Page 35 of 44 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 440

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

  1. #341
    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
    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.
    Yes they are. If they all chose to not eat shellfish, no people with shellfish allergies would ever be at risk. But because they make the selfish choice to eat shellfish, they place the lives of those with allergies at risk. they can quit eating shellfish at any time and potentially save lives. Even their own, because shellfish allergies can develop at any time in someones life. Every time they choose to eat shellfish, they are putting their lives at risk.

    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.
    If a person eats/cooks shellfish in public, then not everyone can enjoy that public space anymore.

    And tobacco is for everyone to smoke, but if you choose to not smoke tobacco that doesn't mean everyone else can't.

    But shellfish is part of the food chain, cigarettes are not.
    Tobacco plants are also part of the food chain.

    And even more to the point, humans are not aquatic so shellfish wouldn't really fall into the natural "food chain" that humans, a land animal which evolved from arboreal animals, would be a part of.

    You were the one who brought up eating shellfish as a "behavior" 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.
    They are both behaviors that people engage in by choice that they do not have to engage in that can put someone else at risk. We're nto simply talking about tobacco consumption (i.e. chewing tobacco isn't banned) nor are we talking about eating. We are talking about specific things that are consumed (ciggarrettes vs. Shellfish) When you invent an argumetn that I didn't make in oder to present a rebuttal to that fictional argument, it is a strawman by definition.

    Which brings me to my next point: I would recommend looking up the definition of a straw-man argument prior to making the accusation about someone's argument. This is just friendly advice. You can choose not to take it, but it would add merit to your claims if the term was actually used correctly instead of incorrectly.

    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?
    And this is a red herring. The quantity an individual consumes of the product is irrelvent to the discussion. The reason for the bans on cigarrette smoking are supposedly about optional behaviors that place other people in danger and/or cause them discomfort. Thus the quantity is clearly irrelvent.


    Smokers can quit and then they wouldn't have that cross to bear. Can you quit your allergy to shellfish?
    I didn't say it was the smokers cross to bear. I clearly pointed out that it was the non-smokers cross to bear.





    What about the non-smokers freedom to not breath SHS?
    What about my right not to be exposed to shellfish?

    The smoker can stop smoking, the non-smoker can't stop breathing. The non-smokers right to breath trumps the smokers right to smoke.
    My right to live out trumps your right to eat shellfish.

    And non-smokers can still breathe in the presence of SHS, so that line of argumentation fails miserably.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-23-10 at 11:45 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #342
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Did you miss the part where I described how this is true of my allergy as well?

    I have an epipen.

    The bolded and underlined portion indicates to me that you might have missed large swaths of my post.
    Don't worry I read your post. I think I just had a brain fart.

    The main point I was trying to get across, in fewer words, was that eating at a restaurant is a choice, and unfortunately you and people like you forced to become part of the ongoing campaign to change food practices in the food establishment. I think things are changing but it's happening slow. You have an allergy to shellfish, but all humans are vulnerable to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, and which are you more likely to find in a park? At least shellfish has nutritious content that most people can consume. What benefit is there to smoking cigarettes? Yeah nicotine has health benefits, but mixed in with over 1,000 other harmful chemicals?

    Again, if private establishments want to allow smoking, then I don't have to go into them, but public spaces should be neutral. Speaking of which, there are two ideas of "neutral" happening here: one is that a smoke-free park/beach is the most neutral; the other is that people doing what they want but respecting others is the most neutral. In an ideal world, I would choose the second option, but in reality, for every considerate smoker there are many others who just don't give a crap. I shouldn't have to breathe one iota of their crap if I don't want to, and if I have my beach blanket setup, my picnic laid out and I'm sitting there with my significant other having a good time, I shouldn't have to pack up because someone lights up a cancerous material nearby. THEY should smoke at home.

  3. #343
    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

    Why are you comparing shellfish to second hand smoke? HOw does shellfish consumption by others affect you? I am allergic to bananas. If someone ten seats away is eating it, it doesn't harm me.

    If someone sits ten seats away from me, but smokes, smoke floats in the air. Shellfish don't.

  4. #344
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Yes they are. If they all chose to not eat shellfish, no people with shellfish allergies would ever be at risk. But because they make the selfish choice to eat shellfish, they place the lives of those with allergies at risk. they can quit eating shellfish at any time and potentially save lives. Even their own, because shellfish allergies can develop at any time in someones life. Every time they choose to eat shellfish, they are putting their lives at risk.
    If everyone chose to eat shellfish except you, then no one is putting you at risk. Don't eat it the shellfish, Tucker.

    If a person eats/cooks shellfish in public, then not everyone can enjoy that public space anymore.
    And tobacco is for everyone to smoke, but if you choose to not smoke tobacco that doesn't mean everyone else can't.
    Now you want to include "cooking" shellfish in public, too? That is what is called moving the goal post and in serious debate is not allowed. But then, we aren't really having a serious debate, we're just playing musical chairs.

    Tobacco plants are also part of the food chain.

    And even more to the point, humans are not aquatic so shellfish wouldn't really fall into the natural "food chain" that humans, a land animal which evolved from arboreal animals, would be a part of.
    No, tobacco is not edible or part of the food chain. And it is debatable whether humans are aquatic since there is ample evidence to suggest they are. (see: aquatic ape theory)

    You were the one who brought up eating shellfish as a "behavior" 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.
    They are both behaviors that people engage in by choice that they do not have to engage in that can put someone else at risk. We're nto simply talking about tobacco consumption (i.e. chewing tobacco isn't banned) nor are we talking about eating. We are talking about specific things that are consumed (ciggarrettes vs. Shellfish) When you invent an argumetn that I didn't make in oder to present a rebuttal to that fictional argument, it is a strawman by definition.
    Eating is a neccessity, not a behavioural choice unless done to excess.

    Tobacco is not a food and you can't eat it anymore than you can eat a pesticide. You can smoke it, chew it, and snort it but you can't eat or digest it, like you can shellfish. And since you're accusing me of using a strawman because I referred to eating in response to you talking about eating shellfish as a behaviour, which is totally absurd, then you leave me no choice but to accuse you of using circular reasoning, repetition ad nauseum and word salad.

    Which brings me to my next point: I would recommend looking up the definition of a straw-man argument prior to making the accusation about someone's argument. This is just friendly advice. You can choose not to take it, but it would add merit to your claims if the term was actually used correctly instead of incorrectly.
    LOL Really now, diverting the discussion to talk about a strawman IS a strawman in itself. And then telling me to look it up, is a fallacy called appeal to ignorance. Your entire line of reasoning is quickly becoming one big fallacy after another.

    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?
    And this is a red herring.
    No, oysters are a shellfish, not red herring. lol

    The quantity an individual consumes of the product is irrelvent to the discussion. The reason for the bans on cigarrette smoking are supposedly about optional behaviors that place other people in danger and/or cause them discomfort. Thus the quantity is clearly irrelvent.
    Comparing shellfish to smoking is irrelevant, too.

    Smokers can quit and then they wouldn't have that cross to bear. Can you quit your allergy to shellfish?
    I didn't say it was the smokers cross to bear. I clearly pointed out that it was the non-smokers cross to bear.
    I know you didn't say it, I did. So why are you avoiding my question; can you quit your allergy to shellfish?

    What about my right not to be exposed to shellfish?
    No one is forcing you to eat shellfish.

    My right to live out trumps your right to eat shellfish.
    You have the right to not eat shellfish, so no, your right does not trump my right to eat shellfish. Nor does your right to not eat shellfish trump the right of the shellfood industry or seafood restaurants to sell shellfish to consume-ers.

    And non-smokers can still breathe in the presence of SHS, so that line of argumentation fails miserably.
    Smokers can breath without smoking, too. So it is your line of reasoning that fails miserably. Would you like to start another round of circular reasoning or can we call a truce?

    BTW....

    Tobacco recently came under the jurisdiction of the FDA which means it can now be regulated as a controled substance. Do you have the right to shoot heroin in public spaces?

    Senate Passes Bill to Let FDA Regulate Tobacco
    Senate Approves Bill to Allow FDA Regulation of Tobacco - washingtonpost.com

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Why are you comparing shellfish to second hand smoke? HOw does shellfish consumption by others affect you? I am allergic to bananas. If someone ten seats away is eating it, it doesn't harm me.

    If someone sits ten seats away from me, but smokes, smoke floats in the air. Shellfish don't.
    Are you talking to me?

    I think I just made the same argument.

  6. #346
    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

    Oh no, I think I forgot to quote the person above. My bad.

    The only thing I can think of that he may have in mind is if the facility does not use proper clean up methods. There could be residue of allergenic materials that pollute other foods, but that's a sanitation issue, and it seems mostly avoidable with proper precautions. It's not absolutely so, but you cannot have absolute safety.

    If we banned everything because it was a potential allergen to some people, who were at risk of cross contaminatio, we'd have to ban everything anyway, because many people are allergic to many different things. It would be completely impractical to apply that. We'd have no restaurants or stores at all. No food could ever be served.

    Unique allergens are difficult to create policy for like that, but smoke inhalation is bad for everyone, and easily pollutes others' space.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 06:30 AM.

  7. #347
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    10-18-12 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,268

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

    i'm a non-smoker but i am for the rights of smokers i'm not homosexual but i am for the rights of homosexuals i'm not a woman but i am for the right of the woman to decide what she does with her body oh and i am pro gun. i think anyone supporting banning smoking outside is a hypocrite if they don't stop driving their car for what comes out of the tailpipe is FAR worse than anything that EVER came out of someone's lungs. imo.

  8. #348
    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
    If everyone chose to eat shellfish except you, then no one is putting you at risk. Don't eat it the shellfish, Tucker.
    I've never eaten shellfish in my life, but I've been to the hospital twice over my shellfish allergy. So I guess that kills your argument right there.

    Now you want to include "cooking" shellfish in public, too? That is what is called moving the goal post and in serious debate is not allowed. But then, we aren't really having a serious debate, we're just playing musical chairs.
    Considering I mentioned it in my first post in this thread, how would it be moving the goal posts?


    No, tobacco is not edible or part of the food chain. And it is debatable whether humans are aquatic since there is ample evidence to suggest they are. (see: aquatic ape theory)
    First: Tobacco is part of the food chain. It's not like it's a man-made plant.

    Second, the aquatic ape theory is pure ****e.

    Eating is a neccessity, not a behavioural choice unless done to excess.
    Eating shellfish is not. Can you please give up the straw-man about eating in general?

    Tobacco is not a food and you can't eat it anymore than you can eat a pesticide. You can smoke it, chew it, and snort it but you can't eat or digest it, like you can shellfish. And since you're accusing me of using a strawman because I referred to eating in response to you talking about eating shellfish as a behaviour, which is totally absurd, then you leave me no choice but to accuse you of using circular reasoning, repetition ad nauseum and word salad.
    I have no choice but to believe that you are ignorant of what these fallacies are because you haven't used any of them in the correct sense of the terms.

    If you knew what a strawman was, you'd realize that changing my argument form being about shellfish to being about eating in general is, indeed, a strawman.

    LOL Really now, diverting the discussion to talk about a strawman IS a strawman in itself. And then telling me to look it up, is a fallacy called appeal to ignorance. Your entire line of reasoning is quickly becoming one big fallacy after another.
    Actually, that's not what appeal to ignorance is. Appeal to ignorance has nothing to do with your ignorance of a term. It has to do with a lack of evidence disproving something leading to the conclusion that it exists OR a lack of evidence proving somethings existence leading to the conclusion that it does not exist.

    i.e. There is no evidence of P's existence, therefore P does not exist

    or

    There is no evidence that P doesn't exist, therefore P does exist.

    It has nothing to do with pointing out your ignorance of the correct definitions of fallacies.

    But your continued failure to make an accurate claim about any fallacy is evidence that you are indeed ignorant of what each fallacy means. Pointing that out is not a fallacy of any sort. It's a logically valid argument using the following syllogisms:

    Premise 1: If people are using a term incorrectly, they do not know the correct meaning of that term.
    Premise 2: Moot is using terms related to fallacies incorrectly
    Conclusion: Moot does not know the correct meanings to the terms that relate to fallacies.

    Going further, we can make the following logical deduction:

    Premise 1: If someone does not know the correct meanings of the terms related to fallacies, they are more prone to use fallacies in their arguments
    Premise 2 (conclusion form syllogism 1): Moot does not know the correct meanings to the terms that relate to fallacies.
    Conclusion: Moot is more prone to use fallacies in his/her arguments.




    No, oysters are a shellfish, not red herring. lol
    Quantity consumed in a day is the red herring. It's a type of fallacy related to a non-sequitor argument that distracts form the actual issue at hand.

    Comparing shellfish to smoking is irrelevant, too.
    Just because you fail to understand my arguments doesn't make them irrelevant.

    I know you didn't say it, I did. So why are you avoiding my question; can you quit your allergy to shellfish?
    Aside from the fact that I've answered the question, it is a non-sequitor. I don't bother answering irrelevant questions repeatedly simply because the person I'm debating with is unable to recognize the fallacies inherent in their arguments.


    No one is forcing you to eat shellfish.
    Please reread my posts in this thread. I need not consume the shellfish to have an allergic reaction.

    You have the right to not eat shellfish, so no, your right does not trump my right to eat shellfish.
    You eating shellfish in my presence would put my life at more risk than someone smoking in your presence puts your life at risk.

    Nor does your right to not eat shellfish trump the right of the shellfood industry or seafood restaurants to sell shellfish to consume-ers.
    Actually, if we apply the same exact logical construction used to argue that your right not to smoke trumps the right of the tobacco industry and private businesses right to allow their consumers to consume/purchase tobacco products to my right not to be exposed to a life-threatening condition.

    Smokers can breath without smoking, too.
    Obviously. And they can breathe with smoking. So your non-sequitor fails miserably.

    So it is your line of reasoning that fails miserably.
    One must actually comprehend the others line of reasoning before any claims that it failed can be taken seriously.

    Thus, your claim cannot be taken seriously.

    Would you like to start another round of circular reasoning or can we call a truce?
    Actually, circular reasoning is one of the few fallacies not present in your arguments.



    BTW....

    Tobacco recently came under the jurisdiction of the FDA which means it can now be regulated as a controled substance. Do you have the right to shoot heroin in public spaces?
    Shellfish is also under the jurisdiction of the FDA. Do you know what the F in FDA stands for?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #349
    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 Technocratic View Post
    Why are you comparing shellfish to second hand smoke? HOw does shellfish consumption by others affect you? I am allergic to bananas. If someone ten seats away is eating it, it doesn't harm me.
    I have no idea about bananas or about the severity of your allegy, but shellfish particles will get into the air and my allergy is extremely severe.

    If you go back and read my posts, I explain how other people eating shellfish has caused me to have life-threatening allergic reactions. I have never actually consumed shellfish in my life, but I've had multiple allergic reactions to the food. I repeat, I've never eaten shellfish.



    If someone sits ten seats away from me, but smokes, smoke floats in the air. Shellfish don't.
    Particles from shellfish do get into the air. Perhaps I'm more aware of how people tear the shells because of my allergy, but parts of the shellfish and sprays of juices will actually fly about when people are eating shellfish. Watch someone eat crab legs or lobster sometime with an eye on how much spray there is.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #350
    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 Orion View Post
    Don't worry I read your post. I think I just had a brain fart.

    The main point I was trying to get across, in fewer words, was that eating at a restaurant is a choice, and unfortunately you and people like you forced to become part of the ongoing campaign to change food practices in the food establishment. I think things are changing but it's happening slow. You have an allergy to shellfish, but all humans are vulnerable to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, and which are you more likely to find in a park? At least shellfish has nutritious content that most people can consume. What benefit is there to smoking cigarettes? Yeah nicotine has health benefits, but mixed in with over 1,000 other harmful chemicals?
    Are you using a narrow definition of "benefit" to only include health benefits?

    And I can start listing the negative health impacts of shellfish if we need to. In fact, shellfish poisoning is a real thing and has been known for centuries.

    Again, if private establishments want to allow smoking, then I don't have to go into them, but public spaces should be neutral. Speaking of which, there are two ideas of "neutral" happening here: one is that a smoke-free park/beach is the most neutral; the other is that people doing what they want but respecting others is the most neutral. In an ideal world, I would choose the second option, but in reality, for every considerate smoker there are many others who just don't give a crap. I shouldn't have to breathe one iota of their crap if I don't want to, and if I have my beach blanket setup, my picnic laid out and I'm sitting there with my significant other having a good time, I shouldn't have to pack up because someone lights up a cancerous material nearby. THEY should smoke at home.
    The point I've been making is that your risks from someone else smoking at the beach while you are having your picnic are minimal, nad the issue is primarily that you don't like cigarrettes. Which is perfectly reasonable.

    Whereas when someone comes on by and sets up their picnic and starts grilling shrimp on the barbie, the risk to me is actually higher than the risk you have from the smoke (because the allergens do get expelled into the air, especially during the cooking process). I shouldn't have to pack up and go home just because someone ignorantly starts spewing something that is very poisonous to me up in the air. They should eat their shellfish at home.


    I'm applying the same logic that non-smokers are suing on the smoking ban to shellfish because, for me, shellfish is a very deadly poison even if I do not consume it myself. It is comparable to effects of SHS for me, although more immediate and intense. And I'm not alone. It's the most common allergy among adults. My allergy just happens to be more extreme than normal.

    When most non-smokers choose to leave because they don't want to be around smoke, they are doing so because they wish to avoid mild discomfort. But they do have the option of staying and, in the worst case scenario, endure that mild discomfort.

    But when I leave the area because someone starts grilling up shellfish, I'm not really doing it by choice, I'm leaving by necessity because I'm not taking the risk of having a full blown attack on a beach or at a park because that is legitimately life-threatening. Technically I could choose to stay as well, but if I take that risk the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot worse than just mild discomfort. After having had some major attacks, I don't want to put any degree of risk upon myself anymore becuase the reactions are hard to predict. It's posible to have amajor attack from the particles in the air.

    And I have had to move my location at public places numerous times because of shellfish being cooked because, as I've said, the risk is far too high to take the chance, IMO.

    But I'm not arguing in favor of a shellfish ban. I'm explaining how this "burden" that I have gives me a different perspective regarding a less immediate (although admittedly more common) "burden" placed on the average non-smoker.

    My belief is that the argumetn in faovr of such bans have nothig to do with the dangers of second-hand smoke in public.

    If it was, there would be little resistance to my position about shellfish from those in favor of the ban.

    Instead, I believe this is entirely about their own discomfort. They don't like being around it, so they wish to make it so that they never have to be. If it didn't cause that mild discomfort, they wouldn't be btohered by smoke.

    I use my expereinces with shellfish to expose what I believe is the lie in their arguments. It's not really about the danger posed to people who choose to not engage in the behavior, because they support another behavior being allowed which poses a more immediate danger to those who choose not to engage in the bahavior. The difference being that if that behavior were "banned", it would lead to discomfort for them, because most of them enjoy engaging in that behavior themselves. Moot did a great job of proving my point on that by expressing sympathy for me since I cannot eat something that the "loves, yum".

    The point is, even something we personally consider benign can be an extremely malignant action for other people who may be in our presence.

    And here's the thing, at least some non-smokers will abide by a request to not smoke around them if asked politely. They can place themselves into the non-smokers shoes and be considerate of their desires.

    I have yet to meet a shellfish eater that I do not already know who will do the same. Try it sometime. If you are at a restaurant and the person at the table next to you starts ordering shellfish kindly and politely ask them if they would be willing to get something else because you have a severe shellfish allergy. Or try it next time you are out with a large group of people where you may not know everyone at the table with you. Politely request that nobody orders shellfish becuase of your allergy. If someone doesn't listen, ask the server if you can be seated elsewhere on your own. You'll be treated like an asshole. With the stranger at the other table, you'll moist likely get a "tough ****. Don't go to restaurants then" and with the people at your table they might abide by the request, but they are going to act like you victimized them by making it. Snide comments about somebody spoiling their dinner or asinine bull**** like "I think you are just overreacting. I'm allergic to (insert something they have a mild allergy to here) and I can be around it without any problem."
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 35 of 44 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... 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
  •