Posts by Joseph Watson3

Something’s broken when it comes to reporting private messages. I’ve got some troll flooding my inbox with nothing but insults and spam—and every single time I try to submit a report, the server just hits me with a "504 Gateway Timeout." 🤷

Raymond Castillo said:Have you ever noticed that when you squint or look at a light source through your eyelashes—like a round chandelier or sunlight hitting your lashes—you often see these tiny structures? Depending on how you focus, they look like little grains or fibers floating around.

It feels like there might be dust particles sitting right on the surface of the eye, I guess.

Does anyone know how to explain this phenomenon?

Those are probably just floaters—basically tiny bits of debris drifting around inside your vitreous humor. It’s a pretty common thing to deal with, and honestly, they usually don't point to any actual medical issues.

brightstag9 said:That PubMed snippet you posted is just an abstract—there isn't even a link to the full study. And honestly, I don't see anything in that summary regarding fathers or grandfathers...

That’s not about genetics; it’s more likely just the statistical probability after years of smoking. It seems like you can't be bothered to type a few words into Google, let alone follow two consecutive posts. Not exactly the most efficient way to actually learn something, is it? 😉

brightstag9 said:Just tell me—where exactly did you pull those numbers from? I'm genuinely curious.
As for the bolded part: using the phrase "shoving it down your throat" feels a bit much when we're talking about smoking, don't you think? 😬

I pulled all those figures straight from medical literature. They aren't exactly hard to find if you just Google them.

Angela Wright said:It’s basically reverse psychology—something smokers lean on to soothe their own consciences and justify their habits. It isn't necessarily about being an idiot, though idiocy certainly paves the way toward addiction. Besides, your statistics are slightly off—I think they're closer to 20%—but you wouldn't believe why. It's only because cardiovascular disease takes the lead, hitting people with heart attacks or strokes before cancer even gets a chance. Looking at current trends, one in three Americans alive today will deal with cancer—pretty encouraging, isn't it?🙂 So, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular issues and cancer are neck-and-neck in a dead heat.
What actually worries me is the rise in rare tumors, like sarcomas and brain tumors, where we still know next to nothing about the underlying causes.

p.s. You didn't actually mention if you're a smoker or not.😉

Here is the link, take a look. For men, the risk is 17.2%; for women, it's 11.6%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211

I didn't specify whether I smoke because, frankly, it's irrelevant. But just for you—I've never smoked. In fact, smokers irritate me quite a bit; I'd personally vote for a strict ban on smoking in all indoor public spaces and even at bus stops. That doesn't mean I have to spout nonsense that isn't true, though. As it turns out, you seem to be wrong on two counts. 😉

Angela Wright said:I think I understood you correctly, and there’s really no reason for us to be getting offended here. I’m working with people who are actively fighting their own bad habits, and I brought this up as a textbook example of how data can be manipulated just to justify oneself. For instance, a friend of mine who works as a graphic editor at a major publishing house told me that while editing a book, she came across a stat claiming nicotine addiction is the second strongest addiction after heroin—and she used that to claim she couldn't quit smoking, despite the fact she’s never even touched heroin. She isn't denying the harm or the statistics; she’s just twisting them to excuse her own inability to quit.

😁 Oh, I understood you just fine—especially that last percentage you mentioned, which, unfortunately for all smokers, is being totally misinterpreted.
The reality is that when it comes to lung cancer rates, we are the second highest nation in Europe. Only Turks have worse numbers than us. About 80% of all lung cancer cases involve smokers. Out of all types of cancer, 25% are directly caused by smoking. In the US, roughly 23,000 people get cancer annually, and about 13,000 die from it, so do the math 😢. Sadly, those are the statistical and clinical realities; everything else is just addicts deluding themselves. 👎

You didn't understand a single thing; you're just talking nonsense and putting words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said.

In what universe does a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death due to smoking count as an "excuse" for smoking? If you can't grasp the probability involved—and therefore interpret my statement about "smoking or not" as an excuse—that’s a matter of your own cognitive limitations, but the fact remains.

Let me lay it out for you: people with a family history of cancer have double the risk, whether they smoke or not. For those who actually smoke, that risk is multiplied by 9 or 10 times. If that sounds like an excuse to you, then I can't help you, because you seem to lack the ability to connect sentences into a coherent thought.

By the way, that figure of 17% of smokers developing cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, given that it's absolutely devastating for smokers. I don't think any other human activity (aside from maybe organized crime) carries a 17% chance of ending in a painful death. Again, if someone manages to misinterpret that, they're a pretty significant idiot.

Angela Wright said:This whole "to smoke or not to smoke" debate feels like it's coming from someone who’s already lighting up—someone just looking for an excuse to keep at it. I mean, if they can just blame a bad gene for any potential cancer, why bother quitting? It’s the perfect loophole, isn't it? 😉

That’s not even close—you’re just completely misreading what was written. I told him that if he smokes, his chances of developing cancer jump to about 50%, compared to only 3.5% if he doesn't. And you’re actually concluding from that that I'm justifying smoking? Give me a break. 🤦

Angela Wright said:So, it turns out genes aren't the ultimate deciding factor—it’s more about how we actually interact with the DNA we’re carrying. Is it really just fate, or is it what we do with it?

It’s not like our habits are the only thing at play here—for instance, smoking only accounts for about 17% of cancer cases. At the end of the day, cancer is driven by a massive web of different factors, each one contributing its own little slice to the probability of it happening. But I suppose that kind of nuanced concept is a bit too complicated for most people to wrap their heads around, isn't it?

Grace Campbell88 said:I wasn't just talking about smoking—triggers can come from all sorts of other things or aspects. It’s pretty obvious that if you take two people who both have a father with cancer, but they live completely different lifestyles, hold different mindsets, eat differently, live in different climates, or generally "consume" life in totally different ways, their chances of developing cancer won't be the same.

Besides, there's actual scientific research on cancer and adopted children—and when it comes to the diseases they develop, most of them "picked up" those illnesses from their adoptive parents rather than their biological ones. That doesn't exactly scream "genetic predisposition," does it?

Did I ever actually say that lifestyle isn't a major factor?

Do you actually read for comprehension? A genetic predisposition for cancer simply means your intrinsic risk is higher. If you take one group of people whose fathers had cancer and compare them to a group whose fathers didn't, assuming everything else stays exactly the same, the first group is going to have significantly higher odds of getting cancer.

Grace Campbell88 said:That’s not really the point. You don't inherit cancer itself—you inherit a predisposition toward it—and that predisposition is often triggered by how you live. If he hadn't smoked, there's a very good chance he wouldn't have developed it; that's just an example.
What we're discussing here is specifically "smoker's cancer"—the kind caused strictly by cigarettes.

Smoker's cancer isn't just about the cigarettes, though—genetics still play a massive role in the equation. If someone has a family history of lung cancer, their odds of developing it essentially double, regardless of whether they ever picked up a pack or not.

Grace Campbell88 said:Are you actually suggesting that because my grandfather and father both died of cancer—one definitely from smoking, though we aren't 100% sure about the other—and because I quit smoking myself, I somehow have a better than 50% chance of getting sick? Or is it just if I smoke? Or if I don't smoke? 😕

The way I see it, that’s not how this works at all. If you're a heavy smoker and end up with lung cancer, and it's determined that smoking was the cause, then—by definition—you got cancer because of the cigarettes. If you aren't a smoker, your chances of developing that specific issue are significantly lower since you've removed the primary driver. What does heredity even matter here if, say, your father got cancer because he was a chain smoker, but you've never touched a cigarette? How can we conclude that you could "trigger" a predisposition to "earn" cancer?

I mean, give me a break. It's all just numbers and statistics. If someone smokes heavily, their chances of developing cancer increase—whether that's through physical damage or abusing their body/mind in other ways. If they don't, the odds are lower because those factors aren't in play.

If you aren't a smoker, your risk of lung cancer is roughly 1.3%. If your father had cancer, those odds essentially double.

And according to your logic, the Sun could be orbiting a flat Earth, but that doesn't change reality. The numbers don't lie.

Eric Hall51 said:I can't stop thinking about the fact that both my dad and my paternal grandfather dealt with cancer. My dad first had this tiny patch of jaw cancer—just a few millimeters—but then, after he passed, the autopsy revealed a 7 cm tumor in his lungs. My grandfather also had lung cancer and died from it. Both of them were smokers, and honestly, I smoke too. Now I’m wondering: what are the actual odds that I’ll end up with cancer? And is it even worth stressing over it if I don't try to quit smoking?🤷..........thanks

It isn't exactly hard to run the math here. For lifelong smokers, the risk of developing lung cancer sits at around 17.2%. If you have a parent who had lung cancer, that risk effectively doubles to 34.4%. Add a grandfather into the mix who also had it? That risk climbs even higher—likely north of 50%.

The numbers are real, so you can decide for yourself if you want to spend your life worrying about a fifty-percent chance of a miserable death.

Compared to a real espresso, everything else is just total garbage. You aren't getting any actual extraction without at least 15 bars of pressure—you can tell by that thick, velvety crema sitting right on top.

Beyond that, Turkish Coffee is decent enough, though I much prefer the authentic stuff—where you pour the grounds into cold water—over those watered-down versions you find lying around.

As for Nescafe, the standard stuff tastes like an oil byproduct, but Nescafe espresso is actually pretty alright; if you cram a few extra spoonfuls into a tiny bit of water, you can actually trick yourself into thinking you're drinking real coffee.

Every single time you trolls start talking, God kills a kitten.

redmarlin3 said:bluewalker33, you seriously have the best handle on this entire forum. I actually lost it when I first saw it. 🤣 🙏 🙏 🙏

Anyway. Are we all certain that everyone actually "hears" the words they read in their head? Like, as a sound, for example?
Because me, honestly, I could spend all day reading, but I don't hear a single thing, I swear... 🤷

I’d argue that the ones who "hear" it are either kids still learning or people who don't read much at all. Then you have the group below them—the ones who actually move their lips while they go through a page.

I suspect that with enough practice, reading should eventually become "untethered" from vocalization altogether. 🤷

placidjackal36 said:It’s like when people look at hieroglyphics; their brain basically "hears" a translation instantly. Even when we're scanning through a long block of text—which usually happens way too fast to actually hear a distinct voice in our heads, unlike just glancing at a few isolated words—we still "hear" it somehow. It's just wired into us. It’s one of those things that developed when we were toddlers, and now it’s so subconscious we don't even think twice about it while reading.

How exactly do you know they're hearing a translation in their heads? Take road signs, for instance; when I see one, there isn't some internal monologue translating the symbols—I just get the meaning instantly. It’s the same deal with math.

Unless by "wired," you really mean "learned." And if I had to guess, that part becomes almost entirely subconscious after you've spent enough time reading...

David Morgan72 said:But how do you read then?? I mean, if you are reading internally, you still have to "hear" your own voice...

hollowwolf9 has raised a compelling question (and I must concur, he chose a rather poor title for this topic 😛).
We are all familiar with the Wernicke area of the brain, responsible for the intellectual components of speech and writing (and since deaf individuals can certainly learn to write), as well as the Brooke area, which handles speech motor skills... there were previous studies where researchers hypothesized that people actually speak while they think, a notion they claimed was confirmed by minute micro-movements of the vocal organs—though, if you ask me, that whole theory is built on very thin ice.
This brings us directly to the dilemma regarding deaf individuals—specifically those who have never heard, the deaf from birth—because one cannot possibly claim they do not think; yet, since they could not have acquired the motor skills for vocalization simply by osmosis, they effectively debunk the claims made by those scientists.
How is this possible? 😕

The most prudent course of action would be to ask a deaf person 🤷

I don't. I read just like most people—I scan a sentence and grasp the meaning. What does that have to do with spoken language?

People can read hieroglyphics without "hearing" Ancient Egyptian in their heads, right? And when you look at a math equation, you understand the logic without any internal monologue.

And who actually thinks in speech? (I assume you mean that, given you're bringing up deafness rather than language)

Speech is a process that kicks in right before you actually intend to say something—something a deaf person obviously doesn't do. Honestly, I don't even hear a voice in my head when I'm reading, so why would I bother doing it while I think?

mellowseal27 said:Oh, please—I have absolutely no idea what you mean by calling people "homebody psychos."🙄

Actually, the whole Association (except for DiK, obviously) and Moda are the real lunatics here.🤷

No, really—the crowd that refers to their pets as "baby boy," "little girl," "mommy," or "daddy"—the ones pulling all-nighters waiting for a terrified cat to emerge from a bush, or the ones attacking a woman just because she said Rex needs to be put down since she can't drop $10,000 at a vet clinic in New York City? Those people aren't psychos. 😁

The list of psycho subforums is way too long:

Weddings, Politics, Spirituality, Religion, Alternative Living, Current Events, Parenting & Pregnant Women, Expat Life, Pets, and Off Topic.

The absolute most unhinged ones have to be Weddings, Pregnant Women, and Pets—which isn't exactly a shocker, given they're all clearly connected. 😁

ambermason16 said:You just give them a smack behind the ear, flip the little monkey over, and settle them down with three solid hits—two on the right, one on the left. Everything else is just extra credit.

I love proving the skeptics wrong. 😁

I absolutely loathe animal abusers. I’d subject them to the most brutal methods imaginable, heal them up, and then fillet them all over again.

So, we're just torturing people who are likely suffering from actual mental illness now?

It’s pretty easy to vent your rage on someone when you aren't even bothering to understand their struggle or their state of mind—isn't it? It’s the exact same logic used by the guy who kicked that cat.