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.
I see you "no true Scottsmaned" yourself. Your argument is therefore invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
What the hell does that mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN (also known as: no true Christian*) No True Scotsman
Description: When a universal (“all”, “every”, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.
Logical Form:
All X are Y.
(it is clearly refuted that all X are not Y)
Then all true X are Y.
Example #1: In 2011, Christian broadcaster, Harold Camping, (once again) predicted the end of the world via Jesus, and managed to get many Christians to join his alarmist campaign. During this time, and especially after the Armageddon date had passed, many Christian groups publicly declared that Camping is not a “true Christian”. On a personal note, I think Camping was and is as much of a Christian than any other self-proclaimed Christian and religious/political/ethical beliefs aside, I admire him for having the cojones to make a falsifiable claim about his religious beliefs.
You claim to be a non-conformist "punk."
And society nowadays is heavily against smoking cigarettes.
You are not only against people who smoke -- even lawfully -- but you admit that you are a "rule follower."
Somehow, I am not convinced by what you say about yourself.
A few years ago, when I was first on City-Data, a similar discussion occurred. At that time I pointed out that this really wasn't about smoking, it was about control of others, and that as soon as the smokers were brought to heel, it would be something else, and my bet was on food.
The anti-smokers adamantly denied this, it was all about the smokers, and as soon as they managed to wipe out the smokers they'd be happy.
It wasn't two months before the first anti-food laws appeared in New York City and Chicago. Seems I was more on the mark than they wanted to admit.
Another indicator of the real issue occurred right here in Austin, Texas. The City Council crafted an elegant solution to the fact that there was a loud demand on the part of the squeaky wheels for a smoking ban because they didn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, but business owners were saying it hurt their business (as reflected in the bottom line) and smokers were being discriminated against. So, the City Council passed an ordinance whereby smoking was banned in restaurants and bars, but a business owner who felt it was in the best interests of his business to allow smoking could apply for a smoking-allowed license, pay a hefty fee, jump through a bunch of hoops, and they could allow smoking in their bar. (This applied to specific kinds of businesses - for the most part the smoking ban applied).
One of the hoops was that the business had to have a large sign on the front door notifying any entering that it was an establishment that allowed smoking. This meant that those who didn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke or smokers could spend their money in the hundreds, if not thousands, of other venues that did not choose to get such a license, and smokers, including not just patrons but business owners and employees who smoked, would have a place, as well. Perfect, right?
As soon as that ordinance went into effect, the masks came off and the howls began. How DARE the City Council allow people to smoke in such places!
It wasn't about being exposed to second hand smoke, to having to smell it, it wasn't truly about anything of the kind. It was about not wanting other people to be allowed to make decisions that you didn't think they should make, that you wouldn't make, to make choices that you disapproved of.
The moment anyone says that there ought to be a law against someone doing something "for their own good", beware. The moment that someone says that they don't care if someone else does something they themselves don't enjoy, but there ought to be a law that they don't have to be exposed to it, beware. That's not what they mean at all; they really mean that no one should be allowed to make choices they themselves wouldn't make, and everyone should live just like them. Bank on it.
Such people are mentally ill -- making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The best therapy for them is to ignore and ridicule them -- but instead, society caters to them.
The fairy tale "The Princess and the Pea" perfectly describes them.
They can only feel okay by poking their nose into other people's business -- what one might call the "Gladys Kravitz Syndrome" (from the TV show "Bewitched.")
"Abner! Abner!"
"Ugh....what now ,dear?"
"Come over here and LOOK, Abner! Just LOOK at what is going on over at the Stevens's house!"
Back in the day smokers in meetings would blow smoke in your face (1980) is you asked them to chill.
In our area of Canada it's at least five metres, sixteen plus feet, away from any doorway. But because
of the rain/wind/snow or possibly the fact that smokers can't figure out METRIC, they hang by the door.
What really grossed me out to the point of almost throwing up with being in Nevada and finding out that
the only place NOT smoking inside was an incredibly clean, high end, gay bar. So I took my allergic gal friend
there.
The rest of Reno was all smoking all the time. We hadn't seen this up here for 25 years, mainly due to WCB
lawsuits on second hand smoke exposure. C'mon America, get with it!!! Where have you been for a quarter of
a CENTURY/??
The rest of us Americans feel the same way about the few places that still allow folks to smoke indoors.
Since smokers are no longer allowed to smoke indoors in public buildings, they've been sent outside. Now many smokers go just RIGHT outside and smoke in everyone's faces as people enter or leave the buildings.
As a non-smoker I think smoking zones should be relegated to remote areas in the back of parking lots, where there are rarely ever any people.
Smokers should NOT smoke directly outside entrances & exits of buildings.
A couple times I've been in a sassy enough mood to fake a coughing/gagging fit in smokers' faces as I walked by them.
But it's no joke that I literally have to hold my breath when walking near them. Depriving myself of breathing for a moment just to get past them.
Vaping is tolerable to breathe though. Just water vapor, usually smells nice.
I have severe asthma and a young child, so I am livid when people don't have the courtesy to take their cigarette away from entrances. Get some class, people.
I have severe asthma and a young child, so I am livid when people don't have the courtesy to take their cigarette away from entrances. Get some class, people.
Do some research. "Popcorn lung" and vaping has been proven to be false. Dont believe everything that you read on the internet. What I DO encourage you to read, however, is studies showing that vaping is 95% safer than cigarettes, and second-hand vape clouds are harmless, and the 4 ingredients in vape e-juice are already FDA approved, and those chemicals are found in aspirin, food additives, etc.
Do some research. "Popcorn lung" and vaping has been proven to be false. Dont believe everything that you read on the internet. What I DO encourage you to read, however, is studies showing that vaping is 95% safer than cigarettes, and second-hand vape clouds are harmless, and the 4 ingredients in vape e-juice are already FDA approved, and those chemicals are found in aspirin, food additives, etc.
I understand that you think it is perfectly safe to be exposed to second hand vape clouds, and some of the posters think second hand cigarette smoke is also safe. However, it is absolutely rude to expose other people to this smoke without knowing explicitly where they stand on the safety issue.
I understand that you think it is perfectly safe to be exposed to second hand vape clouds, and some of the posters think second hand cigarette smoke is also safe. However, it is absolutely rude to expose other people to this smoke without knowing explicitly where they stand on the safety issue.
No, it isn't.
What's rude is people who take loud offense to every little thing.
Why don't we just attack everybody?
How about those broads that cover themselves with that ozone killing perfume, what smells are they trying to hide? Or those fatties that stuff themselves with that stinking garlic crap? Their breath smells like a sewer, makes me want to hold them down and pour a bottle of Listerine down their throats.
I understand that you think it is perfectly safe to be exposed to second hand vape clouds, and some of the posters think second hand cigarette smoke is also safe. However, it is absolutely rude to expose other people to this smoke without knowing explicitly where they stand on the safety issue.
Doesn't this fall under the heading of "Nobody should do anything that I might possibly dislike anywhere around me until they know where I stand on it"?
People can't and shouldn't live their lives and make their decisions based on what other people might think about those decisions. Really. It's not healthy.
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.
