Page 40 of 44 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 440

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

  1. #391
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,566

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

    Smokers have a nicotine addiction. It isn't just a habit, and isn't done just to relax. Smokers continue to use tobacco in one form or another because nicotine is one of them most addictive substances known.

    I once had an ex druggie tell me that kicking nicotine was harder than kicking cocaine. He should know.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #392
    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
    That's true, but they make the choice to be there and be exposed. Most of them are private establishments anyway.
    Most of what?


    How did I prove you correct? Just because you say so?
    No, becuase you are motivated by self-interest only and refuse to compromise because it's all about your convenience.

    I did no such thing.
    Then cite a defintion of making something "neutral" where one side of a polar dichotomy achieves everything it desires while the other gets nothing. I'll wait for it. Probably forever, because such a definition does not exist.


    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.
    It is of minimal danger, and of far less danger than the consumption fo sehllfish in public is for me. the danger argumetn has no merit whatseover in open air.

    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.
    It's not out of line becuase your arguemtns have been fallacious as well as distortion of the facts to overbow the dangers presented in public from SHS. You claimed that my shellfish analogy was not apt, but the dangers of shellfish allergens inteh air is legitimate and not distorted for the affected population. It is far greater than teh trisk posed to you outdoors form simply smelling smoke. Your hyperbole is not a legitimate logical argument.

    Can you please post proof then, other than your say so?
    Can't really prove a negative. No objective evidence exists which suggests that there is a significant risk posed form SHS in open public spaces.
    those studies do not disprove what I'm saying. they talk about the risk from enclosed environments and prolonged exposures.

    It's not a distortion of the data.
    Yes it is. I'll show you how in a second:

    Second hand smoke is hazardous.
    See here you are making a factual claim. SHS is dangerous. What you fail to do is mention the additional "In enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time" aspect. It's a distortion becuase you are using a fact nugget without adding the existing qualifiers. You are trying to generalize information abotu a speciic set of data to anotehr situation when that is simply not founde in fact.

    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?
    It's a lot more than 10 times less, first of all, and second of all teh quantity of a poison involved does makea difference. Especially if you eat soemthing like, oh, I don't know... shellfish, which has a certain amount of acceptable toxinss in it.

    Apples have cyanide. in them.

    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.
    Then you have an irrational fear of a negligable risk.


    Harmful is harmful.
    Except when the thing that is harmful is not harmful to you, but is harmful to otehrs, but it is also something you enjoy, like shellfish perhaps, right?

    And something that is harmful in one situation is not harmful in another. A doctor of TCM should ****ing know better than to say that.

    We don't need a study to compare if a substance is harmful outdoors vs. indoors.
    false.

    If I am sitting next to you outside, you exhale, and I breathe it and start coughing, the venue doesn't matter.
    False.

    Cigarette smoke is proven to be harmful.
    In certain situations.



    Yet.
    You just said one is not needed.

    Only when their freedoms do not encroach upon my freedoms.
    what about when your freedoms encroach on mine? I guess you are ok with that. Wait, I know you are OK with that. you spent a long time defending that position earlier. Only your freedoms matter, right?

    The continual ad hom that I'm lying is not impressive, coming from a mod.
    Your "rational" argument is based on distortions and half truths. Dishonest argumetns are dishonest arguments. Just becuase you ddon't lik ethat it is pointed out doesn't make it an ad hom.

    The truth of your argument is that you really really really hate cigarretes and don't want to encounter them. M

    That would mean a willful intent to cover up information, which is not what I'm trying to do.
    You have willfully distoted teh facts by claiming studies that test the affects of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke in enclosed environments are generalizabel to open environemtns and fleeting exposres. that's willfull deliberate distortion.

    You can demonize me all you want but it's only going to make you look bad. Keep that in mind.
    I'm not demonizing you, I'm pointing out the dishonest tactics you've used such as making up definitions and a variable application of your "ideals".

    And If I were interested in appearances, I'd shave and cut my hair so that my wife stopped bitching at me.



    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.
    Yet even when presented evidence of the danges shellfish pose to people with allergies, and the fairly common nature of those allergies,m you argue that no such ban should be affected.

    Sadly, there is evidecne of lifethreatening condistions from environmental contamination from shellfish and peanuts, yet you still don't aply the same logic to those issues.

    That's all the evidence necessary to make the accusation that this is not the real motivation. It's all about Orion's saftey. Tucker's safety ain't really important enough to enact a ban over.


    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.
    Do you support banning everything that poisons the air?

    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.
    The bolded, underlined italicized statemtn is the most accurate thing you've said in this debate. If it doesn't pose a risk to you, you don't care.

    So give up the "public" safety BS. It's all about Orion's safety. That's an honest statement. I have resppect for that.



    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?
    No. Only the ones that have similar motivations.

    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?
    Actually, I don't see the argument of all non-smokers the same as evidecned by the fact that there are non-smokers arguing the same position as me in this thread. Technocratic provided an argumetnI respect in post 380. You provided an honest argumetn in the post I'm responding to when you said "I am a fairly tolerant person and if something doesn't pose a health or safety risk to me then I could care less."

    My whole argument here has been an effor tto expose that aspect of a common anti-smoker mentality. They don't care when it's someone else at risk or in discomfort. teh shellfish analogy and the subssequent dodges by anti-smokers to try and make it non-comparable when it's very comprable proves that.

    tehy delude themselves into thinking it's about public safety because it seems better of them to ascribe false altruistic rationalizations to their beliefs. I like to cut through the BS and focus on teh real argument. ssimply admitting that makes me far more likely to respect the argumetn from the start. while I may disagree with it still, at least I come away repsecting it.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #393
    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
    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.
    Whether it was intentionally misleading or unintentionally so, it would still qualify as equivocation. Fallacies need not be intentional to be present.

    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.
    Then that is not an actual definition of neutral because it does not offer three options. It's not a smoke neutral environment, it's a smoke negative environment, as in there is no smoke. A smoke positive environment would be one that had smoke in it. In a true dichotomy, where no middle-ground or neutrality, can be reached, there cannot be a neutral state.

    And you don't mean inert either, because the air will never be "inert" in the sense that even without smoke there will be reactive **** in the air. You mean a smoke-free environment that poses absolutely no threat to you from tobacco smoke.

    That statement wouldn't have gotten any response form me other than "Fair enough. that's your opinion of how it should be and you are entitled to it. I disagree, but so be it."

    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.
    Pull that plank out of your own eye before pointing out the mote in mine, Orion.

    You originally "went on the attack" and accused me of a non-sequitor for correctly pointing out that the situation you described was not a neutral one, but was instead favoring one side entirely.

    The issue here is not my behavior, orion.

    From what it sounds like, and I have no reason to disbleive you, it was because you chose the wrong word to convey the meaning you intended. If so, that's an honest mistake.

    But what wasn't an honest mistake was pretending I did something wrong by pointing out your failure to use a word properly. You should have sought clarification on what neutralactuallly means before going "on the attack" yourself, because the exchange was entirely based on your misuse of that term. When you then proceeded to create an entirely new definition for neutral out of whole cloth to defend your position, while also making a false accusation about my rebuttal, I came to the conclusion that the Equivocation was deliberate.

    Admittedly, that was based on my apparently incorrect assumption that you knew what the word you were using actually meant.

    For that assumption, I do appologize. I will not make the same assumption in the future.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #394
    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
    Most of what?
    Private establishments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    No, becuase you are motivated by self-interest only and refuse to compromise because it's all about your convenience.
    This is patently false as I have stated several times. If you can't admit that then you are the dishonest one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Then cite a defintion of making something "neutral" where one side of a polar dichotomy achieves everything it desires while the other gets nothing. I'll wait for it. Probably forever, because such a definition does not exist.
    WordNet Search - 3.0
    "inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive; "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"

    I'm not going to start a debate over dictionary definitions. I have already attempted twice now to explain to you what I meant, but you keep overriding that with your defamation of my character. If you can't accept where I was coming from, then I can't help you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It is of minimal danger, and of far less danger than the consumption fo sehllfish in public is for me. the danger argumetn has no merit whatseover in open air.
    This comparison has already been debunked. Humans are not universally allergic to shellfish. If they were, then I would probably support a law banning the cooking of shellfish in parks too. A cost-benefit analysis would not favour banning shellfish just because a small minority are affected, versus the entire populous being susceptible to health hazards from smoking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's not out of line becuase your arguemtns have been fallacious as well as distortion of the facts to overbow the dangers presented in public from SHS. You claimed that my shellfish analogy was not apt, but the dangers of shellfish allergens inteh air is legitimate and not distorted for the affected population. It is far greater than teh trisk posed to you outdoors form simply smelling smoke. Your hyperbole is not a legitimate logical argument.
    The problem with the shellfish argument, or the argument against allergies in general, is that not everyone has the same allergies. If we cumulatively banned things based on individual allergies, we would all be trapped indoors. That's why it doesn't happen. Smoking however carries universal risk in the form of cancer, and not just allergies.

    Are you going to keep up this flawed analogy or can we please move on already?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Can't really prove a negative. No objective evidence exists which suggests that there is a significant risk posed form SHS in open public spaces.
    Well, I'm sure now that you're making this argument, there are already scientists hard at work, both industry ones and independent ones. It's not unreasonable though to presume it is still harmful outdoors, given that it's harmful in all other venues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    those studies do not disprove what I'm saying. they talk about the risk from enclosed environments and prolonged exposures.
    It's kind of like saying... cyanide hurts people. But does it hurt people outdoors? Or in bars? Or in swimming pools? Or in the bedroom? Well, if there's not a study to verify it, then I guess we can say that cyanide is safe in those areas!

    Flawed reasoning.

    Also, your argument rests upon the notion that there is an acceptable limit to tobacco smoke exposure. If you can find a peer reviewed, independent study to prove that, then please put it forward for my consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    See here you are making a factual claim. SHS is dangerous. What you fail to do is mention the additional "In enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time" aspect. It's a distortion becuase you are using a fact nugget without adding the existing qualifiers. You are trying to generalize information abotu a speciic set of data to anotehr situation when that is simply not founde in fact.
    Please prove that there is a defined acceptable exposure limit to tobacco smoke, then we can talk. And don't bother with industry-sponsored studies, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's a lot more than 10 times less, first of all, and second of all teh quantity of a poison involved does makea difference. Especially if you eat soemthing like, oh, I don't know... shellfish, which has a certain amount of acceptable toxinss in it.
    Again, comparing this to the smoking debate is flawed. I can know there are toxins in shellfish and CHOOSE not to eat them. I can't CHOOSE to breathe air that happens to be contaminated with cigarette smoke. Is this sinking in yet?

    Here it is simplified:
    Food = eating, smoking = breathing. Two different functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Apples have cyanide. in them.
    In amounts miniscule compared to what is contained in cigarettes, and only in the apple seeds, which most people don't eat when they eat apples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Then you have an irrational fear of a negligable risk.
    I accept that, for you, the risk is negligible and you are willing to take it; don't presume that what's negligible for you is the same for everyone.

    Calling it irrational presumes I have no precedent for not wanting to be exposed to tobacco smoke. Please, get over yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Except when the thing that is harmful is not harmful to you, but is harmful to otehrs, but it is also something you enjoy, like shellfish perhaps, right?
    Debunked previously. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And something that is harmful in one situation is not harmful in another. A doctor of TCM should ****ing know better than to say that.
    Tobacco is never used in medicine. That's not to say it has no medicinal value, especially the raw, unprocessed forms; but for the benefits it provides, there are alternative plants/methods that do far less damage to the body. It is for this reason that no medical professional advocates smoking, whether they are a western doctor or a doctor of TCM. Cost outweighs benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False.

    False.

    In certain situations.
    Well now that you have brought up what I "should" know as a DTCM, I'll say that individuals vary. Just because there is no established data about SHS outdoors doesn't mean you can automatically draw the conclusion that it harms no one, especially when there are already plenty of anecdotal reports on people being affected. The bans wouldn't be going into the place if there weren't already health issues arising.

    You can white wash it as selfishness all you want, but that is condensing the health argument to a very simplified point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You just said one is not needed.
    I'm only arguing it for the sake of arguing, because you keep pushing it; I don't think a study is needed. We don't need more studies to prove that tobacco smoke is toxic and a detriment to health. The fact that outdoor smoking dilutes it to a degree doesn't have much bearing on the inherent toxicity of the contents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    what about when your freedoms encroach on mine? I guess you are ok with that. Wait, I know you are OK with that. you spent a long time defending that position earlier. Only your freedoms matter, right?
    No one is banning tobacco itself. You can still smoke, just not in shared spaces. You can't drink alcohol in vehicles, or in public spaces either. There are acceptable locations for where people can get intoxicated and not face legal penalties. This is no different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Your "rational" argument is based on distortions and half truths. Dishonest argumetns are dishonest arguments. Just becuase you ddon't lik ethat it is pointed out doesn't make it an ad hom.
    Look at who you are talking to here. I am not a dishonest person and I think you know that. I invite you to continue debunking my arguments, but taking the time to emphasize how dishonest you think I am is only detracting from the debate and wasting both our energies. You are the first to come into this thread and basically call me a liar. I wonder why you feel so threatened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The truth of your argument is that you really really really hate cigarretes and don't want to encounter them.
    That matter is secondary. Banning smoking in parks is for the good of all who visit them. If smokers don't like that, then I say, sour grapes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You have willfully distoted teh facts by claiming studies that test the affects of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke in enclosed environments are generalizabel to open environemtns and fleeting exposres. that's willfull deliberate distortion.
    I haven't willfully distorted anything. The fact that I didn't even know I was precluding an aspect that, for you, was importing criteria, doesn't make me a liar. It means I overlooked something. I think I already admitted to that when I later said that it's reasonable to presume risks; and by presume I mean, we don't have objective data that outdoor smoking is harmful, but based on precedent of other smoking studies, we could make an educated guess.

    I'm not going to defend myself on this again. If you continue to continue the incivility by calling me a liar, I simply won't reply to you anymore. Your choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Yet even when presented evidence of the danges shellfish pose to people with allergies, and the fairly common nature of those allergies,m you argue that no such ban should be affected.
    Deaths from Food allergies - WrongDiagnosis.com
    "Deaths information for Food allergies: Approximately 100 Americans, usually children, die annually from food-induced anaphylaxis. (Source: excerpt from Allergy Statistics: NIAID)"

    Compare that to deaths related to SHS. Yeah, let's ban shellfish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Sadly, there is evidecne of lifethreatening condistions from environmental contamination from shellfish and peanuts, yet you still don't aply the same logic to those issues.
    Sorry but deaths related to smoking takes priority to those less than 100 deaths per year due to shellfish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's all the evidence necessary to make the accusation that this is not the real motivation. It's all about Orion's saftey. Tucker's safety ain't really important enough to enact a ban over.
    I think I have successfully debunked your hysteria over shellfish above. Most people's allergy to shellfish is just GI discomfort. They get diarrhea, maybe some histamine reactions in the body, that's it. SHS has been linked to cancer, respiratory distress, and also allergies.

    You can keep trying to make it about me all you want but nothing you say will change the reality of what smoking does to people and those around them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Do you support banning everything that poisons the air?
    Idealistically, yes... but the state of human development is at where it's at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The bolded, underlined italicized statemtn is the most accurate thing you've said in this debate. If it doesn't pose a risk to you, you don't care.
    Now that's just cherry picking. You know I've said way more than that, you're just conveniently honing in on the aspects that support your one-sided attack of my debate style. I care about others just as much as I care about myself when it comes to health. That's why I'm in the profession I'm in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So give up the "public" safety BS. It's all about Orion's safety. That's an honest statement. I have resppect for that.
    What would garner your respect is completely irrelevant to this debate, and I could frankly care less about impressing you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    No. Only the ones that have similar motivations.
    Oh I see... so, because you've had some debates with selfish non-smokers in the past, you assume I am just like them. Now who's being irrational.

  5. #395
    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

    (cont'd)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My whole argument here has been an effor tto expose that aspect of a common anti-smoker mentality. They don't care when it's someone else at risk or in discomfort. teh shellfish analogy and the subssequent dodges by anti-smokers to try and make it non-comparable when it's very comprable proves that.
    I already told you that I sympathize with your shellfish analogy, and that I care about allergy sufferers, but from a policy perspective it doesn't make sense to ban shellfish consumptions just because less than 100 people die per year. In a cost-benefit analysis, that makes ZERO sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    tehy delude themselves into thinking it's about public safety because it seems better of them to ascribe false altruistic rationalizations to their beliefs. I like to cut through the BS and focus on teh real argument. ssimply admitting that makes me far more likely to respect the argumetn from the start. while I may disagree with it still, at least I come away repsecting it.
    It's not a delusion... but you can keep trying to tow that line if you like. You can also keep waiting for me to do a big reveal of my ulterior motives or whatever, but there are none. Everything I believe has been posted here in my thoughts and explanations.

    And once again, what you respect is not relevant to this discussion; it is also distasteful to compare me to other posters. I think it's you who should just admit that you're simply frustrated because I won't cave and agree with you. Sorry, but there's not much I can do to help you there.

  6. #396
    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
    Whether it was intentionally misleading or unintentionally so, it would still qualify as equivocation. Fallacies need not be intentional to be present.

    ...

    Admittedly, that was based on my apparently incorrect assumption that you knew what the word you were using actually meant.

    For that assumption, I do appologize. I will not make the same assumption in the future.
    I accept your apology. And yes, I apparently had the wrong definition in mind, but I was trying to describe an "inert" environment, i.e. one that is less harmful to people. Apparently using the word neutral set off too many people.

    I admit my mistakes, but FYI, it does not create an environment of openness for me to do so when I am already being lambasted with accusations of lying, equivocation, and willful distortion of information.

  7. #397
    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
    I accept your apology. And yes, I apparently had the wrong definition in mind, but I was trying to describe an "inert" environment, i.e. one that is less harmful to people. Apparently using the word neutral set off too many people.
    Inert doesn't work either. A lack of tobacco smoke won't make an environment inert. Oxygen itself is extremely chemically reactive. Also, an inert atmosphere would lead to asphyxiation and death. Chemical reactivity is quite important to continued existence.

    Just for the record.

    I admit my mistakes, but FYI, it does not create an environment of openness for me to do so when I am already being lambasted with accusations of lying, equivocation, and willful distortion of information.
    Meh, if you have emotional reactions to having the fallacies in your arguments pointed out, I have no control over that.

    It does make it pointless to continue the discussion ebcause your fallacies are not going to spontaneously correct themselves, especially given the fact that they are inadvertent.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #398
    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 does make it pointless to continue the discussion ebcause your fallacies are not going to spontaneously correct themselves, especially given the fact that they are inadvertent.
    I accept your concession then, and respect that you want to back out.

    Later.

  9. #399
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Smokers have a nicotine addiction. It isn't just a habit, and isn't done just to relax. Smokers continue to use tobacco in one form or another because nicotine is one of them most addictive substances known.

    I once had an ex druggie tell me that kicking nicotine was harder than kicking cocaine. He should know.
    I concur. Nicotine is the most addictive substance I have ever encountered. During my formative years it was looked upon as not only acceptable but encouraged. I am so grateful that has changed.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  10. #400
    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 not just use the term: "Smoking Free Environment" as defined as "an environment in which smokers exist, but not while smoking."

    Pretty simple.

Page 40 of 44 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... 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
  •