MOST CORRUPT -> tobaccoStart A New Topic | Reply
Post InfoTOPIC: tobacco
Posted By: liquor before beer

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 826
RE: tobacco

OMG - you are seriously THICK HEADED!

"LBB: "Whether or not a particular cigarette has 600 or so ingredients is irrelevant"
--No, it's the FOUNDATION of your original claim. YOU claimed that Marlboro puts 600+ ingredients into every cigarette. I'm refuting that."

That was NOT the FOUNDATION of my original post -it was simply used to ILLUSTRATE THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF ADDITIVES IN A TYPICAL CIGARETTE!!! It was SUPPORTED by a link to a webiste that explained it. The webiste NEVER mentions ANYTHING ANYWHERE about it being a cumulative list, but it doesn't EVEN FREAKIN MATTER! THE POINT YET AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME IS THAT TOBACCO COMPANIES DO NOT SELL A PURE PRODCUT AND THAT ADDITIVES ARE USED TO MAKE IT MORE ADDICTIVE!!!!!!

"Can you accept the fact that since your list required the submissions of SEVERAL various companies that perhaps it's just a cumulative list of all POTENTIAL ingredients?"

Sure, I can accept that - but IT DOESN'T MATTER - YET AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted By: Meko

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 825
RE: tobacco

Nik, you are still avoiding the fact that they are corrupt, regardless of 599 chemicals. They are corrupt in lobbying, advertising, production, distribution... this list goes on and on. No one person can truly identify what organization or person is MOST corrupt as there are too many factors involved. It’s all a matter of opinion as to who or what is MOST corrupt. However, it is fact that tobacco companies are extremely corrupt.

And Nik : My point of who said what was just simply to show that your nik-picking is ridiculous. I could care less if it was “most” or “so”.

FTR, you are in denial that tobacco is corrupt.


Posted By: Beerliquor

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 811
RE: tobacco

Daisy - You can trust me! I don't smoke or drink at all..."Beer" is my hon-ay! ; )


Posted By: Nik Ashmost

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 808
RE: tobacco

LBB's original statement(C&P'd word for word):
"It would be one thing if the tocacco industry made pure cigarettes, free of the extra chemicals and additives that make them even more addictive. That's my beef with the industry. Perhaps so many of the people who are addicted to cigarettes today wouldn't be if the Marlboro man wasn't adding 600+ additional chemicals to those things." (isn't this your FOUNDATION?)

Ok, in response I questioned the claim you made right there that Marlboro was adding 600+ chemicals to it's cigarettes. Ok? Following do far? You went on to paste a link to some list on a site advertising a nicotine inhaler to aid in quitting smoking. (naturally biased since they want you to give up smoking in favor of their product). But ok, there's a long list alright, just as I asked for.

I responded by then pointing out that that list was:
A. Cumulative and simply the added sum of several companies and what they put in several different brands/flavors. (look closely, this fact is obvious)
B. Not 600+ (sorry, you DID say 600+ which is what I originally questioned, picky or not, you exaggerated the fact...much like truth.com) See the relavence? You CORRUPTED facts to fit your claim.
C. Not entirely a list of "dangerous chemicals" as you posted it as proof of. Sure, there are bad things in cigarettes, I never said there aren't. But isn't adding things like WATER to that list really just a way of making it a bigger list?

Then YOU chose to drag things off topic and away from your original "Marlboro = 600+ chemicals" claim. Wonder why ;)

Have fun. You fail my fellow thick-headed friend.

just in case you skimmed again:
*the website you posted doesn't blatantly mention it as being a cumulative list. You're right, but the list of "contributing companies" tells the observant reader that it's a compilation. Not an "every cigarette" list. Ok?


And for Meko...
I'll grant you that. Yes, tobacco companies are not the most honest and loving companies. They do some things behind closed doors that a 1000 other companies also do. Absolutely. They are NOT innocent. My original question was for mark, to explain why tobacco companies are so corrupt. I apologize for not repeating the name of the topic verbatim as "most". I do still say they are not the MOST corrupt. Ok?


Posted By: Nik Ashmost

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 807
RE: tobacco

LBB says:
"THE POINT YET AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME IS THAT TOBACCO COMPANIES DO NOT SELL A PURE PRODCUT AND THAT ADDITIVES ARE USED TO MAKE IT MORE ADDICTIVE!!!!!!"

Wait, that's not your original claim. That's not your original point. I just pasted your original point in my previous post. You claimed & tried to back up some 600+ statement as fact. Way to try twisting it ;)

Maybe Meko will get mad at you now, like he/she did at me for saying SO instead of MOST.
LOL


Posted By: Observer

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 805
RE: tobacco

Jeez, maybe for you guys, these forums are more addictive than tobacco could ever be!


Posted By: Liquor before beer

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 802
RE: tobacco

"Ok, in response I questioned the claim you made right there that Marlboro was adding 600+ chemicals to it's cigarettes. Ok? Following do far? You went on to paste a link to some list on a site advertising a nicotine inhaler to aid in quitting smoking. (naturally biased since they want you to give up smoking in favor of their product). But ok, there's a long list alright, just as I asked for."

Yeah, I also said the Marlboro "man" added 600 chemicals. Did you take that so literally? that one man named Marlboro added 600 chemicals to a cigarette all by his lonesome? According to your strict interpretation of my comments, that should have been a complaint from you as well. Also, it was from About.com and the subject was quitting smoking. How is that so biased? Who cartes anyway, I could have cited 45,000 other documents produced by google. I think anyone with a well functioning brain got the jist of what I was trying to convey. This is really becoming pointless.

I responded by then pointing out that that list was:
A. Cumulative and simply the added sum of several companies and what they put in several different brands/flavors. (look closely, this fact is obvious)

that can be argued...and quite frankly, with a little research you could probably find that 95% of the ingredients on that list are found in ALL cigarettes. These things aren't cars - most cigarette brands are the same. Are you really basing your debate on minor symantics? This is REALLY getting ridiculous.

B. Not 600+ (sorry, you DID say 600+ which is what I originally questioned, picky or not, you exaggerated the fact...much like truth.com) See the relavence? You CORRUPTED facts to fit your claim.

You have a serious problem. What are you, 10?

C. Not entirely a list of "dangerous chemicals" as you posted it as proof of. Sure, there are bad things in cigarettes, I never said there aren't. But isn't adding things like WATER to that list really just a way of making it a bigger list?

Ok....598 ingredients instead of 599. Your whole debate is centered around water. WEAK!!

Then YOU chose to drag things off topic and away from your original "Marlboro = 600+ chemicals" claim. Wonder why ;)

No I didn't. The whole point of my argument was that tobacco compaines add things to cigarettes to make them more addictive. Does your brain process ANY information at all?


Any more WEAK statements you'd like me to shoot down? You're just proving to all how truly ridiculous you really are. get some help. Fast.


Posted By: Dave

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 794
RE: tobacco

First off daisy I feel yer ****in pain with the censorship. its just about ****in bull**** to me. anyway I just wanted to say i am sick and tired of LBB`s ****. I will explain it now.

Ok some ****in genious out there had this ****in brilliant idia to turn over a ****ing prophit so he made his product addicting. big ****in deal. So it kills a few people. what doesnt. Its not the leading cause of death. Just lay the **** off you lesbian. and dont play it off like your not a ****in lesbian cause yer all the same. Big fat ass lesbians that just run there ****in mouth cause there hella insecure. ****in lesbian.

They pay off lawsuits because they have hearts of gold. not cause there hiding anything. They just got big ol hearts of gold. And it got that way by running probally the most succesfull buisness out there.

The whole ****ing point is they are not currupt. If they were they wouldnt have put that ****in list of ingrediants in the first place. They are not hiding anything, they put health labels on there product and they dont run adds provocitive to children like alcohal comercials. they just ****ing sell a product, and they are doing a damn good job. They dont ****ing trick people into smoking or ****ing lie about what the ****'s going on. They just say it like it is. so there it is. my 2 ****ing cents. so back the **** off lesbian


Posted By: Meko

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 791
RE: tobacco

Tobacco is extremely corrupt.

If you had read what I wrote you would see that I was only displaying how ridiculous nik-picking is. The fact that you said "SO" instead of "MOST" still has no bearing on weather Tobacco is corrupt or not. And since you obviously didn’t get the first time, I’ll repeat:

Nik, you are still avoiding the fact that they are corrupt, regardless of 599 chemicals. They are corrupt in lobbying, advertising, production, distribution... this list goes on and on. No one person can truly identify what organization or person is MOST corrupt as there are too many factors involved. It’s all a matter of opinion as to who or what is MOST corrupt. However, it is fact that tobacco companies are extremely corrupt.

And Nik : My point of who said what was just simply to show that your nik-picking is ridiculous. I could care less if it was “most” or “so”.

FTR, you are in denial that tobacco is EXTREMELY corrupt.


Who is the MOST Nik WHO? Does anyone really know?


Dave, what do lesbians have to do with it?


Posted By: Harry Pillcrusher

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 782
RE: tobacco

Lesbians always smoke cigarettes after their hot muff-diving sex. Lesbians will live longer than non-smokers because they gain valuable life-enhancing benefits from eating poon-tang. Cigarettes and poon-tang. You asked for the fountain of youth and you found it.


Posted By: dave

Posted On: Mar 18, 2004
Views: 779
RE: tobacco

well miko, Lesbians are ****ing ludicris. they just sit around and eat the pooneytang. And bitch...ohhhh how they bitch...anyway. Tobacco is not ****ing corrupt. They dont force people to smoke. they dont even ****ing advertise anymore. People smoke by choice.
They are just running an honest buisness. A mom and pop store type organisation that is just out to make an honest buck. and i am ****ing appauled at the fact that you would consider them anything less.
Man all you non smokers need to jus shut the **** up. If thats supposed to be modivation to quit smoking i think im gunna go get another ****ing carton so i can hopefully die faster. **** I will smoke soley to be the complete opposite of your skank ass. You are the ****ing best thing to ever happen to "big tobacco companys". Smoke or youll end up like me. **** that give me a cigerette.


Posted By: your momma

Posted On: Mar 19, 2004
Views: 773
RE: tobacco

eh....I'd take a joint over a butt any day. those things are just nasty.


Posted By: Beerliquor

Posted On: Mar 19, 2004
Views: 767
RE: tobacco

I have a lesbian friend that never eats pooneytang! She is the "fem" and her girlfriend wears the strap-on (and eats the pooneytang). I thought that seemed so unfair to the "butch" one! Oh, she doesn't smoke and all, but she bitches all the freakin' time!

Dave - You were cracking me up big time! This strain has gotten out of control, maybe we should all discuss abortion now...


Posted By: Meko

Posted On: Mar 19, 2004
Views: 764
RE: tobacco

Totally out of control... how about capitol punishment or the right for lesbians to marry.


Posted By: some guy

Posted On: Mar 19, 2004
Views: 788
RE: tobacco

74 responses....a new record? this is crazy!


Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next Page ->