Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'm sick and tired of smokers

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.

How do you make the jump from rights to morality? Just out of interest (I feel in a troublesome mood this evening - or really this morning as it is just gone midnight)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 6:58:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.

How do you make the jump from rights to morality? Just out of interest (I feel in a troublesome mood this evening - or really this morning as it is just gone midnight)

One has the right to harm his body, one does not have the right however to harm someone else's body. Period.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:06:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 6:58:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
One has the right to harm his body, one does not have the right however to harm someone else's body. Period.

Still not justifying - just wrapping it up absolute statements. Where does this right or lack of right come from? And why/how does it relate to morality?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:06:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 6:58:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.

How do you make the jump from rights to morality? Just out of interest (I feel in a troublesome mood this evening - or really this morning as it is just gone midnight)

One has the right to harm his body, one does not have the right however to harm someone else's body. Period.

So, would you be in favor of legalizing, for example, PCP or heroin, or injectable/oral drugs?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:06:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:58:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.

How do you make the jump from rights to morality? Just out of interest (I feel in a troublesome mood this evening - or really this morning as it is just gone midnight)

One has the right to harm his body, one does not have the right however to harm someone else's body. Period.

So, would you be in favor of legalizing, for example, PCP or heroin, or injectable/oral drugs?

If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?

*For a very dangerous example - anvils.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:16:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:06:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:58:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 6:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:56:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:15:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Well, it is their right.

But, yeah I hate it when people do that in enclosed spaces.

Outside? Fine. Inside a bus, or a building? No.

Any theory of rights notes that rights are limited by harm to others. Smoking causes health harms to others, so public smoking is morally blameworthy and ought to be banned.

How do you make the jump from rights to morality? Just out of interest (I feel in a troublesome mood this evening - or really this morning as it is just gone midnight)

One has the right to harm his body, one does not have the right however to harm someone else's body. Period.

So, would you be in favor of legalizing, for example, PCP or heroin, or injectable/oral drugs?

If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Ouch: generalizations abound.

Anyway--I was asking because you're quite adamant about illegalizing airborne drugs. So I asked what your opinion was on non-airborne drugs.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How can you possibly be that annoyed by smoke? My parents used to smoke so much that our homes would be completely obscured by the grayness and density of the smoke. As annoying as it was, I could handle it - and definitely also if someone smoked in a bus for a few minutes.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...

That isn't inherent - So you think they should all be legal if done in the privacy of their own homes away from others?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:25:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...

That isn't inherent - So you think they should all be legal if done in the privacy of their own homes away from others?

What about kids, babies? They die faster from SSS. Why don't you care about the other people that suffering because some inconsiderate person?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with pulling the 'ban it now' argument is that you completely ignore the possibility and probability that the ban will be counter-effective. You might ban it in the stores, but not in a whole society. Black markets arise when you ban something that has become a culture in a liberal democratic society.
lotus_flower
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 5:13:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I've had enough. If you want to go kill yourself and cancer sounds like a fun idea to you, then go ahead and wreck your body, no one gives a sh**, ...but DO NOT do so in a way that can harm those around you. Do not go to public environments and poison my air. Do not go to areas where the general public is invited and contaminate the entire proximity.

On the bus from school today, one infernal moron decided it would be funny to light one in the presence of like 20 other people. Of course, they stopped the bus, drove it back to school in effort to identify and punish the guy. We ended up going home a good 30 minutes late.

I would usually turn this hatred into an argument for the abolition of all airborne drugs, but there are somethings even the law cannot fix. Why are people so stupid and inconsiderate that they think it harmless to burn their toxins around other healthy people?

Tha is a convincing argument... Concisered mine: f*ck you. (: lol jk.
But really, if I smoke in public I have the decency to at least go outside first. (unless I'm at a party in which everyone smokes)
"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
*******************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:30:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:25:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...

That isn't inherent - So you think they should all be legal if done in the privacy of their own homes away from others?

What about kids, babies? They die faster from SSS. Why don't you care about the other people that suffering because some inconsiderate person?

I said away from others. Listen.
So if it is away from others who might be harmed, should it be legal?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:39:20 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:30:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:25:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...

That isn't inherent - So you think they should all be legal if done in the privacy of their own homes away from others?

What about kids, babies? They die faster from SSS. Why don't you care about the other people that suffering because some inconsiderate person?

I said away from others. Listen.
So if it is away from others who might be harmed, should it be legal?

Yes of course.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:47:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:39:20 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:30:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:25:19 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:17:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:14:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:12:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
If legalization can be proven to lessen their harm to innocents, then yes. Otherwise, no. All I care about is how much drugs harm other people, which I don't think libertarians frankly give a rats @$$ about...

Not really to do with the tangent I was creating, but as I said; I'm feeling mischievous.
How do they harm others? And how is this inherent to drugs and not other things which if misused could harm others*?


*For a very dangerous example - anvils.

I can make the "inherent" argument for airborne drugs. Smoke is the drug itself, and smoke is an invasive and expanding entity,....a smoke of toxins and poisons will expand to harm innocent bystanders. Don't make me pull out the second hand smoke statistics...

That isn't inherent - So you think they should all be legal if done in the privacy of their own homes away from others?

What about kids, babies? They die faster from SSS. Why don't you care about the other people that suffering because some inconsiderate person?

I said away from others. Listen.
So if it is away from others who might be harmed, should it be legal?

Yes of course.

All drugs?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:53:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:47:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

Yes of course.

All drugs?

This one's a little more complicated. Something that causes people to be a direct danger to others should not be legal. Something that will cause people to be a direct danger to others several years down the road, ... erratically and spontaneously should also be illegal. This means no PCP or LSD.

My safety trumps their right to do what they want.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:55:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Penn and Teller did a documentary explaining why second hand smoke fear is bullsh!t.

You should watch it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:05:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:55:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Penn and Teller did a documentary explaining why second hand smoke fear is bullsh!t.

You should watch it.

Just because someone says so, everyone else that says otherwise is BSing....Don't point me to some documentary, which isn't the best source of evidence, point me to some facts.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:53:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:47:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

Yes of course.

All drugs?

This one's a little more complicated. Something that causes people to be a direct danger to others should not be legal. Something that will cause people to be a direct danger to others several years down the road, ... erratically and spontaneously should also be illegal. This means no PCP or LSD.

My safety trumps their right to do what they want.

So no tvs or anvils then?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:05:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:53:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:47:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

Yes of course.

All drugs?

This one's a little more complicated. Something that causes people to be a direct danger to others should not be legal. Something that will cause people to be a direct danger to others several years down the road, ... erratically and spontaneously should also be illegal. This means no PCP or LSD.

My safety trumps their right to do what they want.

So no tvs or anvils then?

This probably sounds trolly without explanation (i'm not feeling that mischevious)
Basically my point is that anything can alter ones behaviour but if it does not cause harm directly it seems foolish to ban it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:07:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People who would suggest that smoking be banned should be executed, It won't stop there, they will find some new thing to ban after the last ban until life isn't worth living anymore. "The face of tyranny" Just think of the lives saved and the health risks averted associated with the ten commandments being posted in govt buildings. Good thing they banned that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:05:41 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:53:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:47:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 7:45:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

Yes of course.

All drugs?

This one's a little more complicated. Something that causes people to be a direct danger to others should not be legal. Something that will cause people to be a direct danger to others several years down the road, ... erratically and spontaneously should also be illegal. This means no PCP or LSD.

My safety trumps their right to do what they want.

So no tvs or anvils then?

Fallacious reasoning? One does not have the right to use a tv or anvil in a fashion that will harm other people....If a tv or anvil just through its VERY intended use, will kill people transitively, then yeah Thaddeus Stevens, no tvs and no anvils.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:09:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:07:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
People who would suggest that smoking be banned should be executed, It won't stop there, they will find some new thing to ban after the last ban until life isn't worth living anymore. "The face of tyranny" Just think of the lives saved and the health risks averted associated with the ten commandments being posted in govt buildings. Good thing they banned that.

You can be a troll sometimes...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 7:55:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Penn and Teller did a documentary explaining why second hand smoke fear is bullsh!t.

You should watch it.

Second hand smoke has been proven to be linked to lung disease and heart disease.
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:10:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:07:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
People who would suggest that smoking be banned should be executed, It won't stop there, they will find some new thing to ban after the last ban until life isn't worth living anymore. "The face of tyranny" Just think of the lives saved and the health risks averted associated with the ten commandments being posted in govt buildings. Good thing they banned that.

Lol. The death penalty for a simple opinion?

ANd isn't this an example of hasty generalization.