• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ReverendHellh0und said:
No you can't however if it's a 5k hit with mandatory community service. and you started handing em out, you'd get the desired result.
Click to expand...

When I worked on the river, I told my guests that they were free to smoke in the raft (I smoked in it, after all) and around the river. But the only rule was that I didn't want to see a single ****ing butt hit the water or river bank. I told them to field strip them and put them in their pockets. And if they couldn't do that, then give them to me and I would put them in their pockets for them. And, that if I saw one of them throw a butt in the river, they were getting tossed out of the raft and their only ticket back in would be a ciggarette butt.
 
rivrrat said:
****ing seriously? You're going to go there? You actually want to get into a discussion on how the word hypocrisy is commonly used? THAT is your deflection? That's a poor one.
Click to expand...

No, you want to misuse words in an ill fated attempt to defend your argumentive fallacy. My point was straight forward.

It does when you attempt to demonize an entire group of people for littering while ignoring the fact that people from all walks of life do it. You cannot sit there and call smokers - as a group - irresponsible for littering when non-smokers - as a group - litter even MORE. If you hadn't made such a generalization and hadn't attempted to continue to validate it, then I wouldn't have chimed in. But you cannot single out smokers for littering and use that as some sole tactic for banning smoking while ignoring all the other littering and sources of it.
Click to expand...

I was not demonizing anyone. I simply brought up a point that has yet to be mentioned. Instead of debating it in proper fashion, you go off on a fallacious tangent about hypocricy. The fact that non smokers litter has nothing to do with the fact that there is a problem regarding ciggy butts in large cities (in the tune of millions of dollars per year in cleanup cost). So why not fess up and admit you made use of a fallacy? If your ego will not allow you to, then stop trying to defend the merit of your fallacy.

It is as meaningless as yours.
Click to expand...

The day the majority of my arguments stem from my opinions and anecdotes is the day you will have a point.

Wow.. so in Texas, cig buts account for 13% of the litter. Guess that means that 87% of the litter can be attributed to non-smoking activities.

Yet you want to demonize smokers and call them irresponsible. I call that hypocrisy since you're a member of the group that actually does the majority of the littering. You can call that whatever the **** you want.

Litterers are the issue, not smokers. So try focusing on the correct issue.
Click to expand...

You never earn points for stubbornness. The issue was litter caused by smokers; this is a completely rational argument being that the thread is about a smoking ban.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Why? you still have your freedom to enjoy a legal product, just though if you are irresponsible with your waste, you will be hammered.
Click to expand...

I was only applying draconian in the same sense as did you in your previous post. People are still free to enjoy a legal product, only in designated areas. Here's an idea for a business: Smoking Bars!!!!!! (without the booze).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I was only applying draconian in the same sense as did you in your previous post. People are still free to enjoy a legal product, only in designated areas. Here's an idea for a business: Smoking Bars!!!!!! (without the booze).
Click to expand...




why without the booze? why are we dictating to private business thier clientel?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
My point was straight forward.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't.


I was not demonizing anyone.
Click to expand...
So calling all smokers irresponsible wasn't demonizing?

I simply brought up a point that has yet to be mentioned. Instead of debating it in proper fashion, you go off on a fallacious tangent about hypocricy. The fact that non smokers litter has nothing to do with the fact that there is a problem regarding ciggy butts in large cities (in the tune of millions of dollars per year in cleanup cost).
Click to expand...
There's a problem with LITTER. The fact that cig butts make up a small percentage of that litter really isn't relevant. The attack and focus should be on litterers if your issue is with the litter.


You never earn points for stubbornness. The issue was litter caused by smokers; this is a completely rational argument being that the thread is about a smoking ban.
Click to expand...
No, it's not a rational argument if you're going to call ALL smokers irresponsible due to the minority of them who litter and contribute less than 1/5 of the litter on the ground and pound your banning drum due to the fact that some smokers litter.

The issues are separate.

Dear ****ing god. This is ridiculous and I'm not going to participate in it any longer.
 
Last edited:
This thread is making me want a cigarette.

BRB... And I'll make sure to throw my butt on the ground.
 
Caine said:
This thread is making me want a cigarette.

BRB... And I'll make sure to throw my butt on the ground.
Click to expand...
I believe that is a Class 3 misdemeanor, officer, with a minimum $250 fine. :prof
 
rivrrat said:
No, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

To each their own i guess.

So calling all smokers irresponsible wasn't demonizing?
Click to expand...

I never said all smokers were irresponsible, i said smokers in general. Because we are unable to know the percentage of ciggy litterers, the general term should suffice. When i say smoking causes lung cancer, that does not mean i am saying all smokers will have lung cancer. Context is key.

There's a problem with LITTER. The fact that cig butts make up a small percentage of that litter really isn't relevant. The attack and focus should be on litterers if your issue is with the litter.
Click to expand...

My issue is the negative externalities associated with smoking in public places. Do try and keep up!

No, it's not a rational argument if you're going to call ALL smokers irresponsible due to the minority of them who litter and contribute less than 1/5 of the litter on the ground and pound your banning drum due to the fact that some smokers litter.
Click to expand...

You are in no position to make the statement highlighted in bold. The fact that this group is causing 13% of the litter is quite telling. How about you do a little less bitching, and make a valid counter-argument. Smokers make up what percentage of the population?

The issues are separate.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Do you really believe is no link between people who smoke cigarettes, and ciggy butt litter?

Dear ****ing god. This is ridiculous and I'm not going to participate in it any longer.
Click to expand...

You should have just kept quiet if all you can muster is fallacy for an argument.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
As i am sure, smokers are well known for disposing their cigarette butts properly. Face it smokers, the majority of you do not act in a responsible, respectful manner.

Quick question: Does anyone know how much NYC spends annually on cleaning up cigarette butts from the streets, drains, and sidewalks?
Click to expand...
But doesn't it create jobs?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Actually Mark Levin was the first to use the term "statist" as he eloquently outlined the soft tyranny we live in. Note he thought this long before obama was elected. Now tocqueville's soft tyranny is googleable, and if you want to have a discussion as to where we are in a soft tyranny I'd be happy to let you know. Do note I thought of and its searchable I believe on some forums, I described this nation as a soft tyranny, before levin did.


Like I said, A bigger bucket is what you need to seek.

:failpail:
Click to expand...
Actually, Ayn Rand used the term, "statist" in a 1964 Playboy interview. In that same interview she was asked if she was a Bircher because her philosophy was almost identical to the Birchers. LOL Of course the pompous b---- refused to label herself. But a Bircher by any other name is still a Bircher.

The Alexis d' Tocqueville Institute is funded by the Koch's. MLK's neice is a member and she gave a speech at Beck's rally. Small world ain't it?

Amazon.com: Koch Family: Cato Institute, John Birch Society, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Koch Industries, Bill Koch, David H. Koch: Explore similar items

The Koch Brothers | David Seaton's Blog
 
Moot said:
Actually, Ayn Rand used the term, "statist" in a 1964 Playboy interview. In that same interview she was asked if she was a Bircher because her philosophy was almost identical to the Birchers. LOL Of course the pompous b---- refused to label herself. But a Bircher by any other name is still a Bircher.
Click to expand...
I already pointed out that the term predates both of them. How obtuse can a person be???

Moot said:
The Alexis d' Tocqueville Institute is funded by the Koch's. MLK's neice is a member and she gave a speech at Beck's rally. Small world ain't it?

Amazon.com: Koch Family: Cato Institute, John Birch Society, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Koch Industries, Bill Koch, David H. Koch: Explore similar items

The Koch Brothers | David Seaton's Blog
Click to expand...
Good Lord, not this Koch bull**** again. Better check under your bed tonight -- I hear they like to hide there. :screwy
 
Last edited:
Just a quick question.....

WTF DOES THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM 'STATIST' HAVE TO DO WITH THIS GOD DAMNED DEBATE??!?!?!?!?
 
Caine said:
Just a quick question.....

WTF DOES THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM 'STATIST' HAVE TO DO WITH THIS GOD DAMNED DEBATE??!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Damned statist ...
 
Caine said:
Just a quick question.....

WTF DOES THE ORIGIN OF THE TERM 'STATIST' HAVE TO DO WITH THIS GOD DAMNED DEBATE??!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
If we had a chalk board I'm sure we could find a connection. LOL
 
Moot said:
If we had a chalk board I'm sure we could find a connection. LOL
Click to expand...

WTF Does a chalk board have with any of this either?

Oh, thats right, its a lame attempt by someone who finds the term "debate politics" synonymous with "trash talk Glen Beck and avoid actual debates".

Move on troll, move on.
 
Coronado said:
I already pointed out that the term predates both of them. How obtuse can a person be???
Click to expand...
Speaking of obtuse, how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the American Liberty League was the precursor to the JBS? For the historically illiterate, they were a group of corporate CEO's that were exposed for conspiring to overthrow FDR in the 1930s.....

American Liberty League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good Lord, not this Koch bull**** again. Better check under your bed tonight -- I hear they like to hide there. :screwy
Click to expand...
Gaa whatever. It's not like your quaint little opinions have any bearing in reality.
 
Caine said:
WTF Does a chalk board have with any of this either?

Oh, thats right, its a lame attempt by someone who finds the term "debate politics" synonymous with "trash talk Glen Beck and avoid actual debates".

Move on troll, move on.
Click to expand...
Oh lighten up. Or better yet light up.
 
Moot said:
Speaking of obtuse, how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the American Liberty League was the precursor to the JBS? For the historically illiterate, they were a group of corporate CEO's that were exposed for conspiring to overthrow FDR in the 1930s.....

American Liberty League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaa whatever. It's not like your quaint little opinions have any bearing in reality.
Click to expand...
"Gaa," more :screwy.
 
I think if smoking is such a problem, and they can tell us what kind of light bulbs and crappers to use, we have to address HIV/AIDS in a government interventionist manner too. Millions have died from HIV/AIDS, and so I propose... for the safety all all people, homo or heterosexual, that we develop a sensor system for sodomy. Call it The New Apollo program. No blasting off until all systems are go! The job is to develop a system to protect the sodomizers... if an erect penis is about to enter an anus, an neighborhood alarm goes off and the local Sex Police have the right to enter your home and make sure that you are wearing a government sanctioned condom fit for the act of sodomy.

Condom disposal must follow Hazmat guidelines.

All in the name of protecting the masses y'know.

.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's stick to the topic at hand. If it's not about cigarettes, drop it.
 
Of course Vehicular traffic also causes pollution not only of the Air but also the ground.
However this particular Post was about smoking in New York Public places.
I am fully in favor of banning smoking everywhere and everyone who smokes.
As an aside I would also ban vehicular traffic from anywhere in the USA, after all we could always travel in the USA, on the backs of Donkeys, as opposed in the USA, of everyone having to carry Donkeys
 
Moot said:
Well now lets see, no history of cancer in her family, in fact longevity ran her family. She was a non smoker, didn't do drugs, but worked for several years in a windowless bar in LA that was constantly filled with SHS and she lived in an apartment in Long Beach for several years with SHS constantly filtering up through the hallways and air vents. It was bad. But I wasn't there when the doctors gave her diagnosis, but she was pretty convinced it was the SHS and so am I. She wasn't bitter about it though, because that was the life she chose and she knew that life is full of risks. She just died too young that's all...and I miss her. Sad thing is, I also think my own SHS killed my cat, so I don't even smoke in my own house anymore and now I smoke on the patio or out in the garage.
Click to expand...

In LA huh...a place known for its smog. I respect that you think that it was cigarette smoke that caused the cancer. But I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced that it couldn't have been one of the many other ways in which lung cancer can be gotten. Especially being in a city that is as dirty as LA.

In anycase, I do want you to know that I am under no delusion as to thinking that SHS is not the cause of cancer in people. I just don't think that it is the cause of as much as so many anti-smokers claim. The facts don't really support it.

Also, I am sorry for your loss.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
We are not here to discuss non smokers and their irresponsible activities. The fact of the matter is, the effects of smoking are nowhere near internalized to the smoking population; and their actions spillover into the lives of others. Cigarette butt litter is an issue.



Textbook red herring.
Click to expand...

RR's argument still stands. This thread was started because non-smokers are trying to ban smokers from smoking in common areas such as parks. So they are as much apart of this discussion as are smokers. Trying to limit this whole debate to the supposed "irresponsibility" of smokers is disengenous. Especially when you seem to want to make a blanket statement about the whole group. A false blanket statement at that. For proof I give you...me. I never throw my cigarette onto the ground. I rub out the cherry and pocket the butt until I have time to put it in the garbage. I have not smoked on a sidewalk in about 5 years now. I don't smoke any where near other people unless I know them to be smokers also. If someone comes to my house and I know that they are non-smokers I show them respect by not lighting up until after they leave.

Sorry bud, but your blanket statement is quite false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom