Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Yeah as if I'd really be here on the forum bickering all day if I was. 

[Alexhans]

at the bus stop I always make sure no-one is downwind or in my smoke when I light a cig.

Ok.... no reason to argue then...

We all care about the enviroment (or should).  Cigars can't be compared with pollution.  They're 2 different things.

if we keep arguing with siquo he will forget he has to eat and inevitably die... Let him live... 

[Siquo]

Nah, time to go home anyhow. And air pollution is air pollution.

JerrySpringer-Style Conclusion Moral: we all kill eachother in the long run. Try to be nice and stretch it a bit

[atomicwinter]

I still don't get why people smoke, does it taste good or something? :p

Eh you get a buzz. Some smoke is quite tasty I must say, those Marlboro reds are yum.

[JoshuaFH]

My Mom smokes cherry and grape flavored cigars.

Never had one myself, so I can't vouch for the taste.

[Rilder]

Heh I'll never smoke cigarettes,  don't see the point, plus they are wayyy to expensive to make a habit out of.

[atomicwinter]

My Mom smokes cherry and grape flavored cigars.

Never had one myself, so I can't vouch for the taste.

My friend smokes primetimes which are flavored cigarettes. I don't see the point.. tobacco is tasty on its own and I think they are just ruining the flavor. I like to compare it to dipping and covering prime rib that has been carefully cook and seasoned with some cheap BBQ sauce. It just ain't right man, it just ain't right.

[ChairmanPoo]

Ah, I see that Siquo keeps the BS about how air pollution gives him moral authority to turn everyone else into passive smokers.

Surely even you can see how the logic of that argument fails at the first remote glance.

[codezero]

Ah, I see that Siquo keeps the BS about how air pollution gives him moral authority to turn everyone else into passive smokers.

Surely even you can see how the logic of that argument fails at the first remote glance.

Picture yourself in a domed room where the roof opens up, and me in another. In your room is a car, in my room is a smoker. Now open up that roof just a bit, a bit more, now all the way!  Imagine a bus waiting at a stop and you're in the bus shelter with a smoker. (that's what it's like for me)

My leisure is to smoke, yours is to drive everywhere instead of walking. Just because it's common practice doesn't mean it's not lazy. And just because I prefer to walk doesn't mean I should deprive you of preferring to drive, and I won't hang out near roads and bitch at the drivers, in other words your actions have taken you into a city of smokers and mine have taken me into a city of roads.

[ChairmanPoo]

Gotta love the BS. Noone has argued about banning smokers from smoking IN THE STREET. What's being argued is banning smoking from enclosed public spaces. You are full of it to the extreme.

Not to mention that I am curious to what degree you are willing to go through with your "CARS ARE WORSE THAN SMOKING" argument and stop driving altogether yourselves. I suspect that not far.

[kcwong]

I read smoke/anti-smoke discussions everywhere and cars are often sited as more harmful than cigarette smoke, and that if cars are allowed, so should be cigarettes.

My view on that is this: Without cars, the whole society shuts down. Without cigarettes, nicotine addicts are shut down (heavy nicotine users get all stressed up and can't concentrate).

Car is a necessary evil. Cigarette is not. When alternatives become common place (meaning widely available and affordable), I can foresee and I will support the gradual phase out and eventual outlaw of petrol/diesel powered vehicles cars.

[codezero]

So you would support limits on the shortest distance you can travel?

[Siquo]

Not to mention that I am curious to what degree you are willing to go through with your "CARS ARE WORSE THAN SMOKING" argument

Gotta love people who don't read. No-one said that (well Aqizzar did). No-one is using it as an argument to keep smoking in your face. It is an argument to stop you from whining about smoking, because what you do is just as bad. Don't tell me I can't kill children while you're killing babies yourself. And stop calling arguments BS unless you've got something better. It only shows that you disagree but are incapable of putting it into words.

KCWong, I think societies can work without cars, if we keep the trucks. And even those can be phased out in time. Societies can also work without nicotine addicts. I propose to outlaw both.

[kcwong]

KCWong, I think societies can work without cars, if we keep the trucks. And even those can be phased out in time. Societies can also work without nicotine addicts. I propose to outlaw both.

I include all oil-burning-air-polluting automobiles when I said "cars"... and societies need a lot of logistics... food, water, medicine, commuters, etc. Without cars societies shut down.

[ChairmanPoo]

Not to mention that I am curious to what degree you are willing to go through with your "CARS ARE WORSE THAN SMOKING" argument

Gotta love people who don't read. No-one said that (well Aqizzar did). No-one is using it as an argument to keep smoking in your face. It is an argument to stop you from whining about smoking, because what you do is just as bad. Don't tell me I can't kill children while you're killing babies yourself. And stop calling arguments BS unless you've got something better. It only shows that you disagree but are incapable of putting it into words.

KCWong, I think societies can work without cars, if we keep the trucks. And even those can be phased out in time. Societies can also work without nicotine addicts. I propose to outlaw both.

Not to mention that I am curious to what degree you are willing to go through with your "CARS ARE WORSE THAN SMOKING" argument

Gotta love people who don't read. No-one said that (well Aqizzar did). No-one is using it as an argument to keep smoking in your face. It is an argument to stop you from whining about smoking, because what you do is just as bad. Don't tell me I can't kill children while you're killing babies yourself. And stop calling arguments BS unless you've got something better. It only shows that you disagree but are incapable of putting it into words.

KCWong, I think societies can work without cars, if we keep the trucks. And even those can be phased out in time. Societies can also work without nicotine addicts. I propose to outlaw both.

What it shows is that you lack the barest lack on logic. I am getting tired of having to explain the same thing over and over to you. So if you repeat the same ignorant addict BS once more IŽll just start requoting my posts. Still, let's give it one last try:

- When you smoke in a public space, like your workplace, you are hurting your peer's health. Noone is forbidding you from smoking in the street. In fact, quite the contrary: if you want to smoke, go smoke in the street. And even if it was just as bad, that is no justification for turning your peers into passive smokers. A bad thing doesn't justify other bad thing. Most people learn this when they are ten.

- You have't proved that cars are "just as bad", and you can't simply pull facts out of your rear end. Besides which, noone is running a car in your office. And besies which, you have to be CONSEQUENT with what you ask. I dont want people to smoke in public places, and I dont smoke in public places. If you think people shouldn't drive cars in the street, don't drive yourself. If you are trying to make a (poor) analogy between car-driving and smoking, go to paragraph one, and see why it fails.