First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Should smokers be allowed to make their own decisions?
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/26/14 , edited 10/27/14

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Smoking is harmful to the users and people around them for no gain.
It makes no sense financial or otherwise to start or continue the act.
So should people that make such poor decisions be allowed to think for themselves?


By that same token, you shouldn't be allowed to make your own decisions. You cannot reasonably say that you have no unhealthy habits or behaviors. And here's the thing: smoking is a personal choice as much as drinking is. Only drinking is more dangerous in the sense that it can inebriate you, and if you drive while drunk, you're liable to hurt or kill someone. We tried prohibition, it gave us organized crime and a surge in alcohol consumption. Do you honestly think prohibition or some 1984-esque thought-policing will really solve the problem of nicotine addiction? Frankly, I like smoking and the reason I continue to smoke is because it makes me feel good. I realize the cost to my body but I enjoy it nonetheless; I have agreed to take on the personal risks associated with smoking. I don't force anyone else to smoke and I do it outside to keep the odor outdoors. You can't say that I've done harm to other people, as I go out of my way to avoid doing so.

You're quite the little dictator aren't you? I choose to smoke and I defend the right of others to make their own choices as well. In the words of the immortal Nick Naylor, "Gentlemen, it's called education; it doesn't come from the side of a carton of cigarettes, it comes from our parents, our friends, and our teachers."


30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/27/14 , edited 10/27/14

2006Veteran-Returned wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

Smoking is harmful to the users and people around them for no gain.
It makes no sense financial or otherwise to start or continue the act.
So should people that make such poor decisions be allowed to think for themselves?


By that same token, you shouldn't be allowed to make your own decisions. You cannot reasonably say that you have no unhealthy habits or behaviors. And here's the thing: smoking is a personal choice as much as drinking is. Only drinking is more dangerous in the sense that it can inebriate you, and if you drive while drunk, you're liable to hurt or kill someone. We tried prohibition, it gave us organized crime and a surge in alcohol consumption. Do you honestly think prohibition or some 1984-esque thought-policing will really solve the problem of nicotine addiction? Frankly, I like smoking and the reason I continue to smoke is because it makes me feel good. I realize the cost to my body but I enjoy it nonetheless; I have agreed to take on the personal risks associated with smoking. I don't force anyone else to smoke and I do it outside to keep the odor outdoors. You can't say that I've done harm to other people, as I go out of my way to avoid doing so.

You're quite the little dictator aren't you? I choose to smoke and I defend the right of others to make their own choices as well. In the words of the immortal Nick Naylor, "Gentlemen, it's called education; it doesn't come from the side of a carton of cigarettes, it comes from our parents, our friends, and our teachers."




That was so bad it was good.
You have outlined the worst parts of the majority of all attempts to argue against my op.
assumptions, false claims, conflicting points, out of context quotes and movie references that don't support your argument, defense of contemporary rights, arbitrary comparisons with real and imaginary scenarios, patronizing, complete lack of tentative language.

I don't expect to see anything new in this thread so your post will be hard to top.

And to answer your question;
Yes, I seriously believe thought policing will eliminate any and all addictions.

And now back to exercising my right to research bombs.
14789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Winding Circle
Offline
Posted 10/27/14


Thank you. It's nice to see that smokers are aware that second hand smoke can be a problem.

With my mom, I told her that I would start coughing cigarette smoke. She laughed it off and the first time I got hit with it while on a walk with her, I started coughing, and she acted like it was another scheme of mine to get her to stop smoking. I'd given up on that at that point but apparently she thought I was still on it and was exaggerating the effects of second hand smoke... *rolls eyes* I was in Chicago on a band trip, we went to this show, on the way out we passed a row of smokers, probably about 5 of them, spaced about 5-10ft apart. I didn't stop coughing for about 2-3 hours. I had bronchitis when I got home (back then I'd get it without even having a cold). Oh and my first time in a casino was on an Indian reserve and I discovered then that smoke gives me migraines. So what does she do? She pretends to respect that and still smokes in her room with teh door closed and fans going and blah blah blah. Ugh I hate it so much.
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/14 , edited 10/28/14



That was so bad it was good.
You have outlined the worst parts of the majority of all attempts to argue against my op.
assumptions, false claims, conflicting points, out of context quotes and movie references that don't support your argument, defense of contemporary rights, arbitrary comparisons with real and imaginary scenarios, patronizing, complete lack of tentative language.

I don't expect to see anything new in this thread so your post will be hard to top.

And to answer your question;
Yes, I seriously believe thought policing will eliminate any and all addictions.

And now back to exercising my right to research bombs.


Oooh, someone is upset that their pet cause has no validity. I really don't have to assume anything other than 1) you're a real person; 2) like all other people, you're not perfect. You've yet to prove anything I've said to be false. Declaring it to be so doesn't make it true. As far as I can see, everything I've said is consistent with reality: it is a choice to smoke; I choose to smoke; it makes me feel good. I don't necessarily need for you to believe that I go out of my way to avoid blowing my smoke in other people's faces. All you really need to see is that it's not only possible but realistically done, as pointed out by the post above me (as opposed to smoking indoors like their mother, she recognizes that going outside is preferable). Out of context? Clearly you have never seen "Thank You For Smoking". Greatest movie of all time, hands down. Won't even argue that point. In any event, the comparison to Prohibition is not arbitrary, it's rather fitting: what you're suggesting is that people should not be allowed to smoke, just as the Temperance movement of the early 20th century argued people should not be able to drink. But look at the results of Prohibition: the mafia and rampant alcohol abuse were direct results of the Volstead Act (made possible by the now redacted 18th amendment).

And if we can drink alcohol which does intoxicate and impair, why can we not smoke tobacco which does not have any comparable effect? Drunk driving is a problem, there are laws and penalties associated with it. You can drive and smoke because smoking does not have the same effect. So alcohol has greater risks associated with it and a better case could be made for banning it. Yet, we don't because it verifiably creates more problems than it solves and in fact worsens the existing "problem". So arguing for a Prohibition of smoking is laughable. I'm only giving this my time of day because I enjoy making fun of stupid people.

Oh noes, your feefees. Did my lexicon upset you? Forgive me, I generally treat idealists and ignorant teenagers with a lack of consideration for their delicate sensibilities. You idiots do seem to need the proverbial swift kick in the ass to gain some perspective. And the irony is not lost on me that you advocate thought-policing right before you say you're going to look up bombs. I think my smoking is far less concerning than your interest in explosives, if I do say so myself as a physicist. Be careful what you wish for, you might get exactly what you want; that is right up to the point that some law enforcement agency shows up at your door with a warrant to search your property. I hope that does happen to you quite frankly, it's hilarious when would-be fascists get what they demand.

Oh, and thought policing and addiction don't seem to work out well. But this seems to do it: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/principles-effective-treatment ; that or commitment to nicotine patches for some time. Hopefully you grow up someday. Naive and ignorant teenagers are only funny for so long; it's just pathetic after awhile.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/28/14

2006Veteran-Returned wrote:




That was so bad it was good.
You have outlined the worst parts of the majority of all attempts to argue against my op.
assumptions, false claims, conflicting points, out of context quotes and movie references that don't support your argument, defense of contemporary rights, arbitrary comparisons with real and imaginary scenarios, patronizing, complete lack of tentative language.

I don't expect to see anything new in this thread so your post will be hard to top.

And to answer your question;
Yes, I seriously believe thought policing will eliminate any and all addictions.

And now back to exercising my right to research bombs.


Oooh, someone is upset that their pet cause has no validity. I really don't have to assume anything other than 1) you're a real person; 2) like all other people, you're not perfect. You've yet to prove anything I've said to be false. Declaring it to be so doesn't make it true. As far as I can see, everything I've said is consistent with reality: it is a choice to smoke; I choose to smoke; it makes me feel good. I don't necessarily need for you to believe that I go out of my way to avoid blowing my smoke in other people's faces. All you really need to see is that it's not only possible but realistically done, as pointed out by the post above me (as opposed to smoking indoors like their mother, she recognizes that going outside is preferable). Out of context? Clearly you have never seen "Thank You For Smoking". Greatest movie of all time, hands down. Won't even argue that point. In any event, the comparison to Prohibition is not arbitrary, it's rather fitting: what you're suggesting is that people should not be allowed to smoke, just as the Temperance movement of the early 20th century argued people should not be able to drink. But look at the results of Prohibition: the mafia and rampant alcohol abuse were direct results of the Volstead Act (made possible by the now redacted 18th amendment).

And if we can drink alcohol which does intoxicate and impair, why can we not smoke tobacco which does not have any comparable effect? Drunk driving is a problem, there are laws and penalties associated with it. You can drive and smoke because smoking does not have the same effect. So alcohol has greater risks associated with it and a better case could be made for banning it. Yet, we don't because it verifiably creates more problems than it solves and in fact worsens the existing "problem". So arguing for a Prohibition of smoking is laughable. I'm only giving this my time of day because I enjoy making fun of stupid people.

Oh noes, your feefees. Did my lexicon upset you? Forgive me, I generally treat idealists and ignorant teenagers with a lack of consideration for their delicate sensibilities. You idiots do seem to need the proverbial swift kick in the ass to gain some perspective. And the irony is not lost on me that you advocate thought-policing right before you say you're going to look up bombs. I think my smoking is far less concerning than your interest in explosives, if I do say so myself as a physicist. Be careful what you wish for, you might get exactly what you want; that is right up to the point that some law enforcement agency shows up at your door with a warrant to search your property. I hope that does happen to you quite frankly, it's hilarious when would-be fascists get what they demand.

Oh, and thought policing and addiction don't seem to work out well. But this seems to do it: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/principles-effective-treatment ; that or commitment to nicotine patches for some time. Hopefully you grow up someday. Naive and ignorant teenagers are only funny for so long; it's just pathetic after awhile.

I'm not reading that, your rant only wastes your time.
Posted 10/28/14
Well, I watched A Clockwork Orange, and the moral was goodness has to be a choice. Not that smoking is "immoral".
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/14
And now we know you're just close-minded and obstinate. Oooh, just thought of another of Naylor's great points: cholesterol and obesity are the number 1 causes of the real killer of Americans: cardiovascular disease. I'd hate to think that if those are the real health issues, then by your logic we should ban fast food and monitor people who have consumed and/or still do consume fast food.

I wonder what your diet is like.
Skunki 
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/28/14
So true! I made my decission! Montecriste Club once per week.... when my pretty boy friend is not around.
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/14 , edited 10/28/14

Skunki wrote:

So true! I made my decission! Montecriste Club once per week.... when my pretty boy friend is not around.


I have to say, I love Lucky Strikes but I do appreciate a good Honduran every so often.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/28/14 , edited 10/28/14

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Well, I watched A Clockwork Orange, and the moral was goodness has to be a choice. Not that smoking is "immoral".


I didn't see a moral in that, I saw it as a story.
A good person is good and a bad person must be told to be good.
The bad person makes the choice or is forced to make the choice, the good person acts naturally.



2006Veteran-Returned wrote:

And now we know you're just close-minded and obstinate. Oooh, just thought of another of Naylor's great points: cholesterol and obesity are the number 1 causes of the real killer of Americans: cardiovascular disease. I'd hate to think that if those are the real health issues, then by your logic we should ban fast food and monitor people who have consumed and/or still do consume fast food.

I wonder what your diet is like.


Switch off the tv, go to school, get a real education.
Obey my orders.
Or do the opposite to spite me at your own cost.
87 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 10/28/14 , edited 10/28/14
And what happened when he was forced to be good, after they removed the choice? He nearly loses his life because he's unable to commit a violent act in his own defense. That was the point of the movie: being good is a choice and must remain so, lest making the right choice in a given scenario be impossible because it involves necessary evil. You really do have no idea what you're talking about. I'd feel bad for you but shitposting you is just funny.


Switch off the tv, go to school, get a real education.
Obey my orders.
Or do the opposite to spite me at your own cost.


Considering that I'm a physicist in graduate school, I'm actually quite secure in my education. And fortunately for me, the ravings of an angry mid-pubescent teenager have no bearing on how I go about my business. Protip, I recommend going into the priesthood, the "obey me/god or else" style of leadership is the convention there. Politics and science clearly are not for you.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/28/14

2006Veteran-Returned wrote:
Considering that I'm a physicist in graduate school, I'm actually quite secure in my education.


I totally believe you!
Wihl 
24274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Lagrangian Librat...
Online
Posted 10/28/14
non-smokers == smokers in rights
13650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 10/28/14
This.



That is all.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/28/14
I was serious.
The whole time I was like "Wow, it feels like I'm talking to a physicist or something!"
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.