Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you are putting various conditions, aka subjectively establishing what is acceptable and what is not. Others may disagree with their experiences.
That is the problem with a bias.
Simply stating that it is the same without any justification doesn't make it so. Good try!
What? I'm stating that the weird fixation to smoke inside a place where many people do not want to be near it (due to the fact perfumes contains smaller molecules that actually disperse faster than heavier cigarette smoke molecules...hence why you smell it longer...aromatic rings of perfumes are lighter and the mostly ethanol solutions have a relatively low evaporation point, all these combined generally allow dispersion to happen relatively quicker). Think of race between a fat person and thin person.
As smoke also has properties that allow for its aromatic compounds to stay intact with wind, it is more easily spread in a location. This, again, boils down to weight. Slow moving molecules are going to become less dense slower. Whereas lighter molecules will be less dense quickly.
Now that we have done...I will state my position once again. I think that my smoking shouldn't impede another person's desire to not smoke. Wearing perfume or cologne is not the same since typically its more faint and it rarely sticks on the other person's clothing. Smoke does stay on others.
So yeah, I think that by me going outside (which I do) it enables a win win. People are not left with smokey clothes, and I enjoy my cigarette.
Didn't realize we were arguing subjective "beliefs". I thought we were talking about the science, the facts of the issue.
If I would have known you didn't care about that and were just demanding everyone appeal to your demands, I would have dismissed you as irrelevant. I will do so now, thank you.
Far from irrelevant my friend ... these types are a danger to everyone, including themselves. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think ignoring them is unwise.
Since they cannot be reasoned with ... due to their own insistence in rejecting reason, I think we need to "ban" them. They'll understand that!
Simply stating that it is the same without any justification doesn't make it so. Good try!
I didn't make a statement, I provided your own quote and explained that you were rationalizing your position for your own benefit. Please explain how your premise which I specifically quoted is valid in the reasoning you provided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulseoul
What? I'm stating that the weird fixation to smoke inside a place where many people do not want to be near it (due to the fact perfumes contains smaller molecules that actually disperse faster than heavier cigarette smoke molecules...hence why you smell it longer...aromatic rings of perfumes are lighter and the mostly ethanol solutions have a relatively low evaporation point, all these combined generally allow dispersion to happen relatively quicker). Think of race between a fat person and thin person.
As smoke also has properties that allow for its aromatic compounds to stay intact with wind, it is more easily spread in a location. This, again, boils down to weight. Slow moving molecules are going to become less dense slower. Whereas lighter molecules will be less dense quickly.
And I am pointing out you are "rationalizing" your position. That is, you state your premise:
Quote:
I firmly believe that my liberties end at the tip of your nose and vice-versa.
and then proceed to place subjective exceptions as to why it applies to smoking and not perfume. You are rationalizing excuses, nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulseoul
Now that we have done...I will state my position once again. I think that my smoking shouldn't impede another person's desire to not smoke. Wearing perfume or cologne is not the same since typically its more faint and it rarely sticks on the other person's clothing. Smoke does stay on others.
So your position is your original premise, with the exception of perfume through your assumptive rationalized explanation. Ok, now what about all the other things I mentioned? See the problem here? Do we then have to wait for your permission on these things where you explain to us why this is ok, and why this is not all based on your speculative (and incorrectly) established understanding of a given element?
That is what we are pointing out. YOU are the one establishing what YOU will allow the public to do. It is the height of arrogance. It is a self serving rationalization, nothing more. You might as well have just stated "because I said so", it holds the same validity of position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulseoul
So yeah, I think that by me going outside (which I do) it enables a win win. People are not left with smokey clothes, and I enjoy my cigarette.
No, it enables a "you win", and everyone else "wins" because you say they do. Seriously, you need to really consider how insignificant your subjective opinion is and how that relates to individual liberties. You seem to have a lack of understanding of what freedom really is. By your argument, you do not respect peoples freedom, only your perception of what their freedom should be.
So yeah, I think that by me going outside (which I do) it enables a win win. People are not left with smokey clothes, and I enjoy my cigarette.
But these efforts by the smoking Nazis are eventually going to eliminate that choice too. Heck, in Kalifornia, there are movements to ban smoking in your own home now.
Much of this craziness is responsible for why it costs $10 for a pack of cigarettes in New York, and $6-$7 almost everywhere else ... instead if the $1 that they should be.
So, while your attitude of cooperation is commendable by comparison, a more careful analysis of the situation suggests that it is not a very wise one under the circumstances.
Rest assured, the anti-smoking zealots will take advantage of your "flexibility" on the matter until you've bent over backwards so far, the only thing you'll be able to see is a close up view of the inside of your on colon.
I doubt you'll be smoking very much from that position.
Far from irrelevant my friend ... these types are a danger to everyone, including themselves. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think ignoring them is unwise.
Since they cannot be reasoned with ... due to their own insistence in rejecting reason, I think we need to "ban" them. They'll understand that!
Problem is, you can not get them to reason. So over time, they will infect others with their idiocy and eventually use mob mentality to oppress. Of course people will object, try to point out the issues with their position, but they will be dismissed as long as they keep getting what they want. Since they subscribe to this mob mentality, they will be powerless to object to it when they become the target. Time will go on until they have enslaved themselves. Then it will take years before they suffer enough and gain the courage to stand up for liberty, but at that point there will be no tools or mechanisms to promote it, leaving them with the age old sacrifice of life to pursue liberty.
Though it won't be them who do such, it will be their progeny that will have to carry that weight.
You can not reason with the unreasonable, that is why wars have existed throughout history.
Sorry to be a pessimist, but people won't listen, they deserve the bonds and the misery they make for themselves.
Problem is, you can not get them to reason. So over time, they will infect others with their idiocy and eventually use mob mentality to oppress. Of course people will object, try to point out the issues with their position, but they will be dismissed as long as they keep getting what they want. Since they subscribe to this mob mentality, they will be powerless to object to it when they become the target. Time will go on until they have enslaved themselves. Then it will take years before they suffer enough and gain the courage to stand up for liberty, but at that point there will be no tools or mechanisms to promote it, leaving them with the age old sacrifice of life to pursue liberty.
Though it won't be them who do such, it will be their progeny that will have to carry that weight.
You can not reason with the unreasonable, that is why wars have existed throughout history.
Sorry to be a pessimist, but people won't listen, they deserve the bonds and the misery they make for themselves.
Spot on.
They are living proof that a well-organized propaganda campaign IS effective.
Nomander I would like to address your arguments, but first
a) Give examples that are a direct comparison. I showed you why it was not valid to which you did nothing to address the point. I did mention most of the other things, but not all because they were essentially the same as the perfume argument or how outside grills are well, outside, and are thus not the same. Indoor cooking has direct ventilation.
b) Show how exactly smoking outdoors is not a win-win. The idea is that you smoke for smoking sake, not for the ambiance of being in a smokey room.
Otherwise all I can say is you're going WAY off the rails. I showed how it's a win-win (smoker smokes, others don't have to put up with it...that's what my friends and I do with non-smokers). Arrogance is simply stating its not a win-win without providing adequate reasons as to why.
GTex:
You will always have a place to smoke. So let's not go on some weird slippery slope like Nomander
Nomander I would like to address your arguments, but first
a) Give examples that are a direct comparison. I showed you why it was not valid to which you did nothing to address the point. I did mention most of the other things, but not all because they were essentially the same as the perfume argument or how outside grills are well, outside, and are thus not the same. Indoor cooking has direct ventilation.
b) Show how exactly smoking outdoors is not a win-win. The idea is that you smoke for smoking sake, not for the ambiance of being in a smokey room.
Otherwise all I can say is you're going WAY off the rails. I showed how it's a win-win (smoker smokes, others don't have to put up with it...that's what my friends and I do with non-smokers). Arrogance is simply stating its not a win-win without providing adequate reasons as to why.
GTex:
You will always have a place to smoke. So let's not go on some weird slippery slope like Nomander
Sorry, I have no desire to sit and consistently point out your fallacious reasoning process. You have subscribed to a subjective rationalization for your position and you will continue to do such for each failure I point out. It will always be one more exception, one more special exemption to your rule and there is no reasonable means to achieve any resolution. You have convinced yourself you are right.
If you were truly interested, you would have attended to the numerous points I made concerning chemical PELs/TLVs in this thread which point out the problems with your position. I have made sufficent points (as have others) concerning toxicity and exposure to which invalidates your "exceptions".
Look at the discussion with RD5050, each time his support was shown lacking, he moved the goal post and eventually took the position of "facts be damned, I will believe what I want to believe". I have no desire to waste my time "discussing" to achieve that pointless resolution.
You will always have a place to smoke. So let's not go on some weird slippery slope like Nomander
WRONG .... you will retain only the freedoms you are unwilling to compromise on. Once any power is given to restrict an activity, it's only a matter of time before that power is expanded.
You and everyone else ought to be able to see this today because it's so out in the open. Unlike a couple of decades ago, when government power was slowly being expanded under the radar .... no such pretense is being observed these days.
Now, just after 911, when the first stage of the Airline Security fraud was being rolled out ... it began by searching little old ladies in a blatantly absurd and obvious demonstration of pure idiocy. And it was the lack of public outrage and rejection of that nonsense then, that has led to the out of control nightmare that defines the TSA's behavior for which the public is suffering today.
The federal income tax was first promoted and imposed as a "temporary tax" to fund the war ... so people agreed to comply with it being patriotic (though gullible) Americans. How "temporary" did that turn out to be?
Smoking bans ... or any other ban on one individual freedom is an attack on all freedoms as a whole, because power never imposes restrictions on itself ... but ALWAYS expands.
It starts with no smoking in the workplace ... then extends to airplanes .. then to bars and restaurants .... on to sports stadiums .... then parks ... then beaches .... and now, even to include people's residences.
So, forgive my bluntness here ... but anyone failing to see the CLEAR PATTERN here is either a liar, or has an IQ of a mole.
Sorry, I have no desire to sit and consistently point out your fallacious reasoning process. You have subscribed to a subjective rationalization for your position and you will continue to do such for each failure I point out. It will always be one more exception, one more special exemption to your rule and there is no reasonable means to achieve any resolution. You have convinced yourself you are right.
If you were truly interested, you would have attended to the numerous points I made concerning chemical PELs/TLVs in this thread which point out the problems with your position. I have made sufficent points (as have others) concerning toxicity and exposure to which invalidates your "exceptions".
Look at the discussion with RD5050, each time his support was shown lacking, he moved the goal post and eventually took the position of "facts be damned, I will believe what I want to believe". I have no desire to waste my time "discussing" to achieve that pointless resolution.
I'm of the opinion that the left is divided into two distinct camps ... in one camp we have some pretty dense individuals who actually believe the upside down nonsense they continually regurgitate .. while in the other camp, we have those who are simply "playing dumb", knowing full well what they are doing, and the consequences they hope to see transpire.
Either way, they represent a threat to us all ... and politically correct politeness can no longer be afforded in dealing with them, nor can we afford to continue to be apathetic, but instead must become much more vocal and active in fighting against this statist collectivism being promoted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
