Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#587297 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why do people like you feel the need to intervene with everything you deem "unhealthy"?
That's odd coming from a Christian. You called smoking sin, like the tax, right? I would think that you were all for laws criminalizing sin.

But actually, I wasn't discussing health at all. I was discussing the whether, "smoking is a CHOICE that the f_cking government should stay out of." Taxes come from government, so naturally I assumed that you thought that the government should NOT tax cigarettes. I've been trying to clarify your position on that, but it's been like trying to polish a turd.

I have no idea what you think any more. For example, you say that government should butt out of smoking related matters, yet you don't mind paying the taxes on cigarettes, even though you don't support them and think that they are unfair if fat people aren't taxed.

If you want health advice, I can give you that, too.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587298 Jan 13, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>The only assumption here is that you would be able to understand Occam's razor.
Do you? Occam's razor says that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.

And like I said, assumptions are still assumptions.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587299 Jan 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Those guys didn't break in to inform them it was a happy day doofus.
One of them had been released from jail the day before and was being hunted for breaking into a car lot. She fired two warning shots and he still tried to get in. Do you really think he wanted to wash the dishes or something?
Hey man don't worry about it, let her risk the "might have" part of being raped and killed in a home invasion robbery.

That'll be just one less anti-gun nut out there that we have to worry about.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#587300 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Enacted by the government as "safety & health" laws.
We don't get a choice. They get to tell us what's healthy...
So you can't smoke in the workplace, out here in California you can't smoke within 20 feet of public building like a court or public utility building.
Yup, I can't smoke in my break room at work because it's "unhealthy", but it's perfectly "healthy" to eat snickers and chips and cheeseburgers in the break room because that's healthy...
Don't eat your snacks around me. I don't want to get second hand fat.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587301 Jan 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Look at the preamble of the Constitution. Think of it as the government's mission statement. There is a brief mention of justice and general welfare. It's in the nation's interest that its citizens not smoke. And it's only just that smokers pay the difference that smoking costs, which is not just the price of the cigarettes, but also includes the price of the GORE-TEX® graft for the aorta and the lung transplant.
You've conveniently skipped over the "secure the blessings of liberty" part...

You can't simply say that "it's in the nation's interest that its citizens not smoke" and not add everything else we do thatis unhealthy.

Why do you think we have more fat people than any other country?
I'm pro-smoker, but anti-smoking, just as I'm pro-Christian but anti-church.
Semantics.
If so, somebody needs to help you with that. Find somebody knowledgeable, interested and available.
Really? What else do we indulge in unnecessarily that is so heavily penalized?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#587302 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
As far as a smoke-free workplace, that depends on the workplace.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Vague as always. Are you trying to be dead weight here? Is this some passive-aggressive strategy, or are you doing your best and answering in good faith?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
How was that vague? A smoke-free workplace definitely depends on the workplace. It also depends on the amount if smokers in that workplace.
How was that vague? You said almost nothing. Now it's less vague.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
[Non-smoking sections] should be a CHOICE by the business owners, NOT mandated by some law.
This is typical for you. We were talking about government and smoking.I asked you if government should mandate smoke-free areas, and I referred to the workplace. You answered, "As far as a smoke-free workplace, that depends on the workplace" - the vague comment to which I objected. It contained almost no information.

But it did say that you thought that the appropriateness of government involvement depended on the workplace, meaning that it was appropriate in some workplaces. And now this - no laws about smoke-free areas.

As I said before, we are each free to guess if this is your very best thinking, or a passive-aggressive ploy. I can't tell.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#587303 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Are you against personal freedom?
It depends on the freedom. Yes, I could amplify the comment. But it's my turn to be the dead weight and for you to have to drag the conversation uphill.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Smoking is a choice, yes?
Just like a lot of things we do are choices. Why must the government intervene with our personal choices? Why do you advocate that?
Your smoking affects others. Nonsmokers need government's help.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587304 Jan 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That's odd coming from a Christian. You called smoking sin, like the tax, right? I would think that you were all for laws criminalizing sin.
See, IANS. This is what I mean about how you change things up & add in your lies.

I NEVER said smoking was a sin. Ever.

Go google it, you won't find it.

I said the cigarette excuse tax is aka the "sin tax" just as national health care is "Obamacare".
But actually, I wasn't discussing health at all. I was discussing the whether, "smoking is a CHOICE that the f_cking government should stay out of." Taxes come from government, so naturally I assumed that you thought that the government should NOT tax cigarettes. I've been trying to clarify your position on that, but it's been like trying to polish a turd.
Sad that you need to resort to name calling.

That's a sign that you feel you're losing...

Smoking IS a choice. The government SHOULD stay out if it but they don't. I have 2 choices: 1. Don't smoke. 2. Pay the sin tax.

I CHOOSE to smoke & pay the sin tax.

Why is that a hard concept for you?
I have no idea what you think any more.
No you don't.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587305 Jan 13, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't eat your snacks around me. I don't want to get second hand fat.
You won't. But you'll have to hear the fat f_cks stuffing their mouths with fat while I have to pay a extra $50 a month because I smoke.

Real fair, huh?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#587306 Jan 13, 2013
Pat wrote:
you disagree with the long list of experts I provided over bias in IQ tests
Funny how those so-called "experts" all profit from their bias. Weird.

The bell curve has been debunked by many and is no longer as valid as when it first came out. Below is one such paper written about it. It's presented for those open minded so I'll assume you'll skip right over it. So here's a question for you, why do black Americans have higher scores than black Africans? Obviously their being black has nothing to do with it. Weird.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/sciam2.htm

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#587307 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Occam's razor says that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Thank you for proving publicly that you do not know what it states. That was easy.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#587308 Jan 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
She fired two warning shots and he still tried to get in.
Well THANK YOU for FINALLY proving that having a gun DOESN'T scare off criminals.

Next.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#587309 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't listening. What?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Would it have mattered?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nope.
LOL. It was a rhetorical question.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I'm anxiously awaiting your answer whether your intractability in this discussion is passive-aggression, or whether it represents your level best thinking with all neurons firing.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Anxiously??
The wait is over.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#587310 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It's rat poison... It's under the sink...
It's safe.
Many would argue that being POISON wouldn't be safe under the sunk. Duh!

Your "reasoning" (dare I say thought process) is what scares so many here and why they feel you are irresponsible as a gun owner.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587311 Jan 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
How was that vague? You said almost nothing. Now it's less vague.
<quoted text>
This is typical for you. We were talking about government and smoking.I asked you if government should mandate smoke-free areas, and I referred to the workplace. You answered, "As far as a smoke-free workplace, that depends on the workplace" - the vague comment to which I objected. It contained almost no information.
But it did say that you thought that the appropriateness of government involvement depended on the workplace, meaning that it was appropriate in some workplaces. And now this - no laws about smoke-free areas.
As I said before, we are each free to guess if this is your very best thinking, or a passive-aggressive ploy. I can't tell.
Ok, you seem to be having a hard time so I'll make it very simple for you.

The government should not be able to enforce a non-smoking workplace. It should be the decision of the business owner, not the government. Some business owners would like a smoking workplace, some wouldn't. But when the gub'ment gets involved, nobody has a right & nobody gets a say-so & nobody gets a choice.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587312 Jan 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It depends on the freedom. Yes, I could amplify the comment. But it's my turn to be the dead weight and for you to have to drag the conversation uphill.
Nah, I'm not into gameplay like you.
Your smoking affects others. Nonsmokers need government's help.
Don't you mean my smoking "might" affect others?

I think that's exactly why people like you are anti-smoking. You hate the smell so you try to do whatever you can to make sure that happens.

And that's why you don't care about fat people costing more money than smokers, because they don't smell like cigarettes do...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587313 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Occam's razor says that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Mylan wrote:
Thank you for proving publicly that you do not know what it states. That was easy.
You're an idiot.

"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam 's_razor

Apology accepted.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#587314 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Illegal aliens pay sales tax.... That's your argument? They can't pay property tax because they can't buy property. They can't pay income tax because they're illegal.
You didn't read any of the material I provided, did you? Take another gander:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

I was pretty sure that you weren't going to let go of your bad ideas until somebody pried them out of your cold, dead brain, and I was correct.

As I said, I make my point when you present yourself as dead weight just as well as I would if you answered my questions in good faith. You seem to think that by evading direct answers to these questions that you're dodging their implications. Only if nobody notices, which I intend to make pretty difficult to do.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#587315 Jan 13, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Many would argue that being POISON wouldn't be safe under the sunk. Duh!
Your "reasoning" (dare I say thought process) is what scares so many here and why they feel you are irresponsible as a gun owner.
And your reasoning is that no matter what happens, if your property is stolen and somebody uses it to commit a crime you are responsible for the crime.

That's pretty damn retarded.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#587316 Jan 13, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You won't. But you'll have to hear the fat f_cks stuffing their mouths with fat while I have to pay a extra $50 a month because I smoke.
Real fair, huh?
What, you think that's too low? Too high?

I think they should charge as much as the market will allow.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to Recover Deleted Messages from iPhone wit... (May '13) 1 hr Wanckerty 59
Poll White Men, Would You Have A BABY by a Black Woman (Apr '10) 2 hr diseases 546
some blacks want reparations for slavery via wh... (Sep '11) 2 hr reparations 42
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 hr Alt Right Lies 2,489
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Phooey 678,912
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 hr ROCCO 118,964
Canned pet food contains parasites 5 hr Purina Is Evil 1
More from around the web