Why do people post things with no facts/support/proof?
May 28, 2009 3:17pm CST
On a news site, someone went off about a smoking ban saying that second hand smoke ISN'T harmful for our health and we shouldn't fight for a smoking ban. This person went on to say: "Even the World Health Organization, after numerous studies, has stated that there is no statistical correlation between second-hand smoke and health effects; and may in fact have a protective effect. WAKE UP TO THE FACTS!!!' What? Would the WHO really say that second hand smoking is fine? I, of course, don't believe outrageous statements like that without research. So I went to the source... http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/faq/en/index.html As I suspected, the WHO is actually claiming MANY negative effects of second hand smoke as you can see in the link. Yet that idiot above probably convinced a few other people that second hand smoke isn't harmful. They didn't convince me, I did my research, but some people will take a strong statement like that and just believe it. And why would he write that anyway? Does he truly believe it or did he just make it up? This is the trouble with the internet sometimes. People can post whatever they want without facts/proof/links to support it, and other people buy into it so easily. Do you do your research before believing a comment made on the internet? People here are anonymous and can say whatever they want, so why is it that others out on the internet will BELIEVE anything that ANYONE posts? Do you know any gullible people who buy into comments without doing their research? How can we stop the spreading of idiot statements on the web???
• New Zealand
2 Jun 09
Interesting... I can't stand any of the SHS surveys because they entertain the idiots by stating the blooming obvious YES In an enclosed enviroment, an individual is going to be affected by the atmosphere, it doesn't matter if the person is smoking or not. In an open area, the likelihood of you being exposed to second hand smoke is ZERO, unless you are sitting on top of the person breathing it in. Then again, only a complete moron would believe thier a no ill affects from secong hand smoking. So where is the "truth"? The truth is.... Anti-Smokers will campaign that second hand smoking is bad, which it is, but will not disclose the facts that they are quoting from a "controlled enviroment" Smokers will campaign that you are more likely to get cancer related diseases based on genetics and not smoking, which for thier part is actually factual but not truthful. As for me? I'm a smoker, and I completely support all moves to eliminate smoking in enclosed enviroments. While it is my choice to smoke, I also have the option to walk outside, which I do, to puff up. Then again, so does the non-smoker have the choice to walk outside... BUT..... Often children don't...
• United States
29 May 09
It wasn't on mylot, it was instead a comment on a news story which bugs me because those usually go unmonitored. I don't usually post ANY facts - even if I'm 99% sure about it - until I find a source online that I can link to. If I'm not sure, I'll post "i think" or something similar to show it's just my thougts. But I would never claim that some big agency said something without proof.
• United States
30 May 09
Nope all I could do was comment back and the thing I noticed on news sites is they usually won't delete ANYthing people post. :( Well hopefully no one that comes across the article is dumb enough to believe that comment, especially now that mine is there with links that show how wrong it is