Discussion
An observation on the smoking thread and all previous ones.
The reason I started a new thread is that I am interested in why this issue causes people to ignore other peoples valid arguments and not the arguments themselves.
There are many intelligent people on those threads who feel strongly one way or the other.
Both parties have completely valid arguments.
Non smokers: Why should I inhale your smoke when it kills me/I don't like it?
Smokers: Likelihood of death infinitesimal why pick on smokers when there are far more dangerous things you tolerate without a second thought.
Why do both parties completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge the validity of the other's claim when both arguments are common sense?
The reason I started a new thread is that I am interested in why this issue causes people to ignore other peoples valid arguments and not the arguments themselves.
There are many intelligent people on those threads who feel strongly one way or the other.
Both parties have completely valid arguments.
Non smokers: Why should I inhale your smoke when it kills me/I don't like it?
Smokers: Likelihood of death infinitesimal why pick on smokers when there are far more dangerous things you tolerate without a second thought.
Why do both parties completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge the validity of the other's claim when both arguments are common sense?
blindswelledrat said:
An observation on the smoking thread and all previous ones.
The reason I started a new thread is that I am interested in why this issue causes people to ignore other peoples valid arguments and not the arguments themselves.
There are many intelligent people on those threads who feel strongly one way or the other.
Both parties have completely valid arguments.
Non smokers: Why should I inhale your smoke when it kills me/I don't like it?
Smokers: Likelihood of death infinitesimal why pick on smokers when there are far more dangerous things you tolerate without a second thought.
Why do both parties completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge the validity of the other's claim when both arguments are common sense?
A damned good question. To which I have no answer other than petty intolerance being displayed. Sad that.
More to the point (because I think your comments belong on the smoking thread)why do people get so wound up and resort to personally insulting other posters?
Calling someone a tosser for example. Someone you have never met (and may never do) disagrees with you and takes a view totally at odds with your view and they are a tosser? How do you know?
This, and other sites, are a bit of light hearted relief from the daily grind - or should be. Why do people take themselves so seriously these days?
Is it a stressful lifestyle?
Chill.
Calling someone a tosser for example. Someone you have never met (and may never do) disagrees with you and takes a view totally at odds with your view and they are a tosser? How do you know?
This, and other sites, are a bit of light hearted relief from the daily grind - or should be. Why do people take themselves so seriously these days?
Is it a stressful lifestyle?
Chill.
I think you'll find that many people are incapable of wording what they are attempting to say correctly. Hence, what they mean and what they say are two entirely different things. This causes confusion because they don't understand why you disagree with what they ahve said because that wasn't what they meant.
I think I meant to say that.
I think I meant to say that.
CiderwithCerbie said:Just an observation, but I think that post really belongs on the other thread, otherwise we have the very real threat of thread dilution/off topicry.
I agree about the level of emotional responses, BUT the evidence is that the harm caused by passive smoking is not infinitesimally small! 
Sorry.
s2art said:Please can we NOT duplicate the argument from the other thread.
I agree about the level of emotional responses, BUT the evidence is that the harm caused by passive smoking is not infinitesimally small!
Sorry.
Look, if you have evidence (scientific) to this effect then for Gods sake lets see it. Do you have a cite?
CiderwithCerbie said:
I agree about the level of emotional responses, BUT the evidence is that the harm caused by passive smoking is not infinitesimally small!
Sorry.
Depends what you read and who is interpreting the statisitics.
I don't want to argue on this thread and actively avoided the other one for this reason so can we agree to disagree please?
I suppose that in any debate there is an inherent desire to prove ones point to the other fellow and convince him as to the veracity of the facts you deploy. However, there comes a point in any debate that is based on what I might call human facts (rather than say the laws of physics which are irrefutable and as such absolute fact) where both sets of facts clash from either side of the debate and where neither is disproven.
The normal resolution of any arguement is one side being proved right. In these Human fact cases however the question of right and wrong is sublimated to the individuals notion of "acceptable and non acceptable". As such there is much personal capital in defending or promoting ones own concept of right or wrong.
The result? Thread rage!!
Andy
The normal resolution of any arguement is one side being proved right. In these Human fact cases however the question of right and wrong is sublimated to the individuals notion of "acceptable and non acceptable". As such there is much personal capital in defending or promoting ones own concept of right or wrong.
The result? Thread rage!!
Andy
Parrot of Doom said:
I want smoking banned because it fecking stinks, it makes my clothes stink, it makes my eyes water, and my throat itch. I'm sick of seeing cigarette butts everywhere as well. Filthy b4stards should put them in a bin.
Call me biased.
Highly relevant contribution to this thread, NOT.
it doesn't help when both sides make claims and neither of them back them up with links to proof.
if you ever post on the channel 4 news forum, people over there will seldom believe any claims unless you post a link to the source of your information. this has stopped people just making claims, and not backing them up.
if you ever post on the channel 4 news forum, people over there will seldom believe any claims unless you post a link to the source of your information. this has stopped people just making claims, and not backing them up.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff