" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in the
transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your mind.
The morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing to do with
it. You're the one making the judgment, which is fine FOR YOU but has
nothing to do with anyone else. IOW, you're just as bad as the
leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest
of their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty
cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is,
you're just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a
value judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with your
values. IOW you're nothing better than the lousy statist you hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts
are found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further.
Typical statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who
toss their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our
roads and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other
things. Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food
consumers that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with
smokers. Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment
plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their
butts improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts away
after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty their
ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.

I did,you just refuse to see it.It's everywhere,IF you care to look.

willfully BLIND.




They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted
here makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist beliefs.
There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from the
Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color
shirt.

Ooh,"statist,statist"...Nyah,nyah....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

aemeijers wrote in news:EbGdnf7zX-
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

[snip]

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.
Sometimes I walk around, picking up aluminum cans. Once I checked and
found twice as many beer cans (including a few full ones) than soda
cans.

[snip]

FULL BEER CANS!?!?!?! Oh, the humanity. (g)

Likely discarded by teenagers that saw a cop car going the other way,
and expected him to turn around and pull them over. Back in the day, I
heard more than one local LEO say they never had to buy beer, just pull
a Friday or Saturday night shift on road patrol, and act like he was
being a good guy by confiscating the booze instead of writing them up,
and letting the most sober one drive the rest of them home. Of course,
this was all well before dashboard cameras, and cops being wired for
sound, and teenagers being able to call their parents from the side of
the road.

--
aem sends...


I have apartment neighbors (young ones) that toss their trash on the ground
next to their car,or slide it under the next car.They also toss their cig
butts and BIC lighters right at the entryway;it now looks like it snowed
there with all the accumulation.
I can hardly wait until they buy a house,and kids toss their garbage all
over their lawns and driveways.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral. They
are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.
It's poison,and not just for the users.It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)
It even affects wildlife.


You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for them,
yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

HeyBub wrote:
(snip)

Or leaves. Cigarette butts are completely biodegradable.

Uh, not so much, any more. Many of them have plastic in the filters now,
and take forever and a day to break up, especially if not in direct sun.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:14 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value, BY
DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the product
"good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand that
he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who
mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;

You ARE related to DimBulb.

you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

Is tobacco illegal? One word answer only: yes or no?

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean
anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

You're full of ****. You claim an inanimate object has morality. That IS
moronic.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:02:18 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral. They
are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.

IT is not immoral, as you claimed it was. There is a *big* difference.

To you perhaps it is immoral. It obviously isn't against society's morays.

It's poison,and not just for the users.

Lots of things are dangerous. Unless you propose to ban them all, you're
nothing better than the leftists you hate so much.

It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)

Bull****. No more than *many* other things that I'm sure you find perfectly
acceptable. The *fact* is that you're no better than those on the left you
hate.

It even affects wildlife.

Hogwash.

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

Illegal "above board"

Get out of the leftists gutter.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for them,
yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Ah, so you *DO* support banning everything you deem to be "dangerous". You
*are* a statist.

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:52:26 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in the
transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your mind.
The morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing to do with
it. You're the one making the judgment, which is fine FOR YOU but has
nothing to do with anyone else. IOW, you're just as bad as the
leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest
of their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and empty
cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is,
you're just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a
value judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with your
values. IOW you're nothing better than the lousy statist you hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts
are found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further.
Typical statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who
toss their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside our
roads and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other
things. Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food
consumers that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with
smokers. Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment
plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their
butts improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts away
after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty their
ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.

I did,you just refuse to see it.It's everywhere,IF you care to look.

You're a LIAR. You provided nothing more than a restatement of your position.
That is hardly proof.

willfully BLIND.

Indescribably stupid.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted
here makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist beliefs.
There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from the
Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color
shirt.

Ooh,"statist,statist"...Nyah,nyah....

I would have said nothing here, except to call out your *OBVIOUS* hypocrisy.
It is nice to see that you admit to being a statist. That is a revelation.

aemeijers wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
(snip)

Or leaves. Cigarette butts are completely biodegradable.

Uh, not so much, any more. Many of them have plastic in the filters
now, and take forever and a day to break up, especially if not in
direct sun.

Yeah, but the argument is specious. Look at all the other stuff that goes
down the pipe: Tampons, diapers, bottle caps, small plastic toys, razor
blades, inedible tacos, dead goldfish, cat poo, blah-blah-blah. I suspect
that anything that can fit - and a few things that had to be dismembered to
fit - has ended up at the plant one time or another.

But you raise a good point. I, myself, am doing MY part to save the
environment by not smoking cigarettes with plastic tips! That way I know
when I flip a butt out the window, that no harm is done.

Jim Yanik wrote:

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts away
after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty their
ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.


It seems you, not the smokers, own the problem. I mean, I don't hear THEM
complaining.

Phisherman wrote:


Ryobi is of lower quality. A corded Milwaulkee is top-quality and
about the same price as the cordless Ryobi. If you'd rather have a
better cordless try Makita or Panasonic.

The point was to NOT spend more money and repair what I had.

Yes, Ryobi is lower quality but perfectly suitable for the common
homeowner. I do have a corded Makita that has been sitting in the
bottom of a drawer gathering dust for years. If I truly need more
power or both batteries die I drag out that beast.

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:14 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no
good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does
have good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value,
BY DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the
product "good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people
who mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;

You ARE related to DimBulb.


another sure sign of a lost argument.

you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

Is tobacco illegal? One word answer only: yes or no?

doesn't matter,it's still immoral.


No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't
mean anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

You're full of ****. You claim an inanimate object has morality.
That IS moronic.


more sign of a lost argument.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:52:26 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in
the transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your
mind. The morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing to
do with it. You're the one making the judgment, which is fine FOR
YOU but has nothing to do with anyone else. IOW, you're just as bad
as the leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest
of their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and
empty cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is,
you're just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a
value judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with
your values. IOW you're nothing better than the lousy statist you
hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts
are found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further.
Typical statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who
toss their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside
our roads and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other
things. Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food
consumers that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with
smokers. Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment
plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their
butts improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts
away after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty their
ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.

I did,you just refuse to see it.It's everywhere,IF you care to look.

You're a LIAR. You provided nothing more than a restatement of your
position. That is hardly proof.

It's like trying to prove to you there's light.

willfully BLIND.

Indescribably stupid.

more namecalling;the sure sign of a lost argument.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted
here makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist
beliefs. There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from
the Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color
shirt.

Ooh,"statist,statist"...Nyah,nyah....

I would have said nothing here, except to call out your *OBVIOUS*
hypocrisy. It is nice to see that you admit to being a statist. That
is a revelation.


its obvious you refuse to see the evidence all around you.
Willful blindness. THAT is the "revelation".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:02:18 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral.
They are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.

IT is not immoral, as you claimed it was. There is a *big*
difference.

To you perhaps it is immoral. It obviously isn't against society's
morays.

It's poison,and not just for the users.

Lots of things are dangerous. Unless you propose to ban them all,
you're nothing better than the leftists you hate so much.

Another false presumption;
that if one bans anything,then they must ban everything.

It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)

Bull****. No more than *many* other things that I'm sure you find
perfectly acceptable. The *fact* is that you're no better than those
on the left you hate.

It even affects wildlife.

Hogwash.

Ah,denial.(just -more- denial,actually)

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

Illegal "above board"

then in your view,anything that is "legal" is thus not immoral.
screwy. (that would make YOU "pro-choice" and pro-GLBT)


Get out of the leftists gutter.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for
them, yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Ah, so you *DO* support banning everything you deem to be "dangerous".
You *are* a statist.


Ooh,again,"statist,statist",I'm SO hurt.....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:33:10 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:14 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no
good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does
have good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value,
BY DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the
product "good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people
who mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;

You ARE related to DimBulb.


another sure sign of a lost argument.

Hardly.

you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

Is tobacco illegal? One word answer only: yes or no?

doesn't matter,it's still immoral.

Says *you*. Who gives a crap about your silly religion (anti-smokerism)?
Fortunately you're in the minority. Unfortunately there are millions of
others just itching to take away more of *your* liberties. ...and you don't
care. Sad.

No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't
mean anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

You're full of ****. You claim an inanimate object has morality.
That IS moronic.


more sign of a lost argument.

No, it's a statement of fact. I can't help it if you're stupid.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:42:25 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:02:18 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral.
They are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.

IT is not immoral, as you claimed it was. There is a *big*
difference.

To you perhaps it is immoral. It obviously isn't against society's
morays.

It's poison,and not just for the users.

Lots of things are dangerous. Unless you propose to ban them all,
you're nothing better than the leftists you hate so much.

Another false presumption;
that if one bans anything,then they must ban everything.

First they came for the Jews...

It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)

Bull****. No more than *many* other things that I'm sure you find
perfectly acceptable. The *fact* is that you're no better than those
on the left you hate.

It even affects wildlife.

Hogwash.

Ah,denial.(just -more- denial,actually)

Bull****.

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

Illegal "above board"

then in your view,anything that is "legal" is thus not immoral.
screwy. (that would make YOU "pro-choice" and pro-GLBT)

Morality is personal. SOme morality, when it's universal is codified. You
propose that smoking is universally immoral, which is asinine.


Get out of the leftists gutter.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for
them, yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Ah, so you *DO* support banning everything you deem to be "dangerous".
You *are* a statist.


Ooh,again,"statist,statist",I'm SO hurt.....

I can't help it if you *are* what you hate. That's the plain truth.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:38 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:52:26 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no good
use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does have
good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in
the transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your
mind. The morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing to
do with it. You're the one making the judgment, which is fine FOR
YOU but has nothing to do with anyone else. IOW, you're just as bad
as the leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the rest
of their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers and
empty cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is,
you're just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a
value judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with
your values. IOW you're nothing better than the lousy statist you
hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts
are found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further.
Typical statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones who
toss their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence alongside
our roads and outside building entrances says otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other
things. Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food
consumers that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with
smokers. Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment
plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their
butts improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts
away after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty their
ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.

I did,you just refuse to see it.It's everywhere,IF you care to look.

You're a LIAR. You provided nothing more than a restatement of your
position. That is hardly proof.

It's like trying to prove to you there's light.

Liar. You made a statement of fact. It's up to you to prove it.

willfully BLIND.

Indescribably stupid.

more namecalling;the sure sign of a lost argument.

Fact. I can't help it if you *are* what you hate.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted
here makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist
beliefs. There is nothing that separates you, ideologically, from
the Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color
shirt.

Ooh,"statist,statist"...Nyah,nyah....

I would have said nothing here, except to call out your *OBVIOUS*
hypocrisy. It is nice to see that you admit to being a statist. That
is a revelation.


its obvious you refuse to see the evidence all around you.
Willful blindness. THAT is the "revelation".

No, it's called liberty. I still like it. You have obviously gone to the
dark side.

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:33:10 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:14 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
news:08r7p5tr4s1qdvieqi278if66achkp8ko8@4ax. com:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no
good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does
have good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value,
BY DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the
product "good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would
understand that he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the
only people who mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;

You ARE related to DimBulb.


another sure sign of a lost argument.

Hardly.

Definitely.

you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

Is tobacco illegal? One word answer only: yes or no?

doesn't matter,it's still immoral.

Says *you*. Who gives a crap about your silly religion

you obviously don't know what "religion" is.

(anti-smokerism)? Fortunately you're in the minority.

"Minority"??
to use your own word;Hardly.
The public favors anti-smoking laws.

Unfortunately
there are millions of others just itching to take away more of *your*
liberties. ...and you don't care. Sad.

It is no "liberty" to pollute the air,litter the outdoors,and raise
healthcare costs for everyone.SOCIETY has it's rules.


No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold
doesn't mean anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

You're full of ****. You claim an inanimate object has morality.
That IS moronic.


more sign of a lost argument.

No, it's a statement of fact. I can't help it if you're stupid.


More sign of a lost argument.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:42:25 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:02:18 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would
understand that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who
mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral.
They are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.

IT is not immoral, as you claimed it was. There is a *big*
difference.

To you perhaps it is immoral. It obviously isn't against society's
morays.

It's poison,and not just for the users.

Lots of things are dangerous. Unless you propose to ban them all,
you're nothing better than the leftists you hate so much.

Another false presumption;
that if one bans anything,then they must ban everything.

First they came for the Jews...

Nonsense.
The JEWS are a People and a religion(and harm no one),while smoking is a
nasty,bad behavior(harming many).
there's a big difference.
A smoker can live without smoking.Live better,actually.

It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)

Bull****. No more than *many* other things that I'm sure you find
perfectly acceptable. The *fact* is that you're no better than
those on the left you hate.

It even affects wildlife.

Hogwash.

Ah,denial.(just -more- denial,actually)

Bull****.

No,truth.

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

Illegal "above board"

then in your view,anything that is "legal" is thus not immoral.
screwy. (that would make YOU "pro-choice" and pro-GLBT)

Morality is personal. SOme morality, when it's universal is codified.
You propose that smoking is universally immoral, which is asinine.

Sure it is;
it poisons,pollutes,starts fires,has no redeeming value.
It's disgusting behavior,socially unacceptable.
It not only negatively affects the smoker,but those around them.


Get out of the leftists gutter.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for
them, yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live
shorter lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Ah, so you *DO* support banning everything you deem to be
"dangerous".
You *are* a statist.


Ooh,again,"statist,statist",I'm SO hurt.....

I can't help it if you *are* what you hate. That's the plain truth.


Ooh,now I'm a "hater".....sounds like the homos argument...

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:38 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:52:26 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:54:04 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
news:mdp7p591pvjfjn87bcaig3c0uqp3k4t08n@4ax. com:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:34:41 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

snip

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no
good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does
have good use, by definition.

False logic.you wrongly ASSume it's a "good" use.

Wrong. It is a "good" use because it was "good" for the people in
the transaction. It's not illegal, and is only "immoral" in your
mind. The morality of "tobacco", which is just silly, has nothing
to do with it. You're the one making the judgment, which is fine
FOR YOU but has nothing to do with anyone else. IOW, you're just
as bad as the leftist statists you rail about.

Now,in addition to the secondhand smoke problem....
People who smoke are overwhelmingly LITTERBUGS;

Some people are immoral, that isn't to be denied.

they toss their cig butts all over the place,along with the
rest of their smoking trash like disposable lighters,wrappers
and empty cig packs.

I see a lot of beer and soda cans around, too.

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'.

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.
that
people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is,
you're just another statist.

it harms people,and there's NO good use of the crap.

Water harms people. Better ban swimming. Again, YOU are making a
value judgment and wanting to force others to walk lockstep with
your values. IOW you're nothing better than the lousy statist you
hate.

and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig
butts are found by the roadsides.

By volume?

check with any wastewater treatment plant.(I had a tour of one)

If you can't move the ball, move the goal posts a little further.
Typical statist argument.

The scumbags empty their ashtrays in parking lots.
Now,some fool is going to say that it's only a few bad ones
who toss their cig trash,but the vast amount of evidence
alongside our roads and outside building entrances says
otherwise.

Not to mention fast food wrappers and a whole host of other
things. Let's shut 'em all down!
In that example,it clearly is not the MAJORITY of fast food
consumers that toss their trash improperly,as is the case with
smokers. Cig butts are a major problem for wastewater treatment
plants.

You've shown no evidence that the MAJORITY of smokers toss their
butts improperly.

The evidence lies alongside most any roadway or street,and at
wastewater treatment plants.Or wait outside any office where the
smokers stand around outside the entrances and flick their butts
away after they're done. the parking lots where smokers empty
their ashtrays.You have to be willfully BLIND to not see it.

No, it's you who made the claim (MOST smokers...). Prove it.

I did,you just refuse to see it.It's everywhere,IF you care to look.

You're a LIAR. You provided nothing more than a restatement of your
position. That is hardly proof.

It's like trying to prove to you there's light.

Liar. You made a statement of fact. It's up to you to prove it.

I gave you the proof;you refuse to see it. It's called "denial".
It's in PLAIN SIGHT,alongside roadways,in parking lots,all over the place.
One just has to open their eyes and OBSERVE.

willfully BLIND.

Indescribably stupid.

more namecalling;the sure sign of a lost argument.

Fact. I can't help it if you *are* what you hate.

Heh,there's that "hater" thing again... Ow.



They also start fires.

So does lightning. Let's ban that too.

Use some common sense,will ya? The sort of statements you posted
here makes you appear to be stupid.
Lightning is a NATURAL phenomenon.

As far right as you are, I'm just pointing out your statist
beliefs. There is nothing that separates you, ideologically,
from the Obaminables.


Uh,yeah,there is. "reasonable" is the key.

No, it's clear that you're one of them, just in a different color
shirt.

Ooh,"statist,statist"...Nyah,nyah....

I would have said nothing here, except to call out your *OBVIOUS*
hypocrisy. It is nice to see that you admit to being a statist.
That is a revelation.


its obvious you refuse to see the evidence all around you.
Willful blindness. THAT is the "revelation".

No, it's called liberty. I still like it. You have obviously gone to
the dark side.


Now you're delusional. the "dark side"?
Because I favor eliminating a disgusting,destructive behavior?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com