I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

A bit off topic, but what I don't get is how so many assholes think free speech is limited to their speech. Listen to the idiot at 8:25.
"I don't think people are entitled to complain..." then he launches into a holier-than-thou speech about "free speech." What the fuck? Does complaining somehow NOT qualify as free speech?
Like half* the clips are this shit. "People don't laugh," "They don't like my offensive joke." Free speech is that you get to say your stupid joke. Free speech is also that I get to say you're a simple-minded unfunny asshole and your mother is ashamed of you. Anything else isn't "free speech" dumbass. By definition you don't get to pick which speech is free and which isn't.

Nothing to do with the Mike Ward stuff, where the government steps in. That's a whole other kettle of fish.

*half. at least. Fuck you.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

Answer #1: I don't know what makes you a douchebag. I don't think "speaking out against" anything makes someone a douchebag. Telling me I'm an addict, a murderer, a RAPIST because I live and eat the way mankind has since before we made pictograms on cave walls? That's douchey. Trying to make your point by quoting people is no more effective than any other religious nut standing on a soap box.

Answer#2: Anyone can make a point by using hyperbole and extreme cases. Would I get pissed off if someone was using human toddlers, locked in black rooms, as a food source? Please. You do realize the issue between my view on food, and your view on food, is a mere distinction between what you and I consider sentience?

I'm against corporate food production. Corporations have a long and rich history of fucking humans over, I can only guess what they do to animals. I am vehemently opposed to unnecessary pain and suffering in any creature. Except pedophiles, rapists, Republicans, and those guys who flip you the bird when THEY have cut YOU off. We can do medical testing on them, no problem.

I guess you just will never understand, I don't particularly disagree with the message, just the messenger.

You can be described as "holier than thou", your arguments come from your feelings of elitism, superiority. Showing us how misguided and base we are. It's the reason why theists will never listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. (Conversely why atheists don't listen to theists either, truth be told.) They talk down to them as if they were idiots. They might BE idiots, but no one ever likes being called one.

You attack us and wonder why we get pissed off. THAT'S why you're a douchebag.

Elie Wiesel was talking about you, not us. We don't go around attacking vegans. We only react to their attacks on us. You are the oppressor here, the tormentor. I was fine before you started the name calling.

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

I would say that in general that both parties have extreme Members that do more harm to the public good and are more about lining their own pockets. The old timers time have come and do need to be replaced with those who reflect today's ideals. Harry Reid and John McCain types need to go.

Yes Republicans are the holier than thou and come up short often enough. We all fail from time to time but at least they try.
Democrats doesn't even try to be holy and to me that is frustrating.

The only good thing about our government is that the people are the final check and balance. However people are too busy being self absorb to pay attention to government. No one is watching the hen house.


The purpose of this video was for this man to show that the 7% of the black population who do not feel that the democrat philosophy is the correct way to go.

This is this mans opinion.
Granted the black face brings a stigma from yesterdays past.
But this is from a black man. He can get away with it. Like white people cant say N but the black man can and it is ok.

Since he does not hold the majority view as seen by his counterparts ( blacks and sifters )this video was discarded as racist trash.

I look at racist as one group feeling superior over another.
This black man is not doing this. He is not demonstrating this belief.


As far as the FU we all at times are quick to do this. I have done this also.

Enjoy the Superbowl

Since panthers are my home town team I will root for them tonight. Beside they have one heck of a season.

Oh yes, I fully agree with you there, no need to escalate the situation as far as they let it go, and indeed impossible to tell what started the whole debacle in the first place.

My guess is bit of unjustified holier than thou attitude, which seems to be the curse of the current day and age, from the unimpaired audience. There's no justification for belligerent drunken behaviour, but neither is there for not doing anything about it until it is too late when there seems to be time and chance to de-escalate the situation by more peaceful means.

But, alas, it's all just guesses with the information available.

I guess it's the holier-than-thou, condescending attitude over Lantern's just being wrong...

I agree on one item though, they are both ass beef.

http://videosift.com/video/Behold-the-mesmerising-power-of-UP-s-buxom-charm#comment-1266585

There are more than a couple others, but that's the one which was my "telephone pole that broke the camel's back".

Oh and, nice holier-than-thou title for an homage to sucking DeGrasse Tyson-san's dick this Science-Friday there, Professor Chaos , two thumbs down on your cellular device while driving....

I'M BETTER BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT SHIT. What a child. You gonna go emo it up and blog about the sheeple while you complain about everything and accomplish jack all? It's a tiny fucking town man, ANYTHING happening there is something to get excited about for us. So take your holier than thou and shove it up your whiny ass.

"But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd."

Sure everyone has their "exceptions."

"The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant."

Yes, totally irrelevant.

"business will continue a race to the bottom."

As well as all the individuals with their particular "exceptions."

"Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem"

Haha, that doesn't sound like real contrition to me!

"If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale."

Good luck with that. In the meantime, enjoy traveling the world and outdoors activities. I do too.


EDIT: "I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way."

You're not going to do anything about it. This is all an abstraction to you. But, then, the rest of us already know that.

"I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too."

Yep. More reasons why those who most protest global warming are the least likely to do anything about it.

These debates are just "entertainment," to keep you occupied with nothing of consequence while you get plundered and beg for more. But, as you recognize, there are no "victims" but only willing participants. So maybe "plunder" is too strong a word. "The people" seem to actually like it. And that's their right.

Oh fuck man, those are some of my favourite vices, but you forgot lust, you sexy dumbass.

The people aren't innocent. We have brought this on ourselves. At least I recognise that. Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem, I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way.

Like @newtboy, I try to do my own small part, I grow some of my own food and I try to source what I can't as locally and sustainably as I can. I don't have kids, and I have plenty of trees on my property.

But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd. I hate the fact that I drive it to work everyday, but it's really my only option (I don't have room for a second car, I live 15kms from work and there's no shower at my office, otherwise I'd bike.).

Despite your pathetic little insinuation to the contrary, I went to university, and I'm a highly paid professional. That means that as someone who's better off than most people in the first world country I live in, I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too.

I've travelled in Europe, Asia, Oceania and a small part of North America. The carbon footprint of that is massive, but I still want to see more of the world.

These are all my contributions to fucking up the environment. I recognise them, and I do what I can to mitigate them, but if I'm honest with myself, I know I'm having a net negative effect. The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant.

But the fundamental difference between us is that I believe that if the problem can be solved (and at this stage, I'm dubious that it can) it will be solved by working together, not individually. If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale.

And the only way that we encourage clean industry is to level the playing field with regulation. Until there's no competitive advantage to polluting the environment (and it's always cheaper not to clean up after yourself), business will continue a race to the bottom.

But hey, you know what will fix this? Go downvote a bunch of completely unrelated videos because the nasty man was mean to you.

2 meh's from the peanut-gallery, one for you and bareboards2-Can't so much stand the holier-than-thou tossing-around of the convenient misogyny label like candy-corns from Halloween houses on the cheap...*edit, can't agree with your black or white sentence beginning with 'just' Engels, do agree however that to suggest that someone act for you according to your desire (like when a mother makes you go kiss yer aunt, etc.) is completely fucked-up programming.

Hope that edit cheered you up a bit there eric, sorry if I altered yer heart rate in some deleterious fashion....

BOOOOOOO! Semantics be damned ya frikkin' pervert!! Double-boos for all the geeks who up-voted his smarmy, holier-than-thou comment , ACT-TUALLY.

...yeah, and people abuse that word above in caps in a written sentence or while speaking should fucking annoy the shit out of anyone with a clue as well)

It's called stick-up-ass syndrome, get over yourselves already, yer too smart by half.

Sir...lower than low and you can't tell the real from unreal-I am a musician and a friend to humanity and all you want from me is to see me burn-You are sadly mistaken in your assumptions and have dealt me a personal disservice,

I mean you no personal ill-will and have seen this before from other abusers of this site.

Cut and paste and declare the righteous of humanity unworthy based on nothing but your own delusional fantasies of right and wrong.

I have no history here of anything but calling shit when I see it and you sir, are THE epitome of the dregs of the worst of humankind.

You place yourself in a false position of a 'holier than thou' saint and read into my jovial and playful banter nothing but hatred and an unforgiving soul, some vile pervert....I assure you, I am so very far from some pedophile, no user of women, on the contrary-You have no idea the depths to which your own delusion has brought you and the entire site in declaring me in your self-righteousness some petty piece of human garbage as to accuse me of such a thing.

There are more than a few people here who can attest to my kindness and sincerity towards the women of this place, on YT when so many complete douchebags offer-up their vile words to young people trying to interpret music and are derided by those who hate themselves so much that they can only criticize, berate, and belittle the efforts of sincere people trying to share their love for music and humanity with the world only to have idiots and assholes insult their efforts.

My "request" to you was a joke directed at your persona here of enforcer, of resident cop hell-bent on finding any way possible to undermine anyone who comes here as a new user under the guise of following protocol-I have treated you as a friend and equal always and now....with evil intent and a sincere and violent hatred for me as a person you would have me thrown to wolves.

I had absolutely no indication that someone would or could, stoop as low on this site but as it is with people who don't even know who or what they themselves are, I am once again surprised and bewildered at the depths to which humanity can sink, when all is exhausted but ego and self-loathing.

If you would care to post this to the sift-talk arena and have tenured and long-time users here who know me, who trust me to be who and what I say I am I would be honored to show you and the entire site, even if it mean a permanent ban from this site of myself, just how completely wrong you are in your knee-jerk assumptions and delusional accusations.

I can have at least 3 adult, female users of this site who I and the community trust to be straight-up moral and ethical and righteous attest to my honesty and to a friendship that endures on and off this site.

I have no reservations about anything I have said or done here to foster love and community and it is YOUR delusional self-righteous anger and self-hate that has brought you to your retarded and vile accusation and assumption.

I agree with you one one thing, that this particular issue need not be a private matter but one that the entire site's users need see.

SO here we are once again, letting the community of users here let a few delusionals decide the fate of a sincere human being.

SO be it, I should have known better than to walk bearing my heart and soul into a small den of feral creatures and expect them to be able to see beauty and a sincere love for all of humanity.

Your accusations again, are unfounded and completely left of field, and you are dead-wrong in assuming that I am some perverted, hind-brained animal that would take advantage of a complete stranger.

That poor girl who sang that Beatle's tune and was banned had a lovely voice and whoever posted her video here I am sure, had no intention of doing anything but promoting her confidence and and sincere love for the music she was trying to share with the world.


I was going to go to her you tube page and apologize on behalf of myself and the site for her offering having been dashed-to-bits on the rocks of petty rules and a declaration of her unworthiness through some crap system of votes and regulations.

I feel very, very sorry and pity the type of person who can't discern the truth from a lie or see someone for what they are in their essence.

All the power-points I garner from maintaining the site's embeds, have you noticed??
I give them away to the underdogs, to the talented sifters who find beauty and joy in what they offer to the community. My usual criteria is to promote ignored offerings or to promote when I read a description in an embed of how much they personally enjoyed a video or that it touched them in an emotional way lending to joy or happiness. I resurrect dead videos in order to immediately give points and another chance to people with a view to raiding their spirits and status on this site.

I tend to promote music quite a bot and to DOWN-VOTE embeds people place here in order to insult another's ideologies or philosophies OR, when i see an inordinate amount of embed form a user that showcase human-tragedy for the sake of entertainment .

I care about life and truth my friend, not fantasy, death, pain, or lies with a view to self-promotion.

You are dead wrong in your assessment of my character, and I seek to prove you so before this entire community or be run off this site for the very last time.

I am keeping a copy of this response to my joking message directed again, at your joy in watching users get banned of self-linking which I posted to you with a view to pointing-out a character flaw, so that you won't twist my words and use them to satisfy your personal mission to see me gone form here.