• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

thaiboxerken said:


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

Are you saying I use more gasoline on a trip to the grocery store than on a 3000 mile trip across the country?
 

It's not just about being comfortable, it's about health

You have failed to provide any evidence that it is about health.

And legislating smoking is DESTROYING freedom?!? What a leap of logic that is!

Yes, it is, and no leap of logic there.


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.

If it's true that speeding is dangerous, to those other than the one speeding, then it should be legislated.

I don't agree with seatbelt laws. I have always worn one, even before the law, but I don't think it should be a legal requirement except for non-adults.

Adults should have the freedom to do stupid things that only affect their own health.
 
rastamonte said:


Are you saying I use more gasoline on a trip to the grocery store than on a 3000 mile trip across the country?
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't catch that part. Anyway, it's not reasonable to limit the distance people travel, as that is limiting freedom.

Also, driving at 100mph may or may not be safe, given the road conditions, your car and your ability to drive. Many places have posted speed limits based on safety as pointed out by another poster.
 
thaiboxerken said:
[B

Adults should have the freedom to do stupid things that only affect their own health. [/B]
Click to expand...
Speeding, for one, doesn't necessarily affect only one person's health. You risk endangering other people's lives and property. Think about it, you short-sighted person. Name something that you do that has no effect on other people. You can't. Everything you do has an effect on somebody. Not necessarily a life changing effect, but it affects somebody, regardless. Even if you only hurt yourself, and go to the hospital. You're affecting the nurses, doctors, and other staff. Now, I've left this pointless discussion once, and now I'm going to do it again. I haven't the time to waste reading your drivel.

And speeding is legislated. It's illegal.
 
thaiboxerken said:
If it's true that speeding is dangerous, to those other than the one speeding, then it should be legislated.

I don't agree with seatbelt laws. I have always worn one, even before the law, but I don't think it should be a legal requirement except for non-adults.

Adults should have the freedom to do stupid things that only affect their own health. [/B]
Click to expand...

Speeding, by itself, is not necessarily dangerous. Those who speed are not necessarily driving carelessly. If the road is wide and empty and straight and smooth, and if my car is in good working order, it is perfectly safe for me to drive 100mph. But it is against the law.
 
rastamonte said:


Speeding, by itself, is not necessarily dangerous. Those who speed are not necessarily driving carelessly. If the road is wide and empty and straight and smooth, and if my car is in good working order, it is perfectly safe for me to drive 100mph. But it is against the law.
Click to expand...

I agree. IF you are in a situation where driving 100mph is safe, it should be legal.
 
Speeding, for one, doesn't necessarily affect only one person's health.

I never made that argument that it did only affect one person's health.

I was talking about seatbelts, dummy.
 
Mandatory helmet laws would be another example.

Interestingly enough (and there was a court case regarding this in Southern CA a few years ago) an adult can refuse a blood transfusion even if it costs them their life.

That's nothing new, I think most people are aware that a few religions prohibit blood transfusions...what was interesting about that specific case though, was that the driver that hit her was charged. (IIRC he was under the influence, but I may be mistaken. He was charged criminally for the accident though).

Her (in this case) actions on refusing the transfusion cost her her own life. Several doctors testified to that effect, and there was no dispute really. But the person who caused the accident was charged with murder.

You can read about it here (found via google) http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9928.htm Also was covered in the SGV Tribune and LA Times.

So because those actions effect other people, should we force adults to accept blood transfusions too? I really don't buy into their religious beliefs, at all. And I think it's shameful that those beliefs cost lives. However...they have a right to believe it, whether I like it or not. (Which I'm for.)

I don't want to fall back on a 'slippery slope' fallacy, but seriously where does the line get drawn on such issues? Do we start regulating everything that may or may not be potentially harmful?

No one can debate that seatbelts save lives and thus mandatory seat belt laws...save lives. Helmet laws also save lives.

Making fast food illegal would save lives too. So would regulation of caloric consumption. Making alcohol illegal would save lives (well that's already been tried).

And not to go too much on a rant, but the reason you see more people dying of cancer today, is because more people are living long enough to die of cancer. Someone in my family put together a family tree, and looking at 3-5 generations back...there's a lot more people and they drop like flies. Lots of dead babies. :( Lots of men married multiple times (women dying sooner especially when they have multiple children). And that's examining the family tree of a side of my family who was extremely wealthy, and had access to the best medicine at the time. If I or another person ever does the Irish side of my family, I'm sure it would be much worse, because they weren't wealthy at all.

Me? I'd have died at 14. I was hospitalized with severe pneumonia, and even with antibiotics and the best of modern medicine I was extremely sick, and in the hospital for 8 days. Without antiboitics, I'd have died. Of course, then again assuming that I lived in that previous age, I'd have been put to bed as soon as I had a sniffle...well assuming my family was well off. Otherwise I'd have probably died sooner in some factory. :P

Anyway, to be perfectly candid, I am a smoker. (And yes, I'll readily admit I'm addicted to boot). However I sincerely believe that my position would be the same regardless...which is to let the owners themselves decide whether or not they want to permit smoking in their respective establishments. If an owner does not choose to allow smoking, then I can either choose to patronize another business...or to go there and not smoke. (Or to violate their rules and be tossed out on my arse, I suppose).

People do some really stupid stuff, I think anyone who reads these boards is aware of that. I don't want a paternal government though. Certainly I think society should protect the weak; children, people with various handicaps, etc.. I just don't think that they should regulate areas of choice such as these.

(Where people have no choice as to staying or leaving; such as hospitals, prisons and jails, that would be a different issue when it comes to such things.)
 
I love how my posts were totally ignored.

Regardles...

Society has a responsibility, to a certain extent, to protect the weak.

It has no obligation to protect the stupid. And it definitely has no place forcing a private business, on private property, to care about the feelings of non-smokers.

If the business owner isn't concerned about losing their business, why should the government force him to be?
 
Phrost said:
Actually, let me restate that:

A privately owned establishment SHOULD have the right to decide whether or not they want to cater to smokers.
Click to expand...

Although I agree that businesses are privately owned establishments and as such the owners should have a certain amount of control. I also believe that some limits are acceptable, because of their overall purpose of serving the public.

When you run a business, you have to expect some extra requirements that someone like a homeowner does not have to worry about. Things like fire regulations and health regulations need to be followed in a restaurant, whereas they don't in a private home. (It may be infringing on the owner's right to run their business the way they want, and some restaurant managers would be happy to not have fire exits, if they can squeze in a few more tables. But people, for the most part, accept government rules in these areas because they feel it serves the greater good, even though few restaurants will catch fire.)

I classify smoking rules in the same category as fire and health regulations. Yes, it infringes on the owner's rights to run the business, but the infringement is minor and may serve the greater good.
 
Yes, it infringes on the owner's rights to run the business, but the infringement is minor and may serve the greater good.

I would agree, ONLY if second hand smoke was shown to be dangerous. Right now, it is not shown to serve any "greater good" to anyone but the anti-smokers.

I wouldn't classify the infringement as minor at all, believe it or not, some people actually go to bars for the purpose of smoking and drinking.

I find it totally ridiculous for a non-smoker to go into a room full of smokers and demand that everyone put out their cigarettes.
 
thaiboxerken said:
*snip*
I would agree, ONLY if second hand smoke was shown to be dangerous.
*snip*
Click to expand...

Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers

* Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).
* Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year.

Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children

* The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke.
* Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
* Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze.
* Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.
* Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year.

Other Health Implications

* Exposure to secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eye, nose, and throat.
* Passive smoking can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excess phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function.
* Secondhand smoke may affect the cardiovascular system, and some studies have linked exposure to secondhand smoke with the onset of chest pain.


http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in nonsmokers.

I'll expect your apology in your next post.
 
I'll expect your apology in your next post.

LOL.

Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year

This is a BS statement that is not based on any real facts at all. The study that the EPA based this on was found to be outright fraudulent by the Supreme Court and other scientists.

I agree that children shouldn't be hanging out in bars with smokers.


Did you have any real evidence?
 
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself "Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'll expect your apology in your next post.

LOL.

Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year

This is a BS statement that is not based on any real facts at all. The study that the EPA based this on was found to be outright fraudulent by the Supreme Court and other scientists.

I agree that children shouldn't be hanging out in bars with smokers.


Did you have any real evidence?
Click to expand...
So just for S&Gs, you go ahead and tell me all about the fraudulent study (with links and backup), as well as who the "other scientists" are. And you avoided my request for backup that seeing fat people affects your health.
What a fool you are.
 
I just did.

I didn't claim that fat people affect my health. I claimed that fat people make me uncomfortable, just like smoking makes you uncomfortable. It's irritating but not dangerous to your health.
 
http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this issue. Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its "junk science" and its irrational environmental zealotry.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I just did.

I didn't claim that fat people affect my health. I claimed that fat people make me uncomfortable, just like smoking makes you uncomfortable. It's irritating but not dangerous to your health.
Click to expand...
You forget that I like seeing slim people for my own pleasure, and health.
Click to expand...
Quote from you, page 5. "...for my own....health." Your words.
And please show me where that EPA information is based on a fraudulent study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom