I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[Nigel]

No one says you can't eat in a smokeless restaurant, just find one. McDonalds is usually smoke-free in any state or country.
So I have no choice but to eat at McDonald's? Hardly seems fair.

They should, because it's polite. Politeness should not be legislated.
Yet you aren't willing to change your behavior out of politeness.

Yes, and you can easily go to a place that is smoke free. You don't have to eat at a smoking restaurant.
There are times I walk down the street, and must pass by smokers. I have no choice in that matter.

I guess you don't understand what a strawman fallacy is.
You make a lot of guesses and assumptions.


It's really easy to walk away from a smoker.
Not always.


There are some people that like the smell of secondhand smoke.
Some people enjoy depraved sexual or violent activities. I'm not willing to be around them, though.


Not secondhand smoke, though. So yes, it is still a false analogy.
How can secondhand smoke not be unhealthy? (I'll grant there may not be proof yet.)

The question begs an assumption that secondhand smoke is fatal. The question is invalid. It is not evident that secondhand smoke is fatal.
It's not evident it's healthy, either.

Does secondhand smoke hurt your health? I didn't think so. Smoking is just an unattractive behavior that you don't want to see or smell, so you want to legislate people to stop smoking.
I differ that smoking is "just" an unattractive behavior. Smoking is deadly.

 

[Mark]

I don't think we should legislate against smoking just because you are a wussy.

Forcing people to endure your smoke is just plain rude. But then, so is name calling. Is there a connection here?

 

[Nigel]

I don't think we should legislate against smoking just because you are a wussy.

I think we should legislate against smoking because you're obnoxious.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Forcing people to endure your smoke is just plain rude. But then, so is name calling. Is there a connection here?

No one is being forced to endure smoking. You don't have to eat at a smoking establishment. You don't have to drink at a smoking bar. It's rude that you want to legislate a behavior that simply makes you uncomfortable.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So I have no choice but to eat at McDonald's? Hardly seems fair.

Life isn't fair.


Yet you aren't willing to change your behavior out of politeness.

I don't smoke.


There are times I walk down the street, and must pass by smokers. I have no choice in that matter.

Sure you do, walk across the street. I can't avoid seeing fat people because I have to see them to keep myself from running into them.

You make a lot of guesses and assumptions.

My "guess" was more of a conclusion based on the fact that I did not make a strawman argument.


Not always.

Yea, whatever.


Some people enjoy depraved sexual or violent activities. I'm not willing to be around them, though.

Me neither, so I don't hang out with them. Do the same with smokers.


How can secondhand smoke not be unhealthy? (I'll grant there may not be proof yet.)

This is an appeal to ignorance. It has not been proven that secondhand smoke is dangerous to people. We should legislate based on what is actually proven dangerous.


It's not evident it's healthy, either.

Things shouldn't have to be healthy to be legal.


I differ that smoking is "just" an unattractive behavior. Smoking is deadly.

Only to the smoker.

 

[Mark]

No one is being forced to endure smoking. You don't have to eat at a smoking establishment. You don't have to drink at a smoking bar. It's rude that you want to legislate a behavior that simply makes you uncomfortable.

The flaw in this is that I am old enough to remember that before legislation, it was impossible to go into any restaurant and not have to smell someone's personal exhaust fumes. Even though non-smokers were the majority.

If smokers had been a little more considerate and less rude, legislation would not have been needed. But they are (as group) quite rude and inconsiderate. I submit as evidence your own posts on this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The flaw in this is that I am old enough to remember that before legislation, it was impossible to go into any restaurant and not have to smell someone's personal exhaust fumes. Even though non-smokers were the majority.

I've been to many, many restaurants that didn't allow smoking before any legislation against it. Oh, and it's not a constitutional right for you to eat at a person's restaurant.

If smokers had been a little more considerate and less rude, legislation would not have been needed.

This begs an assumption that it is actually rude smoker behavior that motivated the anti-smoker movement. I doubt that anything but a nonsmoking world would satisfy the anti-smokers.


But they are (as group) quite rude and inconsiderate. I submit as evidence your own posts on this thread.

I don't smoke. Do you have any real evidence that smokers, in general, are rude and inconsiderate? Most smokers I know are polite about it.

 

[Mark]

[I don't smoke. Do you have any real evidence that smokers, in general, are rude and inconsiderate? Most smokers I know are polite about it. [/B]

Any habit which involves others without their permission is by definition rude. The necessity of legislation may be debated...but not whether or not it is rude; as I say, it involves other people without their permission.

I do, however, apologize for assuming you were a smoker.

 

[Nigel]

Sure you do, walk across the street. I can't avoid seeing fat people because I have to see them to keep myself from running into them.
Cross the street. They aren't that fat.
My "guess" was more of a conclusion based on the fact that I did not make a strawman argument.
Right.

Yea, whatever.
Exactly.



Me neither, so I don't hang out with them. Do the same with smokers.
I prefer not to.


This is an appeal to ignorance. It has not been proven that secondhand smoke is dangerous to people. We should legislate based on what is actually proven dangerous.
Thanks for making my argument for me. Smoking is dangerous. Therefore, you admit smoking should be legislated.


Things shouldn't have to be healthy to be legal.
That's your opinion.

Only to the smoker.
And that's not reason enough? With over 500,000 Americans a year die from smoking related causes?

However, I see a standoff. Here. You are vehemently opposed to any sort of anti-smoking legislation, and I am for it.
At best, I agree to disagree.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Any habit which involves others without their permission is by definition rude.

Yea, I think fat people are rude. I am involved because they aren't taking the necessary steps to hide themselves from site.


I do, however, apologize for assuming you were a smoker.

No biggie.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Cross the street. They aren't that fat.

Exactly, and it's not that hard to avoid second hand smoke.

I prefer not to.

And you don't have to.



Thanks for making my argument for me. Smoking is dangerous. Therefore, you admit smoking should be legislated.

Smoking is only dangerous to the ones smoking, not to those exposed to second hand smoke. I am not admitting anything of the sort. Your argument here is a strawman, a real one, you are trying to assign an argument to me that I did not make. It's dishonest and pitiful.


That's your opinion.

True, but how healthy is owning a computer? How healthy is eating cake? Should we make those things illegal too, simply because they aren't healthy?! Wow, you're stupid.


And that's not reason enough? With over 500,000 Americans a year die from smoking related causes?

Nope. They do it to themselves. Suicide should not be illegal.

However, I see a standoff. Here. You are vehemently opposed to any sort of anti-smoking legislation, and I am for it.
At best, I agree to disagree.

I agree that you oppose smoking and want to control the behavior of other people. I prefer to let people have freedom.

 

[Nigel]

Wow, you're stupid.

I refuse to bow down to your level of idiocy of name calling. I offered a peaceful resolution by simply agreeing to disagree, and you grab the olive branch and try to whip me with it.

Thanks for nothing. Have a nice life.

 

[Mark]

Any habit which involves others without their permission is by definition rude.

Yea, I think fat people are rude. I am involved because they aren't taking the necessary steps to hide themselves from site.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to reconsider that comment? It didn't help your argument at all.

 

[rastamonte]

I agree that you oppose smoking and want to control the behavior of other people. I prefer to let people have freedom.

There is a law against speeding, even though it doesn't hurt anyone. Not even a single person has ever been hurt by my speeding, yet I am constantly pulled over and ticketed and fined. Do you think I should have the freedom to speed? I do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I offered a peaceful resolution by simply agreeing to disagree, and you grab the olive branch and try to whip me with it.


Sorry for not simply bowing down to those that would destroy freedom so that THEY can be more comfortable.

It didn't help your argument at all.

I think it did help, it is a valid analogy.

Do you think I should have the freedom to speed? I do.

If that were the only reason speed limits were imposed, then yes. However, speed limits had more to do with conservation of oil, in my understanding.

 

[rastamonte]

Do you think I should have the freedom to speed? I do.

If that were the only reason speed limits were imposed, then yes. However, speed limits had more to do with conservation of oil, in my understanding.

If the law is about conservation of oil, then they should monitor how much oil I use and fine me if I use too much. I use a lot less oil traveling from here to the grocery store at 100mph than you use traveling from New York to California at 20mph.

 

[Mark]

I think it did help, it is a valid analogy.

So you stand by your comment that fat people are rude simply by virtue being fat? When my late wife was battling cancer, the chemo drugs caused her weight to balloon up considerably.

You have told me everything I will ever need to know about you. I am finished discussing this with someone who is so completely self centered and foolish.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I use a lot less oil traveling from here to the grocery store at 100mph than you use traveling from New York to California at 20mph.

Gasoline is an oil-based product. So no, you actually use more oil.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you stand by your comment that fat people are rude simply by virtue being fat?

It is not my argument, it was an analogy to show how silly the comment about smoking involving others being rude is.


You have told me everything I will ever need to know about you. I am finished discussing this with someone who is so completely self centered and foolish.

LOL. If that comment about fat people is self-centered and foolish, then so is the comment about smoking being rude.

Thank you. You have just showed that the anti-smoking movement is about being self-centered.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Sorry for not simply bowing down to those that would destroy freedom so that THEY can be more comfortable.
It's not just about being comfortable, it's about health. And legislating smoking is DESTROYING freedom?!? What a leap of logic that is!

I think it did help, it is a valid analogy.
Others disagree.

If that were the only reason speed limits were imposed, then yes. However, speed limits had more to do with conservation of oil, in my understanding.
In the mid 1970s in the US, the speed limit was lowered to 55 mph in order to save oil. You are woefully misinformed if you think that's the original reason speed limits were imposed. Try safety - in order to keep people from being killed on the road. Same reason for seat belts. In the 1960s, auto makers said it was safer to be thrown from the car rather than be belted in. How wrong they were.