Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, LanghamP said:

As someone correctly pointed out below, and I agree with, is motor cars with internal combustion engines do the same thing as smokers do, and on a larger scale.

If you believe what you say, then you must stop driving and owning an ICE car. I'm being somewhat hypocritical, by the way, but say a rule came about that said, don't exhaust fumes that injure other people (which includes cars, smokers, and vaping) then, yeah, I could get behind such extreme government regulation.

I vape. I never was a smoker, and indeed I have two vape solutions, one with zero nicotine. Can't tell the difference.

There's few things in life more pleasurable than vaping in bed while watching "Archer" on a big screen TV. Throw in the Asian teen hooker giving me head and I'm golden!

 

As I mentioned,  motor cars do not pollute as their primary function, it's an unintentional and undesired effect.  And yes, I sold my ICE car 8 years ago and now I only own electric vehicles which I charge by solar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi, Where do you live ? I know here in France we often get coments that we don't want to do some effort/sport, because EUC are often compared to bicycles. However, I really don't think that peopl

I've never really understood the phrase 'I respect your beliefs.' I obviously don't, because if I respected them, they'd be MY beliefs. I think when people say that phrase, what they really mean is

I wouldn't be too smug about the vaping.  There's nothing smart about breathing in toxic chemicals and filling the air with it for those of us who actually care about our health and don't want to brea

12 hours ago, Robert Hoffmann said:

Well, I hope you don't own a car, take the bus, or plane, throw nothing in the thrash that might end up in an incinerator, only eat food free from pesticides that end up in the water supply, and live in a wooden house free from industrial ciment, wear clothes that didn't contribute to poluting rivers, and only use biological plastics  ^^

You don't actually need to smoke or vape to poison those around you.

Another person who's taking the appeal to futility approach, I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wheelr said:

No, because it is not a "scientific hypothesis". It's a well known trait of the sign in astrology. And almost all astrological descriptions of Pisces allude to it. Take it for what you will.

Astrology has no scientific evidence to support it.  It comes from a time when humans didn't know as much about the galaxy as they do now.  It should be left behind with dragons and fairies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

 

I am quite confident that I am not the only member who finds you to be a holier-than-thou, boring, pretentious asshole. 

At least you have confidence.  Intelligence is useful too, but hey, confidence is a start. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, RooMiniPro said:

A motorcar's primary function is transport, not creating toxic smoke to breathe in.  Pollution from cars is unintentional.  Pollution from smoking and vaping is by design and is the primary purpose.  Your analogy doesn't work.

Are you saying that "throwing water on old ladies is acceptable because, well," it is unintentional?

I am not a native speaker, but it seems to me that the word unintentional applies, if it applies, to the smoker just as well as it applies to drivers. The smokers intent is not to pollute bystanders. The smokings primary purpose is not pollution. That should be obvious without saying, but well. I sense that you do not accept the smokings primary purpose as being a valid or important purpose, but that is a different story and a different argument to be made.

55 minutes ago, RooMiniPro said:

Are you trying to use an appeal to futility here?  As in, throwing water on old ladies is acceptable because, well, old ladies often get wet when it rains anyway.  So because leaf blowers create dust it's ok for smokers to increase the illness risks of bystanders by smoking in public places?

I believe the point is one of relevance. If you accept that people can use leaf blowers, then the additional pollution you accept by letting people smoke is (probably) negligible which makes it a difficult position to argue from. Of course that doesn't mean you should accept people blowing smoke into your face or smoking in closed public spaces. The same goes for leaf blowing, IMHO B)

Edited by Mono
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

I use to think Roo was a jerk, but now that I found out he is actually friends with an obese person, voluntarily I might add, I think he is and kind a loving man. 

Roo's friend may be obese, but he is always the bigger person :)

I used to think Kasenutty wasn't funny.  Some things never change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RooMiniPro said:

I used to think Kasenutty wasn't funny.  Some things never change.

 

I used to go out of my way to be nice to you, even though you're an insufferable cocksucker, because I thought you couldn't possibly be as miserable a prick as you come off as, but I was wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mono said:

Are you saying that "throwing water on old ladies is acceptable because, well," it is unintentional?

I am not a native speaker, but it seems to me that the word unintentional applies, if it applies, to the smoker just as well as it applies to drivers. The smokers intent is not to pollute bystanders. The smokings primary purpose is not pollution. That should be obvious without saying, but well. I sense that you do not accept the smokings primary purpose as being a valid or important purpose, but that is a different story.

I believe the point is one of relevance. If you accept that people can use leaf blowers, then the additional pollution you accept by letting people smoke is (probably) negligible which makes it a difficult position to argue from. Of course that doesn't mean you should accept people blowing smoke into your face or smoking in closed public spaces. The same goes for leaf blowing, IMHO B)

Well you do make a good point.  But I am saying that there are people here who have suggested that if I don't like smokers smoking outside buildings and me having to breathe in their toxic smoke, then I should also be against motor cars, because motor cars also produce pollution.  My point is that cars are designed to transport people.  The fact that they make toxic smoke is a secondary, unintentional effect.  Cigarettes produce toxic smoke as their primary, intentional effect and smokers use them to intentionally produce toxic smoke for the purpose of breathing it in.  If someone has to drive to work in a car I do not see their action as unfair.  But the smoker standing outside the bank (he would smoke inside if it were not illegal) making a toxic plume of smoke for other people to breathe in is being unfair.  He should look into other ways to get his fix/high without forcing it on others, such as nicotine gum, patches etc. 

This is not a matter of me not understanding how addiction works, but me saying "hey, I get it, you're addicted to nicotine, or you enjoy the experience of ingesting it, but myself and many other people don't enjoy it, and in fact we understand that it's toxic, so is there not another way you can get your fix without me also having to inhale it? " 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wheelr said:

Interesting how we accept the influence of the Sun and the Moon on Earth, but ridicule and deny the influence that the rest of the celestial bodies have on us.

We neither accept nor deny a priori that something influences something else. We only ask for good amounts of empirical evidence that and how something influences something else before we accept this influence as a working hypothesis to better explain the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

 

I used to go out of my way to be nice to you, even though you're an insufferable cocksucker, because I thought you couldn't possibly be as miserable a prick as you come off as, but I was wrong. 

I'm a happy person.  I think you are projecting.  I made an effort to be nice to you too, even when it was a chore to only ever see you make unfunny jokes in response to serious or technical discussions, rarely offering anything useful to the topic.  And now with the repeated name calling, the insults, the being stoned half the time - I don't think it's me who is miserable.  Interestingly, this whole time you have expressed your disagreement with my opinions on the passive smoking thing with nothing but name calling and jokes.  You have offered no evidence, reasoning, debate or argument at all.  All you do is say "I don't like you, you ___ ___ ____ ___ go ____ off you ____  _____"

Edited by RooMiniPro
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RooMiniPro said:

My point is that cars are designed to transport people.  The fact that they make toxic smoke is a secondary, unintentional effect.  Cigarettes produce toxic smoke as their primary, intentional effect and smokers use them to intentionally produce toxic smoke for the purpose of breathing it in.

The smoke of a cigarette could be 100% harmless or even guarantied to increase life expectancy by a year and that would not decrease the motivation of smokers to smoke by any tiny little bit. Hence whatever it is, it can not be the toxicity which is the primary intentional effect of cigarettes.

EDIT: It is difficult to understand why you would not recognize that toxicity is an undesired side effect of smoking, as disturbing bystanders is entirely secondary to the pleasure of smoking.

Edited by Mono
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mono said:

The smoke of a cigarette could be 100% harmless or even guarantied to increase life expectancy by a year and that would not decrease the motivation of smokers to smoke by any tiny little bit. Hence whatever it is, it can not be the toxicity which is the primary intentional effect of cigarettes.

Cigarettes are designed to burn and create smoke filled with a very long list of chemicals.  One of those chemicals is nicotine, a highly addictive psycho-active stimulant.  People breathe in the smoke to get the nicotine, for the physiological effects.  Nicotine is a toxin.  The smoke also contains other toxins that are carcinogenic.  So the purpose of the cigarette is to make smoke, which is toxic.  The purpose of a car is to transport us to a destination.

If I decided to take up heroin, but every time I wanted to shoot up I also injected it into the veins of bystanders, would that be fair?  What if I was addicted and couldn't stop and it was a smokeable form that produced a big cloud of heroin?  Would it be fair to stand in busy public parks and outside shops making clouds of heroin that other people had to breathe in?  Or would it be more reasonable for me to smoke it at home or find some non-airborne method of ingesting the drug?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

Cigarettes are designed to burn and create smoke filled with a very long list of chemicals.

No. Cars are designed to bring us from A to B, or make us feel good, depending on whom you ask. Cigarettes are designed make us feel good or get addicted, depending on whom you ask. Burning and creating smoke filled with a long list of chemicals and all this is only means to the end, it is for cigarettes as it is for cars. In particular creating toxic smoke is an unwanted side effect in either case.

5 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

Nicotine is a toxin.

ehem, FTR, not really, and certainly not for passive smokers, but that's not relevant to the question at hand anyways.

5 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

If I decided to take up heroin, but every time I wanted to shoot up I also injected it into the veins of bystanders, would that be fair? 

Don't get me started on this. The constant misinformation we get to see on heroin wherever we look is just mindblowingly crazy and has a huge death toll.

5 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

Or would it be more reasonable for me to smoke it at home or find some non-airborne method of ingesting the drug?

You bet it would. As it would be more reasonable to find a method to get from A to B without polluting the air with a long list of harmful chemicals.

Edited by Mono
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cars and smoking are analogous in action though not in intent, that is, by my actions I give harm to others. Indeed, a lot of legislation that smokers have also applies to cars in order to mollify the effects their air pollutants have.

While we've been very effective at driving out smokers from every conceivable public place, we haven't been quite so effective in regulating autos, specifically diesels, and the pollution level near highways where cars require a lot of energy to go fast is quite high.

Except Berlin, of course. My god, people there are mad smokers. It's terrible. Reminds me being a child in the 1970's and trying to find my parents through a haze of cig smoke and eye-level wine glasses.

I agree with Roo, in the sense I would like to see something like, "you can smoke but with the understanding that no one else inhales your smoke." And so it is with cars. "You can drive whatever car you want, so long as no one else inhales the pollutants your car burns."

And Roo has made these sacrifices, and he's apparently still alive, albeit crotchety (maybe giving up things that hurt others makes one a bit bitchy?). But if the cost of doing no harm to others by polluting the air, then it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scatcat said:

I'm very happy to hear you don't do that anymore. I'm actually considering not vaping on my wheel for exactly the same reasons.

While I have the vapo on my hand most of the time I ride, I never vape at traffic lights if there are people around. Or if kids see me riding, or if I just passed a bicyclist. It comes automatic to me, I never even thought about it before.

 

@RooMiniPro, you get so many facts wrong in your posts that I feel compelled to comment on them. I get it, you have a fobia that extends to vaping. But you would have it easier if you knew a bit better.

2 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

because leaf blowers create dust it's ok for smokers to increase the illness risks of bystanders by smoking in public places?

I think you are still the only person in this thread talking about smoking. You might not understand how much it reveals about your stance.

2 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

A motorcar's primary function is transport, not creating toxic smoke to breathe in.  Pollution from cars is unintentional.  Pollution from smoking and vaping is by design and is the primary purpose.  Your analogy doesn't work.

As Mono replied above, YOUR analogy on wether something is intentional or not doesn't work. "I'm sorry officer, I didn't mean to speed." "Ah, ok then. Off you go." Not legally, and not by measuring the harm done.

"Pollution from vaping"...?! Now I get it. You mentioned knowing quite a bit about how addiction works in the brain. My guess is that you work in (or atleast closely follow) the health industry, and as is well known by now, your "trusted" sources have published ONLY falsified study results and other propaganda on vaping for years. 

2 hours ago, RooMiniPro said:

I appreciate that you actively try to avoid getting smoke in other people's faces

Roo, he doesn't smoke, and he doesn't produce any smoke.

Quote

Yet when it comes to actually doing the work of just not picking up the hamburger and actually doing some exercise, she doesn't even try.

You seem to know very little on how addiction works on mental level. Knowing what happens in the brain doesn't elaborate on that, it seems.

Quote

with no effort to actually break out of the addiction to nicotine.

Wether or not plain nicotine causes addiction is not that certain. If it would, wouldn't I be munching (those "toxic") eggplants continuously? Or atleast tomatoes? In any case, there are several other ingredients in cigarettes that cause addiction. Sugar being one of them, which I believe to be a costlier and more addictive poison to our society.

Quote

 And once they try the nicotine juices, bang, they are hooked into something they will one day regret.

First of all, have you ever met a person that regrets vaping? And that "bang" part about getting hooked is your own opinion without a single scientific study supporting it.

Quote

Unfortunately most vapers and smokers are not as considerate as you, and instead don't care about filling the entrance zones of buildings

That is stupid and extremely inconsiderate, I agree.

Quote

being asthmatic the smoke bothers me when people smoke around me.  Vape vapour doesn't bother my lungs so much

It's because the vape you breathe doesn't have measurable amounts of toxins present.

Quote

Vape juices do contain toxins and I just don't want that stuff in my body.

Then don't drink it. Your disgust might get some rest if you read studies on second hand vaping.

Do you realize that if you truly don't want any toxins in your body, there are very few products available for you at your local grocery store. Toothpaste included.

Quote

I don't force anyone to eat, drink or breathe anything that I consume.

I don't believe that. Do you know about a syndrome called MCS? If you read about it a bit, you might have to replace most of your household chemicals, shampoos etc.

And if you had lived next to a railway station, you'd know that the trains braking nearby make the air filters in nearby houses go black in a few weeks. I bet you don't avoid walking past train stations.

Quote

all these candy flavours to get teenagers hooked

This has been discussed in detail on other forums. The poll result was that surprisingly many 30+ year olds use the candy flavours the most.

1 hour ago, RooMiniPro said:

Astrology has no scientific evidence to support it.

Neither does your beliefs on the toxitiy of vaping.

1 hour ago, RooMiniPro said:

if I don't like smokers smoking outside buildings and me having to breathe in their toxic smoke, then I should also be against motor cars

Again, you came up with the smokers. We were talking about vaping. And even cigarettes, people have inhaled various smokes for thousands of years for pleasure and relaxation, not to deliberately get in toxins.

Your viewpoint is very narrow, which is normal when a person has a mental issue towards something and gathers only tidbits of information for years that might even remotely support his disgust. This is such a textbook example on how your childhood hatred towards smokers at your home has evolved to include vapers, but as you don't have an issue with car/train pollution, toxic food additives or perfumes, you have told yourself that they are ok.

Edited by mrelwood
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RooMiniPro said:

If I decided to take up heroin, but every time I wanted to shoot up I also injected it into the veins of bystanders, would that be fair? 

True, it would be a little unfair, they would get the shot for free :cheers: But all in all, I would still be in favor of it :efee8319ab:

Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus what a monster I created! LOL

Riding an euc  is like smoking. You will hurt yourself and if you live in a place that taxes you for universal health care you are damaging peoples wallets as an extension. Less money is the same as not having the ability to travel because of disease.

Euc drivers are like smokers. Ok Now I am trolling. But it is true though?

I love the freedom these devices give though. Less than a tenth of the cost of public transportation when including amortisation of the purchase price.

Still The devices must become even cheaper or the batteries should last longer. Also tyres should not wear out and mistreating the device should cause it no harm. Not even cosmetically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a smoker, and you take a vapors instead you're still are an addict.

You don't stop using, just change the product off addiction.

Still inhale toxic products, still wanne have the fix, maybe a bit less harmfull for you're body - but still.

If you really bother you stop! no vapor no medication sowhatever.

Just the will and believe that stopping  is possible if you really want to quit the habbit.

Or  just live with the possibility that you can get ocpd - cancer, or another disease from it.

No one tells you to continu smoking, or vapor, it's about choises!

If you're a smoker, you now by now that it isn't healthy.

Saying you do it for whatever many years and i can't, is saying and believing you  can't change.

But meaning i am not strong enough and willing enough to quit this habbit.

And smoking or vapor on the wheel or a bike looks really sad :wacko:

( the saddest thing i ever saw was smokers outside the hospital doors- Editors )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by gotmotion2016
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gotmotion2016 said:

If you really bother you stop! no vapor no medication sowhatever.

Just the will and believe that stopping  is possible if you really want to quit the habbit.

Or  just live with the possibility that you can get ocpd - cancer, or another disease from it.

That's pretty irresponsible advice. Almost like if you wanted more people to die from smoking, or you just don't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the advise to stop  smoking looks to me not that irrisponsible.

Maybe it is not claer, that is possible.

What i say  is that keep on smoking is a choice.

All the reasons to keep smoking is crap imho.

I don't want people die from smoking, not at all.

If you smoke and have problems with you're health, you stop.

It's a weak excuse to say, i can not quit, and now i'm ill, it's about choices that you are ill.

Not keep smoking and not being able to stop is the problem, not making the choice to stop is the problem imho.

 

If and addict takes an overdose, and is on intensive care it is his  debt.

He takes the overdose, no one forces him to do so.

He can make the choice to stop somehowe also, and leading a normal live.

Same with a smoker, no one is saying he/she have to smoke.

Everday is the choice to quit, or to keep on smoking.

 

I think it is irresponsible if people keep smoking knowing that it CAN have health isseus, or already have them.

Edited by gotmotion2016
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gotmotion2016 said:

Not keep smoking and not being able to stop is the problem, not making the chioce to stop is he problem imho.

If it were that simple, there wouldn't be over a billion smokers in the world.

Only people who have never been smokers think like you do. Ever wonder why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to be a smoker, so i do now what i'm talking about.

And yes, it's that simple, you make the choice so do fool around.

And giving all kind off excuses that you can't stop.

It's a choice to get a non smoker or to stay a smoker.

It's for me the lack of power and fait that people keep smoking.

Even the most addicted smoker can stop, if he/she just  see the importance of it.

And assume that i'm a non smoker can say something about prejudice.

Smoked for 20 years, stopped several times, the longest for 4 years.

No i no that an addict NEVER can smoke again, or he is back to 0.

All the times i start smoking was after taking one cigarette again.

NO, once you stop there is no turning back.

Don't smoke 3 years now, but now if i take one tomorrow i buy cigarettes the day after tomorrow.

As long as i don't smoke my head don't tell me to smoke, the habbit is gone.

You smoke, or you don't smoke, nothing in between, that black& white.

 

My father smoked 69 years, never stopped his whole live.

Untill last january, he wanted to stop, and had the will and power to do so.

He made the CHOICE to stop, and he had not much problems to stay a non smoker.

Saying - if the will  is there and the faith people can stop smoking.

Edited by gotmotion2016
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Keith locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...