Page 39 of 44 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 440

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

  1. #381
    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
    Well yes. That's why you don't use a new one mid stream and pretend it's the same one you started with.
    If you make up a new definition, but write it out so that people will asssume you are using the actual definition, and then when challenged make slight alterations to your argument so that the new made-up definition fits better, it's equivocation. In this case, it's not an actual definition that is beign equivocated with, but it is an equivocation.

    He's saying a neutral situation as in neutral ground, which would mean neither side has the advantage. When it is pointed out that this was not neutral ground as one side clearly had an advantage, the arguemtn shifted to the made up defintion of "health neutral", whateve rthe hel that means.

    it was definitely equivocation.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #382
    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

    Well in that case, yes. I thought you meant just using a different definition, period.

  3. #383
    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
    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.

    Actually, that's an argument I can at least respect, even though I don't really agree with it. It relates to the rock bottom theory of addiction.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #384
    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
    Well in that case, yes. I thought you meant just using a different definition, period.
    I did a poor job explaining why it was equivocation before. My apologies.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #385
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    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.
    Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  6. #386
    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 WI Crippler View Post
    Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.
    You could consider it a benefit if it takes away the stress not created by smoking in the first place, yes. Often, though, the smoking contributes to their stress in the first place, so it's like using what's causing it to cure it. I don't see how it's ultimately beneficial though, since it contributes to stress and high blood pressure in the first place, so it seems to provide a temporary fix to a problem it often has created.

    In the cases it's not the cause, it would still be a dumb thing to do, as you said about net benefit. That it's certainly not.

    No doctor would recommend you smoke a cig. to calm down.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 09-24-10 at 08:22 PM.

  7. #387
    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
    Apparently you don't understand what having access means. Non-smokers do indeed have acces to smoking locations.
    That's true, but they make the choice to be there and be exposed. Most of them are private establishments anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    How did I prove you correct? Just because you say so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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 did no such thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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
    A baseless accusation. SHS is proven dangerous. That goes without saying. Just because it's "less dangerous" to you in public spaces doesn't make it NOT dangerous at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    I have presented much more than simple emotional reasoning. I've established health causes and I'm fairly certain I employed my reasoning in a logical fashion. You are welcome to disagree and I am not against that, but to continue calling me logically fallacious is out of line. Just accept that you disagree. It doesn't have to be more than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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 please post proof then, other than your say so?

    Here are some links that contradict what you're saying, from a simple google search:
    Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Environmental Tobacco Smoke
    Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) - CDIC: Volume 29, Supplement 2, 2010 - Chronic Diseases in Canada - Chronic Diseases - Public Health Agency Canada

    It's not a distortion of the data. Second hand smoke is hazardous. In material safety data sheets for things like cyanide, they don't make a distinction between lethality in open space or closed space, it's a hazardous chemical, period. One of many in cigarettes. It shouldn't matter than I am breathing 10 times less outdoors than if you were smoking next to me in doors, I AM STILL BREATHING IT and it's not good for me. How hard is that to comprehend?

    And actually, I don't hate the smell of tobacco, and I even like the smell of cigars; I also like the smell of pot. Does that mean I want to breathe in their SHS? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because of that, it is morally correct to smoke around them, if only to piss them off for their lies and distortions.
    Right... keep talking the talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    No obejective study has ever shown minimal exposure in an open environment to have any harmful effects.
    See above.

    Harmful is harmful. We don't need a study to compare if a substance is harmful outdoors vs. indoors. If I am sitting next to you outside, you exhale, and I breathe it and start coughing, the venue doesn't matter. Cigarette smoke is proven to be harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Only when you agree with it.
    Only when their freedoms do not encroach upon my freedoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    The continual ad hom that I'm lying is not impressive, coming from a mod. That would mean a willful intent to cover up information, which is not what I'm trying to do. You can demonize me all you want but it's only going to make you look bad. Keep that in mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    From my view, it is about public safety. We don't need anymore evidence that smoking is harmful to the smoker and bystanders. There might not be studies yet to prove outdoor risk, but it's a safe assumption. If all people have to go on right now is discomfort and distaste, then I support it until the scientific facts come in. If those peer reviewed, non-industry funded facts prove that outdoor smoking doesn't harm anyone, then I would be in favour of the law being revoked. Until then, given the known information on smoking, it's reasonable to make these laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    We've also had plenty of smokers come in and whine about how their freedom to poison air is being taken away gradually, and that the public won't support their cancerous, life-shortening addiction. Boo hoo, cry me a river.

    The feelings you describe about non-smokers, I too have them, and I have perhaps intermixed them too much with my health concerns in this thread, but make no mistake, the health concern comes first, followed by my personal annoyance. I am a fairly tolerant person and if something doesn't pose a health or safety risk to me then I could care less. Smoking has an established history of causing bodily harm, and it's an educated assumption to say this harm extends to the outdoors as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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)
    All I can do is LOL at this. You know, I tend to take issues on a case by case basis, and don't make very broad comparisons like this one. Trying to compare me to the "ground zero mosque" fanatics is really just sad. Is every political issue the same in the mind of Tucker Case?

    You see the arguments of all non-smokers as the same, and I'm being grouped right in with them. Does it ever occur to you that this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I smoke?

  8. #388
    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 WI Crippler View Post
    Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.
    Also called the placebo effect. If we gave subjects some fake cigarettes to smoke, they would probably feel better too. Relaxation and calmness are often tied to habitual practices. For many, coming home, plopping on the couch and turning on the t.v. is the equivalent of a smoker lighting up. Fact is, smokers don't need that particular outlet to relax. There are many other options to choose from that don't endanger themselves or others.

  9. #389
    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
    It can also be when there is a misleading use of a word with multiple definitions. By making up a new definition, it would qualify.
    Or it can be a term you employ when you simply disagree with me. The word "misleading" here is disingenuous as I was not intending to mislead anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    Again, you are trying to make it seem like I am twisting an argument instead of just acknowledging that we have a different view on neutral, and I am open to debate. Debating the point is one thing, calling me a liar is another. I don't appreciate it. To me, smoke neutral means the air doesn't have smoke. That doesn't mean smokers aren't allowed there, it just means they can't light up. By neutral I mostly meant inert, meaning it can't harm anyone.

    But instead of getting me to clarify, you went on the attack and accused me of being a equivocator or a liar. Not the kind of behaviour I would come to expect from you of all people Tuck.

  10. #390
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Also called the placebo effect. If we gave subjects some fake cigarettes to smoke, they would probably feel better too. Relaxation and calmness are often tied to habitual practices. For many, coming home, plopping on the couch and turning on the t.v. is the equivalent of a smoker lighting up. Fact is, smokers don't need that particular outlet to relax. There are many other options to choose from that don't endanger themselves or others.
    But for smokers, smoking is the placebo effect that works to calm them. So they do need that particular outlet to relax, because it is the "treatment" for lack of a better term, for their temporary condition. Can they replace it? Maybe. Should they be forced to? No.

    I had a lady in clinic I needed to do therapy with. Her blood pressure was too high to do any therapy with for 4 days in a row(we got her directly from acute care where she had been for 5 days previous). Come to find out she had dipped tobbacco since she was 4 years old, and was now 89. Since we were at a tobacco free...excuse me, neutral, campus she couldn't dip. Her daughter came and took her off campus, she got her fix and came back and her BP was sufficiently low enough to begin therapy with her. Did dipping improve her overall physiology? No. did being able to dip improve her stress/anxiety levels so that she could perform physical activity in a safer manner? Absolutely.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

Page 39 of 44 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... 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
  •