• Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
    197 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467782]It's because some people like you are entitled to the point they think they possibly have a right to dominate the public place by impeding physical restrictions through smoking and that it's other people's god damn fault if they are annoyed by YOUR smoke that we need legislation.[/QUOTE] Your annoyance is no justification for a law. Your comfort can go fuck itself. You don't have the [I]right[/I] to tell other people what they can and cannot do, least of all because you are uncomfortable. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467811]What freaking lawn, we are talking about the public place, the god damn street where everyone has to walk. It's a place that's supposed to be used by everyone with as much comfort and as less danger as possible. If your smoke makes the public place less convenient and more dangerous for so much people, then it has to be banned from there.[/QUOTE] Welcome to America. You don't own the street any more than they do. You don't get to make the rules. I don't see how you can say it's a public place and then say you can exclude people from it.
If you are smoking it's for your own comfort (more specifically to feed an addiction that if left ignored makes you feel uncomfortable and physically bad). Why is your comfort worth more than a hundred other people who are physically identical to you ? It's not. All you are doing when you light a smoke in the public place while being surrounded by tons of other people is bothering them and poisoning them. Your own comfort fucks up the life and comfort of so much others, and they don't depend on some drugs to feel good while you do, so essentially it's up to you to stop smoking and keep it to a private place, not up to them to shut up and inhale your toxic, smelly and eye-hurting smoke.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467846]If you are smoking it's for your own comfort (more specifically to feed an addiction that if left ignored makes you feel uncomfortable and physically bad). Why is your comfort worth more than a hundred other people who are physically identical to you ? It's not. All you are doing when you light a smoke in the public place while being surrounded by tons of other people is bothering them and poisoning them. Your own comfort fucks up the life and comfort of so much others, and they don't depend on some drugs to feel good while you do, so essentially it's up to you to stop smoking and keep it to a private place, not up to them to shut up and inhale your toxic, smelly and eye-hurting smoke.[/QUOTE] Nobody is telling you what to fucking do, they're just having a smoke. Walk on the street or don't. The fucking smokers aren't going to beat you up and have you arrested for walking by them. You're the one saying "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW." If you think smokers give two shits about what you do or don't do, you're fucking delusional. It's your body, not theirs. You deal with it on your own. You can't force them to deal with it for you. Also, if you are going to continue the health argument, please rebuke this: [QUOTE=Lankist;36467747]I'm not de-railing anything. Your argument is that public safety is paramount. I'm asking you if your electricity and luxury products are worth 15,000-22,000 lives every year. You don't [I]need[/I] them. Because if the answer is yes, then how are 3,000 lives important but 22,000 are trivial?[/QUOTE]
Also how is preventing people from smoking "excluding" smokers from it ? All we are asking you is to restrain your damn smoking habit for about 5 minutes until you can get home or somewhere where you're alone or among other smokes and ONLY other smokers. It's not going to block you from walking down the street. In France, smoking is banned in public places. You can't get a fine directly by simply lighting up a smoke, it's not an immediate punishment and you can still smoke in some designated places or just smoke where there isn't other people to be bothered by your cigarette. If you do get annoying by smoking among other people who are bothered by your smoke, then it's your damn problem if the police passes by/is called by someone and you get fined for it.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36467872]All we are asking you is to restrain your damn smoking habit for about 5 minutes[/QUOTE] You aren't asking a god damn thing. You're [I]telling.[/I] Don't soft-sell your own bullshit. And I don't give a damn about France. France also banned burqas and public prayer. They systematically persecute gypsies simply for [I]being[/I] somewhere within the vicinity of civilization. They aren't the fucking model to be looking at. France is the prime example of why you [I]don't[/I] ban behaviors for the sake of comfort.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467455]Oh, so people with peanut allergies aren't allowed to leave the house, now?[/QUOTE] Perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said. Honestly are you able in these debates to not make up stuff to try and prove a point against someone. It just makes you look like a moron.
A ban on public smoking in the UK would be a bad move, about a quarter of the population smoke. People would smoke in public regardless of the legality, people already smoke bud pretty much openly without consequence.
I have no strong feelings about it. I really don't care if someone smokes in the same room as me. But I understand why others feel the way they do, seeing as it is widely spread in the media of the damages tobacco causes for health. It's a no win argument I'm afraid, the media has the power over people.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468007]Perhaps the most hilarious thing you've ever said. Honestly are you able in these debates to not make up stuff to try and prove a point against someone. It just makes you look like a moron.[/QUOTE] Thank you, Peanut Gallery. Your input is valued. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] Also considering I'm the only person here citing any sort of evidence, I'd say yes, I am perfectly capable of "not making stuff up."
[QUOTE=Lankist;36468115]Thank you, Peanut Gallery. Your input is valued. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] Also considering I'm the only person here citing any sort of evidence, I'd say yes, I am perfectly capable of "not making stuff up."[/QUOTE] Not saying you don't provide evidence, just when it comes to arguing with people you do make stuff up when trying to quote them like some you're a journalist for a tabloid paper or something. Honestly you could easy get a job at The Sun with the way you argue it's hilarious.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468153]Not saying you don't provide evidence, just when it comes to arguing with people you do make stuff up when trying to quote them like some you're a journalist for a tabloid paper or something. Honestly you could easy get a job at The Sun with the way you argue it's hilarious.[/QUOTE] It's called testing their logic. Apply the logic of their argument to another, usually more extreme scenario, and then let [I]them[/I] poke holes in it. The hyperbolic scenario is intentional. The opposition argues [I]against[/I] their own logic, and their arguments can then be turned against the primary topic. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] It typically works best when you apply their logic to something seemingly non-threatening or otherwise something they presumably like. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] Of course, asking me to fucking explain how it works only proves you didn't get the point. If you think I'm [I]actually[/I] arguing for a french (freedom) fry ban, you're fucking psychotic. I'm doing precisely the opposite.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36468173]It's called testing their logic. Apply the logic of their argument to another, usually more extreme scenario, and then let [I]them[/I] poke holes in it. The hyperbolic scenario is intentional. The opposition argues [I]against[/I] their own logic, and their arguments can then be turned against the primary topic.[/QUOTE] The only thing you seem to be testing is your comedy skills. It doesn't prove a point and it actually goes against your valid arguments. You're the only one to provide evidence in this thread so don't throw that out the window by making up dumb arguments to "test their logic". It reminds me of those people who at student protests piss of the police and then when the police push them to get back they scream police brutality to prove a point. [QUOTE]If you think I'm [I]actually arguing for a french (freedom) fry ban, you're fucking psychotic. I'm doing precisely the opposite.[/I][/QUOTE] I know this but the way you do it is terrible.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468195]The only thing you seem to be testing is your comedy skills. It doesn't prove a point and it actually goes against your valid arguments. You're the only one to provide evidence in this thread so don't throw that out the window by making up dumb arguments to "test their logic". It reminds me of those people who at student protests piss of the police and then when the police push them to get back they scream police brutality to prove a point.[/QUOTE] That's cool. Are you going to join the debate or are you just going to continue to attack me personally? [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] Because three posts about how much you hate Lankist does not a debate make. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] I recommend getting a blog. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=icemaz;36468195]I know this but the way you do it is terrible.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the input, Dr. Expert. I'll be sure to weigh your rhetorical expertise the next time I'm formulating a rebuttal.
icemaz, you're definitely in the wrong here sorry. It's reductio ad absurdum. It's a perfectly valid argumentative tool (I can write you it out in propositional logic form if you really want me to). As opposition to the reductio, it's up to you to either accept the absurd conclusion, or show that the morally significant feature isn't common in both the reductio and the original example. Then you have to say what that morally significant feature is. Nobody on facepunch seems to be able to grasp reductio ad absurdum and it's intensely irritating.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36468200]That's cool. Are you going to join the debate or are you just going to continue to attack me personally? [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] Because three posts about how much you hate Lankist does not a debate make. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] I recommend getting a blog.[/QUOTE] I don't hate Lankist I just hate the way he does things. Also if you want to smoke go for it, I have no problem with that (There I joined in ma!).
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36468232]icemaz, you're definitely in the wrong here sorry. It's reductio ad absurdum. It's a perfectly valid argumentative tool (I can write you it out in propositional logic form if you really want me to). As opposition to the reductio, it's up to you to either accept the absurd conclusion, or show that the morally significant feature isn't common in both the reductio and the original example. Then you have to say what that morally significant feature is. Nobody on facepunch seems to be able to grasp reductio ad absurdum and it's intensely irritating.[/QUOTE] Brograbs.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36468232]icemaz, you're definitely in the wrong here sorry. It's reductio ad absurdum. It's a perfectly valid argumentative tool (I can write you it out in propositional logic form if you really want me to). As opposition to the reductio, it's up to you to either accept the absurd conclusion, or show that the morally significant feature isn't common in both the reductio and the original example. Then you have to say what that morally significant feature is. Nobody on facepunch seems to be able to grasp reductio ad absurdum and it's intensely irritating.[/QUOTE] No I know this, but he does it in every thread all the time. I think his arguments would be better if he used it a little more sparingly! I mean I find it hilarious most of the time (The peanut one is pure gold I swear)
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468244]No I know this, but he does it in every thread all the time. I think his arguments would be better if he used it a little more sparingly![/QUOTE] Again, thank you for the tips! Bye.
Actually I want to change my views. I respect smoking cigars and pipes, but not cigarettes because they are a ridiculously cheap/no effort way of getting a fix.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468244]No I know this, but he does it in every thread all the time. I think his arguments would be better if he used it a little more sparingly! I mean I find it hilarious most of the time (The peanut one is pure gold I swear)[/QUOTE] If it's logically valid, I say do whatever you want. Reductios are supposed to sound absurd (as the name suggests). If it's valid, then the absurdity lies on their shoulders, not his. I'm not necessarily saying it was valid because I honestly haven't dissected the argument that carefully, but it's the objector's job to prove it's [I]not[/I] valid, not to say "YOU SOUND SILLY!"
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36468282]If it's logically valid, I say do whatever you want. Reductios are supposed to sound absurd (as the name suggests). If it's valid, then the absurdity lies on their shoulders, not his. I'm not necessarily saying it was valid because I honestly haven't dissected the argument that carefully, but it's the objector's job to prove it's [I]not[/I] valid, not to say "YOU SOUND SILLY!"[/QUOTE] But for Lankist it seems that he can use it wrong at times. This was a pretty funny example, but in otherwise it goes beyond a valid thing to genuinely just "Making shit up" to prove a point. Also Lankist no need to be so hostile all the time!!
[QUOTE=icemaz;36468322]But for Lankist it seems that he can use it wrong at times. This was a pretty funny example, but in otherwise it goes beyond a valid thing to genuinely just "Making shit up" to prove a point. Also Lankist no need to be so hostile all the time!![/QUOTE] Go on.
Lankist can be whatever he wants. He's not hostile though.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36468350]Go on.[/QUOTE] At this point I realise you've made so many posts, too many for me to go through. Next time I see it I'll tell you ok! But please carry on with this thread as before I guess! I also think you'd be much better debating in real life debates, cause I think you'd be awesome at it. Text lets you down.
The problem with debating in person is that often, people are too scared to challenge your view if you sound remotely like you've thought about your stance. On my course, of about 150 people or so, there's only really a dozen or so who I've seen actually contributing intelligently to debate. Almost everyone else is more or less silent. It's also a lot easier to trip yourself up with sloppy speech which I'm sometimes guilty of. But having said that I think having an intelligent discussion about this sort of thing is one of the most entirely fulfilling experiences you can have. It never really gets that hostile; you're normally trying to, as a group, synthesize a view that can defend itself, rather than staunchly defending the one you came into the room with. Facepunch just isn't a very good environment for being open minded. I'm a lot less prone to rejecting people's hypotheses in person than I am on here, and I much prefer it in person.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36468232]icemaz, you're definitely in the wrong here sorry. It's reductio ad absurdum. It's a perfectly valid argumentative tool (I can write you it out in propositional logic form if you really want me to). As opposition to the reductio, it's up to you to either accept the absurd conclusion, or show that the morally significant feature isn't common in both the reductio and the original example. Then you have to say what that morally significant feature is. Nobody on facepunch seems to be able to grasp reductio ad absurdum and it's intensely irritating.[/QUOTE] Reducto Ad Absurdum and Straw Man are very different things. While Reducto Ad Absurdum conserves the logical form, and therefore stays logically valid, Straw Man arguments don't. What Lankist used are Straw Man arguments mixed with Fallacies of Omission. And in your post, you've used a Fallacy of Ambiguity. [editline]25th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=icemaz;36468322]But for Lankist it seems that he can use it wrong at times. This was a pretty funny example, but in otherwise it goes beyond a valid thing to genuinely just "Making shit up" to prove a point. Also Lankist no need to be so hostile all the time!![/QUOTE] From what I've read, Lankist appears to be a very emotional person. He gives in emotion, and doesn't seem to care about the logical validity of his argument. He thinks that showing more irrelevant emotion makes one's argument righter, which isn't true at all. He resorts to attacking the opponent and not his argument. And when he does attack the argument, he still attacks parts of the opponent's personality, but he also attacks a wrong version of the argument - the one which he wrongly represented - a caricature of the argument in question.
[QUOTE=Clutzoid;36419047] Yes it's very bad you, and personally I hate breathing it in, because I know every time I do breathe it in, that could be 2 minutes of my life gone. [/QUOTE] ech. I hate it when people think like this. You aren't going to get cancer unless you smoke packs a day for years straight, breathing in when you walk by someone who is smoking on the street isn't going to do a single freakin' thing to you.
[QUOTE=polarbear.;36476785]ech. I hate it when people think like this. You aren't going to get cancer unless you smoke packs a day for years straight, breathing in when you walk by someone who is smoking on the street isn't going to do a single freakin' thing to you.[/QUOTE] I hate when people think like you. There's a causal link between smoking and lung cancer. And it doesn't have to be 'some packs a day'. Even rather insignificant smoking quantities increase your lung cancer risk rather dramatically.
I don't think it should be banned in public places mainly because, well, I smoke in public places. I'm not as addicted as a lot of people, but you kind of have to think about it from a smoker's point of view. For one, cigarettes are legal. Another thing, when someone needs a cigarette, they [I]need[/I] a cigarette. What if they're at the store, or the movies or anything? As long as there are ashtrays and stuff, I think it's fine. Although I'm guilty to littering my cigarette butts, and I'm aware it's not good. Maybe just have a specifically designated area for smoking, but I'm sure some places already have that.
If people want to smoke, fucking let them. Are we so cradled as a society that we want to eliminate all risk factors? Fuck that society, it's for pussies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.