Europe may actually ban neonicanoids

[xoxoxoBruce]

Complete bullshit. Every smoker, and I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health. They didn't need the Surgeon General to tell them that, they could feel it. Anyone who's smoked for a year, or more, knows exactly what I'm talking about, regardless of what they say in court.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Complete bullshit. Every smoker, and I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health.

True because you feel it is true? A classic example of feelings that contradict facts from history. A classic example that explains why so many Germans knew Jews were vermon.

In 1946, RJ Reynolds began a six year advertising campaign that said , “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” A typical advertisement claimed 113597 doctors “from every branch of medicine,” smoked Camels. Camel then cited the T zone (mouth) as proof. Camel claimed their cigarettes tasted better. Because they said so, then many believed a better taste. It increased sales.

Viceroy advertised, "As your Denist, I recommend Viceroys." They quoted Dentists. Lucky Strike claimed a toasting process decreased throat irratation. With Walter Winchell (famous newsman and the voice of The Untouchables) promoting it without public objection.

Phillip Morris claimed that diethylene-glycol made their cigarettes moister and less irritating than other brands. Somehow injections into rabbit eyes proved their products were healthier (as if diethylene-glycol creates health). Camel then claimed their slower burning cigarettes were even healthier. By 1954, L&M filter cigarettes used the famous expression, "Just what the doctor ordered". Then Kent advertised microfilters. More reasons why cigarettes are so safe. All outright lies without any outcry or public denial. Because the majority *knew* smoking increased health. LSMFT - Lucky Strike means fine tobacco. Jack Benny said so. So it was true.

After 1950, Readers Digest (and medical publications in the US and UK) reported cigarettes were dangerous. A temporary sales decrease resulted. Followed in 1954 by strongly increasing sales since a majority routinely believe advertising and propaganda - not science. How can this be since Bruce says "I mean every damn one, knew smoking wasn't good for their health". Well they could have known. They should have known. But a majority are that easily brainwashed - facts be damned.

Yes, facts said tobacco clearly kills. Nobody here disputes that. A 2014 observer would assume everyone *knew* that. 'Assume' rather than learn from history. A 2014 observer forgets a majority are easily brainwashed by advertising, hearsay, myths, and lies. A majority with facts will still often believe myths. Facts say a majority should have known the science; and still believed smoking increases health. Does not matter what they could have know. Relevent here is why so many are so easily brainwashed by lies that contradict facts and numbers.

How many believe a plug-in surge protector myth? Existance of one in your house demonstrates the power of brainwashing (propaganda).

Some today know that must be wrong only because they *know* people could not be that easily manipulated. For the same reason so many knew Saddam did not have WMDs? Or that torture is good and useful? Examples of 'knowledge' based only in emotions - facts be damned. That is brainwashing. It works.

xoxoxoBruce accurately states that many 'should' have known cigarettes are hazardous. Yes, facts said so; without doubt. But his speculation does not prove a fact. So many are emotional; not logical. So many are easily brainwashed by hearsay, advertising, and propaganda; by the first thing they are told. That reality does not change because one dislikes it. Just because everyone should have known does not mean they did. So many will believe spin, myths, and lies rather than facts and numbers. Most knew cigarettes promoted health even though science had said otherwise. What one should know is often trumped by emotions. A majority 'knew' cigarettes increased health.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You always ask for proof of the improvable, but anyone who smoked knows exactly what I'm talking about, and you are moot.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... but anyone who smoked knows exactly what I'm talking about, and you are moot.

If your poorly explained reasoning made sense, then no one would try cigarettes. Then 40% of the under 30 year olds would not be smoking. Despite your feelings, advertising and other forms of brainwashing are that effective.

Denying it because you 'feel' proves nothing. Your 'feelings' cannot explain an increasing number of young adults who now start smoking. Your 'feelings' are contradicted by the overwhelming numbers of 1950s smokers who knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Your denials contradict the evidence. But you know because you 'feel'. And that is the point. You demonstrate why advertising works. It easily manipulates the many who know only from what they feel.

It is only 'improvable' because your denials are contrary to facts, examples, and what professionals knew even in the 1950s. It is only 'improvable' because your knowledge instead comes from emotion. Emotion that explains why brainwashing works.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Keep telling yourself that.