Posted by lc bob on May 25, 1999 at 19:02:04:
In Reply to: Spin Doctoring posted by Jack Boyd on May 25, 1999 at 07:59:25:
so ... what does that say? a higher percentage of us are male than the percentage of us who smoke or drink ... but the last time i looked, there were roughly an equal number of males and females around.
being male is as significant as being a drinker or smoker. how does that help us find a cure?
these numbers only reinforce lazy scientists who'd rather tell us to quit smoking, drinking, or standing to pee than earning their diplomas and determining the real cause of the plague. it's easier for them to tell us to quit an activity than it is for them to start one.
the point of the survey results is precisely their insignificance.
-lcb
how do you suppose the first figure (1/3) is arrived at? is some dude walking the streets with a clipboard counting smokers? is there another trusty "impartial" survey? are the statisticians capable of Vulcan MindMeld?
or, my dear logical ppl, is this the likely supposition born of easily, cheaply obtainable california cigarette sales figures?
now, the only possible cause for lower cigarette sales is a reduction in smoking, right? right. noone has opted to find a way to buy out of state cigarettes instead of paying california's 17 cents per cigarette charge. they quit smoking instead.
wanna buy a bridge? how about some bullshit?
the fact that more of us smoke is conceivably as much a lifestyle statement as it is a smoking statement.
ok. lots of us smoke. lots of us are in a higher intelligence quotient, too (stats from the only other CH survey i've seen online that is now defunct) ... but while it's politically correct to indict smoking as contributing to CH, i doubt the same charge would be made against intelligence. the percentage of males is higher than the percentage of smokers or the percentage of drinkers. choose a position:
1. there is something about being a smoker/male that inclines them