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.
Excuse me.
I believe it is accepted that one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof.
Claim: Second-hand cigarette smoke is harmful.
It is never accepted debate protocol that one is asked or expected to prove a negative.
I.E. Seond-hand cigarette smoke is not harmful
Exactly. Especially when one is trying to pass oppressive legislation that will promote division and discord simply in order to promote a social engineering agenda.
And again, to paraphrase the Poster in 1280, "It's getting monotonous, but I'll repeat it again. I do not have to show sunshine is hazardous. You have to show that it is not. Since you are unable to demonstrate to me that sunshine is safe at any level whatsoever, the only option is to not expose food/drink workers to any level of forced sunshine exposure. Since there is no practical way to completely protect against such radiation exposure outdoors, complete bans of serviced drinking or dining patio service is a sane approach. All the melanomaniacs have to do is to step outside and broil their cancers for few minutes if they feel a need to. No big deal."
Silly? Of course it's silly. Just as it is with banning smoking in hotel rooms.
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 01-23-2012 at 12:10 PM..
Reason: Corrected "sunshine smoke" to "sunshine"
Again, to paraphrase, thereby showing how silly the above proposition is:
"Sunshine is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify patio dining. I have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to patios when they dine...)
"Fume-filled air from carcinogenic ethyl alcohol is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify restaurants/bars serving alcohol and forcing workers to work in such deadly conditions. Again, I'd have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to dine at establishments filled with such fumes.)
I doubt you really need reminding about what side has the onus of proof in a debate/argument.
A state of neutrality is the starting point.
I would gather other readers know you're grasping with that one
.
Excuse me.
I believe it is accepted that one making a claim is the one with the burden of proof.
Claim: Second-hand cigarette smoke is harmful.
It is never accepted debate protocol that one is asked or expected to prove a negative.
I.E. Seond-hand cigarette smoke is not harmful
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
I doubt you really need reminding about what side has the onus of proof in a debate/argument.
A state of neutrality is the starting point.
I would gather other readers know you're grasping with that one
.
Why is the format of your statement more valid than the format of my statement?
You state that the positive format is that second hand smoke is not harmful.
I believe the insertion of the word not makes it a negative statement.
The proper positive statement is that second hand smoke is safe.
By your original post, one should not be required to prove a negative statement. So I do not have to prove that second hand smoke is not safe. that is a negative statement.
Again, to paraphrase, thereby showing how silly the above proposition is:
"Sunshine is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify patio dining. I have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to patios when they dine...)
"Fume-filled air from carcinogenic ethyl alcohol is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify restaurants/bars serving alcohol and forcing workers to work in such deadly conditions. Again, I'd have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to dine at establishments filled with such fumes.)
Deflections. We are not talking about sun or air pollution from autos.
Exactly. Especially when one is trying to pass oppressive legislation that will promote division and discord simply in order to promote a social engineering agenda.
And again, to paraphrase the Poster in 1280, "It's getting monotonous, but I'll repeat it again. I do not have to show sunshine is hazardous. You have to show that it is not. Since you are unable to demonstrate to me that sunshine is safe at any level whatsoever, the only option is to not expose food/drink workers to any level of forced sunshine exposure. Since there is no practical way to completely protect against such radiation exposure outdoors, complete bans of serviced drinking or dining patio service is a sane approach. All the melanomaniacs have to do is to step outside and broil their cancers for few minutes if they feel a need to. No big deal."
Silly? Of course it's silly. Just as it is with banning smoking in hotel rooms.
Let us use another analogy.
You and I are standing on one side of a gorge that is 1000 feet deep. To get to the other side, one must cross a rope bridge.
You look at the rope bridge and tell me it looks safe to you, so it's all right for me to cross it.
I look at the bridge and notice that the ropes look old and there is some obvious fraying in spots.
Now maybe the bridge is safe to walk on, but you are unable to prove it to me. I have serious doubts that it is safe.
So I say no, I do not want to walk on the bridge because I am not sure it is safe. You may walk on it if you wish, but you have to prove it is safe to me before I am going to walk on it. You go ahead, if you want to, but I will stay behind.
I have serious doubts that there is a safe level of second hand smoke. You may expose yourself to it all you wish, but you cannot expose me to it.
Figure out a way to smoke in a hotel room without ever exposing anyone else to it, including people who work in the hotel, and you may smoke in it all you wish.
Again, to paraphrase, thereby showing how silly the above proposition is:
"Sunshine is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify patio dining. I have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to patios when they dine...)
"Fume-filled air from carcinogenic ethyl alcohol is safe. That is the one that needs to be proved." (In order to justify restaurants/bars serving alcohol and forcing workers to work in such deadly conditions. Again, I'd have to wonder if the Poster takes his/her children out to dine at establishments filled with such fumes.)
I do not have to prove anything one way or the other about sunshine or alcohol. Neither sunshine nor alcohol is the topic of this thread.
I do not have to prove anything one way or the other about sunshine or alcohol. Neither sunshine nor alcohol is the topic of this thread.
Neither are rope bridges, but I notice that didn't seem to slow you down in the post before this one. However, according to your logic, you would most certainly have to prove that there is a safe level to these carcinogens if you don't want other people with their own weirdly neurotic fixations to take away your patio dining and wine with dinner privileges. Note: those are privileges, not rights, right?
He or she also wrote, "Figure out a way to smoke in a hotel room without ever exposing anyone else to it, including people who work in the hotel, and you may smoke in it all you wish."
Poster, second hand smoke contains benzene, a human carcinogen.
Normal exhaled human breath also contains benzene, a human carcinogen.
Figure out a way to breathe in a hotel room without ever exposing anyone else to your breath, including people who work in the hotel, and you may breathe in it all you wish. Until then, please stay at home or camp outside... at least 50 feet away from my hotel.
Thank you.
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 01-23-2012 at 07:27 PM..
Reason: added a sentence
I guess you failed to read the second part of my post, where I mentioned having lived in a non-smoking house... and the fact that I never disobeyed the landlord's wishes. Care to laugh at me again, or are you going to actually READ this time?
Plus if you had bothered to read this whole thread, you'd also see how many smokers these days are 100% outdoor smokers - even when they own their own homes, or live in a smoke-friendly complex. Yep, it's definitely true, especially here in California (where indoor smokers are by FAR the minority).
Yes, some smokers are forced to go outside and smoke.
So they promptly stand in very close proximity to the air-intake of the building and smoke their filthar*****......managing to still pollute the indoor air. Or they stand near the entrance and force people going in to walk through clouds of stinky filth.
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.
