Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 440

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

  1. #251
    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 ReverendHellh0und View Post
    No you can't however if it's a 5k hit with mandatory community service. and you started handing em out, you'd get the desired result.
    When I worked on the river, I told my guests that they were free to smoke in the raft (I smoked in it, after all) and around the river. But the only rule was that I didn't want to see a single ****ing butt hit the water or river bank. I told them to field strip them and put them in their pockets. And if they couldn't do that, then give them to me and I would put them in their pockets for them. And, that if I saw one of them throw a butt in the river, they were getting tossed out of the raft and their only ticket back in would be a ciggarette butt.

  2. #252
    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
    ****ing seriously? You're going to go there? You actually want to get into a discussion on how the word hypocrisy is commonly used? THAT is your deflection? That's a poor one.
    No, you want to misuse words in an ill fated attempt to defend your argumentive fallacy. My point was straight forward.

    It does when you attempt to demonize an entire group of people for littering while ignoring the fact that people from all walks of life do it. You cannot sit there and call smokers - as a group - irresponsible for littering when non-smokers - as a group - litter even MORE. If you hadn't made such a generalization and hadn't attempted to continue to validate it, then I wouldn't have chimed in. But you cannot single out smokers for littering and use that as some sole tactic for banning smoking while ignoring all the other littering and sources of it.
    I was not demonizing anyone. I simply brought up a point that has yet to be mentioned. Instead of debating it in proper fashion, you go off on a fallacious tangent about hypocricy. The fact that non smokers litter has nothing to do with the fact that there is a problem regarding ciggy butts in large cities (in the tune of millions of dollars per year in cleanup cost). So why not fess up and admit you made use of a fallacy? If your ego will not allow you to, then stop trying to defend the merit of your fallacy.

    It is as meaningless as yours.
    The day the majority of my arguments stem from my opinions and anecdotes is the day you will have a point.

    Wow.. so in Texas, cig buts account for 13% of the litter. Guess that means that 87% of the litter can be attributed to non-smoking activities.

    Yet you want to demonize smokers and call them irresponsible. I call that hypocrisy since you're a member of the group that actually does the majority of the littering. You can call that whatever the **** you want.

    Litterers are the issue, not smokers. So try focusing on the correct issue.
    You never earn points for stubbornness. The issue was litter caused by smokers; this is a completely rational argument being that the thread is about a smoking ban.
    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

  3. #253
    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
    Why? you still have your freedom to enjoy a legal product, just though if you are irresponsible with your waste, you will be hammered.
    I was only applying draconian in the same sense as did you in your previous post. People are still free to enjoy a legal product, only in designated areas. Here's an idea for a business: Smoking Bars!!!!!! (without the booze).
    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. #254
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,492

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    I was only applying draconian in the same sense as did you in your previous post. People are still free to enjoy a legal product, only in designated areas. Here's an idea for a business: Smoking Bars!!!!!! (without the booze).



    why without the booze? why are we dictating to private business thier clientel?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #255
    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
    My point was straight forward.
    No, it wasn't.


    I was not demonizing anyone.
    So calling all smokers irresponsible wasn't demonizing?

    I simply brought up a point that has yet to be mentioned. Instead of debating it in proper fashion, you go off on a fallacious tangent about hypocricy. The fact that non smokers litter has nothing to do with the fact that there is a problem regarding ciggy butts in large cities (in the tune of millions of dollars per year in cleanup cost).
    There's a problem with LITTER. The fact that cig butts make up a small percentage of that litter really isn't relevant. The attack and focus should be on litterers if your issue is with the litter.


    You never earn points for stubbornness. The issue was litter caused by smokers; this is a completely rational argument being that the thread is about a smoking ban.
    No, it's not a rational argument if you're going to call ALL smokers irresponsible due to the minority of them who litter and contribute less than 1/5 of the litter on the ground and pound your banning drum due to the fact that some smokers litter.

    The issues are separate.

    Dear ****ing god. This is ridiculous and I'm not going to participate in it any longer.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 09-20-10 at 02:31 PM.

  6. #256
    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 ReverendHellh0und View Post
    why without the booze? why are we dictating to private business thier clientel?
    Because Rev... the govt must think for us. We can't do it ourselves.

  7. #257
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

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

    This thread is making me want a cigarette.

    BRB... And I'll make sure to throw my butt on the ground.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #258
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    This thread is making me want a cigarette.

    BRB... And I'll make sure to throw my butt on the ground.
    I believe that is a Class 3 misdemeanor, officer, with a minimum $250 fine.

  9. #259
    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, it wasn't.
    To each their own i guess.

    So calling all smokers irresponsible wasn't demonizing?
    I never said all smokers were irresponsible, i said smokers in general. Because we are unable to know the percentage of ciggy litterers, the general term should suffice. When i say smoking causes lung cancer, that does not mean i am saying all smokers will have lung cancer. Context is key.

    There's a problem with LITTER. The fact that cig butts make up a small percentage of that litter really isn't relevant. The attack and focus should be on litterers if your issue is with the litter.
    My issue is the negative externalities associated with smoking in public places. Do try and keep up!

    No, it's not a rational argument if you're going to call ALL smokers irresponsible due to the minority of them who litter and contribute less than 1/5 of the litter on the ground and pound your banning drum due to the fact that some smokers litter.
    You are in no position to make the statement highlighted in bold. The fact that this group is causing 13% of the litter is quite telling. How about you do a little less bitching, and make a valid counter-argument. Smokers make up what percentage of the population?

    The issues are separate.
    Wow.

    Do you really believe is no link between people who smoke cigarettes, and ciggy butt litter?

    Dear ****ing god. This is ridiculous and I'm not going to participate in it any longer.
    You should have just kept quiet if all you can muster is fallacy for an argument.
    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

  10. #260
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

    Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?
    But doesn't it create jobs?

Page 26 of 44 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •