putting unapproved illegal drugs into a vaping apparatus, vaping can in fact be hazardous to your health. The safest manner of vaping is to use only the things that are tested and approved by the manufacturer like in E-cigarette cartridges, anything outside approved substances is choosing to be an ignorant guinea pig.

                  “put it in real plain language for me Steve”

                  Was that plain enough language for you?

                  • You know… Maybe if you don’t know anything other than what you can Google for in five minutes, you just shouldn’t? Your entire conversation has been “Either I don’t know, or have such a rudimentary understanding of the topic that I don’t understand what you are saying.” with a healthy dose of “Because I don’t know, neither can you.” Which, if it’s not on the rationalization list… Probably should be. It’s a direct appeal to ignorance.

                    • Juul was just slapped down by the Feds for representing in advertising that their product was safe, though there is no allegation that it isn’t safe.

                      I don’t know what the hell is going on

                    • “Juul was just slapped down by the Feds for representing in advertising that their product was safe, though there is no allegation that it isn’t safe.”

                      WOW, that one will make your head spin!

                    • There are all kinds of allegations. People who submitted urine tests after using these products that showed unsafe levels of heavy metals, most prevalent: aluminum and most concerning: lead and arsenic.

                      What you’re seeing in real time, I think, Is tobacco 2.0. There’s just too much money, conflicting studies, and ideology floating around for the government to say with certainty what products are how risky, but I think that as reasonable people looking from the sidelines, look at studies showing that these products make you piss lead, and say “Hmm.. Maybe I won’t use that.” A reasonable person might also say “Hmm, I think this is better than tobacco, maybe I’ll use it as smoking cessation.” But a reasonable person does not say, “Hmm, I think everything is fine so long as I don’t put THC juice in it.”

                    • 1. I don’t agree with that. Someone desperate to quit smoking might well say that, and logically too.

                      2. Why don’t you think Big Tobacco doesn’t have a role in trying to discredit e-cigs? It would certainly be in character.

                      3. In Tobacco 1.0, users knew for at least a century, probably more, that cigarettes and tobacco was unhealthy, because of symptoms those who smoked a lot seemed to share. So far, no such symptoms have appeared related to e-cigarettes.

                    • 1. Don’t agree with what?

                      2. Oh, I’m certain that they would, I just don’t think that you can buy as many findings from as many disparate places as have come up.

                      3. Well, that’s a dumb comparison because E-Cigarettes weren’t even introduced into the American market until 2007. People generally didn’t start smoking at 16 and get lung cancer at 27. The fact that there is only a handfull of deaths a decade after a product in introduced doesn’t make your point, it makes mine.

                      Honestly, I could be reading all this data incorrectly, or it all might be a basket of lies. But I really, genuinely think that in 20 years, there will be books and documentaries written about how this exact situation was allowed to happen twice by putting the prefix “E-” in front of cigarette.

                    • That has to be read in the context of the conversation, we were comparing tobacco to vape products, and my point was that we shouldn’t be particularly surprised that slow acting poisons take time to produce symptoms.

                    • 1.” But a reasonable person does not say, “Hmm, I think everything is fine so long as I don’t put THC juice in it.” As I said: I can see a reasonable e-cig user saying exactly that. Just as I can see someone who reads that Twinkies have been mysterious killing consumers of three a day saying, “Well I never have more than one, so I’m safe.”

                    • You didn’t address a single point I raised, you just “attacked” the messenger. Wasn’t that simply an ad hominem comment?

                      Honestly Humble Talent, I think your obvious bias against me eats a significant portion of your intellect when you read things I write. Maybe you should do better job keeping your promise to ignore my comments then you won’t subject yourself to flushing your intellect and showing off how bias makes you stupid.

                      Fin.

                    • You have no point, Steve. You have things you think because you did a surface level scan of the internet, wrapped yourself in the armor of certainty, equipped with the shield of disbelief and the club of ignorance. I don’t owe you shit.

    • I thought this was interesting. I put in bold letters something to compare.

      In the article that Humble Talent linked to the first sentence was this…

      “If you think that “vaping” is a safe alternative to smoking, new research suggests you might be inadvertently inhaling unsafe levels of toxic metals.”

      Humble Talent’s opinion is apparently partly based on the article he linked to otherwise why would he provide the link, and he wrote this…

      “as the studies started to pile up, more and more evidence came to light that people were inhaling dangerous amounts of heavy metals…”

      Notice how the word “might”, which is expressing a possibility, became were which is not expressing a possibility it’s expressing fact. This is exactly how things morph from being presented as statistical possibilities to being presented as fact. Unfortunately in politics this happens way too often, they’ll rationalize the switching but it’s usually just false.

      Last fact; the article Humble Talent linked to did not provide a link to the actual studies or the opinions of studies it’s referencing, it only provided the names of people as reference…

      “SOURCES: Pablo Olmedo, Ph.D., assistant scientist, and Ana Maria Rule, Ph.D., assistant scientist, department of environmental health and engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore; Patricia Folan, R.N., director, Center for Tobacco Control, Northwell Health, Great Neck, N.Y.; Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., professor, medicine, Center for Tobacco Control, Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco; Feb. 21, 2018,Environmental Health Perspectives, online”

      I did a little digging on just the first one on the list, Pablo Olmedo, Ph.D, and found this abstract of a study and here is the conclusion…

      “CONCLUSION: Additional research is needed to evaluate whether e-cigarettes represent a relevant exposure pathway for toxic metals in users.”

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27810679

      • Look…. Just Google it, man… The information is out there and I don’t think I can be reasonably expected to spoon feed it to you. There is a large and growing body of knowledge that links E-Cigarettes to cancer and heavy metal poisoning.

        As to the difference in tense…. Did you know that until 2015 there wasn’t an actual study done of the carcinogenic properties of processed meats? But it came out, and lo and behold: Bologna isn’t good for you. Did we only learn in 2015 that bologna was bad for us, or did we always know it, and it was only peer reviewed in 2015?

        People in control groups are literally peeing toxic levels of lead, and you don’t think it’s related to the E-cigarettes and vapes because the studies won’t take a definitive position. I mean…. It’s a very safe position to hold, if you’re looking for absolute certainty. But on contemplation, the evidence leads me to think that unless they’re using it as a method of smoking cessation, I would probably try to convince loved ones not to use those products, and I won’t touch them with a ten foot pole.

        • “Look…. Just Google it, man… The information is out there and I don’t think I can be reasonably expected to spoon feed it to you.”

          I did google it dumbass, that’s exactly how I found the abstract that I shared.

          “As to the difference in tense….”

          The change was from expressing a possibly but not certainly to expressing a fact in a past tense, that’s not changing tense. Try again.

          “Did you know that until 2015 there wasn’t an actual study done of the carcinogenic properties of processed meats? But it came out, and lo and behold: Bologna isn’t good for you. Did we only learn in 2015 that bologna was bad for us, or did we always know it, and it was only peer reviewed in 2015?”

          That reads like some kind of rationalization. Do you actually think that because a bologna study “proved” what we assumed might be true that we are supposed to blindly accept that maybe always means you should present it as a proven fact? If that’s what you think I can’t help you.

          “People in control groups are literally peeing toxic levels of lead, and you don’t think it’s related to the E-cigarettes and vapes because the studies won’t take a definitive position.”

          You can assume all you want that the only reason those people might be or are peeing toxic levels of lead is e-cigarettes and vapes, I’m not stupid enough to make such blind assumptions either way without seeing all the data in the study.

          How about I make an assumption too; I assume that you haven’t read ANY of the studies in their entirety and you’re just going on someone’s synopsis.

          “But on contemplation, the evidence leads me to think that unless they’re using it as a method of smoking cessation, I would probably try to convince loved ones not to use those products, and I won’t touch them with a ten foot pole.”

          Now you and I are in complete agreement. I too wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole plus they are not allowed to be used in either my home or vehicles, banned the use just like I did tobacco. 

          • “Now you and I are in complete agreement. I too wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole plus they are not allowed to be used in either my home or vehicles, banned the use just like I did tobacco. ”

            You just spent…. I don’t even want to think about all the time, telling me that you were disagreeing with my assumptions (and I was always very clear that they were assumptions all the way through), disagreement including the first five paragraphs of this…. To tell me that even though you’re pretty sure I’m wrong, that you personally are going to act as if I were right.

            Lord on his throne, you moron, the hell is your point then? If you think I’ve just been spouting gibberish, that I’m obviously reading these studies wrong, that I’m overreacting, and that I have no point, then why on Earth would you not even allow them in your house?

            • “If you think I’ve just been spouting gibberish, that I’m obviously reading these studies wrong, that I’m overreacting, and that I have no point, then why on Earth would you not even allow them in your house?”

              You’re reading the actual studies, please provide a link to a complete study PDF of just one of the studies you’ve read in full. That a PDF of the entire study, right from the original conception. I’ll hold my breath.

              By the way, moron, your logic is a failure.

              What I choose for my home and vehicles is in no way related to your nonsense or our conversation at all; I simply don’t want the smoke, the smell, or the lingering residue from either the cigarettes or the vapes all over my shit and if you can’t pull your head out of your arse long enough to understand that simple point then you’re the moron not me. Point of fact: I don’t give a rats ass what you or anyone else chooses to do in your home or vehicles as it relates to smoking or vaping or any other drugs.

              You’re starting to sound a LOT like one of the imbeciles I used to converse with over at Madison.com years ago; many of his arguments were illogical deflections like a fart-in-the-wind too.

              Bite me.

  10. (3) This is a state institution and a federal nonprofit that receives federal funds. If they are stating (and I think they already have) that only Democratic voters are welcome on their campus, why hasn’t action been taken. It is against IRS rules to take sides in elections (which they clearly have in the past). Why is a state institution receiving taxpayer money allowed to serve a single political party? I’m sure there is a law somewhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.