Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 20:35

BainbridgeShred wrote:

shredzilla wrote:And while we should fight for the rights of Americans, this is just one that I don't want to fight because I hate coming home coughing and stinking because I was out at a bar. Yes, it's my choice. I chose to go there. But that's the point. I'm still choosing to go there, even though I'm suffering from the smoke. If smokers are that selfish that they can't go out to a bar and step outside once in a while to smoke, then the burden is on them. They will be the ones who kill my friend's business if they decide not to show up anymore. Not me, because I will continue to support it when it's a clean place to hang out as I did when it was bad for cardio-vascular health.
Dude, the saddest part is, you agree with my point but still are arguing with me. The burden isn't on the smokers, the burden is on the owner of the club and the people who choice to give it their business. If the owner wants to allow smoking, people can simply stop going. It is your right to do whatever you want with yuor money. If you want to use your cash to be in a smokey club, go ahead. If you don't, then don't go to the club. It's as easy as that. Maybe I'm too drunk, but your post honestly makes no sense to me, and seems very very very contradictory.

Also, looking at your first sentence in the paragraph above seem's very scary to me. You're honestly willing to trample on the rights of an individual just because you don't like breathing in smoke? This is the same argument American's used when interning the Japanese during WW2. I'm too tipsy to explain now, but if you don't understand what I'm saying say so and I'll tell you tomorrow.
I'm agreeing with you that the government has slowly been taking away human rights for the past 30 years or so. Where I'm disagreeing, is picking smoking to fight for. I'm not gonna fight for smokers. It's a disgusting, horrible did I mention it's disgusting? habit.

You say the burden is on the club owner to not allow cigarrettes, but again the Catch 22 comes into play. If he does that, then he will lose many selfish smoking clients. Since he's in the business of destroying people's health to begin with, he'll take money over morals in this issue.

The situation becomes this: Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the greater good. I don't like that statement in 99% of cases. But I have to say, in this situation, it's a good thing. Where were you during wire taps? That's an important issue. The war, sure. Smoking? Nah, those selfish garbage-addicts can fight their own battles.

I mean, just the fact that the do smoke indoors is so rude! That'd be like me casually spitting while standing next to someone at the bar. It's just plain rude dammit. I'm not gonna fight for someone's right to be rude, or club owners to allow rudeness. I hate rude people.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 21:14

I'm agreeing with you that the government has slowly been taking away human rights for the past 30 years or so. Where I'm disagreeing, is picking smoking to fight for. I'm not gonna fight for smokers. It's a disgusting, horrible did I mention it's disgusting? habit.

Dude, you're still not arguing anything. I'm not debating that it's not rude or disgusting or horrible. I'm arguing that it isn't the governments job to decide what is rude, horrible, and disgusting. That isn't the governments job. I think you already know that though, and just can't see passed your own bias against smoking.

You say the burden is on the club owner to not allow cigarrettes, but again the Catch 22 comes into play. If he does that, then he will lose many selfish smoking clients. Since he's in the business of destroying people's health to begin with, he'll take money over morals in this issue.

I don't care if he allows to allow smoking or not. I could give a shit. Once again you're not arguing any of my points. My only point is that the government isn't the right institution to say whether or not it should be allowed in a private business. Your arguments are the same as everyone else in this thread "OMG it's bad for people and it's gross". Do you honestly think I give a shit about that? Since when has it been anyone else but your own responsibility in America to care for yourself? If the club owner wants to allow smoking or not, it isn't mine or the governments business. Tell me what you disagree with about this.

I mean, just the fact that the do smoke indoors is so rude! That'd be like me casually spitting while standing next to someone at the bar. It's just plain rude dammit. I'm not gonna fight for someone's right to be rude, or club owners to allow rudeness. I hate rude people.

Once again, another strawman argument. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up because you probably don't even know that what you're doing is so decieving. I've already made it clear that I wont respond to this kind of bullshit, so I suggest you stop posting in these kind of bullshit analogies.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 21:24

Then we're in perfect agreeance. I agree it's wrong. I'm siding with what's wrong on this one, is all I'm saying.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 21:35

I'm siding with what's wrong on this one

The fact is, their is no way to back up this kind of logic. You already know you're wrong, and the only reason you're holding onto your opinion is because your greedy. Yes, greedy. As a non-smoker, you don't want to have to deal with smoke, and thus, for you, it is better in the short term that it is banned. It's nothing to be ashamed of; it's human nature to be greedy. The problem is, by allowing smoking to be banned by the government, you're allowing the government to take another step towards Totalitarianism. While it might not seem like banning smoking is a huge deal, and actually might benefit the majority, you're also stamping out the rights of the individual, which is what Democracy is founded upon. It doesn't take one huge event to create Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is created by the populace of a country allowing the government to slowly impede on their rights, and in this case, the rights of private businesses. Thus, Shredzilla, I ask you to please help me in fighting Totalitarianism. You already admitted that your opinion is wrong, and the only thing holding you back from fighting Totalitarianism is your own greed, and your own hate of smoke.

Once you understand that this issue is about so much more than just not wanting to deal with smoke, you'll see my point of view. Dealing with a little bit of smoke in a bar is a very light price to pay for your rights. I think you already know that.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 21:44

Let's fight wire taps then in our quest to stave off Totalitarianism. I'd much prefer that because lack of wire-tapping doesn't kill my lungs and make me smell like shit.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 21:56

The fact is, we have to fight both. Both are forms of Totalitarianism, and both are equally dangerous. The only difference between the two is that one is a more obvious form of Totalitarianism, while the other hides itself by claiming that is for the "well-being of the masses". Then again, I guess the argument for wire-tapping is also that it is for the well-being of the masses. Fuck the masses. The only thing sacred is the individual. When you start worrying about the masses, and trampling the rights of the individual to do so, that is when you run into trouble. Hello Nazi Germany. Hello Soviet Russia. Don't think it's possible? Think again. America could turn into a state run country n the blink of a fucking eye if their are enough people the allow their rights as individuals to be trampled in the name of the masses.

Basically, wire-tapping is just as dangerous as banning smoking.

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 13 Feb 2006 21:58

"Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong"

How do you expect to put a respectable argument together if you can't even spell "your" correctly. I'm not even going to bother to get involved.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 22:01

Hahaha. You amuse me, kid. If you didn't want to get involved, then you wouldn't have even opened the thread. If you think spelling and grammar has anything to do with the thought process and presentation of an argument, then you still have a lot to learn. I wish you much luck.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 22:02

Yeah, I agree. The Declaration of Independence states that it's the obligation to overthrow the government if the government becomes more powerful than the people it governs. I'm way too lazy right now to look it up at 1am, but I posted it in the wire tapping thread. I may grab it...aww heck I guess I'll grab it. Hold on.

Okay here it is:

Thomas Jeffereson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

That's the document our country was founded on. Even before the Constitution was written. It's the right and duty of the US citizens to overthrow the government should it acquire too much power, and start completely ignoring constitutional law.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 22:03

So let's do it Dan. You and me, let's start a civil war here in the States. Cuz that's the ONLY THING that can stop the government from Totalitarianism.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 22:13

No it isn't. Reasoned, rational thinking prevents Totalitarianism. Wars only create it.

professor · Post by **professor** » 13 Feb 2006 22:18

Show me what right you have as an American to live a healthy live, and I'll concede my point.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When anyone is healthy they are happy and conversely when they are unhealthy they are not happy. So by degrading my health you are stepping on my right at the pursuit of happiness. Period.

pips · Post by **pips** » 13 Feb 2006 22:30

[quote="BainbridgeShred"]I regret making this thread. Everyone's arguments amount to "smoke is bad for you so it should be banned in all public places". You honestly couldn't come up with a point if what you were trying to express was that simple, Pips? This isn't a health issue. I admit smoke is bad for people who breath. This is an individual rights issue, and if you can't see this you either need to go back and read my original post or think about this issue more.
quote]

No. I could come up with a lot against smoking, but I know that it is going to be pointless to even try arguing, because it can go both ways...especially with stubborn people like you who, whether right or wrong, won't back down until everyone agrees with you or just gives up. I understand your points. Ok? So what? Like Johnny, [shrug]. I still think that no one has the right to harm another person with their little smoking habit. If I blew this out of proportion, smoking is like murdering someone. No one has the right to murder.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 13 Feb 2006 22:36

When anyone is healthy they are happy and conversely when they are unhealthy they are not happy. So by degrading my health you are stepping on my right at the pursuit of happiness. Period.

Healthy does not equal happy. I don't know where you got the idea that it does, but I know more than a few people with life threatening diseases that still are "happy".

Also, I would find it much easier to respect your point of view if you weren't a huge hypocrite. You complain about cigarette smoke because you're greedy and it bothers you, but pollution caused by industry isn't as noticeably as bothersome to you, so you let it slide. How do you even live with yourself knowing that you're this greedy?

If I blew this out of proportion, smoking is like murdering someone. No one has the right to murder.

Strawman argument number 624. I'm done with responding to people who use strawmen arguments.

pips · Post by **pips** » 13 Feb 2006 23:15

Who are you to say that healthy does not equal happy? I am happy that I'm healthy (for the most part) and would not be happy if I was not healthy. Someone else may think differently, so you may not be taking some people's rights of happiness away by smoking and making them unhealthy, but I know some of us (me, professor, vindicator, shredzilla...) who's rights you are taking away. This doesn't even have to be about healthiness! Breathing smoke makes me unhappy anyways.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 13 Feb 2006 23:19

Civil War is the only way to win against a corrupt government Dan. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll be able to get your wish.

pips · Post by **pips** » 13 Feb 2006 23:27

I don't think I'd start a civil war over smoking...that would suck. Stop encouraging him Chris!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 13 Feb 2006 23:49

You should start smoking now...so nobody will harvest your organs and send them to Kuala Lumpur.

-n

professor · Post by **professor** » 14 Feb 2006 00:36

Also, I would find it much easier to respect your point of view if you weren't a huge hypocrite. You complain about cigarette smoke because you're greedy and it bothers you, but pollution caused by industry isn't as noticeably as bothersome to you, so you let it slide. How do you even live with yourself knowing that you're this greedy?

Wow?!?! What planet do you live on? Because it's definitely not earth.

Faco · Post by **Faco** » 14 Feb 2006 03:27

It seems like many smokers justify their polluting habbits by saying that factories, cars, oil tankers etc make a lot more damage than they do. So untill you don't ban THEM, don't ban US.

What a strange mathematical logic that is?