Second-hand Smoking - Page 13

Silentsmoker2003, you're clearly in a state of denial.

As I mentioned earlier though, it's a common sign of an addiction. I don't blame you, I blame the niccotine.

As for you saying "my totally UNADDICTED liver and lungs are absolutely fine." - You think you're fine.

Comparing an occasional drink to an occasional smoke unfortunately doesn't really stand. The occasional drink is social, while smoking is extremely ANTI-social. Smoking's something that only smokers do, and if you smoke you're a smoker.The only reason why people smoke is to satisfy their cravings. -- What else would drive a sane human being to blacken their lungs with cancer-causing crap?!

I assume you're sane...?




P.S. Your weak arguments for smoking are clearly wearing thin. You're even having to leech off others' weak arguments.
Why don't you just go away and enduldge yourself in a 'fag' or 5 while thinking of more reasons why smoking is fantastic.

Well I've got a problem, and this is how I deal with it, by pointing it out. So it's okay for you to insult people but not for them to call someone who smokes a smoker, remove your head from your rear end and listen to yourself. If you have a smoking habit, whether you are addicted or not, YOU ARE A SMOKER. Get over the habit or get over the label. However, I agree with you on one thing, you have not provided weak arguments for smoking, you have provided NO arguments. What are you, 12? I don't care, all I know is you show the closed mindedness and lack of maturity of one. Smoking does more damage to little kids by the way, in case you really ARE 12. Me and scarfinger have done nothign but nullify the same points you make only for you to make them again. You insist it isnt a right to life issue, I prove it is, then you once more insist it isnt. Also, you insist you can 'speak for yourself' as you have been admittedly, but I speak for myself when I say I don't like inhaling smoke, toxins, carcinogens etcetera on a daily basis. A few thigns who say have indeed made sense, most of your proof that you have presented for your points has indeed been correct, but when that has been the case, the points in question are uncontested. yes, you have a right to smoke, yes you have a right to go where you want, no, some stranger who doesn't smoke does not have the power to dictate to you what to do but on the other hand, you have no right to damage their body. If we wanted to inhale smoke, we'd take up the habit ourselves. Simply put though, we do not.


Now frankly, I don't have a problem with you. Hell, I've seen you in other threads recently and generally agreed with what you've said, but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of clear right and wrong. We prove something wrong, you continue to pretend it's right. That doesn't help along the debate at all.

Screw it, I know I brought it up at one point, and someone else brought it up a few pages before that, but I have stopped caring whether Silent Scream is a smoker. Hell, it's irrelevant to the argument and I apologise for bringing it up, but it stands to reason that someone with a habit, not necessarily heavy or an addiction, is still a habit. The fact that you only smoke occasionally says to me YOU WANT to give up, but pretending you already have is not the way forward. If the assumptions I've just made are incorrect, I apologise again, but frankly I'm only calling it how I see it, even if I don't exactly have eagle-eyed vision.

Oh so if I present no argument to you, why are you typing long posts eh? Trying to make me look bad? Oh, here's one, how did I insult your anti-smoking friend eh? Me insulting him would be calling him an idiot, a total thick headed narrow minded one-sided moron with no consideration for REAL rights.

Right to Life isn't even a fundamental, they're optionated organizations around the United States that go againstr Abortion, Cloning and Capital Punishment. They also have sub arguments that DON'T consist of passive smoking. Actually, I dare you to find a RESPECTED WEB SITE that even says Passive Smoking is a Right to Life issue. Do it. I've never heard of such issue, and besides, Passive Smoking... once again... is believed to be utter bullshit.

You aren't killing anyone, all of this was discussed in the Supreme Court issue, and they lost. As for you reading my posts and agreeing with me, I don't even know who the hell you are. But just one thing, it's kinda ironic you're anti-smoking yet love to play with fire. Breathing smoke from fire is definantly much more dangerous, especially knowing how widely it spreads and such.

Scarfinger, the only reason I'm "defending" smokers is because of your bullshit stereotype one-sided argument, and praying for them to die.

quote Scarfinger

I couldn't really be bothered to read all that. In fact, all I did was read the first question.

Typing practice.


I believe I may have also seen the word "supreme" in there somewhere.

Cool, you're a complete spammer too.

Okay, so a huge case that made it to the US Supreme Court, backed up by THE BEST in each opposition, yet THE BEST on your side LOST and failed to make relevent points in why people should be stripped off their rights to smoke, yet it failed to prove anything? Nice. BTW, I didn't stereotype you genius, I just think it's ironic as hell you "play with fire" yet don't want to take someone breathing on you. Nice job at blowing things out of proportion too.

I don't flatter myself, but where's the web site? Come on. I want to see a respected source even talk about passive smoking being a Right to Life issue. Hell I checked it myself just to make sure, I googled Right to Life and looked through different sites from different states from different organization, and they all talk about Capital Punishment, Cloning, Abortion, Lab experimentations, but I don't ANYTHING related to second hand smoking.

quote SilentScream2003

I just think it's ironic as hell you "play with fire" yet don't want to take someone breathing on you. Nice job at blowing things out of proportion too.

Check my last post, I said I don't play with fire. Now who's blowing things out of proportion? well, out of their ass too...

Hey idiot, how many times have I referred to it ALL BEING ABOUT PERCEPTION. go back a few pages and this time read the post I made on how that stands true, using the right to freedom from discrimination as an example. I don't need a website, and if you want to be a dickhead, why don't YOU find a website stating that pasisve smoking harms nobody and that one decision in court suddenly makes something perfectly okay morally with no repercussions.

Think for yourself, or better yet, think at all

Oh yeah!! I should get on IRC again, though not a lot of people go on it, and I don't know a lot of people either.... Nice to see you again! BACK TO TOPIC.

I guess the only thing I'd like to justify is the thing about one smoke makes you a smoker. I don't think that's right. But when you say occasional I quote from dictionary.com and get

quote dictionary.com

oc·ca·sion·al Audio pronunciation of "occasional" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-kzh-nl)
adj.

1.
1. Occurring from time to time. See Synonyms at periodic.
2. Not habitual; infrequent: took an occasional glass of wine.
2. Created for a special occasion: occasional verse.
3. Intended for use as the occasion requires: an occasional chair.
4. Acting as a cause.
5. Acting in a specified capacity from time to time: an occasional hunter.

It just supported BOTH of the arguments, from time to time, I believe you've used, and then it says NOT habitual. Well that was a great help, dictionary.com XD. I just thought occasional - regular intervals. So it makes you a smoker. There is a such thing as subconsciousness (sp?) and you may not know it, you can get addicted. It's good how you don't smoke everyday, cause that's a sure way to get addicted. I dunno what's so good about it though, woo let's go kill ourself slowly with smoke. - Yeah that was stupid but it's how I think of smokers lol, childish I know .

Yugi hater I believe your post is quite true, the majority wants the good to be achieved and then move on to the next target that creates harm to them. A way of perfecting the world I suppose? Though that can never be achieved, having a ban in public areas is just ONE thing to make it a whole lot better. We're not concentrating in anything so tiny, this is quite big actually.

I don't really understand Right to Life, but it must be some kind of organisation that stops killing/suicidal acts? Neh, just a guess. iplaywithfire's username can be any reason, doesn't mean she's (I hope that's right, you're pretty pink, ahh being a colourist but whatever lol) a pyromaniac. Some people thought I chose my name cause I liked beastality which is NOT what it is . But we're just getting into petty arguments and drifting away from the main point of this discussion. I agree with her though, morality not legality, only there's a line between the two and are quite hard to distinguish.

getting a hobo with every disease under the sun to cough over you is legal. Does that mean I should do THAT? As I keep saying, there is a difference between morality and legality. In some states incest is legal, that doesnt mean they should screw their mothers just because they can.

And yes scream, I am a male. You finally got one thing right in this thread