• 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

Goldenboy219 said:
So is acid rain, and smog. :roll:



And there you go on with your red herring. I made no reference to non smokers and their littering because it does not pertain to the proposed smoking ban, or bare any significance within this discussion. Cigarette butts do!

If you need to use a fallacy to make a point, there really is not reason to reply.
Click to expand...

Littering has nothing to do with the proposed smoking ban. THAT is the point.
 
rivrrat said:
Littering has nothing to do with the proposed smoking ban. THAT is the point.
Click to expand...

Are you stating that cigarette littering will be unaffected if the smoking ban is signed into law? It's amazing how there is little if any cigarette litter in areas that do not allow smoking.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Are you stating that cigarette littering will be unaffected if the smoking ban is signed into law? It's amazing how there is little if any cigarette litter in areas that do not allow smoking.
Click to expand...

In some areas, it might. In others it will not.

What's that got to do with the ban? Unless you think they're banning smoking because littering is illegal?
 
rivrrat said:
In some areas, it might. In others it will not.

What's that got to do with the ban? Unless you think they're banning smoking because littering is illegal?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the irresponsibility of smokers in general. Obviously, there are already littering fines in place, but they are not enforced to the extent required to reduce ciggy butts from being an issue. If i remember correctly, ciggy littering skyrocketed once bar and restaurant smoking bans were put in place (people smoked outside and dropped their buts there).
 
Moot said:
Glenn Beck is a Bircher. He's the one that started using the term "statist" on his show along with "socialist, Marxist and communist, and now all the little FoxNews monkey's are using that term too. So if Rev wasnt a Bircher, he is one now if he's going to use Bircher talk to help spread Bircher paranoia.
Click to expand...




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:
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
It has to do with the irresponsibility of smokers in general. Obviously, there are already littering fines in place, but they are not enforced to the extent required to reduce ciggy butts from being an issue. If i remember correctly, ciggy littering skyrocketed once bar and restaurant smoking bans were put in place (people smoked outside and dropped their buts there).
Click to expand...

:roll:

This is what I'm talking about:
It has to do with the irresponsibility of smokers in general.
Click to expand...

It's statements like that I take issue with. Smokers, in general, are not irresponsible. You're pointing at cig butts and making that claim. THAT is why I pointed at other littering by other people in my prior posts. And now we have come full circle.

Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.
 
rivrrat said:
:roll:

This is what I'm talking about:


It's statements like that I take issue with. Smokers, in general, are not irresponsible. You're pointing at cig butts and making that claim. THAT is why I pointed at other littering by other people in my prior posts. And now we have come full circle.
Click to expand...

By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.

Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.[/QUOTE]

Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.

Smokers that litter with their butts annoy the ever living **** out of me and I'd love to pound them upside the head. But, the same goes with ALL litterers. It's just that I *witness* SOME smokers doing that since I was a smoker for nearly two decades. But, because I was a smoker for that long, I also have noticed that smokers who do that are the minority.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).
Click to expand...




Dropping butts on my beach or out your car when I am behind you on my motorcycle will motivate me to introduce myself. :thumbs:



Littering should be fined signifcantly.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
By pointing out other instances of litter in an attempt to devalue my statement, you are committing a fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.

Anecdotal evidence aside, there are estimates that state 4.5 trillion butts are littered each year in the world (not sure about the US).
Click to expand...

And? There's an island of garbage in the middle of the Pacific, so your point is?

And, I'm talking about the US, not other countries. In India, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to litter. It absolutely floored me. They thought I was silly for carrying my garbage around until I finally found a garbage can (which were few and far between). So, the laws and cultural norms in other countries are irrelevant to ours.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Dropping butts on my beach or out your car when I am behind you on my motorcycle will motivate me to introduce myself. :thumbs:

Littering should be fined signifcantly.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

My thought is, smoking bans in these public areas (allowing for designated smoking areas) will reduce the said littering.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Agreed.

My thought is, smoking bans in these public areas (allowing for designated smoking areas) will reduce the said littering.
Click to expand...

So would eating bans in public areas. :roll:

What a ****ing ridiculous reason to be applauding a huge nanny government action.
 
rivrrat said:
No, I'm pointing out hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Wow....

You engaged in a red herring fallacy, as our discussion has nothing to do with the littering in general. Since we are discussing smokers, and i am arguing that smokers (as a whole) are irresponsible, there is no hypocrisy on my part.

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Click to expand...

Of course you are too stubborn to admit it.

And? There's an island of garbage in the middle of the Pacific, so your point is?

And, I'm talking about the US, not other countries. In India, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to litter. It absolutely floored me. They thought I was silly for carrying my garbage around until I finally found a garbage can (which were few and far between). So, the laws and cultural norms in other countries are irrelevant to ours.
Click to expand...

Your previous use of anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as the statistics indicate.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Wow....

You engaged in a red herring fallacy, as our discussion has nothing to do with the littering in general.
Click to expand...
You're right, the discussion had nothing to do with littering. Hence your hypocrisy in bringing it up at all and attempting to incorrectly demonize one group of people for it.

`-`
Since we are discussing smokers, and i am arguing that smokers (as a whole) are irresponsible, there is no hypocrisy on my part.
Click to expand...
Which they are not. Your hypocrisy lies in using littering as some example of irrespsonibility on the backs of all smokers while ignoring the fact that many non-smokers litter to.

Of course you are too stubborn to admit it.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to admit on my end.

Your previous use of anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as the statistics indicate.
Click to expand...
What statistics would that be? The ones you said you didn't have for the US?
 
rivrrat said:
You're right, the discussion had nothing to do with littering. Hence your hypocrisy in bringing it up at all and attempting to incorrectly demonize one group of people for it.
Click to expand...

I never stated that it did. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy, or will i have to define it for you :roll:

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
Click to expand...

You are on quite a roll Riv:lol:

Which they are not. Your hypocrisy lies in using littering as some example of irresponsibility on the backs of all smokers while ignoring the fact that many non-smokers litter to.
Click to expand...

The fact that other people litter does not have any significance regarding this discussion. The fact that ciggy butts are all over the streets, and costs in excess of $15 million annually in NYC does pertain to the discussion regarding smoking bans. Hence your red herring. The more and more you attempt to defend it, the less credible your argument becomes.

There is nothing to admit on my end.
Click to expand...

This is simply a discussion in which your opinion is meaningless.

What statistics would that be? The ones you said you didn't have for the US?
Click to expand...

statistics
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Agreed.

My thought is, smoking bans in these public areas (allowing for designated smoking areas) will reduce the said littering.
Click to expand...



I disagree. while it may, I think it's to draconian. Prohibition did not solve drinking issues.

Punish the criminals, not the law abiding folk.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I disagree. while it may, I think it's to draconian. Prohibition did not solve drinking issues.

Punish the criminals, not the law abiding folk.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, i am not advocating tobacco prohibition of any kind; only to require those who wish to engage in that particular activity to act responsibly. Previously in a thread, i stated that i am not allowed to smoke paperless joints and drink beers in the middle of Time Square. Not only am i not allowed, i would not want to on the basis of respect. There are places where these behaviors are perfectly acceptable.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Keep in mind, i am not advocating tobacco prohibition of any kind; only to require those who wish to engage in that particular activity to act responsibly. Previously in a thread, i stated that i am not allowed to smoke paperless joints and drink beers in the middle of Time Square. Not only am i not allowed, i would not want to on the basis of respect. There are places where these behaviors are perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...



WE used to be able to brown bag it. :shrug:


What improved by stopping it?


City revenue. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
WE used to be able to brown bag it. :shrug:

What improved by stopping it?

City revenue. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Bar revenue increases and there are less people drinking in the middle of the street with glass containers. There is always a viable alternative: do it anyways. :shrug:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Bar revenue increases and there are less people drinking in the middle of the street with glass containers. There is always a viable alternative: do it anyways. :shrug:
Click to expand...



That's actually a crock. There was an initial hit, however, there was little change as folks like to drink. The only difference is the litter one, one that could be handled with existing laws.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
That's actually a crock. There was an initial hit
Click to expand...

To what? Liquor stores maybe. I would be willing to bet that the sales of flasks really took off.

however, there was little change as folks like to drink. The only difference is the litter one, one that could be handled with existing laws.
Click to expand...

You can't have cops sit everywhere.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I never stated that it did. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy, or will i have to define it for you :roll:



You are on quite a roll Riv:lol:
Click to expand...
****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.


The fact that other people litter does not have any significance regarding this discussion.
Click to expand...
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.

This is simply a discussion in which your opinion is meaningless.
Click to expand...
It is as meaningless as yours.


statistics
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To what? Liquor stores maybe. I would be willing to bet that the sales of flasks really took off.



You can't have cops sit everywhere.
Click to expand...



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.
 
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...

Now you are talking draconian!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom