Page 34 of 44 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 440

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

  1. #331
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

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

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Peak Oil is a myth based on ignorance about the presence of speculation.
    Unfortunately, that's untrue. Peak Oil is a very pressing geophysical reality. Denial of physical realities is a type of religious faith. Production will peak, plateau, and then the price of oil will rise steadily. And then cheap, abundant oil will end.

    You seem under the impression that cheap, easy-to-get fuel is endless. That's borderline creationist thought.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-23-10 at 04:47 PM.

  2. #332
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    You are trying to comapre the wrong parts of the story.

    Eating shelfish is a choice, just like smoking is.

    In fact, being a NON-smoker is a choice. Their dislike for smoke isn't an affliction. It's merely a preference. And the real risk to non-smokers for being around smoke in open, public areas is miniscule and never an immediatre threat to their life.

    Whereas the threat to me for being around shellfish is fairly high and it is an immediate threat to my life.

    One issue, that of the non-smoker, is primarily related to mild discomfort caused by an odor coupled with an irrational fear of a fairly low risk situation (We're not talking about being in an enclosed room with large quantities of second hand smoke for a prolonged period of time).

    The other issue, that of the shellfish allergy, can actually cause immediate death and requires me to have medicine nearby most of the time.

    Yet there is no outcry for banning shellfish consuption in public places. Nor is there an outcry to ban the consumption of nuts (another deadly food allergy).

    Nor do I believe there should be a ban on these things, even though it is often my life at risk and I am the one inconvenienced by these things.

    I'm merely offering the ultimate reason why I think that most of the non-smokers who wish to see smoking banned from any place they may encounter are wrong. I deal with something far worse than being a non-smoker who is subjected to a smell they don't like without expecting the world to cater to my whims about it.

    I have sympathy for those with allergies to cigarrette smoke, but for those people who merely dislike smoke and want it banned from their presence I have no sympathy at all.

    And that's entirely because deal with something far worse and far more dangerous to me without whining about how I need it to be banned cause it can give me a boo boo.
    Whereas I made no choice to be allergic to shellfish.
    I'm sorry for not making myself clear. Your allergy is the affliction you can't do anything about except deal with it. Smoking is not an affliction because smokers can do something about it, they can quit. Smokers have a choice to smoke or not to smoke, you do not have a choice to eat shellfish because you will die if you do. See what I'm saying?
    Last edited by Moot; 09-23-10 at 05:04 PM.

  3. #333
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I'm not sorry for not making myself clear. Your allergy is the affliction you can't do anything about except deal with it. Smoking is not an affliction because smokers can do something about it, they can quit. Smokers have a choice to smoke or not to smoke, you do not have a choice to eat shellfish because you will die if you do. See what I'm saying?
    Yes. I've understood that the whole time. Perhaps I'm the one not making myself clear. The comparison shouldn't be my allergy to smoking. It should be my allergy to not smoking.

    It is the eating of shellfish that is comparable to smoking in the analogy. People can quit eating shellfish with no ill effects and it's far easier than quitting smoking ( Shellfish isn't addictive).

    When comparing two situations where people are engaging and not engaging in certain behaviors, it makes no sense to make the person who is not engaging in a behavior in one scenario analogous to the person who is engaging in a behavior in the other.

    Instead the person not engaging in the behavior in one scenario is analogous to the person who is not engaging in the behavior in the other scenario and the person engaging in the behavior in one scenario is analogous to the person who is engaging in the behavior from the other scenario.

    In other words, if we label non-smokers as A, smokers as B, shellfish allergy people as C and people who eat shellfish as D, then A is comparable to C and B is comparable to D. But A is never comparable to D and C is never comparable to B.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-23-10 at 05:04 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #334
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Yes. I've understood that the whole time. Perhaps I'm the one not making myself clear. The comparison shouldn't be my allergy to smoking. It should be my allergy to not smoking.
    But you don't have a choice, smokers and nonsmokers do.

    It is the eating of shellfish that is comparable to smoking in the analogy. People can quit eating shellfish with no ill effects and it's far easier than quitting smoking ( Shellfish isn't addictive).
    But no matter whether people chose to eat shellfish or not, they still have a choice, you do not.

    When comparing two situations where people are engaging and not engaging in certain behaviors, it makes no sense to make the person who is not engaging in a behavior in one scenario analogous to the person who is engaging in a behavior in the other.
    Your comparison is invalid unless there were a vast majority of people dying from shellfish. This is not the case.

    Instead the person not engaging in the behavior in one scenario is analogous to the person who is not engaging in the behavior in the other scenario and the person engaging in the behavior in one scenario is analogous to the person who is engaging in the behavior from the other scenario.
    Eating is neccessary to life. Smoking is not. Eating is a "behaviour" that everyone on the planet must do, smoking is not. The only way I would call eating a behaviour problem is when it is done to excess or not at all. But in general people do not have a choice not to eat.

    In other words, if we label non-smokers as A, smokers as B, shellfish allergy people as C and people who eat shellfish as D, then A is comparable to C and B is comparable to D. But A is never comparable to D and C is never comparable to B.
    Mmmm, I'm not seeing the analogy. Smokers and non-smokers have a choice. Seafood eaters have a choice. You don't have a choice to eat seafood, period. Everybody has their own cross to bear, yours just happens to be seafood. I feel bad for you, cuz I love seafood. yum.

    As a side, I read where you said were allergic to peanuts. A lot of people are. But I saw a study that said if parents fed peanuts to their children at very early age then they were less prone to be allergic to peanuts as adults. I just thought it was an interesting study.
    Last edited by Moot; 09-23-10 at 05:29 PM.

  5. #335
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    But you don't have a choice, smokers and nonsmokers do.

    But no matter whether people chose to eat shellfish or not, they still have a choice, you do not.
    Yes. The shellfish eaters make the choice to put my life at risk.

    Your comparison is invalid unless there were a vast majority of people dying from shellfish. This is not the case.
    There is not a vast majority of people dying from second hand smoke which they were exposed to outdoors either, so the comparison is quite valid.

    It is a cold hard fact that me being exposed to shellfish is more dangerous to me than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open environment is to the non-smoker.

    Eating is neccessary to life.
    Eating shellfish is not. I'm limitting my position to the two most common food allergies. Although I do understand that trying to make it about eating in general is easier than admitting that the two situations are comparable.

    Smoking is not. Eating is a "behaviour" that everyone on the planet must do, smoking is not. The only way I would call eating a behaviour problem is when it is done to excess or not at all. But in general people do not have a choice not to eat.
    I would appreciate it if you would stick to the eating of shellfish please. It prevents you from creating a strawman like it being about eating in general.

    Mmmm, I'm not seeing the analogy. Smokers have a choice. Seafood eaters have a choice.
    You don't see the analogy between behaviors that some people engage in that put other people at risk where that risk could be totally eliminated by banning the behavior? How do you not see that?

    Everybody has their own cross to bear, yours just happens to be seafood.
    I have quite a few more crosses to bear than just seafood, but as far as things go couldn't the same be said about non-smokers? That tit's their cross to bear the odor of cigarettes when they are in public?

    I feel bad for you, cuz I love seafood. yum.
    And therein lies the difference for many anti-smokers. It's OK to ban the things they don't like, but heaven forbid it extends to that which they enjoy! Thats a violation of their freedom!

    As a side, I read where you said were allergic to peanuts.
    Huh? I never said I was allergic to peanuts.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #336
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Unfortunately, that's untrue. Peak Oil is a very pressing geophysical reality. Denial of physical realities is a type of religious faith. Production will peak, plateau, and then the price of oil will rise steadily. And then cheap, abundant oil will end.

    You seem under the impression that cheap, easy-to-get fuel is endless. That's borderline creationist thought.
    Don't say things that I didn't say. Peak oil is the scenario where out of nowhere prices soar and supply gets limited. Unfortunately for environmentalists that is just impossible. Speculation takes care of such supply shocks and makes them more gradual so that people have time to adjust to the new scenario. Actually, the problem with peak oil goes further, as we won't just suddenly find ourselves out of oil. It is blatant reality that the realization of a dwindling supply of oil would come gradually.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  7. #337
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Don't say things that I didn't say. Peak oil is the scenario where out of nowhere prices soar and supply gets limited. Unfortunately for environmentalists that is just impossible. Speculation takes care of such supply shocks and makes them more gradual so that people have time to adjust to the new scenario. Actually, the problem with peak oil goes further, as we won't just suddenly find ourselves out of oil. It is blatant reality that the realization of a dwindling supply of oil would come gradually.
    That's all well and good so long as the realization isn't a lot slower than the dwindling supply.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #338
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Don't say things that I didn't say. Peak oil is the scenario where out of nowhere prices soar and supply gets limited. Unfortunately for environmentalists that is just impossible. Speculation takes care of such supply shocks and makes them more gradual so that people have time to adjust to the new scenario. Actually, the problem with peak oil goes further, as we won't just suddenly find ourselves out of oil. It is blatant reality that the realization of a dwindling supply of oil would come gradually.
    That's all well and good so long as the realization isn't a lot slower than the dwindling supply.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #339
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

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

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Don't say things that I didn't say. Peak oil is the scenario where out of nowhere prices soar and supply gets limited.
    Actually, that's not the case for Peak Oil, so your whole following statement after this, is flawed.

    Peak Oil is actually a theory of the geophysical reality of the oil supply. Eventually, we will reach a peak in productive capacity, characterized by an end to easily, cheaply accessible quality oil, which will be followed by a steady decline in production, which in turn will be coupled with a steady increase in prices.

    Peak Oil does not say that one day we will be "out of oil" or that prices will "suddenly skyrocketl." That's a misconception.

    The actual problem with Peak Oil is there is no way to avoid the calamity of ever increasing, gradually, prices, without seriously changing the way we live and preparing ahead of time, because as much as you may like to think, there is no effective replacement, in any reasonable time frame, for cheap oil.

  10. #340
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Yes. The shellfish eaters make the choice to put my life at risk.
    No, the shellfish eaters aren't making the choice to put your life at risk, because only you know that you have the risk of eating shellfish and only you can make the choice to eat shellfish or not. For everyone else eating shellfish is safe and they don't need to make that choice.

    It is a cold hard fact that me being exposed to shellfish is more dangerous to me than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open environment is to the non-smoker.
    Shellfish is for everyone to eat, but if you can't eat it that doesn't mean everyone else can't. A public space is for everyone to enjoy, but if smoker lights up then not everyone can enjoy the public space.

    Eating shellfish is not. I'm limitting my position to the two most common food allergies. Although I do understand that trying to make it about eating in general is easier than admitting that the two situations are comparable.
    But shellfish is part of the food chain, cigarettes are not.


    I would appreciate it if you would stick to the eating of shellfish please. It prevents you from creating a strawman like it being about eating in general.
    You were the one who brought up eating shellfish as a "behaviour" and compared it to smoking. It is your analogy that is the strawman because eating shellfish is not a behaviour in the same vein that smoking is a behaviour. One is addictive and habit forming, the other is not.

    You don't see the analogy between behaviors that some people engage in that put other people at risk where that risk could be totally eliminated by banning the behavior? How do you not see that?
    The act of eating shellfish is not a habit forming behaviour, like smoking is. Do you know anyone who needs to eat a pack of oysters everyday?

    I have quite a few more crosses to bear than just seafood, but as far as things go couldn't the same be said about non-smokers? That tit's their cross to bear the odor of cigarettes when they are in public?
    Smokers can quit and then they wouldn't have that cross to bear. Can you quit your allergy to shellfish?


    And therein lies the difference for many anti-smokers. It's OK to ban the things they don't like, but heaven forbid it extends to that which they enjoy! Thats a violation of their freedom!
    What about the non-smokers freedom to not breath SHS? The smoker can stop smoking, the non-smoker can't stop breathing. The non-smokers right to breath trumps the smokers right to smoke.

    Huh? I never said I was allergic to peanuts.
    Ooops, sorry I got confused and thought it was. Nevermind.

Page 34 of 44 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... 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
  •