2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready And your lack of reading comprehension failed to note that the BUILDINGS contain air, and are "thereby enclosed" and they have a right to all that space encompasses. Lool up airspace rules for your area, to be exact, will you take the LAW BOOKS WORD?

And I say, your severe inability to make coherent statements is astounding. Is air, or is air not, "collective" property? Not airspace, air. And how does enclosing it in a building change it's theoretical legal definition?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Show me using logic, where I am wrong?

I'm still looking for somewhere that you've been right. Or even consistent.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready All law is not legal.

Heh. You are confused. All laws are legal. By definition. Some laws are not constitutional, and some laws may be constitutional but immoral. But until such time as they are deemed unconstitutional or repealed they are, in fact, legal and a part of our defined legal rights. Or lack thereof.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Second hand smoke is a risk we are fully capable of assessing

Hmm... "A risk we are fully capable of assessing"? After you've already endorsed the "second-hand smoke is myth" bullshit? And after you've admitted to having no problem with allowing private water companies to keep unhealthy levels of mercury in their water? Wow.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Did I deny something!? I admitted I thanked him for the links. I admitted I used the word Nazis. POINT? Isn't this all just petty arguing, to avoid the actual debate topic?

I was talking to Bacon Boy.

Got a problem with that reading comprehension there, Ozzy?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: All I said was thanks for the links Rick, aside from my usual accusations of big government ruining the justice system of our nation.

The problem with not telling the truth on a message board is that what you wrote is still there. You did indeed refer to "anti-smoking nazis", even if you prefer to deny it now.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Does this mean you are posturing or "flacking" for defeatists, who think we should just accept that we will never have constitutional justice again?

What nonsense. The outcome in a totally free society would in all likelihood be very similar to what we see today, so raising this as a significant issue in the struggle for liberty is silly at best.

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: And I say, your severe inability to make coherent statements is astounding. Is air, or is air not, "collective" property? Not airspace, air. And how does enclosing it in a building change it's theoretical legal definition?

I say:
OK, remedial class starts now.

If you own land, you own AIRSPACE, which contains air.

You own air, that is within your airspace, but it is not identifiable, and is everchanging unless sealed completely, thereby the REASON they define AIRSPACE, and not AIR in the molecular form.

madprophet said: Heh. You are confused. All laws are legal. By definition. Some laws are not constitutional, and some laws may be constitutional but immoral. But until such time as they are deemed unconstitutional or repealed they are, in fact, legal and a part of our defined legal rights. Or lack thereof.

I say:
Who makes up the jury? The people. They have the right of nullification of law on an individual case by case basis, which has the power of precedent.

Who petitions the government for redress of grievance? The people. They have the right to petition for redress of grievance and effect change by whatever means necessary if those petitions aren't addressed, or the grievance rectified.

The people have a right to impeach elected officials, and have a right to a republican form of government, under which, this one is LIMITED by constitutional limitations, for which there are specific areas to NOT be infringed by any law.

madprophet said: Hmm... "A risk we are fully capable of assessing"? After you've already endorsed the "second-hand smoke is myth" bullshit? And after you've admitted to having no problem with allowing private water companies to keep unhealthy levels of mercury in their water? Wow.

I say:
I said nothing of the sort.

I said THANKS for the links, I didn't say I supported them word for word.
I said I HAVE FAULTS with the current arguments against second-hand smoke.
I said nothing about private water companies, I simply said you have an option to test and filter, so regardless of what your told, YOU hold the power.

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: I was talking to Bacon Boy. Got a problem with that reading comprehension there, Ozzy?

I say:
This is a debate forum, if you don't want to read MY posts, click ignore.
I have the option to address anyone I wish. Deal with it.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Touche' Nice out of context quoting.

And how exactly did I do that? What context was left out?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What do the poor have to do with this, and how the hell does it apply in the reference to which you site? Are you inferring I am anti-poor? I am poor, so explain that for me.

Obviously, if someone can't afford a filter (I know I probably couldn't,) they are going to be drinking unacceptable levels of mercury.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If a person works at Monsanto in the chemistry department, and is regularly exposed to airborne, harmful fumes, but also happened to inhale second hand smoke and died of cancer, is it fair to say that even though they never smoked a cigarette, second hand smoke definitely caused their cancer and eventual death? (or emphesyma, CPD, or whatever the ailment)

It is abundently clear that you do not know a single thing about scientific studies. Your ignorance is coming out your fucking ears. Do you not thing they do not take these things into account? For fucks sake, they're not a bunch of monkeys.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I know I sometimes come off as a rude dick, and for that I apologize. I just write that way, and after going over the same topics several times I find myself getting a little more terse in later posts on the topic.

Oh, no need to apologize for that. To me at least. I've made "rude dick" into an artform myself. Condescension and sarcasm are the key.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I admit I can be a little difficult, but the points are what really matter I think, and I try to look past others faults since I know and recognize my own. Nobody is perfect. I apologize if my style offends you.

I'm often difficult on purpose, but the problem is you need to still be coherent and avoid making contradictory statements. You know, like you do. (See, condescension.)

Quote by: Osborn F Enready IBecause of this, I think it is clear as time has progressed with law, that we are becoming an authoritarian system from the core out.

And smoking bans are the most nefarious example you can find to bitch about? What about the Death of Habeas Corpus? Or domestic spying? Or the war on drugs? Or the targeting of dissenters by Republican officials? Or the attempts to force religion into the public sphere? The list goes on.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready II don't tap-dance, don't like Waltz music as a rule, and rarely if ever sing. Is this a tactic I should employ?

Only if Lullaby is really your sock puppet.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready IAs for Lullaby, he is a person as am I, and we have no ties other than mutual respect for our positions as people. I don't mind the insults, but I can't speak for Lullaby. I have thick skin, and at least you address the issues and make an effort to debate. Much more than I can say for some who have patronized debate forums in general. I guess its all about the "spirit" of how the "dispersions" are cast. Mine are meant to instill provocation of thought, at the expense of a jib or two at my expense. I live with it.

Thick skin is important, I think.

As for the debate, I don't think your getting anywhere here. And I was one hundred percent honest and serious when I said I've taken no position on smoking bans. I really haven't. And I really do smoke in bars. Two or three times a week.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: The problem with not telling the truth on a message board is that what you wrote is still there. You did indeed refer to "anti-smoking nazis", even if you prefer to deny it now.

I say:
I DIDN'T DENY IT!

I call a socialist a socialist, a capitalist a capitalist, and I often refer to "corporatists" by many names, one of which being NAZI.

AND?

OOooooo Osborn said Nazi...... Is this supposed to mean something?
Do you think the Nazis opinion would differ, more importantly?!?>

Are you afraid to say Nazi Rick, even when talking to a wanna-be nazi?

Rick said: What nonsense. The outcome in a totally free society would in all likelihood be very similar to what we see today, so raising this as a significant issue in the struggle for liberty is silly at best.

I say:
And I think your momma.......

So, your point is? You have an opinion? I don't give a shit what you think is silly Rick, I respect your points when they are valid, and I don't when they aren't. You have the right to do the same, but your logic shows its own flaws, as does your lack of willingness to more clearly explain anything past simple dispersions and "he said she said" BS.

How is this on topic?

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: This is a debate forum, if you don't want to read MY posts, click ignore. I have the option to address anyone I wish. Deal with it.

I have no wish to ignore you. I like you. Kinda. In a "wild animal that you don't want to get close to" sort of way. I do.

But the reverse is also true. You can ignore me, and you don't have to reply to my posts, which is probably something you should think about before you reply to something I've said to someone else with a complete non sequitur.

I never accused you of anything and you jumped on me like I fucked your wife and shot your dog, man. Just because your name was in the post doesn't mean I was fucking with you dude. I was just educating the Bacon Boy. I think you might have missed part of that exchange.

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: Obviously, if someone can't afford a filter (I know I probably couldn't,) they are going to be drinking unacceptable levels of mercury.

I say:
Obviously if you can afford a computer, and an internet connection, you can afford a filter. Can't you choose between luxury and life, or is that too unfair?
Do you have a right to cable too?

madprophet said: It is abundently clear that you do not know a single thing about scientific studies. Your ignorance is coming out your fucking ears. Do you not thing they do not take these things into account? For fucks sake, they're not a bunch of monkeys.

I say:
Allegations 101:

Wheres the beef?

madprophet said: And smoking bans are the most nefarious example you can find to bitch about? What about the Death of Habeas Corpus? Or domestic spying? Or the war on drugs? Or the targeting of dissenters by Republican officials? Or the attempts to force religion into the public sphere? The list goes on.

I say:
Obviously you don't read many of my posts. This one is about smoking, and smoking bans, and smoking myths, and smoking lies, and smoking RIGHTs.

madprophet said: As for the debate, I don't think your getting anywhere here. And I was one hundred percent honest and serious when I said I've taken no position on smoking bans. I really haven't. And I really do smoke in bars. Two or three times a week.

I say:
Good for you, I really could care less.

I am debating what you post here, and what others post here.

When I see something I find fault with, I post it. When I see something I agree with, I sometimes support it.


I support briens statement, the one you didn't address.

[Osborn F Enready]

I also happen to support most of what the "Bacon Guy" says.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, the problem is, (and I don't know why I have to explain this to you again) you commented on the words you added in RESPONSE to ME. If you're purposely trying to be this foolish, it isn't funny. I can't hold your hand through every single detail, mad. This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.

I SEE no PROBLEM. Maybe YOU should TAKE your MEDICATION and EXPLAIN to ME just WHY you HAVE a PROBLEM here, INSTEAD of REPEATING the same NONSENSE over and OVER again. Savvy?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, I'm not going to do that. I'm sick and tired of having to treat you like a five year old. At this point, you're going to have to help yourself. Google should be useful.

So, you're too lazy -- or is it too stupid? -- to provide me even with a link of your own? You're supposed to be trying to convince me, you know, not telling me gently to Fuck Off.

And I may be only five, but at least I know the accepted rules of quotation and I actually make sense when I argue on the internet. Big girl like you should be a bit more educated.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I also happen to support most of what the "Bacon Guy" says.

Well, then maybe you should try defending him rather than yourself if your going to jump in with your insane dribble.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet I SEE no PROBLEM. Maybe YOU should TAKE your MEDICATION and EXPLAIN to ME just WHY you HAVE a PROBLEM here, INSTEAD of REPEATING the same NONSENSE over and OVER again. Savvy?

Aha, you've confirmed it. You can't make any sense out a very simple thing and resort to insults. Nice. Keep it up, buddy!

Quote by: madprophet So, you're too lazy -- or is it too stupid? -- to provide me even with a link of your own? You're supposed to be trying to convince me, you know, not telling me gently to Fuck Off.

Tough. When you act like a 5 year old, don't expect me to pamper you. I really have no motivation to convince a 5 year old something it can't even understand. =x

Quote by: madprophet And I may be only five, but at least I know the accepted rules of quotation and I actually make sense when I argue on the internet. Big girl like you should be a bit more educated.

Aha, no one is even debating the rules of quotation. It really isn't that hard to understand, dear. I've explained to you exactly what my concerns are, but you keep acting like someone's been attacking the rules of quotation. If you just can't understand something.. ok, fine. But don't try to cover it up with another straw man.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Madprophet No it wasn't. It was Osborn's Libertarian position, that Rick maligned and you defended. And hey, look at that, Osborn endorsed the original post and the "Libertarian position" I used as an example!

Rick’s post which I commented on was a post in response to Osborn’s post (post 10). In post 10, Osborn was making a point about property rights; not about health. Rick responded by claiming that he was flacking for Big Tobacco and the rest is history. So the post I responded to was related to my libertarian position, and not that of Cato.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Obviously if you can afford a computer, and an internet connection, you can afford a filter. Can't you choose between luxury and life, or is that too unfair? Do you have a right to cable too?

Both free, twinkletoes. NETZERO and a ten year old junker. You'd be amazed what you can do with ten hours a month with proper management.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Obviously you don't read many of my posts. This one is about smoking, and smoking bans, and smoking myths, and smoking lies, and smoking RIGHTs.

Really? You sure? Cause I didn't find much in your profile when I looked yesterday. Like, one post in one of the Habeas threads and a couple of nancy anti-drug war things. Nothing like what I've seen here, I'll tell ya.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If you own land, you own AIRSPACE, which contains air. You own air, that is within your airspace, but it is not identifiable, and is everchanging unless sealed completely, thereby the REASON they define AIRSPACE, and not AIR in the molecular form.

So only the air molecules are "collective" property? Or is it...air molecules not temporarily over private land? Whatever you got to tell yourself, I guess.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I said nothing of the sort. I said THANKS for the links, I didn't say I supported them word for word. I said I HAVE FAULTS with the current arguments against second-hand smoke.

You said:

Thank you for the in depth article, and links Lullaby. I am sure the anti-smoking nazis won't have much to say except "we deny everything", stupid science is wrong anyway if you believe......

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I said nothing about private water companies, I simply said you have an option to test and filter, so regardless of what your told, YOU hold the power.

Then you don't have a problem with private companies not regulating the mercury levels in their water because "you have an option to test and filter." Fuck, dude, either think about what you are saying or don't say it at all.

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: So only the air molecules are "collective" property? Or is it...air molecules not temporarily over private land? Whatever you got to tell yourself, I guess.

I say:
It is called "airspace". Its a legal term, look it up.

Also, I know full well what I said, perhaps you should clarify using the quote function what you disagree, or take fault with?

madprophet said: Then you don't have a problem with private companies not regulating the mercury levels in their water because "you have an option to test and filter." Fuck, dude, either think about what you are saying or don't say it at all.

I say:
I have thought about it, fully.

Just because I think mercury is dangerous, and there is science to prove it, does not mean the government needs to regulate mercury.

Wouldn't it simply be better if all water companies were HELD LEGALLY to what they claim is in their water by parts-per-million? Then the public, could easily decide whether or not to collect water from rain, dig a well, buy bottled water, etc.

Does the government have to regulate everything in your opinion?

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: Both free, twinkletoes. NETZERO and a ten year old junker. You'd be amazed what you can do with ten hours a month with proper management.

I say:
Can you afford any luxuries, was my point? Video games, movie rentals, movie tickets, etc? If you can, you can afford other things with HIGHER precedence, as you seem to claim that health is the only concern.

I would think a competent consumer would try to PROTECT themselves first, and rely on government second, when they CAN'T protect themselves.

madprophet said: Really? You sure? Cause I didn't find much in your profile when I looked yesterday. Like, one post in one of the Habeas threads and a couple of nancy anti-drug war things. Nothing like what I've seen here, I'll tell ya.

I say:
Well, when you power skim 6000 + posts, it is easy to not get any content if you do it quickly.

Look at the threads I start, you will see my arguments.

Start your own debate thread with me, and we can cover them all, one at a time.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I support briens statement, the one you didn't address.

That's because Brien didn't say anything worth replying to. Either one of you other bozos has said it, as in the first and third case, or like in the second, it was complete meaningless conjecture (I, personally, have never known anyone that's died of any form of lung cancer. So what? That, like his pondering, is just plain stupid.)

Plus, I've been a bit busy juggling conversation with three other people, one of whom likes to butt in with non sequiturs and post long, rambling posts filled with mostly nonsense (I'm looking at you there, lizard-skin.)

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: That's because Brien didn't say anything worth replying to. Either one of you other bozos has said it, as in the first and third case, or like in the second, it was complete meaningless conjecture (I, personally, have never known anyone that's died of any form of lung