Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Anti-smoking fascists at it again

Anti-smoking fascists at it again (Page 3)
Thread Tools
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2010, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
They’re trying to pollute as many unborn babies with smoke as possible.

We should really be talking about solitary abortions in cars.
As long as they don't take away my post-abortion cigar I'm happy.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2010, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Right...

Personally, I don't believe that life 'begins' at all during the process of creating a human being through sexual reproduction. At what point in that process is there a lack of life? Where is there death against which we can contrast this supposed new life? All that happens, as I see it, is a recombination of information decreasing the general entropy of the universe by creating new information in the form of a new genome. This whole 'life begins' red herring is predicated on the faulty assumption that there is more to life than simple matter; there's not.
Granted, we disagree on the profundity of life. I should've had someone else post the hypothetical.

As always, I think it's just a matter of perspectives. You're asking "at what point in that process is there a lack of life?" and I guess I'd ask "what is lifelessness? I mean, we've certainly seen it for ourselves have we not? It is what generally separates the disciplines of biology and physics, medicine and funeral arrangements. You may suggest this difference is merely one of contrived expediency or convenience and you may well be right, but the empirical sciences offer little more than organic and inorganic and the inevitable entropy of the living.

As self-aware humans, death has taught us a great deal about life and living. Our observation of human lifelessness has driven us toward means of prolonging life; to remain alive, and to challenge entropy. The "life begins" question may be as natural and unavoidable to we humans as our instinct to propagate our species.

On the other hand, what you propose has never been observed. It is interesting to me that you would characterize the "life begins" question as a problematic red herring while offering a just-so story in conflict with the law of biogenesis as a solution. You do this with such a degree of certainty as to produce as faulty an assumption as any other IMO.
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2010, 11:57 AM
 
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm merely taking exception to your ideal that these are "avoided downsides" and I'm not sure you can say with certainty that the downsides I mentioned are merely correlative.
I apologize this wasn't more clear. My claim of correlation was only meant to apply to the examples I quoted.

Also, allow me to reiterate the downside here, we're not discussing quite the same thing.

I'm not saying poverty is a good reason to get an abortion, I'm saying it's a better reason, when compared to most of the other reasons.

Person A wants an abortion because they're destitute.

Person B wants an abortion because they're selfish.

Person B may or may not be affected by your plan, while person A is specifically targeted by it. The probable result is person B gets the abortion and person A doesn't.

If your goal is to reduce abortions at all costs, I guess your plan is as good as any, but targeting person B strikes me as a more sensible course of action. As I said in my OP, if abortion is going to be legal, it doesn't make sense for it to be unavailable to people who have one of the better reasons.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2010, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
As long as they don't take away my post-abortion cigar I'm happy.
"It's a fetus"es?
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 04:31 PM
 
I'm at awe at the incredible bias against smoking. People who smoke can be told they are in denial, stupid, smelly .. in fact almost anything goes. Conform or else.

The worst fascists are those who once smoked and don't anymore. I never really figured out why that is, since there are lots of things I used to do, but I don't despise people who do it.

Once I habitually smoked pot and stopped more than ten years ago. I honestly don't care whether people smoke pot, even in my vincinity. I don't feel like I have to tell them it is stupid or that their smoke bothers me. It doesn't make me want a puff..

While the negative effects of tobacco on health are documented, so are negative effects of other things, such as fried food, lack of excercise, obesity, sugar, sun and meat. The negative health effects of tobacco are no better if you chew it or put it under your lip or sniff it, it's all bad - but only the ones who smoke it are being targeted.

Sure it annoys, bothers or mildly affects some people (a small minority) and certainly it smell bad, but nothing a good ventilation can't fix. Second hand smoking doesn't cause any negative health effect, though it smells bad.

What else smells bad? Car exhaust. Factory smoke. Smelly persons. Can we ban those from our public places, please? What else causes cancer? Other than the multude of bad things we ingest and the awful western lifestyle of sitting on ones ass and post on forums? Tar from streets, coal smoke, electromagnetism, noise, stress, radiation. Are all these things banned or taxed?

Of course not. Cigarette smokers are an easy target and an easy way to make money. Too bad most smokers are poor and uneducated people, but well. That's why smokers are easy targets.

The governments have found an easy cash cow and since the educated masses generally don't smoke or can afford to easily enough, well then. Bingo.

The suggestion that people should be banned from smoking in their cars is crazy. It can hardly be taken seriously, since it can't be enforced. But the fact that people actually suggest such a thing - that's concerning.

It's been quite scary to read *some* of the remarks made by anti-smoking fascists in this thread. Not surprising, but scary.

Ban on smoking tobacco is what the fascists really want, but not what the government wants. It's quite amusing really. Alcohol and tobacco will always be taxed, by virtue of being easy tax-targets, but never banned. So the fascists have tried what they can to ban people *from* smoking, though allow people to *buy* tobacco.

Crazy.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 04:34 PM
 
What happens when they discover that tofu and sprouts sandwiches cause cancer?
45/47
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
Sure it annoys, bothers or mildly affects some people (a small minority) and certainly it smell bad, but nothing a good ventilation can't fix. Second hand smoking doesn't cause any negative health effect
Apart from the inability to breathe, which, then again, is not particularly healthy.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
Apart from the inability to breathe, which, then again, is not particularly healthy.
In a well ventilated area, surely breathing is not a problem?

“Building Better Worlds”
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
I'm at awe at the incredible bias against smoking. People who smoke can be told they are in denial, stupid, smelly .. in fact almost anything goes. Conform or else.
Perhaps because it is widely considered to be a disgusting, smelly habit. Anyone who doesn't conform against smoking needs help, and not just for their physical health.

The worst fascists are those who once smoked and don't anymore. I never really figured out why that is, since there are lots of things I used to do, but I don't despise people who do it.
Guilty as charged, regarding being a "fascist" against smokers. I used to smoke, heavily, but I quit over 30 years ago. As for despising smokers, I do so when I'm forced to breathe the putrid air their cancer sticks generate.

Once I habitually smoked pot and stopped more than ten years ago. I honestly don't care whether people smoke pot, even in my vincinity. I don't feel like I have to tell them it is stupid or that their smoke bothers me. It doesn't make me want a puff.
I don't care what others do either, except when it affects me.

While the negative effects of tobacco on health are documented, so are negative effects of other things, such as fried food, lack of excercise, obesity, sugar, sun and meat. The negative health effects of tobacco are no better if you chew it or put it under your lip or sniff it, it's all bad - but only the ones who smoke it are being targeted.
Probably because someone walking around with a wad of tobacco in their mouth isn't something that bothers me, when it comes to my health (other than it looking rather stupid, IMO.

Sure it annoys, bothers or mildly affects some people (a small minority) and certainly it smell bad, but nothing a good ventilation can't fix. Second hand smoking doesn't cause any negative health effect, though it smells bad.
I don't know where you get your info from, but second hand smoke is indeed dangerous to others' health.

What else smells bad? Car exhaust. Factory smoke. Smelly persons. Can we ban those from our public places, please? What else causes cancer? Other than the multude of bad things we ingest and the awful western lifestyle of sitting on ones ass and post on forums? Tar from streets, coal smoke, electromagnetism, noise, stress, radiation. Are all these things banned or taxed?
Maybe some of these things should be taxed more. One also doesn't generally go around smelling car exhaust, factory exhaust, or some other things (although one could smell those things more often when I was younger, and pollution controls weren't so strict). Even though I've been a car fan all my life, I would like nothing more now than to not have to drive, and live car-free, if it were possible.

Of course not. Cigarette smokers are an easy target and an easy way to make money. Too bad most smokers are poor and uneducated people, but well. That's why smokers are easy targets.
There are still millions who do smoke; I suspect it has more to do with the damage they cause than because they're easy targets. Your generalization that they're mostly poor and uneducated may have some merit, but there are also plenty of educated and well-off people who smoke.


The suggestion that people should be banned from smoking in their cars is crazy. It can hardly be taken seriously, since it can't be enforced. But the fact that people actually suggest such a thing - that's concerning.
I believe the suggestion was that banning smoking in cars should be against the law when children are involved; on that I concur wholeheartedly, as children don't have any say or control over what their often ignorant parents do. I occasionally see parents carrying their very young children into stores, with a cigarette in their mouth, and the child has absolutely no control over having that foul substance blown into their face (and lungs)! It takes a lot of restraint on my part to not slap the parent silly. It shows how little they not only care for themselves, but how much they really love their child.

It's been quite scary to read *some* of the remarks made by anti-smoking fascists in this thread. Not surprising, but scary.
Your opinion is duly noted.

Ban on smoking tobacco is what the fascists really want, but not what the government wants. It's quite amusing really. Alcohol and tobacco will always be taxed, by virtue of being easy tax-targets, but never banned. So the fascists have tried what they can to ban people *from* smoking, though allow people to *buy* tobacco.

Crazy.
I would love nothing more than to see smoking banned, while I sit here on my ass posting on the forum.

Of course the government doesn't really want to ban it, because it generates revenue, but with enough of an uproar from the population, they might have no choice but to acquiesce to our wishes.

Signed,

Your neighborhood fascist.
     
Doofy  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2010, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I don't care what others do either, except when it affects me.
Me neither.

But since I immediately vomit at the smell of cooking fish, I now fully expect you to confine your fish eating to your own home.

No, thought not.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2010, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani View Post
In a well ventilated area, surely breathing is not a problem?
It would have to be very well-ventilated.

Even walking next to someone who’s smoking outside is uncomfortable, and it doesn’t get much more ventilated than that. But that’s a discomfort I can live with. I’d just be really, really happy if people wouldn’t smoke indoors in public places. But they do, in so many places, completely disregarding other people.

If I stood myself in a subway station or in a café or bar and starting burning off car tyres, you can be sure as hell I’d be kicked out and probably reported for it. But for smoking, which has a very similar effect (to me, at least)? Nah, nobody bats an eyelid, and if you nicely ask people not to smoke indoors since it’s actually illegal and is causing me physical discomfort, they (including the staff at cafés and bars) tell you to stop being such a whiner and f*ck off somewhere else if it’s so bad.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2010, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín View Post
It would have to be very well-ventilated.

Even walking next to someone who’s smoking outside is uncomfortable, and it doesn’t get much more ventilated than that. But that’s a discomfort I can live with. I’d just be really, really happy if people wouldn’t smoke indoors in public places. But they do, in so many places, completely disregarding other people.

If I stood myself in a subway station or in a café or bar and starting burning off car tyres, you can be sure as hell I’d be kicked out and probably reported for it. But for smoking, which has a very similar effect (to me, at least)? Nah, nobody bats an eyelid, and if you nicely ask people not to smoke indoors since it’s actually illegal and is causing me physical discomfort, they (including the staff at cafés and bars) tell you to stop being such a whiner and f*ck off somewhere else if it’s so bad.
Anecdotally, I find smoke outside bothers me more than smoke in a well ventilated closed or semi-closed area. Probably because in a ventilated area the smoke is pulled up and away from me, while outside the wind can blow it directly into my face. That's never nice.

Of course standing upwind from a smoker outside doesn't bother one at all, but one isn't always so lucky. In a ventilated area one is always 'upwind' from a smoker.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2010, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Perhaps because it is widely considered to be a disgusting, smelly habit. Anyone who doesn't conform against smoking needs help, and not just for their physical health.
I see you've got a good grasp on fascism.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Guilty as charged, regarding being a "fascist" against smokers. I used to smoke, heavily, but I quit over 30 years ago. As for despising smokers, I do so when I'm forced to breathe the putrid air their cancer sticks generate.
Loaded words and bias don't support an argument, but I've noticed they help fascists and populists. I know many ex-smokers who share your attitude and it is hypocracy at its finest.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I don't care what others do either, except when it affects me.
Apparently you also care when it affects others - as per the subject of this thread. You want to ban cigarette smoking (as you say farther down) and that doesn't jive with the above claim either. You want to control other people. Whether they affect you or not.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Probably because someone walking around with a wad of tobacco in their mouth isn't something that bothers me, when it comes to my health (other than it looking rather stupid, IMO.
Probably, but also because tobacco chewers aren't branded as second class citizens like smokers are, so it is far more difficult for fascists to pin some populist propaganda against them.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I don't know where you get your info from, but second hand smoke is indeed dangerous to others' health.
Not any more than sooooo many potentially dangerous things in our daily lives. As some have pointed out (anecdotally) they are affected by second-hand smoke and I'm not denying that. However car exhaust in cities is no less dangerous. I've felt my lungs constrict and almost vomited when I went to the city last time.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Maybe some of these things should be taxed more. One also doesn't generally go around smelling car exhaust, factory exhaust, or some other things (although one could smell those things more often when I was younger, and pollution controls weren't so strict). Even though I've been a car fan all my life, I would like nothing more now than to not have to drive, and live car-free, if it were possible.
In general I do agree with you, but I'm not a supporter of banning cars or taxing them fantastically to pretend I'm doing something about it, let alone branding drivers are some sort of evildoers, bad people, polluters, stupid, ignorant, reckless of other people's health etc. like you and many others do so liberally with smokers.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
There are still millions who do smoke; I suspect it has more to do with the damage they cause than because they're easy targets. Your generalization that they're mostly poor and uneducated may have some merit, but there are also plenty of educated and well-off people who smoke.
No, no, most smokers are poorer and less educated than those who don't smoke. Look it up. In fact it shouldn't surprise you. Ever walked past a construction site during break time? Ever walked into a legal firm during break time?

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I believe the suggestion was that banning smoking in cars should be against the law when children are involved; on that I concur wholeheartedly, as children don't have any say or control over what their often ignorant parents do. I occasionally see parents carrying their very young children into stores, with a cigarette in their mouth, and the child has absolutely no control over having that foul substance blown into their face (and lungs)! It takes a lot of restraint on my part to not slap the parent silly. It shows how little they not only care for themselves, but how much they really love their child.
Sure smoking in cars is probably not the best thing for the child, but considering you need no qualifacation to become a parent, then this is not the most serious damage parents can do to their children. Ban smoking in cars, but they'll still become obese diabetics.

Why don't you advocate banning parents from feeding their children sugared water and french fries? That's far more serious and potentially life affecting than even second hand smoke in a car. As crazy as that sounds to an anti-smoking fascist.

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I would love nothing more than to see smoking banned, while I sit here on my ass posting on the forum.
As mentioned above, you do care what people do, even when it doesn't affect you (since it obviously doesn't affect you that some person in another part of your town is smoking a cigarette)

Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Of course the government doesn't really want to ban it, because it generates revenue, but with enough of an uproar from the population, they might have no choice but to acquiesce to our wishes.
You may be right, fascism works. It's loony, it's scary, it's hive minded and populistic, but it works.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,