It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
If you don't want shellfish contamination, don't go where seafood is. I can't avoid smokers anywhere, least I again stay at home.
That's not a strawman. You argued we ought to ban shellfish from public because you, and a tiny minority, have a severe reaction to it. You also indicated that the scope and practicality of the social problem taht said allergy reflects was irrelevant. Given that consideration is dismissed....you have a problem in application. Your severe allergy is only the most common FORM of the type of allergy, but it doesn't mean teh allergy itself is frequent. It affects, by your own source, a small absolute figure. An allergen that affects a large number of the population is entirely different. If we ban shellfish, despite it not actually affecting a significant number of people, we'd have to do the same thing for every similar case. Thus, we'd be banning many services because tiny minorities have common-rare allergies. Many tiny groups of people are just like you, but with other items and foods.You created a strawman where this would be about "every rare allergen condition" because it's easier to argue your point when you create a strawman like that (It's impractical because everything would be banned!!1111!!!)
No, it's really not as practical at all, givent he consequences of application lead to undesirable results that outweigh the benefits to just the tiny minority. We can't go around banning things because 2% of people who may come into contact with it have an allergy. It makes much more sense to regulate the affects of an allergy that impacts everyone, and from which you cannot get away unless you don't go in public. If we allow shellfish to be banned because 2% have a problem with it, we'd need to apply the same logic to all instances which have 2 + percent of the pop. that has a problem with them, too. Impractical, unless you consider scope of application and unintended consequences.Your strawman that it becomes impractical is nullified because it is just as practical (with a lack of social harm) to ban shellfish and peanuts (the two foods I actually mentioned) in public as it is to ban smoking in public.
You didn't directly say it, no, but your argument's logic unintentionally supports it. You claimed that the scope of the problem doesn't matter, essentially. Thus, you have that problem.Nice strawman. I never said "and if someone can claim an allergy we should ban the practice". I'm talking about the two most common and deadliest food allergies specifically, where all of the danger could be prevented if the products were banned in public.
Less about safety, and more about not wanting to get eye, throat, and nasal irritation and infections. You won't die from SHS, probably.My ultimate point is that smoking bans have preceicely jack**** to do with safety and everythign to do with non-smokers wishing to be comfortable anywhere they choose to go.
But it's absurd to shut down any service that may cause a small number of people who may be there to get hurt.
Your smoking is bad anyway, so you should stop. For you, and for society. Shellfish doesn'thave that additional problem. It's only bad to a tiny group of abnormal people.
Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 05:51 PM.
Smokers can choose where they smoke. I can't always choose where I am inhaling smoke. That is the difference in the argument on choice. There are still places they can go where others won't be exposed or at least where others are just passing by quickly and won't be exposed for long. Parks are leisure places for families and where people go to be stationery. I can't count the number of times that I have setup a beach blanket, go everything laid out that I wanted for the afternoon, and then some ignoramous lights up near me. I shouldn't have to move because they are oblivious or inconsiderate. Now I don't have to because the same law is in Vancouver.
Again, the health risks are established. There is no argument against it. And you're right, I don't care. Smokers don't care about their own health or mine, so why should I care about indulging their habit? They can take a hike.
Apparently you don't understand what having access means. Non-smokers do indeed have acces to smoking locations.
All you have done is prove that my beliefs about non-smokers are corect. they are by far and away the far more selfish of the two parties being discussed.
Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.I believe I already pointed out how your electron analogy was flawed; I also pointed out how your shellfish allergy does not compare to the universal toxicity of smoking to all humans. It's ironic because thus far all I have seen from those against this law are non-sequitur comparisons to other things that are not even comparable to the issue of smoking. Now because I'm pointing that out, I'm equivocating? What a joke.
Your arguments about my analgies have alrteady been proven false. And you've made up infomation to make SHS more dangerous than it really is in public space
I have. Peopel who aren't even aware of which fallacy is which that have presented nothing more than emotional rhetoric and hyperbole aren't really in a position to criticize my logic until they develop an arugment that is actually logical.Can you present a fallacy-free defense for your position?
Yeah, there is significant no risk posed to others in open space posed from SHS. The whiners who pretend there is are distorting the data to suit their selfish agenda which is entirely because rthey don't like the smell and they will whine incessently about it until they get their way.Can you even form of an argument in favour of smoking in parks without comparing it to other irrelevant things?
Because of that, it is morally correct to smoke around them, if only to piss them off for their lies and distortions.
No obejective study has ever shown minimal exposure in an open environment to have any harmful effects.All objective studies on SHS prove it to be harmful, which is why it's also called "passive smoking".
You distort the facts. teh studies you are referring to all look at prolonged exposure in closed environments. No objective study supports an outdoor ban.The vast, vast majority of studies that dispute this are funded by the tobacco industry. Do some basic research on how the studies are funded and the facts will be very clear to you; it's one of the few instances in health research where the info lines up in a rather black and white manner. Outdoor smoke poses lesser risk, but there is still risk. There is no excuse for exposing others to the toxic material in cigarettes. This isn't about my comfort, but my health. If that makes me selfish, then oh well. Maybe my health matters more to me than yours does to you.
Only when you agree with it.I'm a fairly staunch defender of people being able to do what they want to do.
I think you can find evidence of that on DP. I sympathize with most libertarian arguments; this, however, is not one of them. Smoking is a menace to the well being of society and the more limits put on it, the better. The only reason why I'm against an all out ban on tobacco itself is because it, like the war on drugs, would be a dismal failure. But the government might as well tax and fine the hell out of smokers in order to make up some of the cost to society.
You could rewrite this as "I really really really really really hate smoking so I want it banned from ever happening in any place I could possibly encounter."
I'm OK with that argument. At least it's an honest one. But distorting the facts about the dangers to present an argumetn while simultaneously rejecting a legitimate arguemnt regarding a legitimate threat as being irrelvent, when it is actually being used to illuminate the hypocricy and self-centered nature of the anti-smoker's position (and it really is doing a fantastic job of that, BTW) is dishonest.
Admit it's not about public safety, and it's not about "equality" and simply admit it's all about your personal hatred of cigarrettes and then we can move on.
The probelm is that everyone can see through the rationalizations. We've had non-smokers come in and agree with me on this multiple times in this thread. The only proponents of such bans are entirely, I mean entirely motivated by their selfish desire to not have to deal with the mild discomfort they occasionally encounter from cigarettes. I'm OK with that as long as they admit it.
It's just like how 9 out of 10 people who oppose the "ground zero mosque" are actually motivated by a secret dislike of muslims/islam, not the rationalizations they present in lieu of admitting the truth. (that's a non-sequitor, but it's also a comparison)
Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-24-10 at 05:55 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
That's not what the fallacy of equivocation is, though. Equivocation doesn't mean you created a new definition. Equivocation happens when in part of the argument, you use a different definition of the same word, thus shifting between multiple definitions. You may use a different definition of a term, but you must stipulate it and why beforehand. You just can't switch up mid argument and apply two different word standards as if they were one.Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.
Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 05:58 PM.
In other words, he isn't using Neutral to mean what it would be considered to mean, but something else. But by using the word neutral, it gives the appearance of some other position.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-24-10 at 06:00 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Well yes. That's why you don't use a new one mid stream and pretend it's the same one you started with.
Like I said, a made up term. We aren't talking about segregating people based on habit. Places either A) Allow smoking, or B) Prohibit smoking. I haven't read the whole thread, but if someone has made the argument that we shouldn't let smokers themselves, into places like buildings, parks, beaches etc regardless whether they have a cig lit up or not....that would be the first time I would have heard that argument. Personally, I don't have any issue with an establishment prohibiting smoking. I would probably go there, over a place that allowed smoking for similar service/product. I don't have a problem with governments saying they want no smoking at areas that they own, such as DMVs, city/county/state/national parks etc.... I do have a problem with government saying that a privately owned establishment cannot make its own decision in this regard.Smoke neutral means no smoke, but it's still a place that everyone can go to, smokers and non-smokers alike.
You can always chose to walk away. Just as I chose to take a different route for my runs. You have choice. Smokers are increasingly do not, because of people like you.Smokers can choose where they smoke. I can't always choose where I am inhaling smoke. That is the difference in the argument on choice. There are still places they can go where others won't be exposed or at least where others are just passing by quickly and won't be exposed for long. Parks are leisure places for families and where people go to be stationery. I can't count the number of times that I have setup a beach blanket, go everything laid out that I wanted for the afternoon, and then some ignoramous lights up near me. I shouldn't have to move because they are oblivious or inconsiderate. Now I don't have to because the same law is in Vancouver.
That's the whole crux of your argument. which is fine, but don't bitch when something you enjoy all of the sudden becomes a danger to society and government takes it away. I'm sure you will say " But what could they take away. I am sure smokers felt the same way 30 years ago.And you're right, I don't care. Smokers don't care about their own health or mine, so why should I care about indulging their habit? They can take a hike.
It does nothing beneficial for you. Smokers do find smoking beneficial to their stress levels.But what does smoking do that is beneficial to society? The answer is nothing.
I've been around family members and friends that smoke, and I've had two friends that shot up heroin. All those smokers are alive and well and are not a drain on their families resources or time. One of the heroin users is dead, and the other had been a huge drain on his friends and families and is thankfully getting clean. Smoking is not nearly as damaging to our societal fabric as illicit drugs are. Its just slightly inconvenient for those who believe the world revolves around their wants and desires.It's not quite the same thing. Prohibition obviously has not worked, and by that same token, people should be free to do what they want to their own bodies as long as they are not harming others in the process. Smoking in public spaces does not meet that criterion. At least a heroin addict is using a needle and the substance only goes into them. We can talk about social costs too, and health care costs, but nothing is more damaging to society right now than the war on drugs. At least with decriminalization more people could get help, education, and understanding. That said, there is still a level of reasonable use, and that mostly relates to location. People should not be able to smoke crack in parks either, or cannabis, or tobacco. It's all the same... smoke that disperses and I have to breathe in, affecting me in who knows what ways.
Last edited by WI Crippler; 09-24-10 at 06:05 PM.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
Smoking seems to provide a stress benefit, because they are addicts that need their fix. It actually is harming them. That's like saying chugging caffeine "helps" you get rid of a headache. It really doesn't. It caused it in the first place.
Smokers need hard medicine, and they will thank people later. The harder you make it for them, the more incentive they will have to stop.
Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 06:07 PM.