I have posted my review at Suite101

[FrodoFriend]

Well said, Kevin!!

I wonder what Gandalf and Bilbo would think of this conversation?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
[B]MM, when I see people walking down the street smoking foot long pipes and claiming they took up smoking because Gandalf does it, then I'll agree that the smoking scene shouldn't be there.

In the meantime, I take it, you won't do a thing to help people avoid taking up tobacco, or care one bit that anyone will actually be influenced by the movies to start using tobacco.

There is a reason for why the United States government forbids the tobacco companies to pay for product placement in the movies and televison: that reason is the solid research which the tobacco companies paid for which shows that movies and television have a tremendous influence on young people, and are in fact responsible for a lot of tobacco use through the years.

The fact that no one paid Peter Jackson to put tobacco products into his movies doesn't mean they will magically NOT influence young people.

All the nonsense arguments in the world aren't going to change reality. Tobacco use in film is deadly, and in this case it contributes nothing to either the story or the characterizations.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Well said, Kevin!!

I wonder what Gandalf and Bilbo would think of this conversation?

Insults and flames are never well said. Instead of contributing to the problem, try being part of the solution. That is what Gandalf and Bilbo would do.

[Kevin McIntyre]

please someone close this thread, for I am oft to argue due to the slightest provocation.

____________________
1601 (approx): Samuel Rowlands writes,
"But this same poyson, steeped India weede
In head, hart, lunges, do the soote and cobwebs breede
With that he gasp'd, and breath'd out such a smoke
That all the standers by were like to choke. "

1602: ENGLAND: Publication of Worke of Chimney Sweepers by anonymous author identified as 'Philaretes' states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects.

Smoking is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless." -- James I of England, "A Counterblaste to Tobacco." 1604

this is not a new issue so good luck

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
please someone close this thread, for I am oft to argue due to the slightest provocation.

Oh, please. No one provoked you. And I did let several insults and flames from others slide before you started in.

If you don't want to participate in a flame war, then I suggest you neither start them nor jump into them.

[Kevin McIntyre]

so what influenced people before television and radio. You are trying to dictate a person actions. Actions that do not affect anyone but the individual. And do not bring up second hand smoke issues, that is seperate and has been dealt with (heavy handily) by restricting where someone can smoke. And don't tell me Im being childish - legislation was presented in the mid-west last month that would forbid smoking in once own home. So the thin lines seems to be fading.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]so what influenced people before television and radio.

This isn't about what influenced people before television and radio. This is about what influences young people today.

You are trying to dictate a person actions.

No. I'm just trying to teach the ignorant, foolish, and vain. That is always a thankless task, and one guaranteed to produce a rain of rotten tomatoes from the darker corners of the world.

It is better to stand up and speak the truth, than to look away and allow a lie to go unchallenged.

[Kevin McIntyre]

This all started with your review if you remember, which was very positive except for the smoking. This is obviously due to your personal ajenda about smoking.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
This all started with your review if you remember, which was very positive except for the smoking. This is obviously due to your personal ajenda about smoking.

No. I only devoted a couple of paragraphs to pointing out that Peter Jackson was wrong to include gratuitous tobacco use in the movie. This all started when people decided to turn this into a flame war against Michael Martinez.

If you're so intolerant of other people's points of view that you have to attack them for saying something you don't agree with, you're much too ill-equipped to be teaching me anything about who is responsible for what.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


In the meantime, I take it, you won't do a thing to help people avoid taking up tobacco, or care one bit that anyone will actually be influenced by the movies to start using tobacco.

If someone takes up smoking based on the actions of someone in a movie, then that peson has other problems that need addressing as well.

Its not that I don't agree with you on the fact that smoking is a dangerous thing to be involved with (as are many things) and that people should be educated to the harmful affects. I just disagree with someone smoking in a movie, whether it intregal to the plot or not.

Let me put this in other terms, At the FDR memorial in washington DC there is no reference to the fact that FDR smoked cigarettes. But we all know he did, historically its a fact. the cigarette holder was part of his persona but it is the Politcally Correct people that believe by removing this from the memorial they are accomplishing their goal, which in fact they are not , they are satisfying themselved by thinking they did their part. Education is the only means of preventing people from smoking, efforts in other areas, although well intentioned, have little affect.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]

If someone takes up smoking based on the actions of someone in a movie, then that peson has other problems that need addressing as well.

So, basically, your reaction to anything you don't agree with is to denigrate and insult other people.

Whether FDR smoked has nothing to do with the fact that the film industry influences young people to use tobacco TODAY. Whether someone objected to smoking in the 1600s has nothing to do with the fact that millions of people are starting a deadly habit this year, a habit which will sicken most of them, kill many of them, and drain them all of money which could be spent on other things.

Whether a law is passed in the mid-West forbidding people to smoke in their own home won't change the fact that you have made an absurd attempt to justify or rationalize doing nothing about the serious problem that faces our society.

All the insults and nonsense you can toss at me and anyone else you suddenly feel superior to won't make you right or any less responsible for being on the wrong side.

Nazi soldiers argued they were only following orders at Nuremburg. We hung them anyway. And some of those guys killed far fewer people than tobacco company executives, who have all pretty much gotten away with poisoning and killing millions of people around the world.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez



If you're so intolerant of other people's points of view that you have to attack them for saying something you don't agree with, you're much too ill-equipped to be teaching me anything about who is responsible for what.

I do not think I have demonstrated intolerance. Nor am I attacking you. You are taking our disagreement personally, which you shouldn't.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre


I do not think I have demonstrated intolerance. Nor am I attacking you. You are taking our disagreement personally, which you shouldn't.

But you have shown intolerance, and in part by attacking me. You obviously feel your casually lobbed insults are acceptable behavior. I don't. And I don't take anything personally. I just recognize cheap shots, insults, and flames for what they are.

There is an old saying: you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Of course, you're not the one who cut in with "assinine" and "puerile whining", but you're just as bad as them, since you insisted on dragging this out for no good reason whatsoever.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


So, basically, your reaction to anything you don't agree with is to denigrate and insult other people.

Whether FDR smoked has nothing to do with the fact that the film industry influences young people to use tobacco TODAY. Whether someone objected to smoking in the 1600s has nothing to do with the fact that millions of people are starting a deadly habit this year, a habit which will sicken most of them, kill many of them, and drain them all of money which could be spent on other things.

Whether a law is passed in the mid-West forbidding people to smoke in their own home won't change the fact that you have made an absurd attempt to justify or rationalize doing nothing about the serious problem that faces our society.

All the insults and nonsense you can toss at me and anyone else you suddenly feel superior to won't make you right or any less responsible for being on the wrong side.

Nazi soldiers argued they were only following orders at Nuremburg. We hung them anyway. And some of those guys killed far fewer people than tobacco company executives, who have all pretty much gotten away with poisoning and killing millions of people around the world.

With every post you make you prove my point more and more. How am I denigrating or insult you. You are the one comparing me to Nazi's.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
With every post you make you prove my point more and more

Truer words were never spoke. Or, in your case, so mis-spoke.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


Truer words were never spoke. Or, in your case, so mis-spoke.

Your logic escapes me. What you are saying is that because I know that smoking is harmful (dreadfully so) then I should rail against references to it in a movie.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]

Your logic escapes me.

That was obvious from the start. But you never bothered to ask for clarification. Like the other flamers, you started in with ridiculous arguments, confident in your ability to fling insults.

What I am saying is that the right thing to do is to object to the gratuitous use of tobacco in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and I gave the reasons for why that is right in the review of the movie.

Human life is too precious to waste on deadly addictions. It's a shame that more people haven't learned from history's lessons regarding this issue.

[Kevin McIntyre]

My references to the past are important. They clearly show that understanding tobacco's harm is not anything new. What the tobacco companies have done is immoral, but not isolated - look at what is happening in Alabama with PCB's in the soil. Corporate greed is a seperate issue.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez


That was obvious from the start. But you never bothered to ask for clarification. Like the other flamers, you started in with ridiculous arguments, confident in your ability to fling insults.

What I am saying is that the right thing to do is to object to the gratuitous use of tobacco in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and I gave the reasons for why that is right in the review of the movie.

Human life is too precious to waste on deadly addictions. It's a shame that more people haven't learned from history's lessons regarding this issue.

Just because some disagrees with you they are not flaming you. Objecting in your review may seem like the right thing to do to you, but to many it strike of Political Correctness, which accomplishes little but stifles dialog, by restricting what you can and can not say or depict.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by Kevin McIntyre
[B]My references to the past are important.

No. Your references to the past are irrelevant, and they show that you don't understand A) what is at stake and B) what you, by yourself, may be capable of achieving -- for good or ill.

Your every stupid post and argument in this thread can potentially convince some naive young person that using tobacco really isn't all that big a deal.

There is no middle ground in this debate. You either stand up for life, or you try to take it away. The choice is yours, and only you are responsible for what you say.