Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13

 

2006-08-21 16:43:02
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

acsman50 wrote:

lowing is typical of the average anti-smoking fascist. Completely ignores the real argument that I laid down. How on earth can you accept that driving is acceptable while secondary smoking pisses you off so much. No sane person would support smoking from a health perspective, but neither can you conveniently ignore the damage to the environment caused by the internal combustion engine, oh wait a minute, you are a driver perhaps? As I implied in my earlier post its all about what is fashionable to dis. Exhaust fumes are far more damaging to individuals yet it is far less effort to put all of your indignation into slagging off the smoker. By all means educate people not to smoke but stop being so hypocritical.
LOL, wow, now I am a hypocrite and a fascist because I don't want someone blowing their cigarette smoke in my face, and I drive. Your really stretching pretty far to come up with an argument that will convince me that I am supposed to WANT to subsidize people that purposely set out to destroy their lungs.

But I will play your stupid game.

As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions. I guess I could hold my breath until hydrogen cars are substituted for gas cars, but I don't think I will make it.

Since smokers and non smokers breath the same quality general air, it only makes sense that as polluted as our air is now, and as much as it is hurting us, someone standing next to me blowing even more pollutants in my fuckin' face SURELY ISN'T HELPING ME, now is it?? Since I am dying already from polluted air, I really don't need the extra help form some jerk off and his cigarette NOW DO I? Finally, as it now comes full circle, I certainly do not want to subsidize some jerk off with his cigarette that helped put me into an even earlier grave than I would have been in, with out his cigarette smoke in my face, NOW DO I??


How much "education" does it take to know smoking is bad for you, and how much more do we need to spend to keep proving it to the idiots that knew better and did it anyway??


Obviously............you smoke

Last edited by lowing (2006-08-21 19:16:47)

2006-08-21 20:47:58
Jusster
Pimpin aint Easy
+11|6722|H-Town
Talk about off topic.................


Jusster
2006-08-22 02:12:22
acsman50
a cut below the rest
+7|6772|Northern Ireland
lowing wrote: 'As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions.'

Thankyou, and goodnight.

Last edited by acsman50 (2006-08-22 02:15:06)

2006-08-22 02:22:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote: 'As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions.'

Thankyou, and goodnight.
O .... M .... G
2006-08-22 02:37:42
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7074

acsman50 wrote:

lowing is typical of the average anti-smoking fascist. Completely ignores the real argument that I laid down. How on earth can you accept that driving is acceptable while secondary smoking pisses you off so much. No sane person would support smoking from a health perspective, but neither can you conveniently ignore the damage to the environment caused by the internal combustion engine, oh wait a minute, you are a driver perhaps? As I implied in my earlier post its all about what is fashionable to dis. Exhaust fumes are far more damaging to individuals yet it is far less effort to put all of your indignation into slagging off the smoker. By all means educate people not to smoke but stop being so hypocritical.
Smoking and exhaust fumes are both bad for health. The difference is it's way easier to tell everyone to stop smoking than it is to abandon all forms of transport. Also most exhaust fumes are created outside where they are easily vented and therefore pose a lot less risk. If someone parked their car in my local pub and left the engine running, believe me I would object to that too.
2006-08-22 03:16:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote: 'As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions.'

Thankyou, and goodnight.
At the present time, how much gas mileage DO YOU GET from YOUR hydrogen car?? I assume you have one and you do not own a gas car or ride in one, because if you did, THAT would make YOU the HYPOCRITE now wouldn't it?? Since you are trying to stand pretty tall on that soap box of yours spouting off the evils of driving.   You know exactly what I meant and the fact that this is the only thing you chose to rebut out of my post says a lot.
2006-08-22 03:21:25
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

lowing wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote: 'As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions.'

Thankyou, and goodnight.
At the present time, how much gas mileage DO YOU GET from YOUR hydrogen car?? I assume you have one and you do not own a gas car or ride in one, because if you did, THAT would make YOU the HYPOCRITE now wouldn't it?? Since you are trying to stand pretty tall on that soap box of yours spouting off the evils of driving.   You know exactly what I meant and the fact that this is the only thing you chose to rebut out of my post says a lot.
There are such alternatives as vehicles with smaller, more efficient engines. Hybrid cars. Catalytic converters. Etc. Etc. You pretty emphatically denied that there was much that could be done about emissions.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-22 03:25:16)

2006-08-22 03:22:07
acsman50
a cut below the rest
+7|6772|Northern Ireland

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

lowing is typical of the average anti-smoking fascist. Completely ignores the real argument that I laid down. How on earth can you accept that driving is acceptable while secondary smoking pisses you off so much. No sane person would support smoking from a health perspective, but neither can you conveniently ignore the damage to the environment caused by the internal combustion engine, oh wait a minute, you are a driver perhaps? As I implied in my earlier post its all about what is fashionable to dis. Exhaust fumes are far more damaging to individuals yet it is far less effort to put all of your indignation into slagging off the smoker. By all means educate people not to smoke but stop being so hypocritical.
Smoking and exhaust fumes are both bad for health. The difference is it's way easier to tell everyone to stop smoking than it is to abandon all forms of transport. Also most exhaust fumes are created outside where they are easily vented and therefore pose a lot less risk. If someone parked their car in my local pub and left the engine running, believe me I would object to that too.
I agree with you. My reason for focussing on the anti-smoking attitudes was for a direct comparison to the energy spent by the average man/woman in the street when arguing the case against smoking and vehicle exhaust. This was triggered by the illiberal attitudes of a poster who seemed very selective and hypocritical about what he/she considers to be self-harming, (and therefore not worthy of our concern or tax currency). I have teenage children and so I am naturally against smoking. Just let the vehemence be directed against the big boys in the motor industry too, (hence my sarcastic previous posting).

This is in the wrong thread anyway so my apologies to those who are getting pissed off.
2006-08-22 03:42:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

lowing wrote: 'As far as driving goes, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about emissions.'

Thankyou, and goodnight.
At the present time, how much gas mileage DO YOU GET from YOUR hydrogen car?? I assume you have one and you do not own a gas car or ride in one, because if you did, THAT would make YOU the HYPOCRITE now wouldn't it?? Since you are trying to stand pretty tall on that soap box of yours spouting off the evils of driving.   You know exactly what I meant and the fact that this is the only thing you chose to rebut out of my post says a lot.
There are such alternatives as vehicles with smaller, more efficient engines. Hybrid cars. Catalytic converters. Etc. Etc. You pretty emphatically denied that there was much that could be done about emissions.
Cameronpoe, you are smarter that that guy, read the whole post and put it in its proper context and stop joining him in the dissection. Argue the post, not a sentence in the post that, although you know what was meant, you feel the need to rip it apart.
2006-08-22 03:44:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

acsman50 wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

lowing is typical of the average anti-smoking fascist. Completely ignores the real argument that I laid down. How on earth can you accept that driving is acceptable while secondary smoking pisses you off so much. No sane person would support smoking from a health perspective, but neither can you conveniently ignore the damage to the environment caused by the internal combustion engine, oh wait a minute, you are a driver perhaps? As I implied in my earlier post its all about what is fashionable to dis. Exhaust fumes are far more damaging to individuals yet it is far less effort to put all of your indignation into slagging off the smoker. By all means educate people not to smoke but stop being so hypocritical.
Smoking and exhaust fumes are both bad for health. The difference is it's way easier to tell everyone to stop smoking than it is to abandon all forms of transport. Also most exhaust fumes are created outside where they are easily vented and therefore pose a lot less risk. If someone parked their car in my local pub and left the engine running, believe me I would object to that too.
I agree with you. My reason for focussing on the anti-smoking attitudes was for a direct comparison to the energy spent by the average man/woman in the street when arguing the case against smoking and vehicle exhaust. This was triggered by the illiberal attitudes of a poster who seemed very selective and hypocritical about what he/she considers to be self-harming, (and therefore not worthy of our concern or tax currency). I have teenage children and so I am naturally against smoking. Just let the vehemence be directed against the big boys in the motor industry too, (hence my sarcastic previous posting).

This is in the wrong thread anyway so my apologies to those who are getting pissed off.
Read back idiot, I wasn't arguing the comparison of smokers and drivers. YOUR dumb ass was. This topic was about addiction , you took it off onto this rediculous course.
2006-08-22 03:46:21
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:


At the present time, how much gas mileage DO YOU GET from YOUR hydrogen car?? I assume you have one and you do not own a gas car or ride in one, because if you did, THAT would make YOU the HYPOCRITE now wouldn't it?? Since you are trying to stand pretty tall on that soap box of yours spouting off the evils of driving.   You know exactly what I meant and the fact that this is the only thing you chose to rebut out of my post says a lot.
There are such alternatives as vehicles with smaller, more efficient engines. Hybrid cars. Catalytic converters. Etc. Etc. You pretty emphatically denied that there was much that could be done about emissions.
Cameronpoe, you are smarter that that guy, read the whole post and put it in its proper context and stop joining him in the dissection. Argue the post, not a sentence in the post that, although you know what was meant, you feel the need to rip it apart.
OK I haven't been following the conversation. I'll butt out.
2006-08-22 04:29:34
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7074

lowing wrote:

acsman50 wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:


Smoking and exhaust fumes are both bad for health. The difference is it's way easier to tell everyone to stop smoking than it is to abandon all forms of transport. Also most exhaust fumes are created outside where they are easily vented and therefore pose a lot less risk. If someone parked their car in my local pub and left the engine running, believe me I would object to that too.
I agree with you. My reason for focussing on the anti-smoking attitudes was for a direct comparison to the energy spent by the average man/woman in the street when arguing the case against smoking and vehicle exhaust. This was triggered by the illiberal attitudes of a poster who seemed very selective and hypocritical about what he/she considers to be self-harming, (and therefore not worthy of our concern or tax currency). I have teenage children and so I am naturally against smoking. Just let the vehemence be directed against the big boys in the motor industry too, (hence my sarcastic previous posting).

This is in the wrong thread anyway so my apologies to those who are getting pissed off.
Read back idiot, I wasn't arguing the comparison of smokers and drivers. YOUR dumb ass was. This topic was about addiction , you took it off onto this rediculous course.
I thought it was about a terrorist threat...
2006-08-22 04:40:52
Mr.E
HakLaw in the house
+103|6805
Nice derailing ladies!!
2006-08-22 05:55:15
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6898

c4_he_was_famous wrote:

Nice derailing ladies!!
Stop being a On-Topicofascist .

To recap, this 'derail' can all be traced back to the side discussion on whether the terrorists are fascist by a loose definition which can be used to argue the western governments are also fascist. 

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

What do they have to do with the topic at hand?
I lump hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Quada..... etc, all in the same pool. Fascist
I presented the argument that depending on viewpoint degrees of fascism can be seen in many countries which was countered by 'you're a freedom hating hypocrit', then my argument that there are always losers in the capitalism system and a bit of sensitivity and care would be nice was countered with 'poor people and addicts bring it on themselves', which is where the discussion on smoking and hence driving emissions can about.  Guess these issues might be somehow linked after all (shock!?!?!.... horror!!?!).  Or maybe we are all guilty of Derailofascism, to some degree.
2006-08-22 07:18:26
acsman50
a cut below the rest
+7|6772|Northern Ireland

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

c4_he_was_famous wrote:

Nice derailing ladies!!
Stop being a On-Topicofascist .

To recap, this 'derail' can all be traced back to the side discussion on whether the terrorists are fascist by a loose definition which can be used to argue the western governments are also fascist. 

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

What do they have to do with the topic at hand?
I lump hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Quada..... etc, all in the same pool. Fascist
I presented the argument that depending on viewpoint degrees of fascism can be seen in many countries which was countered by 'you're a freedom hating hypocrit', then my argument that there are always losers in the capitalism system and a bit of sensitivity and care would be nice was countered with 'poor people and addicts bring it on themselves', which is where the discussion on smoking and hence driving emissions can about.  Guess these issues might be somehow linked after all (shock!?!?!.... horror!!?!).  Or maybe we are all guilty of Derailofascism, to some degree.
Yeh, but to be fair Nuttah, we stretched this thread to the point where an anorexic spider wouldn't risk travelling any further.
2006-08-22 18:13:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

acsman50 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

c4_he_was_famous wrote:

Nice derailing ladies!!
Stop being a On-Topicofascist .

To recap, this 'derail' can all be traced back to the side discussion on whether the terrorists are fascist by a loose definition which can be used to argue the western governments are also fascist. 

lowing wrote:


I lump hezzbolah, the govts. of Iran and Syria, Al Quada..... etc, all in the same pool. Fascist
I presented the argument that depending on viewpoint degrees of fascism can be seen in many countries which was countered by 'you're a freedom hating hypocrit', then my argument that there are always losers in the capitalism system and a bit of sensitivity and care would be nice was countered with 'poor people and addicts bring it on themselves', which is where the discussion on smoking and hence driving emissions can about.  Guess these issues might be somehow linked after all (shock!?!?!.... horror!!?!).  Or maybe we are all guilty of Derailofascism, to some degree.
Yeh, but to be fair Nuttah, we stretched this thread to the point where an anorexic spider wouldn't risk travelling any further.
that's what happens when ya can't sustain YOUR argument, you spin it off into another direction and try something else. Like calling someone a hypocrite because they hate cigarette smoke and drive a fuckin' car.

Prettttttyyyyyyyy weak acsman50, pretty weak.
2006-08-22 21:04:45
jonsimon
Member
+224|6740

lowing wrote:

that's what happens when ya can't sustain YOUR argument, you spin it off into another direction and try something else. Like calling someone a hypocrite because they hate cigarette smoke and drive a fuckin' car.

Prettttttyyyyyyyy weak acsman50, pretty weak.
Dunno lowing, it seems to be more correlative to your presence in a thread.
2006-08-23 03:07:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

that's what happens when ya can't sustain YOUR argument, you spin it off into another direction and try something else. Like calling someone a hypocrite because they hate cigarette smoke and drive a fuckin' car.

Prettttttyyyyyyyy weak acsman50, pretty weak.
Dunno lowing, it seems to be more correlative to your presence in a thread.
Maybe it seems that way, since you have been left wanting, on just about every argument you try to make, in every thread you post, by everyone you try and disagree with.
2006-08-23 06:15:34
jonsimon
Member
+224|6740

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

that's what happens when ya can't sustain YOUR argument, you spin it off into another direction and try something else. Like calling someone a hypocrite because they hate cigarette smoke and drive a fuckin' car.

Prettttttyyyyyyyy weak acsman50, pretty weak.
Dunno lowing, it seems to be more correlative to your presence in a thread.
Maybe it seems that way, since you have been left wanting, on just about every argument you try to make, in every thread you post, by everyone you try and disagree with.
You really should have skimped on the commas there. And no, I'm pretty sure its just you.
2006-08-23 09:39:00
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA
Major terrorist even foiled by UK police...
calling someone a hypocrite because they hate cigarette smoke and drive a fuckin' car.
OMFG THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE OMFG STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS STOP BEING RETARDED STOP BEING CRAZY
Oh that last one wasn't a quote unless it is paraphrasing my thoughts.  Anyways, jonsimon, your a lefty buddy, nothing wrong with that, but no need to be rude.  lowing, we're on the same side but hey man you gotta chill too, Personal attacks will get us nowhere and do not contribute to a mature and level headed debate about anything, unless your debating about personal attacks..................

Anyways....I don't even know where to begin to get back "on track" so I guess I just wanted to say chill out, take it easy, relax, and think about how lucky we are to live in such a great nation.
2006-08-23 09:41:37
jonsimon
Member
+224|6740
Lol. Ironically I am left-handed, though I don't perscribe to any political affiliation.

Yeah, sorry bout the mudslinging, just get sick of lowing when he dodges arguments.
2006-08-23 09:46:11
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6889|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

Lol. Ironically I am left-handed, though I don't perscribe to any political affiliation.

Yeah, sorry bout the mudslinging, just get sick of lowing when he dodges arguments.
Guilty, but its not like you haven't done that before

LOLz, you can say all you want that you don't prescribe to any affiliation, I never said you did, all I said is that you were a lefty, you fall somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum, that much is apparent.

I think we just need to let this thread die out.....get on with some other business.
2006-08-23 18:14:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

jonsimon wrote:

Lol. Ironically I am left-handed, though I don't perscribe to any political affiliation.

Yeah, sorry bout the mudslinging, just get sick of lowing when he dodges arguments.
I defy you to find a single post where I dodge an argument. Another free ONE WAY ticket for your closest friend to the ME when you find one.
2006-08-23 19:01:18
jonsimon
Member
+224|6740

lowing wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Here's why I think NCLB is hoax:

    1. The massive increase in testing that NCLB will impose on schools will hurt their educational performance, not improve it.

    2. The funding for NCLB does not come anywhere near the levels that would be needed to reach even the narrow and dubious goal of producing 100% passing rates on state tests for all students by 2014.

    3. The mandate that NCLB imposes on schools to eliminate inequality in test scores among all student groups within 12 years is a mandate that is placed on no other social institution, and reflects the hypocrisy at the heart of the law.

    4. The sanctions that NCLB imposes on schools that don't meet its test score targets will hurt poor schools and poor communities most.

    5. The transfer and choice provisions of NCLB will create chaos and produce greater inequality within the public system without increasing the capacity of receiving schools to deliver better educational services.

    6. These same transfer and choice provisions will not give low-income parents any more control over school bureaucracies than food stamps give them over the supermarkets.

    7. The provisions about using scientifically-based instructional practices are neither scientifically valid nor educationally sound and will harmfully impact classrooms in what may be the single most important instructional area, the teaching of reading.

    8. The supplemental tutorial provisions of NCLB will channel public funds to private companies for ideological and political reasons, not sound educational ones.

    9. NCLB is part of a larger political and ideological effort to privatize social programs, reduce the public sector, and ultimately replace local control of institutions like schools with marketplace reforms that substitute commercial relations between customers for democratic relations between citizens.

    10. NCLB moves control over curriculum and instructional issues away from teachers, classrooms, schools and local districts where it should be, and puts it in the hands of state and federal education bureaucracies and politicians. It represents the single biggest assault on local control of schools in the history of federal education policy.

OK, that's ten: But frankly this law is so bad, I needed 11, so here's #11 on my top ten list of reasons why NCLB is a fraud:

    11. NCLB includes provisions that try to push prayer, military recruiters, and homophobia into schools while pushing multiculturalism, teacher innovation, and creative curriculum reform out.

Taken from: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/specia … hoax.shtml

I would ask where is the money going, because it is not going to the schools where it was earmarked for.

Another note, the 732 dollars is per household, not per child.
Well we obviously could go round and round over this, for me it comes down to 1 thing: And the liberals hate it!!

Personal Responsibility.

Our education system provides classrooms with controlled environments, supplies, teachers. All the the parents have to do is supply a properly raised kid who wants to learn. Instead, the schools get kids that spent the first 5 years of their lives raised like shit. Then the school gets blamed because the kids ACT like shit. The parents are the ultimate responsibility in all of this. It takes more than just a gazillion dollars thrown at a fuckin' education system, it takes a tripod of learning. Teachers who want to teach, kids who want to learn, and parents who support that learning ( instead of using school as a free baby sitting service).
Its a long one. I chose it because it was the most recent I had seen. Your answer to the poster above you didn't even mention the focus of his post, the No Child Left Behind Act. Ignoring an argument, yet responding to it, is effectively dodging an argument.

I'm not going to humor another request like this, its spam on the forum.
2006-08-23 19:43:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6896|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Here's why I think NCLB is hoax:

    1. The massive increase in testing that NCLB will impose on schools will hurt their educational performance, not improve it.

    2. The funding for NCLB does not come anywhere near the levels that would be needed to reach even the narrow and dubious goal of producing 100% passing rates on state tests for all students by 2014.

    3. The mandate that NCLB imposes on schools to eliminate inequality in test scores among all student groups within 12 years is a mandate that is placed on no other social institution, and reflects the hypocrisy at the heart of the law.

    4. The sanctions that NCLB imposes on schools that don't meet its test score targets will hurt poor schools and poor communities most.

    5. The transfer and choice provisions of NCLB will create chaos and produce greater inequality within the public system without increasing the capacity of receiving schools to deliver better educational services.

    6. These same transfer and choice provisions will not give low-income parents any more control over school bureaucracies than food stamps give them over the supermarkets.

    7. The provisions about using scientifically-based instructional practices are neither scientifically valid nor educationally sound and will harmfully impact classrooms in what may be the single most important instructional area, the teaching of reading.

    8. The supplemental tutorial provisions of NCLB will channel public funds to private companies for ideological and political reasons, not sound educational ones.

    9. NCLB is part of a larger political and ideological effort to privatize social programs, reduce the public sector, and ultimately replace local control of institutions like schools with marketplace reforms that substitute commercial relations between customers for democratic relations between citizens.

    10. NCLB moves control over curriculum and instructional issues away from teachers, classrooms, schools and local districts where it should be, and puts it in the hands of state and federal education bureaucracies and politicians. It represents the single biggest assault on local control of schools in the history of federal education policy.

OK, that's ten: But frankly this law is so bad, I needed 11, so here's #11 on my top ten list of reasons why NCLB is a fraud:

    11. NCLB includes provisions that try to push prayer, military recruiters, and homophobia into schools while pushing multiculturalism, teacher innovation, and creative curriculum reform out.

Taken from: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/specia … hoax.shtml

I would ask where is the money going, because it is not going to the schools where it was earmarked for.

Another note, the 732 dollars is per household, not per child.
Well we obviously could go round and round over this, for me it comes down to 1 thing: And the liberals hate it!!

Personal Responsibility.

Our education system provides classrooms with controlled environments, supplies, teachers. All the the parents have to do is supply a properly raised kid who wants to learn. Instead, the schools get kids that spent the first 5 years of their lives raised like shit. Then the school gets blamed because the kids ACT like shit. The parents are the ultimate responsibility in all of this. It takes more than just a gazillion dollars thrown at a fuckin' education system, it takes a tripod of learning. Teachers who want to teach, kids who want to learn, and parents who support that learning ( instead of using school as a free baby sitting service).
Its a long one. I chose it because it was the most recent I had seen. Your answer to the poster above you didn't even mention the focus of his post, the No Child Left Behind Act. Ignoring an argument, yet responding to it, is effectively dodging an argument.

I'm not going to humor another request like this, its spam on the forum.
Again no. My response to his opinion on the NCLB Act is this: There is no "ACT" that is going to solve the problems of education without parental and personal responsibility as the number 1 factor to any change. IT ISN'T BUSHES FAULT, or his NCLB ACT. got it now??

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard