For or against the smoking ban?

[pennywise]

is that such a terrible idea though? rather than outlawing cars, why not outlaw them from the downtown areas of major cities which have smog problems. This is actually slowly starting to happen in a number of major cities. this analogy does at least as much to support the smoking ban.

It isn't a terrible idea. I'm just saying that people should consider their own contributions to air pollution and carcinogens when they give their coldest withering look to me and my cigarette while they drive away in their Ford Excursion with all 17 seats empty, blowing their exhaust in my face.

The thing is, the way our society is currently set up, driving is necessary to live your life, at least for some people (those living where the nearest things are miles away for example). Smoking is not necessary for anyone to live their life. It's a personal choice which is not necessary that affects other people.

For one thing, for the vast majority driving is not a necessity. Even for those where is realistically, while you may have to contribute to air pollution to some degree, the level of pollution that you contribute is often much higher than necessary. Lots of people could easily arrange a carpool, or drive a vehicle that has lower emissions and better gas mileage, and could also arrange to make fewer trips.

I don't bitch at them for "ruining my lungs" because they drive a huge 87 pickup truck with no catalytic converters that gets 3 mpg 10 miles into town every time they want a cup of coffee.

 

[Xorkoth]

typerlowly: I was calling you an asshole because of your response to Missykins:

Go back to school and enroll in a base level philosophy course where you'll get introduced to a couple of concepts obviously foreign to you— deductive reasoning and logic. Happy learning!

If that's not an asshole statement, I don't know what is. I'm not aware of anywhere else I called you any names... I did say I think it borders on retardation to think that secondhand smoke does not cause any damage, and I stand by that. I wasn't saying you were a retard, just that such a belief is foolish. But anyway, I can see that there's no way this conversation will get anywhere with you.

 

[ebola?]

>>Go back to school and enroll in a base level philosophy course where you'll get introduced to a couple of concepts obviously foreign to you— deductive reasoning and logic. Happy learning!>>

Did you learn anything about ad hominem attacks in intro philosophy?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

>>Even someone of below average intelligence should be able to see that deductive reasoning is the bases [sic] of this entire discussion concening whether or not there should be a ban to smoke a cigarette or be ignorant with a potentially false validation.>>

This is not true. When reasoning about empirical issues, and particularly when interrogating the warrants that connect together premises and conclusions, induction and assumption enter into the picture. The three cognitive moves are really in constant dialogue.

ebola

 

[typerlowly]

Toast: I'm actually a woman. By the way, I love how you get so defensive and incoherent when you can't back up your "arguments". Very entertaining. But of course, since Anti-Smoking partisans don't stand for personal responsibility (just the opposite actually) I guess you don't feel the need to take any. Wait, maybe you might find a spelling error in the above paragraph, and point it out, proving that I'm a guy with a small penis, since you just used such a convincing argument.

Ebola: Cute, but factually myopic. Surely you are not saying that our national interests are as limited as I believe you are suggesting? That propositions and laws can be dealt with assumptions? They would seem to be, according to your logic. Why don't you go back to the intellectual drawing board, counselor. As I stated ad nauseam, there is ample blame to go around — but you are sickeningly, gleefully partisan in pointing the finger solely at me.

Xorkoth:
"I did say I think it borders on retardation to think that secondhand smoke does not cause any damage, and I stand by that."
I just love how judgmental and condescending fascists like yourself can be. Anyone who disagrees with you is bullied and suppressed with name calling and criticism. Actually, I never said it didn't cause damage. And having proven you worng already, I feel no need to prove you wrong again. I don't want to make you cry.

And there we have it folks. The most delusional statements of this entire thread. Please, even you don't believe what you've just said. You're delusions are on par with those of Al Sharpton only without the comic relief. I've dismantled every point you've attempted to make, however nonsensical and pointless they may be. Seriously, I'm bored with you now. Later.

 

[Rogue Robot]

If even some damage is too much, then we would have to outlaw cars too. Have you ever seen the smog that forms over some cities? It's at least as damaging as secondhand smoke, perhaps more.

Cars aren't the only issue, though. What about coal burning plants and the likes? All of these factors contribute to polluting the air, too.

On another note, I really find it degrading while I'm at school to have someone actually have the balls to approach me to tell me to go smoke by the street and compare my cigarette to car exhaust. I should note, I go out of my way to stay away from people while I'm at school when I smoke since a smoking ban has been placed on my campus.

 

[toa$t]

Toast: I'm actually a woman. By the way, I love how you get so defensive and incoherent when you can't back up your "arguments". Very entertaining. But of course, since Anti-Smoking partisans don't stand for personal responsibility (just the opposite actually) I guess you don't feel the need to take any. Wait, maybe you might find a spelling error in the above paragraph, and point it out, proving that I'm a guy with a small penis, since you just used such a convincing argument.

Ebola: Cute, but factually myopic. Surely you are not saying that our national interests are as limited as I believe you are suggesting? That propositions and laws can be dealt with assumptions? They would seem to be, according to your logic. Why don't you go back to the intellectual drawing board, counselor. As I stated ad nauseam, there is ample blame to go around — but you are sickeningly, gleefully partisan in pointing the finger solely at me.

Xorkoth:
"I did say I think it borders on retardation to think that secondhand smoke does not cause any damage, and I stand by that."
I just love how judgmental and condescending fascists like yourself can be. Anyone who disagrees with you is bullied and suppressed with name calling and criticism. Actually, I never said it didn't cause damage. And having proven you worng already, I feel no need to prove you wrong again. I don't want to make you cry.

And there we have it folks. The most delusional statements of this entire thread. Please, even you don't believe what you've just said. You're delusions are on par with those of Al Sharpton only without the comic relief. I've dismantled every point you've attempted to make, however nonsensical and pointless they may be. Seriously, I'm bored with you now. Later.

wow, it only took you three days to write that? did you get any sleep?