Pet peve of mine

[rhoenix]

I would also like to note that your assertion is directly shown to be false here: of the two people who have posted who identify themselves as smokers, both of them have 'fessed up'.

Of course they have, because they're posting in a thread where I ranted early about smokers who won't fess up.

No, that wasn't why I "'fessed up." I would have made the posts I did in this thread regardless of yours. I opined my view because I felt it would contribute to the discussion at hand, which was smokers who thoughtlessly litter their cigarette butts.

[Feil]

Does stupidity come to you naturally, or do you work at it? Those guys smoked so long ago that the modern medical evidence for smoking hazards did not exist. They have an excuse. But nobody today does.

Granted.

Then why are you acting like such a whiny bitch when someone says that smoking is a moron/asshole activity? You just admitted that it's stupid.

Because partaking in a stupid action does not make one an asshole or a moron. Some people eat more or less than they ought to, or don't give themselves enough sleep each night. Are they moron/assholes too? Where does the line between moron/asshole and irresponsible person lie?

Einstein et al had an excuse. You and your friends don't.

Kindly answer my question. Does smoking invalididate a person's ability to be a good person, or does it not?

Incidentally, I, personally, don't need an excuse, because I don't smoke, never intend to, and want other people to do likewise. I'm just not in the habit of declaring a person contemptable because he doesn't live up to my ideal of a healthy lifestyle.

[Darth Servo]

Einstein: smoked
Openheimer: smoked
Tolkein: smoked
Twain: smoked

So? Sir Isaac Newton was an asshole. Doen't mean its a smart thing to do.

[Feil]

So? Sir Isaac Newton was an asshole. Doen't mean its a smart thing to do.

Darth Wong implied that all smokers are morons and assholes.
I pointed out examples of smokers who are not morons or assholes.
Darth Wong replied that moron/assholery is contingent on not having an excuse.
I accepted this point.

[Darth Wong]

Then why are you acting like such a whiny bitch when someone says that smoking is a moron/asshole activity? You just admitted that it's stupid.

Because partaking in a stupid action does not make one an asshole or a moron.

Not if you only do it once, no. And not if you're desperately trying to quit and are feel terrible that you can't, no. Do either of those excuses apply to your chimney-puffing friends?

Some people eat more or less than they ought to, or don't give themselves enough sleep each night. Are they moron/assholes too? Where does the line between moron/asshole and irresponsible person lie?

When it affects other people. Even a whiff of smoke can cause an asthma attack in some sufferers, and quite frankly, the stuff stinks to high heaven for everyone else. Besides, people who don't get enough sleep generally don't bitch about it when you tell them that they're being stupid, and people who are overweight have all kinds of self-loathing and shame issues already. It's only smokers who get in your face if you dare tell them that it's stupid to smoke.

Einstein et al had an excuse. You and your friends don't.

Kindly answer my question. Does smoking invalididate a person's ability to be a good person, or does it not?

Why should I play your loaded rhetorical game? That's like asking if punching an innocent person in the face invalidates your ability to be a good person. It's possible to do one asshole thing yet still be a good person otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an asshole thing.

Incidentally, I, personally, don't need an excuse, because I don't smoke, never intend to, and want other people to do likewise. I'm just not in the habit of declaring a person contemptable because he doesn't live up to my ideal of a healthy lifestyle.

Your self-righteousness is not my concern. Apparently, it's wrong to judge people for doing harmful things, but not wrong to judge people for judging other people.

[Chardok]

Of course they have, because they're posting in a thread where I ranted early about smokers who won't fess up.

Right, I just didn't want you to think that smokers are all dishonest and assholish about their shortcomings...I wasn't. But...moot either way, I guess.

[Feil]

Not if you only do it once, no. And not if you're desperately trying to quit and are feel terrible that you can't, no. Do either of those excuses apply to your chimney-puffing friends?

The latter, in one or two cases. More common is the person who wishes that they could stop, but has resigned themselves to trying to limit the damage they do to themself while appeasing their adiction.

When it affects other people. Even a whiff of smoke can cause an asthma attack in some sufferers, and quite frankly, the stuff stinks to high heaven for everyone else. Besides, people who don't get enough sleep generally don't bitch about it when you tell them that they're being stupid, and people who are overweight have all kinds of self-loathing and shame issues already. It's only smokers who get in your face if you dare tell them that it's stupid to smoke.

This would seem to invalidate a majority of the problems I had with your original post here. While anyone would get in your face if you insulted them ('Hey, fatty, eating ice cream is bad for you!'), a good percentage of smokers (call them the non-assholish kind) agree that smoking is a certifyable bad thing. Those that do not tend to be assholes or morons.

As for affecting other people, again, I agree with your basic statement, though I take a less extreme view of it. Stink and mess can be avoided, at least on the smoker's person: with all the smokers I call friends, I did not have any evidence for their smoking until I saw them in the act.

Kindly answer my question. Does smoking invalididate a person's ability to be a good person, or does it not?

Why should I play your loaded rhetorical game? That's like asking if punching an innocent person in the face invalidates your ability to be a good person. It's possible to do one asshole thing yet still be a good person otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an asshole thing.

The latter part of your response is exactly what I am trying to get you to give me. I'm not trying to play a loaded rhetorical game, I was trying to get a goddamn answer out of you. Fortunately, I got one, and it's one that I'm willing to accept.

Incidentally, I, personally, don't need an excuse, because I don't smoke, never intend to, and want other people to do likewise. I'm just not in the habit of declaring a person contemptable because he doesn't live up to my ideal of a healthy lifestyle.

Your self-righteousness is not my concern. Apparently, it's wrong to judge people for doing harmful things, but not wrong to judge people for judging other people.

I was correcting a mistake you made.

It is not wrong to judge people for doing harmful things. It is, however, wrong to do so in such an extreme way as to condemn the entire person for a slight infraction, just as it is wrong to punish severely a minor crime.


I guess you can consider this a concession.

[RedImperator]

Smokers trying to defend their smoking is always an embarassing thing to watch. I know it's dumb, I do it anyway because I like it, I don't try to defend it, the end. I don't apologize for it, but I'm not about to try to defend the indefensible. As long as the discussion stays out of, "Smoking is stupid and you shouldn't be ALLOWED to smoke" territory, I'm perfectly content to let nonsmokers say pretty much whatever they want, because usually they're right.

[Stark]

I think there's a world of difference between the 'modern' smoker, who started smoking in full knowledge of the negative health risks, does it anyway, puts it out or moves when asked etc, and the 'oldschool' smokers, who honestly believe that they have some magic right to smoke in restaurants etc, regardless of health issues, private property or whatever. Sure, modern smokers are dumb and have no excuse, but older smokers have this massive entitlement chip on their shoulder. Grr smokers.

[Camel]

What "reasoning?" You declared that it's "littering" when people toss McDonald's trash onto the road, but not when you toss cigarette butts onto the road, and you gave no reasoning whatsoever.

Let me first say:
It is a pleasure, Lord Wong.

While you are right, I didn't initially "declare" statements regarding my reasoning, I assumed the reasons for my opinion were obvious to begin with. That said, it should have been obvious to you after I explained the logic leading to that opinion in later posts I made.
I never said that littering with cigarette butts was not littering. I immediately agreed that it was. I only stressed the distinction between the two extremes. Throwing bags of trash onto the road is not the same as a mere cigarette butt.
*Only the Sith deal in extremes* Either you litter or you don't!

Never the less, I will clarify for you, Lord Wong.
I don't think littering with cigarette butts is a big deal. The only known side effects are:
Pissing people off, fines, and accumulation, over time, of the butts along the street.
Of those, the only known difficulty may be 'pissing people off'. Which is of little concern and zero consequence to me. Therefore I don't care.

The main difference between smokers and non-smokers is not that we don't care and they do. The difference is that we don't care enough and they care too much. If we REALLY cared about our health 'enough' then we would quit. If we really cared 'enough' we would avoid littering all together.

apparently the fact that one ashes the cigarette out the window renders the ashtray inoperable.

[WyrdNyrd]

Camel: Text-book sociopath, or text-book troll? Watch the debate, LIVE! in the Senate tonight.

[SylasGaunt]

I don't think littering with cigarette butts is a big deal. The only known side effects are:
Pissing people off, fines, and accumulation, over time, of the butts along the street.

Along with the occasional blazing wildfire that causes huge amounts of property damage and risks human lives to put out.. or does that fall under the 'Pissing people off' category?

[Camel]

Camel: Text-book sociopath, or text-book troll? Watch the debate, LIVE! in the Senate tonight.

You son of a bitch. You interrupt the discussion to make a personal attack on myself? You don't even have the courtesy to even make a vague statement even hinting at a feigned interest in the subject at hand. You arrogant self righteous ass wipe.
I hardly think my words imply malicious desire to harm other people or indifference if other people are harmed. I rationalized that littering doesn't harm other people. It has been suggested that cigarette butts are not even a treat to the environment. For the discussion at hand, without any studies or facts to rely on, I have to immediately abandon that argument.

Along with the occasional blazing wildfire that causes huge amounts of property damage and risks human lives to put out.. or does that fall under the 'Pissing people off' category?

Indeed, it would no doubt classify as "pissing people off". Obviously the main concern is wildfires started by careless smokers. While I agree with that for the most part, it entirely depends on the climate and environment you are describing. Where I live, there is virtually zero threat or difficulty from wild fires.

[Darth Wong]

I never said that littering with cigarette butts was not littering. I immediately agreed that it was. I only stressed the distinction between the two extremes. Throwing bags of trash onto the road is not the same as a mere cigarette butt.
*Only the Sith deal in extremes* Either you litter or you don't!

The fact that A is worse than B does not mean that B is acceptable. And there is nothing wrong with saying that someone should not litter at all.

Never the less, I will clarify for you, Lord Wong.
I don't think littering with cigarette butts is a big deal. The only known side effects are:
Pissing people off, fines, and accumulation, over time, of the butts along the street.
Of those, the only known difficulty may be 'pissing people off'. Which is of little concern and zero consequence to me. Therefore I don't care.

And what are the consequences of tossing a used McDonald's bag onto the street? The only known side effects: pissing people off, fines, and accumulation of trash on the street. You have totally failed to produce a justification for your double-standard. Doubly so when one considers the sheer frequency with which cigarette butts get tossed onto the road.

The main difference between smokers and non-smokers is not that we don't care and they do. The difference is that we don't care enough and they care too much. If we REALLY cared about our health 'enough' then we would quit. If we really cared 'enough' we would avoid littering all together.

Correct, which is why I avoid littering altogether. It's called "being considerate": something you apparently do not think matters.

What ethical philosophy do you subscribe to? Surely not utilitarianism, because litter costs the state money for periodic cleanup in terms of public worker salaries etc. Surely not duty ethics, because if every single person treated the issue of littering as you do, the streets would be covered in garbage. So what is your ethical philosophy, or do you simply not have one other than pure self-absorption?

[The Yosemite Bear]

BPS is seriously fascistic about potential fire hazzards and smoking, if fact the only places where it's legal to smoke is at the concrete bus stops (where all the big smokeless but stands are located). Despite no smoking signs everywhere I get caught between the company's "Guest path" which says I can't say ANYTHING negative to a guest, and protecting other guests/public safety.

[WyrdNyrd]

Camel: Text-book sociopath, or text-book troll? Watch the debate, LIVE! in the Senate tonight.

You son of a bitch. You interrupt the discussion to make a personal attack on myself? You don't even have the courtesy to even make a vague statement even hinting at a feigned interest in the subject at hand. You arrogant self righteous ass wipe.

Ooh! How exciting! After a year on SDN, this is the first time I've really been flamed. Pity it was only by a newbie troll, who even softened it with a smiley. But I guess we all have to start somewhere.

Listen, oh ye of little intellect, and I shall expand on my words, that ye, too might understand:

It's the attitude of "I don't care" that reeks of "sociopath", whereas the inflammatory nature of your posts coupled with the complete lack of cogent argument, marks you for a troll.

Oh, and last time I checked, my mom was a human, not of the genus canis. But I'll ask her about it next time we speak, just to make sure.

[Stravo]

Instead of starting a new thread on this question I figured I'd post it right here where it was inspired.

Should smokers be allowed smoke breaks? I am getting sick and tired of working my ass off and seeing the same pack of guys leaving for a "Cig break" every hour it seems.

I'm off to lunch, pack of jackasses outside puffing away and chit chatting, I'm off to court, same jackasses outside puffing and chit chatting. Everytime things get stressful or rough during work, "I'm off for a cig break." Well, golly gee I wish I could hit that escape hatch to whenever I wanted. NY State law mandates two 15 minute breaks a day. One in the morning and one in the afternoon. Smokers are supposed to shoehorn their smoking into those two break periods. Instead I know some assholes who are down there very 2 hours for 10 minutes at a time or more and they get a blind eye turned to that shit because they're smokers.

I don't particualrly give a shit that they're smokers. They chose to be addicted not me and so if they're jonesin' for a smoke too fucking bad. Why should they get extra breaks because of it?

I must admit that I do get a kick out of watching them huddling at the entrance of a building like refugees during the winter.

[Camel]

I never said that littering with cigarette butts was not littering. I immediately agreed that it was. I only stressed the distinction between the two extremes. Throwing bags of trash onto the road is not the same as a mere cigarette butt.
*Only the Sith deal in extremes* Either you litter or you don't!

The fact that A is worse than B does not mean that B is acceptable. And there is nothing wrong with saying that someone should not litter at all.

Acceptable, that term is the difference between our two opinions. You still deny the existence of other offences between the two extremes already established. You remain committed to seeing ANY infraction offending your zero tolerance for littering as being unacceptable. I do not immediately approach this seeing in black in white, however convenient for me. Surely you prefer me to leave my spent cigarette butt on the road for you instead of the empty pack.
There is nothing wrong with stating that someone should not litter.

Never the less, I will clarify for you, Lord Wong.
I don't think littering with cigarette butts is a big deal. The only known side effects are:
Pissing people off, fines, and accumulation, over time, of the butts along the street.
Of those, the only known difficulty may be 'pissing people off'. Which is of little concern and zero consequence to me. Therefore I don't care.

And what are the consequences of tossing a used McDonald's bag onto the street? The only known side effects: pissing people off, fines, and accumulation of trash on the street. You have totally failed to produce a justification for your double-standard. Doubly so when one considers the sheer frequency with which cigarette butts get tossed onto the road.

The consequences for committing said offences are nearly identical. The difference being that large pieces of trash are very visible. They harm the image of the road more than anything else. If there is any other argument, besides that. The roadway is very obviously not clean when there are bags of crap randomly scattered around. Cigarette butts in comparison are tiny and barely even noticed unless you specifically go and look for them.

The main difference between smokers and non-smokers is not that we don't care and they do. The difference is that we don't care enough and they care too much. If we REALLY cared about our health 'enough' then we would quit. If we really cared 'enough' we would avoid littering all together.

Correct, which is why I avoid littering altogether. It's called "being considerate": something you apparently do not think matters.

At least we have come to agreement, seemingly. Though, you immediately imply that I am inconsiderate. I fail to see how Littering directly affects you at all. I am not talking about showering your home with trash bags; I am speaking of tiny cigarette butts.

What ethical philosophy do you subscribe to? Surely not utilitarianism, because litter costs the state money for periodic cleanup in terms of public worker salaries etc. Surely not duty ethics, because if every single person treated the issue of littering as you do, the streets would be covered in garbage. So what is your ethical philosophy, or do you simply not have one other than pure self-absorption?

Pure self-absorption would be the immediate choice. Yes, I like self-absorption. That is what I will continue to do from now on.

Ooh! How exciting! After a year on SDN, this is the first time I've really been flamed. Pity it was only by a newbie troll, who even softened it with a smiley. But I guess we all have to start somewhere.

You are the first person I have flamed on this forum. I have to admit I enjoyed typing that. Next time I'll call you a motherfucker and a dip shit.

[BloodAngel]

Slightly off-topic, but has anyone else noticed this guy named himself off of a cigarette company? With the appropriate logo? Makes you think...

[Darth Wong]

Acceptable, that term is the difference between our two opinions. You still deny the existence of other offences between the two extremes already established. You remain committed to seeing ANY infraction offending your zero tolerance for littering as being unacceptable. I do not immediately approach this seeing in black in white, however convenient for me. Surely you prefer me to leave my spent cigarette butt on the road for you instead of the empty pack.

Actually, in an ideal world you would not be allowed to smoke at all, anywhere.

The consequences for committing said offences are nearly identical. The difference being that large pieces of trash are very visible. They harm the image of the road more than anything else. If there is any other argument, besides that. The roadway is very obviously not clean when there are bags of crap randomly scattered around. Cigarette butts in comparison are tiny and barely even noticed unless you specifically go and look for them.

Bullshit. Anyone who walks a dog cannot help but see cigarette butts wherever he goes. They are by far the most common form of visible trash that I see.

At least we have come to agreement, seemingly. Though, you immediately imply that I am inconsiderate. I fail to see how Littering directly affects you at all. I am not talking about showering your home with trash bags; I am speaking of tiny cigarette butts.

In huge numbers, moron. And you admitted previously that you consider it a problem when littering affects the appearance of the road. You can't even keep your flimsy arguments straight. Never mind the fact that my taxes go to cleanup costs for all this litter.

Pure self-absorption would be the immediate choice. Yes, I like self-absorption. That is what I will continue to do from now on.

No it isn't. You will either present a valid social ethics argument or you will shut the fuck up. We can't argue about whether something is right or wrong when you reject the notion of having to justify things based on social ethics rather than pure self-absorption, which is not a social ethics concept at all. Continue on this line and you will be classified as a troll, which I already suspect you to be.

[Darth Lucifer]

Time to have some fun with words...

So why drop the turds out of the window instead of use the toilet?

Good question, I forgot to address it.
For one the toilet is small. It can hold about one bowel movement maximum. Your first thought is to empty it onto the ground. But that would be outrageous to some people. Just like shitting, whatever is immediately convenient. You can dramatically increase the time between dumps if you don't use it, obviously.

Thats not the real reason, though. You will notice shitters always have their window cracked open. They prefer to "crap" their feces out the window as opposed to the toilet. Naturally, they "poop" their shit out the window as opposed to the toilet.

[Camel]

You will either present a valid social ethics argument or you will shut the fuck up. We can't argue about whether something is right or wrong when you reject the notion of having to justify things based on social ethics rather than pure self-absorption, which is not a social ethics concept at all. Continue on this line and you will be classified as a troll, which I already suspect you to be.

I will have to shut the fuck up. I am not familiar with "social ethic concepts". Untill I am more educated with this I will have to decline battle.

[Feil]

Should smokers be allowed smoke breaks? I am getting sick and tired of working my ass off and seeing the same pack of guys leaving for a "Cig break" every hour it seems.

I'm off to lunch, pack of jackasses outside puffing away and chit chatting, I'm off to court, same jackasses outside puffing and chit chatting. Everytime things get stressful or rough during work, "I'm off for a cig break." Well, golly gee I wish I could hit that escape hatch to whenever I wanted. NY State law mandates two 15 minute breaks a day. One in the morning and one in the afternoon. Smokers are supposed to shoehorn their smoking into those two break periods. Instead I know some assholes who are down there very 2 hours for 10 minutes at a time or more and they get a blind eye turned to that shit because they're smokers.

I don't see why. Nobody gets extra breaks at my workplace unless they are feeling lightheaded or get hurt or something--and the boss is a smoker. If you want to smoke, you can go outside during your 15-minute-breaks or your meal break(s).

[Darth Lucifer]

I will have to shut the fuck up. I am not familiar with "social ethic concepts". Untill I am more educated with this I will have to decline battle.

Here's some advice...Don't go into a battle of the wits unarmed.

[Edi]

I will have to shut the fuck up. I am not familiar with "social ethic concepts". Untill I am more educated with this I will have to decline battle.

Here's some advice...Don't go into a battle of the wits unarmed.

Especially here. By the standards of most internet forums, SDnet can be considered armed to the teeth, and the denizens are generally very quick on the trigger. Somebody who is an average poster here, never mind a heavyweight, is often so much better equipped for debate than most people on other forums that it isn't even funny. My previous haunts before SDnet have some pretty damned impressive posters, but the general level of competence is far lower than here and the carnage one can wreak in a debate there with hardly any effort can be staggering.

Edi