I was, the rate of lung cancer among smokers increases drastically but is still a minority, viewing stats in isolation often misleading, as are sweeping generalisations. Smoking clearly doesn’t harm everyone who smokes, not even half in fact, and of course the amount and duration are also factors.
What about them? Care to even try and calculate how many deaths have been directly or indirectly caused by religion? I’m guessing it dwarfs smoking, so by that rationale religion is more harmful than smoking, so you see how it is easy to create sweeping and facile generalisations, but rather pointless.
No it wouldn’t, any secular regime could ban smoking, thus Islam and even religion and theism are utterly irrelevant to the claim.
Well this isn’t strictly the point I am making, but yes I’d agree that freedom has more appeal than living my life in some dystopian theocracy, or in any totalitarian regime.
If North Korea banned smoking drinking and gambling, would that justify claiming communist dictatorships can prevent deaths from those behaviours?
No behaviour by a women encourages rape, this is the worst kind of victim blaming, and reflects a very pernicious and misogynistic attitude in my opinion. You can test this easily, and ask him if he thinks rape is in any justified or remotely mitigated by the way a woman dresses? If I came across a women who was naked the reaction is my choice and I alone am culpable for it.
I’m not surprised, and I’d bet my house that given the dearth of rights women have under regimes like the Taliban, that there are far more rapes that go unreported, like spousal rape and incest for example. What prevents rape is educating men to treat women as autonomous equals, and laws that give men and women the same rights.
If a man forcibly sodomised you, and someone told you it was partly your fault for not wearing a covering to hide your body, would you find that argument compelling?