Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
So to summarize, here are the main positions that people in this thread have put forward to bolster their claim that banning secondhand smoke in enclosed public spaces is wrong.
(1) Secondhand smoke is not harmful.
(2) Banning secondhand smoke requires bigger, more expensive government.
(3) Banning secondhand smoke reduces "freedom"
(4) Banning secondhand smoke is "ineffective"
(5) Banning secondhand smoke is inconsistent with how we as a society treat alcohol.
Every single one of these positions has been completely and convincingly refuted.
|
not even fuckin' close
1)The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are still under debate.
2)It does require "bigger/more expensive" gov't - because no one can prove that banning smoking actually makes smokers stop (by an measurable percentage)
3) It does - when was this refuted?
4) This one is probably true
5) I still contend it is - how can you be concerned about the "greater good" and keep a blind-eye to something that kills more people, destroys more lives, etc.
Nice try, but no, you didn't refute shit.
You also didn't win shit, either.
Cancel the parade, because I (and many, many others) still disagree with you.
No one is swayed.
No opinions were changed.
And just because you think you are right, don't mean shit to us, because we don't think you are even remotely right.