Page 24 of 44 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 440

Thread: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

  1. #231
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Glenn Beck is a Bircher. He's the one that started using the term "statist" on his show along with "socialist, Marxist and communist, and now all the little FoxNews monkey's are using that term too. So if Rev wasnt a Bircher, he is one now if he's going to use Bircher talk to help spread Bircher paranoia.



    Actually Mark Levin was the first to use the term "statist" as he eloquently outlined the soft tyranny we live in. Note he thought this long before obama was elected. Now tocqueville's soft tyranny is googleable, and if you want to have a discussion as to where we are in a soft tyranny I'd be happy to let you know. Do note I thought of and its searchable I believe on some forums, I described this nation as a soft tyranny, before levin did.


    Like I said, A bigger bucket is what you need to seek.

    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 09-20-10 at 12:34 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #232
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    It has to do with the irresponsibility of smokers in general. Obviously, there are already littering fines in place, but they are not enforced to the extent required to reduce ciggy butts from being an issue. If i remember correctly, ciggy littering skyrocketed once bar and restaurant smoking bans were put in place (people smoked outside and dropped their buts there).


    This is what I'm talking about:
    It has to do with the irresponsibility of smokers in general.
    It's statements like that I take issue with. Smokers, in general, are not irresponsible. You're pointing at cig butts and making that claim. THAT is why I pointed at other littering by other people in my prior posts. And now we have come full circle.

    Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.

  3. #233
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post


    This is what I'm talking about:


    It's statements like that I take issue with. Smokers, in general, are not irresponsible. You're pointing at cig butts and making that claim. THAT is why I pointed at other littering by other people in my prior posts. And now we have come full circle.
    By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.

    Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.[/QUOTE]

    Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #234
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.

    Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.
    Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).



    Dropping butts on my beach or out your car when I am behind you on my motorcycle will motivate me to introduce myself.



    Littering should be fined signifcantly.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #235
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.
    No, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.


    Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).
    And? There's an island of garbage in the middle of the Pacific, so your point is?

    And, I'm talking about the US, not other countries. In India, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to litter. It absolutely floored me. They thought I was silly for carrying my garbage around until I finally found a garbage can (which were few and far between). So, the laws and cultural norms in other countries are irrelevant to ours.

  6. #236
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Dropping butts on my beach or out your car when I am behind you on my motorcycle will motivate me to introduce myself.

    Littering should be fined signifcantly.
    Agreed.

    My thought is, smoking bans in these public areas (allowing for designated smoking areas) will reduce the said littering.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #237
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Agreed.

    My thought is, smoking bans in these public areas (allowing for designated smoking areas) will reduce the said littering.
    So would eating bans in public areas.

    What a ****ing ridiculous reason to be applauding a huge nanny government action.

  8. #238
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    No, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.
    Wow....

    You engaged in a red herring fallacy, as our discussion has nothing to do with the littering in general. Since we are discussing smokers, and i am arguing that smokers (as a whole) are irresponsible, there is no hypocrisy on my part.

    Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
    Of course you are too stubborn to admit it.

    And? There's an island of garbage in the middle of the Pacific, so your point is?

    And, I'm talking about the US, not other countries. In India, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to litter. It absolutely floored me. They thought I was silly for carrying my garbage around until I finally found a garbage can (which were few and far between). So, the laws and cultural norms in other countries are irrelevant to ours.
    Your previous use of anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as the statistics indicate.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #239
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Wow....

    You engaged in a red herring fallacy, as our discussion has nothing to do with the littering in general.
    You're right, the discussion had nothing to do with littering. Hence your hypocrisy in bringing it up at all and attempting to incorrectly demonize one group of people for it.

    `-`
    Since we are discussing smokers, and i am arguing that smokers (as a whole) are irresponsible, there is no hypocrisy on my part.
    Which they are not. Your hypocrisy lies in using littering as some example of irrespsonibility on the backs of all smokers while ignoring the fact that many non-smokers litter to.

    Of course you are too stubborn to admit it.
    There is nothing to admit on my end.

    Your previous use of anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as the statistics indicate.
    What statistics would that be? The ones you said you didn't have for the US?

  10. #240
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    You're right, the discussion had nothing to do with littering. Hence your hypocrisy in bringing it up at all and attempting to incorrectly demonize one group of people for it.
    I never stated that it did. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy, or will i have to define it for you

    Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
    You are on quite a roll Riv

    Which they are not. Your hypocrisy lies in using littering as some example of irresponsibility on the backs of all smokers while ignoring the fact that many non-smokers litter to.
    The fact that other people litter does not have any significance regarding this discussion. The fact that ciggy butts are all over the streets, and costs in excess of $15 million annually in NYC does pertain to the discussion regarding smoking bans. Hence your red herring. The more and more you attempt to defend it, the less credible your argument becomes.

    There is nothing to admit on my end.
    This is simply a discussion in which your opinion is meaningless.

    What statistics would that be? The ones you said you didn't have for the US?

    statistics
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 24 of 44 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •