Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 19, 2011
Life Perambulating Nuisances
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM
Loved this quote from an 1853 NYT editorial about public smoking:
"What right has any man to become a perambulating nuisance—a moving smoke-house—a traveling volcano—leaving his trail of nauseous vapor on the air, which his neighbor cannot avoid, but must, perforce, respire?"
It'll come to mind the next time I weave through a crowd of smokers outside the Canterbury on my way home—and, yes, I realize that I'm the perambulating nuisance when I'm holding my breath and hurrying past the idiots outside the Canterbury. But still: what right does a man have to leave a trail of nauseous vapor on the air?
3
I thank people for smoking. They pay into the social security system the same as I do, but I will probably be collecting benefits for a bit longer.
7
I will say, though, that pipe smokers are now so rare that if I spy one when out and about, I will go out of my way to follow him for a few blocks to get those occasional whiffs of rum-and-cherry-scented fumes.
Too bad actually smoking a pipe is not anywhere near as enjoyable.
Too bad actually smoking a pipe is not anywhere near as enjoyable.
8
Once I was at the Canterbury and this large man with no shirt and no helmet showed up on a fixie with no brakes. His pitbull growled at people walking by as he lit up cigarette after cigarette and blew the smoke in people's general direction. He kept telling everybody he was bisexual.
10
@1 OMG! Have you ever come across somebody who reeks of fabric softener dryer sheets?!? P. fucking U.!
11
Also, what about all the women (and the occasional man) wearing tights as pants, walking around fouling my vision with their perambulating nuisances of fashion hell? What right have they? I cannot avoid seeing them, and once seen, I cannot forget.
13
"I work from home and live in the city and doubt I would find it easier to get around if I were six feet wide and constantly farting carbon monoxide - I don't know how your mum does it."
--Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
--Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
14
his right to smoke in the public street are the same right you have to walk your complaining ass elsewhere. get some of the exercise youre always prattling on about.
15
I smoke. I'm all for the bans on smoking in certain public areas. Smokers should be provided with and avail themselves of designated areas.
That being said, WTF Dan? Smoking will never go away. Accept that even when regulated and restricted, you will still have to encounter it on occasion.
That being said, WTF Dan? Smoking will never go away. Accept that even when regulated and restricted, you will still have to encounter it on occasion.
17
I'm with Ophian @#15 (except that I've never smoked). I'm wildly grateful that smoking in most confined public spaces has been banned, because I share those confined spaces, and because people are forced as a condition of their employment to spend all day confined in those spaces. But smoking hasn't been banned, and the smokers have to go somewhere. Sure, it's unfortunate that a lot of stoops now smell like ashtrays - but I'm at the stoop very briefly as a I transit through or past it.
If you want smoking banned, say so. If you want further smoking to be more regulated but to remain legal, tell us what sort of regulation. If you're just being dyspeptic and trolling us, go watch some cat videos or something until you cheer up.
If you want smoking banned, say so. If you want further smoking to be more regulated but to remain legal, tell us what sort of regulation. If you're just being dyspeptic and trolling us, go watch some cat videos or something until you cheer up.
18
@8 - I saw the same guy the other day, except he hasn't told anyone he's bisexual since he got married to a woman last month in any state he likes.
19
People used to have the best style of writing... what's not to love about this sentence construction!? :)
20
Jesus, Dan, you're old enough to remember seriously smoky bars and smoking sections on airplanes, and now you're such a delicate flower that smoking on a sidewalk offends you?
Urban life is, occasionally, a pain in the ass--please file this particular complaint among the many other pain-in-the-ass aspects of living among large numbers of other people.
Urban life is, occasionally, a pain in the ass--please file this particular complaint among the many other pain-in-the-ass aspects of living among large numbers of other people.
21
I smoke, but I try to be polite about it. I try not to stand too close to doors (usually at least 15 to 20 feet away), or be downwind of people when I do. Hell, some of my friends don't smoke, and even though I normally smoke in my car, if I'm driving a friend somewhere, I ask them if it's okay if I smoke in *my own car*.
But there are always those people who are still total d-bags about it. "Oh, you're polluting my air wah wah wah..." I always want to ask them where their air ends and mine begins.
But there are always those people who are still total d-bags about it. "Oh, you're polluting my air wah wah wah..." I always want to ask them where their air ends and mine begins.
22
I like that the persistence of the scruffy Canterbury - make no mistake, once it's gone its like will not arise on 15th again - is one reason Dan's mortgage around the corner wasn't that bit higher.
23
I'm as anti-smoking-zealot as they come, but even I draw the line at telling people they can't smoke outdoors, in a stinky city.
24
Dan you should move to Austin durring fire danger restrictions. Then you can live in a place where any outdoor smoking--as well as public indoor smoking--is banned.
You just have to put up with a dumpy, withered, sweltering bowl of Texans. Which'll it be?
You just have to put up with a dumpy, withered, sweltering bowl of Texans. Which'll it be?
25
@15: Ditto.
Also ditto to perfume (gaak!!!) and car exhaust. Other people sometimes do stuff that pisses some people off. That's what happens when you live with/around other people. Deal, Dan.
Also ditto to perfume (gaak!!!) and car exhaust. Other people sometimes do stuff that pisses some people off. That's what happens when you live with/around other people. Deal, Dan.
26
I can't stand people who wear too much perfume or cologne ... makes me almost choke to death ... so I smoke, thus not having to smell it.
27
I'm a non-smoker, and yet I agree with @15 above. What right does a man (or woman?) have to leave a trail of nauseating gas? We already do, even if we don't smoke -- we produce CO2 by breathing, don't we?
What's next -- laws against speaking loud in public? :-)
What's next -- laws against speaking loud in public? :-)
28
Just like my neigbors who's cig smoke, barbaque, car fumes, and unbelievably strong fragrance/detergent stench fills my house with their stink. I have to run and shut every door/window several times a day - so much fun in the summer when i'm trying to cool my house. I especially resent it now that I have a baby and never know when it's safe to open a window to get fresh air let alone enjoy our own yard. Fucking assholes proably can't even taste. I hope those are all the type of people that get sick and die if/when a pandemic hits.
29
A 2003 study by the Stanford School of Medicine found that outdoor secondhand smoke is only harmful within six feet of others and even within six feet, it's negligible. So as long as smokers stay six feet away outdoors, they are not harming you at all. The secondhand smoke thing is such a red herring, people simply don't like the smell, which is funny because some of the same people just looooove the smell of a grill burning or a bonfire even though it's essentially the same thing.
30
@29: I'm fine with woodsmoke, but not tobacco smoke. They have distinctly different odors, even though the volatiles responsible for odor are in the minority, molarity-wise.
And the science doesn't exactly fall all on your side.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/…
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7446/980.…
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/old…
And the science doesn't exactly fall all on your side.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/…
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7446/980.…
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/old…
33
There is so much smoke in the air. That coming from humans is pretty minimal and avoidable. Pot smoke makes me nauseous, and that's not because I have any moral or political objection to it, it just does, purely physically. When marijuana is finally legalized I will happily walk around or sit upwind of my smoking friends, as long as they don't fill a contained space I'm in with it. I smoke tobacco sometimes, outdoors and usually with a mind to bothering the people around me as little as possible. Most smokers are like that now, and that's coming a long way in a pretty short time. Of course there are still some jerks.
When pot smokers get the same restricted freedom (and the tipping point seems to be coming soon) I hope they'll be as courteous, and not forget that some people really don't want to inhale their fumes. There will of course be some jerks, there always are. Probably some of them will be yuppy-snobs, who consider themselves a different species from anyone else who "smokes".
When pot smokers get the same restricted freedom (and the tipping point seems to be coming soon) I hope they'll be as courteous, and not forget that some people really don't want to inhale their fumes. There will of course be some jerks, there always are. Probably some of them will be yuppy-snobs, who consider themselves a different species from anyone else who "smokes".
35
@34 Want to know what's grosser? Lots of things if you ask someone ... and probably a lot of things you do will be thought of as gross to many people. If we eliminate everything that offends everyone then nothing is left.
36
@31: You did not seriously submit a story from the Cato Institute in support of a scientific position. Your third link isn't even from a serious or trustworthy organization; it's a libertarian webrag that claims that there ARE notable health benefits from smoking.
Don't give me just a bunch of spin. Give me some science, you scrub.
Don't give me just a bunch of spin. Give me some science, you scrub.
38
Sorry, I couldn't find any good links,
Another important reason to ditch your chemical slavery to companies like RJR is their support for organizations like ALEC. These people are taking YOUR money and using it to legislate against things like workers and LGBT rights. And they know you have to keep paying them because they have manipulated their product to be as addictive as possible.
Additionally, when the chronic diseases caused by smoking finally catch up, the medical expenses and emotional toll on your families WILL be devastating. I know that first hand. There will also be health repercussions for the people around you from second hand smoke. I know that first hand too.
It is ironic that cars have become so clean that, essentially, they no longer have much of a combustion smell. When I'm driving I can easily smell the cigarette smoke from the cars ahead of me. How fucked up is it that internal combustion engines have become cleaner burning than a product designed to be directly inhaled?
And the sad part is, I can't convince you to quit. I can't convince you because you are slaves to a product that even when you are dying a horrible death, you can't quit. I have seen it first hand that the only cessation occurs when the smoker is incapacitated and/or in an environment where cigarettes are confiscated.
The best part is, maybe I'm wrong and you CAN quit. Maybe you can use the "extra" money to do something good for yourself or others, rather than poisoning them. Maybe you can quit and help others to do so as well.
Please, prove me wrong.
Peace.
Another important reason to ditch your chemical slavery to companies like RJR is their support for organizations like ALEC. These people are taking YOUR money and using it to legislate against things like workers and LGBT rights. And they know you have to keep paying them because they have manipulated their product to be as addictive as possible.
Additionally, when the chronic diseases caused by smoking finally catch up, the medical expenses and emotional toll on your families WILL be devastating. I know that first hand. There will also be health repercussions for the people around you from second hand smoke. I know that first hand too.
It is ironic that cars have become so clean that, essentially, they no longer have much of a combustion smell. When I'm driving I can easily smell the cigarette smoke from the cars ahead of me. How fucked up is it that internal combustion engines have become cleaner burning than a product designed to be directly inhaled?
And the sad part is, I can't convince you to quit. I can't convince you because you are slaves to a product that even when you are dying a horrible death, you can't quit. I have seen it first hand that the only cessation occurs when the smoker is incapacitated and/or in an environment where cigarettes are confiscated.
The best part is, maybe I'm wrong and you CAN quit. Maybe you can use the "extra" money to do something good for yourself or others, rather than poisoning them. Maybe you can quit and help others to do so as well.
Please, prove me wrong.
Peace.
40
@36 So to you subjective science is more scientific as long as it agrees with your angle .... nice to know, because that means it's impossible to prove you wrong, which makes you inherently wrong. Note: All the "studies" done to show second hand smoke being bad were done with extreme bias, no less than what I just posted.
41
@38 I could quit, but I don't WANT to. Huge difference between can and want. Most smokers I have known simply don't want to either. As for poisoning, lots of things are poison, if you drink you are poisoning yourself a lot and putting other lives in IMMEDIATE danger. If you drive you are putting lives in immediate danger and polluting the air everyone breathes with the same poisons at even higher concentrations. Many other examples exist to ... no one is blameless, so pointing fingers is shallow and low. I don't tell you haw to live, why do you want to tell me how to live?
42
@36: "You did not seriously submit a story from the Cato Institute in support of a scientific position"
You forgot known sciencey-guy John Stossel!
You forgot known sciencey-guy John Stossel!
43
@40: So where's your evidence showing that the studies I quoted "were done with extreme bias"?
And usually, if someone gives bad data in support of a position, you want to take the high ground in your rebuttal and bring some statistically significant support.
You have not cited a single study.
And usually, if someone gives bad data in support of a position, you want to take the high ground in your rebuttal and bring some statistically significant support.
You have not cited a single study.
44
Nothing gives anyone the right to live a life free from offense or inconvenience.
This isn't hurting you, just annoying you. When that happens, the annoyed person puts up with it and moves the fuck on.
This isn't hurting you, just annoying you. When that happens, the annoyed person puts up with it and moves the fuck on.
45
@41, I blame the corporations that market and sell cigarettes.
As far as you and every other smoker is concerned, my words are a warning. I have already lived through the loss of 2 relatives to cigarette smoking. If I was being nasty about it I would write out some of the details of what I experienced in the months I spent visiting hospitals, watching them die.
I smoked cigarettes in high school, and still had a wicked nicotine fit 5 years after I quit. I also used chewing snuff, and got hooked on that too. Don't kid yourself about want versus ability when it comes to quitting tobacco. Go to the Center for Disease Control's fast facts page to see how much money is taken from our society by allowing tobacco use. Those figures don't even include the familial costs of losing a family member to an early preventable death. I'm not blaming you, you're the victim.
Peace.
As far as you and every other smoker is concerned, my words are a warning. I have already lived through the loss of 2 relatives to cigarette smoking. If I was being nasty about it I would write out some of the details of what I experienced in the months I spent visiting hospitals, watching them die.
I smoked cigarettes in high school, and still had a wicked nicotine fit 5 years after I quit. I also used chewing snuff, and got hooked on that too. Don't kid yourself about want versus ability when it comes to quitting tobacco. Go to the Center for Disease Control's fast facts page to see how much money is taken from our society by allowing tobacco use. Those figures don't even include the familial costs of losing a family member to an early preventable death. I'm not blaming you, you're the victim.
Peace.
46
@45 As people say, we all die, to live is to die. It's a calculated risk, like sky diving or bungee jumping, you take the risk for the enjoyment. As for blaming the market and corporations, that's just lame even for someone who thinks it's so much worse because if you think smoking is so bad, it's enabling the smoker. We choose to smoke, they don't make us, they don't force it on us. I am NOT a victim, I am a smoker. Quitting may be hard, but it is possible, people stop smoking all the time (most because they are being forced to not wanting to) others are switching to the ecigs ... I will probably switch to the ecigs because then I can smoke wherever I want to legally. ;) If I am a victim of anything, it's car exhaust, which I have to clean from my walls and such almost every day, the soot everyone is breathing from them. But you don't see me railing against all motorists, car exhaust also smells a hundred times more offensive than smoking, most people don't notice it because "people need cars."
47
@43 Every study is bias, every report, every finding. You can't justly pick which studies are more accurate just because you agree with them.
48
@47: Spoken like somebody truly ignorant of the scientific method.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But we're all beholden to the same facts.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But we're all beholden to the same facts.
49
@48 Actually, it's a scientific fact that "the observed is always changed by the observer, even if the observed is unaware of the observer." That's not a light theory, that's a scientific fact. Bias influences everything you write, even facts. Someone writes that "this many people who died encountered this thing" and people often draw the conclusion that "this thing" is what caused the death without even considering the other factors. Ever hear the phrase "doubters of all theories know the methods better than those who believe in them"? It was actually used by people those of us who have debated against christian bible thumpers, and it works here just as well. I didn't make the claim that second hand smoke has no impact, only that for every single study saying one thing, there is another of equal value saying the exact opposite, because THAT'S how the scientific process works, and THAT'S how science moves forward. Blindly accepting something as fact is what religious people do, not scientists.
50
@29: Bullshit. I've had asthma attacks from cigarette smoke more than 6 feet away.
@15, 17: It can, and will, go away, at least in public places. The trend is going in that direction. In some cities, you already can't smoke outside within a certain number of feet of a restaurant. Smokers can smoke in the privacy of their own home, if that's what they want. They shouldn't be smoking on the sidewalk where anyone walking by can breathe it.
@15, 17: It can, and will, go away, at least in public places. The trend is going in that direction. In some cities, you already can't smoke outside within a certain number of feet of a restaurant. Smokers can smoke in the privacy of their own home, if that's what they want. They shouldn't be smoking on the sidewalk where anyone walking by can breathe it.
51
@49: Wow, you're an idiot.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy indeed, and correlation need not imply causation. However, we do have methods of determining what is true and what is not.
I linked directly to two studies indicating that secondhand smoke IS INDEED a substantial health hazard. You linked to three articles (from rather biased and untrustworthy sources nonetheless) talking about secondhand smoke to the effect that it is harmless. According to you, your links and my links cancel out.
Your game is equivocation. Whatever the issue, you claim that we can't be sure, because both sides need to be heard, and both sides have misbehaved, and we need balance! I'm sorry, but on some issues the vast majority of evidence and experts supports one viewpoint and not the other. You equate decisiveness (based on overwhelming amounts of evidence) with religious zeal? You are playing the same game as the proponents of Intelligent Design, demanding that both sides of all issues be given equal standing regardless of their respective logical and empirical merits.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy indeed, and correlation need not imply causation. However, we do have methods of determining what is true and what is not.
I linked directly to two studies indicating that secondhand smoke IS INDEED a substantial health hazard. You linked to three articles (from rather biased and untrustworthy sources nonetheless) talking about secondhand smoke to the effect that it is harmless. According to you, your links and my links cancel out.
Your game is equivocation. Whatever the issue, you claim that we can't be sure, because both sides need to be heard, and both sides have misbehaved, and we need balance! I'm sorry, but on some issues the vast majority of evidence and experts supports one viewpoint and not the other. You equate decisiveness (based on overwhelming amounts of evidence) with religious zeal? You are playing the same game as the proponents of Intelligent Design, demanding that both sides of all issues be given equal standing regardless of their respective logical and empirical merits.
52
@46 I am old enough to have gone through the period of cigarette advertisements on TV to the present. I can only remark upon my recollections concerning the various successful law suits that revealed just how skillfully the manufacturers optimized their products and the marketers targeted their advertisements toward new, young users in order to create an ongoing captive population. There have been many disclosures of just how well these people were aware of the damage their products were creating. It was a stroke of genius on their part to get cigarettes included in army rations during the mid and late 20th century. I may believe the manufacturers and marketers are evil, but I would never call them stupid.
I don't know what kind of vehicles you are encountering, be they diesel or pre-90s, but to have stains from exhaust is highly unusual (at least in a state like CA or MA). For PZEV vehicles the exhaust is almost only CO2 and water vapor. The engine from my old Volvo could take dirty exhaust straight from another engine and release exhaust that was cleaner. My current car is a Pius (yes it emits smug), and is a PZEV. Without getting an electric only, I can't do much better.
@49 if there are studies refuting the damage caused by second hand smoke, it is because the tobacco industry paid someone to create them. Again I don't call them stupid, just evil. There are any number of now old examples of this kind of behavior on the part of industries that create hazardous products and byproducts. One very important question to ask in determining the veracity of counter arguments to standard doctrine is where did the authors get the money. The same is true for the opposite as well; if the funding for a study came from the NIH, what benefit would the researchers derive from their findings? If the funding came from some foundation you've never heard of, there may be a reason you've never heard of them (including the classic partially hidden ties to the industry in question thing).
It is sad, but expecting morally responsible behavior on the part of unregulated businesses, in MY opinion, is unrealistic. No one is perfect, so the business community in this country needs oversight to keep the bad apples from spoiling everything. But then, as a professional research scientist, I am used to constant oversight in the form of the peer review process. The end result is a much better "product" that is tested mercilessly if everything goes the way it's supposed to. And since it was that process that came up with the recognition of how dangerous cigarettes are, I tend to believe it. Not to mention witnessing the horrific results first hand.
Peace.
More...
I don't know what kind of vehicles you are encountering, be they diesel or pre-90s, but to have stains from exhaust is highly unusual (at least in a state like CA or MA). For PZEV vehicles the exhaust is almost only CO2 and water vapor. The engine from my old Volvo could take dirty exhaust straight from another engine and release exhaust that was cleaner. My current car is a Pius (yes it emits smug), and is a PZEV. Without getting an electric only, I can't do much better.
@49 if there are studies refuting the damage caused by second hand smoke, it is because the tobacco industry paid someone to create them. Again I don't call them stupid, just evil. There are any number of now old examples of this kind of behavior on the part of industries that create hazardous products and byproducts. One very important question to ask in determining the veracity of counter arguments to standard doctrine is where did the authors get the money. The same is true for the opposite as well; if the funding for a study came from the NIH, what benefit would the researchers derive from their findings? If the funding came from some foundation you've never heard of, there may be a reason you've never heard of them (including the classic partially hidden ties to the industry in question thing).
It is sad, but expecting morally responsible behavior on the part of unregulated businesses, in MY opinion, is unrealistic. No one is perfect, so the business community in this country needs oversight to keep the bad apples from spoiling everything. But then, as a professional research scientist, I am used to constant oversight in the form of the peer review process. The end result is a much better "product" that is tested mercilessly if everything goes the way it's supposed to. And since it was that process that came up with the recognition of how dangerous cigarettes are, I tend to believe it. Not to mention witnessing the horrific results first hand.
Peace.
53
@49: "Actually, it's a scientific fact that "the observed is always changed by the observer, even if the observed is unaware of the observer." That's not a light theory, that's a scientific fact. Bias influences everything you write, even facts."
That doesn't account for your base misunderstanding of subjectivity and objectivity.
That doesn't account for your base misunderstanding of subjectivity and objectivity.
54
If anyone can find a truly objective study or report, I'll shut up about it ... just one on the second hand smoke issue.
55
@54: "If anyone can find a truly objective study or report, I'll shut up about it ... just one on the second hand smoke issue."
Do you know what goalpost-shifting is, KK?
Do you know what goalpost-shifting is, KK?
56
@ 38 & 45 FTW.
I see no one has answered Dan's (and the 1853 writer's) question: what RIGHT do smokers have to pollute the air of everyone else?
Answer: NONE. No one has the right to pollute the air of another. No one.
I firmly believe that each of us has the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies - but no one has any right to put into MY body (or anyone else's) something I (or they) don't want.
A guy drinking whiskey on a park bench is breaking the law and being a bad citizen, but he's not getting his whiskey into my bloodstream. A guy sitting on a park bench smoking cigarettes has NO CONTROL over where his exhaled and end-of-cig smoke is going - ergo, his vice is entering my body, against my will, if I am near him. No one has a 'right' to do this to another human being.
It's really only a matter of social and personal awareness, and we are obviously not there yet as a society. My hope is that one day, future generations will look back at our rampant tobacco use and view it as being as quaint and perverse as we consider something like blood-letting or arranged marriages - a weird-ass relic of a former time.
I see no one has answered Dan's (and the 1853 writer's) question: what RIGHT do smokers have to pollute the air of everyone else?
Answer: NONE. No one has the right to pollute the air of another. No one.
I firmly believe that each of us has the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies - but no one has any right to put into MY body (or anyone else's) something I (or they) don't want.
A guy drinking whiskey on a park bench is breaking the law and being a bad citizen, but he's not getting his whiskey into my bloodstream. A guy sitting on a park bench smoking cigarettes has NO CONTROL over where his exhaled and end-of-cig smoke is going - ergo, his vice is entering my body, against my will, if I am near him. No one has a 'right' to do this to another human being.
It's really only a matter of social and personal awareness, and we are obviously not there yet as a society. My hope is that one day, future generations will look back at our rampant tobacco use and view it as being as quaint and perverse as we consider something like blood-letting or arranged marriages - a weird-ass relic of a former time.
58
@57: It's not a flame.
The anon is simply pointing out that you are likely to claim that any study we cite isn't, in your view, objective.
The anon is simply pointing out that you are likely to claim that any study we cite isn't, in your view, objective.
59
@56 "I see no one has answered Dan's (and the 1853 writer's) question: what RIGHT do smokers have to pollute the air of everyone else?"
The same right as car drivers to do the same.
The same right as car drivers to do the same.
60
@59 that answer visa vie automobiles has a long and difficult answer.
A good place to start complaining is about the systematic dismantling of trolley systems for replacement by busses. The need for a fast transcontinental heavy roadway system for the military gave us the interstate highway system, and all the metered mile landing strips. And so on. There are lots of places in this country, maybe even most, that would be inaccessible without busses and cars. And thus the box has been opened, and public transit and bicycle riding urbanites are unlikely to be able to repack the box.
I live in a neighborhood that is, poorly, serviced by public transit, and make the best of it by driving the most fuel efficient models in their class (one of which is a Pius). I can't afford the extra hours that relying upon a very spotty bus system (though CNG powered) would force upon me. Plus, I love my car.
But at least I don't smoke.
Peace.
A good place to start complaining is about the systematic dismantling of trolley systems for replacement by busses. The need for a fast transcontinental heavy roadway system for the military gave us the interstate highway system, and all the metered mile landing strips. And so on. There are lots of places in this country, maybe even most, that would be inaccessible without busses and cars. And thus the box has been opened, and public transit and bicycle riding urbanites are unlikely to be able to repack the box.
I live in a neighborhood that is, poorly, serviced by public transit, and make the best of it by driving the most fuel efficient models in their class (one of which is a Pius). I can't afford the extra hours that relying upon a very spotty bus system (though CNG powered) would force upon me. Plus, I love my car.
But at least I don't smoke.
Peace.
61
"Visa vie?" That earns you a ticket from the spelling police. It's French, and is spelled "vis-a-vis."
62
"@55 Do you know what flaming is?"
Saying you have a fucking retarded octogenarian AOL user's understanding of net terminology is flaming.
Saying you have a fucking retarded octogenarian AOL user's understanding of net terminology is flaming.
65
@63 The term "goal post shifting" used in a forum is often to initiate a flame war, creating a "I called you out" like argument instead of producing any real debate or offering any opposing opinion to another's assertion.
Flaming is not trolling, just as disagreeing is not trolling nor flaming, flaming is starting a personal level argument that detracts from a discussion in the hopes of avoiding the simple fact that no one is truly correct and only reinforces the assertion that arguing online is like being in the special olympics. But I digress, perhaps one day Seattle will once again be a place for real debate and intellectual discussion, though it seems to have died and will need some serious work to revive. It's saddened me to see a city I once cherished turned into another Los Angeles ... but I can't say I'm surprised.
Flaming is not trolling, just as disagreeing is not trolling nor flaming, flaming is starting a personal level argument that detracts from a discussion in the hopes of avoiding the simple fact that no one is truly correct and only reinforces the assertion that arguing online is like being in the special olympics. But I digress, perhaps one day Seattle will once again be a place for real debate and intellectual discussion, though it seems to have died and will need some serious work to revive. It's saddened me to see a city I once cherished turned into another Los Angeles ... but I can't say I'm surprised.
66
@65: "The term "goal post shifting" used in a forum is often to initiate a flame war, creating a "I called you out" like argument instead of producing any real debate or offering any opposing opinion to another's assertion."
It's a proactive "call-out" to avoid any time wasted on crafting a post that you can handwave away. as you have in the past. You don't understand what "flames" are, still. Are you that bad at internet lingo? Christ.
It's a proactive "call-out" to avoid any time wasted on crafting a post that you can handwave away. as you have in the past. You don't understand what "flames" are, still. Are you that bad at internet lingo? Christ.
67
But yes, keep getting into your stupid and irrelevant metadiscussions rather than get into the boundaries of what you'd consider "proof" and "unbiased".
Instead of constructive discussion, you toss away 'netisms like they were some sort of Harry Potter spell that allows you to extricate yourself from a situation where you'd have to admit you don't understand proper debate. Flamewario! Trollsi!
Lord help us if you ever manage to mangle an understanding of the basic logical fallacies, then you'll bleat on about "ad homs" every time someone lobs an insult over.
Instead of constructive discussion, you toss away 'netisms like they were some sort of Harry Potter spell that allows you to extricate yourself from a situation where you'd have to admit you don't understand proper debate. Flamewario! Trollsi!
Lord help us if you ever manage to mangle an understanding of the basic logical fallacies, then you'll bleat on about "ad homs" every time someone lobs an insult over.
68
"the simple fact that no one is truly correct "
How's this for a flame?
If you're too stupid to misuse the word "fact" for opinion, you don't understand shit about objectivity and subjectivity and ought to shut the fuck up about your retarded stonerisms, forever. Especially with your sanctimonious tone that everyone has it wrong.
If you don't understand any topic enough to discuss it, sit on the sidelines like the rest of the willfully ignorant hecklers.
How's this for a flame?
If you're too stupid to misuse the word "fact" for opinion, you don't understand shit about objectivity and subjectivity and ought to shut the fuck up about your retarded stonerisms, forever. Especially with your sanctimonious tone that everyone has it wrong.
If you don't understand any topic enough to discuss it, sit on the sidelines like the rest of the willfully ignorant hecklers.
69
@61 babel fish translated "visa vie" to "life aimed".
My autospell granted me those those words to live by.
Peace.
My autospell granted me those those words to live by.
Peace.
70
"@58 .... just as you will with any that contradict the outcome you desire. ;)"
If "there is no such thing as objectivity", why do you feel the need to constantly inflict your opinion on anyone else? How do you understand reality without having some conception of what is perspective, and what is actual, grounded truth?
"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" is not a model for how one should live one's life. It's a collection of hucksters and snake-oil salesmen.
If "there is no such thing as objectivity", why do you feel the need to constantly inflict your opinion on anyone else? How do you understand reality without having some conception of what is perspective, and what is actual, grounded truth?
"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" is not a model for how one should live one's life. It's a collection of hucksters and snake-oil salesmen.
71
@64: I'm not saying that the studies you cite aren't objective. I'm saying that you haven't cited any studies. You have cited web pages that talk about and interpret studies, but such web pages can suck about 200 cocks. In the world of science, we don't care about the commentary of some yahoo with a server; what we want is the published study and nothing else.
Also, you are quite one for the fallacy known as tu quoque. Just because someone else makes a faulty argument doesn't make your arguments any more valid.
#66-68 pretty much nails it.
Also, you are quite one for the fallacy known as tu quoque. Just because someone else makes a faulty argument doesn't make your arguments any more valid.
#66-68 pretty much nails it.
72
KK confuses thinktank-aligned "professional skeptics" with hard science. I mean, I love Penn & Teller and the *general* skeptic community, as it serves to define reality away from superstition. I've enjoyed touring the JREF hq and post on Pharyngula from time to time.
But, I'm not fond of P&T's show Bullshit! aside from sheer entertainment value, and don't trust anyone aligned with the Koch-aligned Cato institute aside from the few, isolated civil libertarians like Glenn Greenwald.
These thinktanks don't exist to do science for science's sake, they exist to interpret all research in order to write deregulatory policy to provide to politicians. "Climate-change deniers" are not skeptics in the same way that Creationists are not "skeptics", simply because they don't understand evolutionary process.
But, I'm not fond of P&T's show Bullshit! aside from sheer entertainment value, and don't trust anyone aligned with the Koch-aligned Cato institute aside from the few, isolated civil libertarians like Glenn Greenwald.
These thinktanks don't exist to do science for science's sake, they exist to interpret all research in order to write deregulatory policy to provide to politicians. "Climate-change deniers" are not skeptics in the same way that Creationists are not "skeptics", simply because they don't understand evolutionary process.
73
@KittenKoder (specifically post 54):
For example:
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/con…
Now please shut the fuck up.
That being said, I do believe you should have the freedom to smoke in an open public place where there aren't captive people around you (e.g. a playground, next to buildings with open doors/windows, in crowds, etc.). I don't personally have a problem with people smoking around me, and I actually tend to LIKE smokers more than non-smokers (as people). And I think that it should be okay to have smoking-dedicated businesses where people are allowed to smoke inside, if proper allowances are made for worker protection.
But smoking poses a risk to other people, over time. I'm willing to allow for certain small amounts of risk or harm to others, as we all do in allowing people to drive cars, ride the bus while sick, build nuclear plants, or listen to techno music.
You're pissed off because people make judgements about you because you smoke. I GET IT. But you don't address that by spamming some anti-science bullshit from the CATO institute. That just makes people sympathetic to the situation, such as myself, pissed off at your stupidity and gall. Pick ONE fucking annoying thing at a time. Either smoke and be happy, or go be an anti-science troll.
More...
For example:
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/con…
Meta-analysis of the association between secondhand smoke exposure and stroke
20 eligible studies provided 35 estimates of risk derived from 885,307 participants.
...
Conclusions: There is evidence of a strong, consistent and dose-dependent association between exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of stroke, suggestive of a causal relationship, with disproportionately high risk at low levels of exposure suggesting no safe lower limit of exposure.
Now please shut the fuck up.
That being said, I do believe you should have the freedom to smoke in an open public place where there aren't captive people around you (e.g. a playground, next to buildings with open doors/windows, in crowds, etc.). I don't personally have a problem with people smoking around me, and I actually tend to LIKE smokers more than non-smokers (as people). And I think that it should be okay to have smoking-dedicated businesses where people are allowed to smoke inside, if proper allowances are made for worker protection.
But smoking poses a risk to other people, over time. I'm willing to allow for certain small amounts of risk or harm to others, as we all do in allowing people to drive cars, ride the bus while sick, build nuclear plants, or listen to techno music.
You're pissed off because people make judgements about you because you smoke. I GET IT. But you don't address that by spamming some anti-science bullshit from the CATO institute. That just makes people sympathetic to the situation, such as myself, pissed off at your stupidity and gall. Pick ONE fucking annoying thing at a time. Either smoke and be happy, or go be an anti-science troll.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (74) RSS