"My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. "
"If a personâs ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. "
Opportunistic radicalism and rigid agenda mindsets powered by electronic media will become increasingly portentous of violent confrontation and vengeful perpetuation... As the world turns so do the screws, selfish concerns signaling impassioned arrows to this arc or that. Fear. Anger. Hatred. Self righteousness. Pride. All futility. All vanity. All saturating. All evolving.
That article actually raises more questions than it answers. But the bottom line is that men who ejaculate more often (whether with a partner or alone) generally have a higher sex drive, which means higher testosterone levels - and that's where more clinical studies indicate the increased incidence of prostate cancer stems from. Now, I'm not a doctor, but 1) my father died of prostate cancer which metastasized to his spine, and 2) I spent six years working for a small pharma that specialized in oncology, so I've seen a *lot* of the literature, not to mention my father's case.
But, back to your concerns: why is it that if I think smoking is a bad idea, but have no objections to your smoking (as long as it's not in my house), I'm being intolerant?
Ummm... I never said that. What I said was that sometimes what is held to be only 'sensible' is, nonetheless, intolerance. You know, like inter-racial marriages were, at one time, considered to not be sensible, that is, they ran against the grain of the then-current cultural view of what was acceptable. A blanket derogation of one person's choice to smoke, without a fuller understanding of what the componenets of that choice are (if you would but read through my last few posts on this topic), nor even a willingness to give oepn-minded consideration of that persons's views and choices, is itself evidence of prejudice.
*edit* sorry, I posted that without editing my grammar and spellllloing.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jan 26, 2009 - 12:49pm
jadewahoo wrote:
Again, no doubt. Anything we do increases our risk of some health disorder, form the food we eat to the amount of sex we, as men, hve in oour early 20's (more sex = higher incidence of prostate cancer in later life. This includes masturbation). So, shall we all agree that it is healthier to not fuck, eat, drink or smoke? I thought so. Ok, so we choose our experience of life. and each one has its consequences. Like I said before, I choose to avoid the cities whenever possible. The major benefit that brings to the health of my lungs is one factor that allows me the greater freedom of choicer as to puffing a tobacco. I personally have no need to defend my choice. I have only sought to bring forth a consideration that what so many hold as to be 'sensible' is in fact intolerance.
That article actually raises more questions than it answers. But the bottom line is that men who ejaculate more often (whether with a partner or alone) generally have a higher sex drive, which means higher testosterone levels - and that's where more clinical studies indicate the increased incidence of prostate cancer stems from. Now, I'm not a doctor, but 1) my father died of prostate cancer which metastasized to his spine, and 2) I spent six years working for a small pharma that specialized in oncology, so I've seen a *lot* of the literature, not to mention my father's case.
But, back to your concerns: why is it that if I think smoking is a bad idea, but have no objections to your smoking (as long as it's not in my house), I'm being intolerant?
