Castle Ramp Smoking Section Eliminated

Status
Not open for further replies.
StarWarsGirl

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
Section106 said:
So @StarWarsGirl95, tell me how many people have died from exposure to a whiff of too much perfume or how many diseases can be attributed to a whiff of too much perfume? I'll guess it's zero. Exposure to second hand smoke is not the same as perfume and you are doing a disservice to the conversation by continuing to make the comparison
Click to expand...
You were comparing it based on asthmatics exposure to perfume. I am an asthmatic. Perfume is extremely dangerous for me and exposure to it could kill me. For me personally, it's way more dangerous than cigarette smoke. For some, peanuts could kill them. Yet peanuts and perfume are legal. And that was your whole argument against that person; it was on the basis of asthma and what's dangerous for asthmatics.

You've proven that your reason for being here is simply to insult others and insist you are right. Until you are ready to listen to others, refute arguments in a nice way, and not resort to calling a 66 year old woman a troll and mentally ill, I'm done talking to you since you clearly aren't interested in having a civilized discussion.
 
photomatt

photomatt

Well-Known Member
wm49rs said:
Meh...none of the facts quoted dictated exposure time.

I'm not sure the exposure time present walking past a smoking area is enough to trigger that cacophony of effects listed.
Click to expand...

So, you did read it. You just don't agree with it, so you refuse to accept it.
It's your choice be delusional and ignorant, but at least quit fooling yourself and admit that's how you are forming your opinions.
 
wm49rs

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
photomatt said:
So, you did read it. You just don't agree with it, so you refuse to accept it.
It's your choice be delusional and ignorant, but at least quit fooling yourself and admit that's how you are forming your opinions.
Click to expand...
Yes, that must be it. Or, I simply don't agree with you or your compatriot's view of smokers. But you stay classy with that shaming agenda. I'm sure it'll work wonders for you....
 
jakeman

jakeman

Well-Known Member
photomatt said:
So, you did read it. You just don't agree with it, so you refuse to accept it.
It's your choice be delusional and ignorant, but at least quit fooling yourself and admit that's how you are forming your opinions.
Click to expand...
Not sure how that happened, but that was my quote.

I'm not refusing to accept it. In fact, I very much believe all of those outcomes are true due to long term exposure. Thirty seconds while walking past in a theme park, not so much.
 
wm49rs

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
jakeman said:
Not sure how that happened, but that was my quote.

I'm not refusing to accept it. In fact, I very much believe all of those outcomes are true due to long term exposure. Thirty seconds while walking past in a theme park, not so much.
Click to expand...
His bad. I'm sure the apology will be forthcoming any moment now....
 
JenniferS

JenniferS

When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Premium Member
jakeman said:
Not sure how that happened, but that was my quote.

I'm not refusing to accept it. In fact, I very much believe all of those outcomes are true due to long term exposure. Thirty seconds while walking past in a theme park, not so much.
Click to expand...
Oh, look at you being all logical in a thread that has clearly been high-jacked by a bunch of sanctimonious crazies.
 
photomatt

photomatt

Well-Known Member
Please don't let this stop. I am enjoying this immensely.

You have absolutely no sound responses to the arguments supporting the smoking ban (or the creation of enclosed spaces), so you need to make yourself feel better by reminding us all of the rules, and resorting to name calling. This is perfect. Please, keep going, but try to be more creative.

I can't imagine how incensed all of you are going to be when Disney finally bans smoking. I look forward to seeing it.
 
abeachchick

abeachchick

hi
72084548756ed36e8d72e482e46c91f0-1.jpg

Please don't waste your time.
 
StarWarsGirl

StarWarsGirl

Well-Known Member
photomatt said:
Please don't let this stop. I am enjoying this immensely.

You have absolutely no sound responses to the arguments supporting the smoking ban (or the creation of enclosed spaces), so you need to make yourself feel better by reminding us all of the rules, and resorting to name calling. This is perfect. Please, keep going, but try to be more creative.

I can't imagine how incensed all of you are going to be when Disney finally bans smoking. I look forward to seeing it.
Click to expand...
No, we've had sound logical responses; you just don't seem to care to listen.
 
photomatt

photomatt

Well-Known Member
StarWarsGirl95 said:
No, we've had sound logical responses; you just don't seem to care to listen.
Click to expand...

Your post has no basis in fact. I do listen to each argument, and I have made a concerted effort to respond to each. Before I respond, I determine if an argument is factual or not, and whether or not it's logical. Whether or not I agree with a person's argument has no basis on this determination. The overwhelming majority of posts supporting the existence of smoking areas are neither factual nor logical. I'm not going to change my position on this issue unless logic and facts support it, and they don't.
 
Section106

Section106

Active Member
StarWarsGirl95 said:
You were comparing it based on asthmatics exposure to perfume. I am an asthmatic. Perfume is extremely dangerous for me and exposure to it could kill me. For me personally, it's way more dangerous than cigarette smoke. For some, peanuts could kill them. Yet peanuts and perfume are legal. And that was your whole argument against that person; it was on the basis of asthma and what's dangerous for asthmatics.

You've proven that your reason for being here is simply to insult others and insist you are right. Until you are ready to listen to others, refute arguments in a nice way, and not resort to calling a 66 year old woman a troll and mentally ill, I'm done talking to you since you clearly aren't interested in having a civilized discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm very interested in having a civilized conversation. I didn't call Betty a troll. I said she is acting like a troll. She quoted me repeatedly to say the same thing over and over again and then she told me to go somewhere else with out any context. That is acting like a troll. If you recall I said that agreeing with and defending those that would do you harm is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. The conditions for having SS are; perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat, the captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror, isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor, perceived inability to escape.

Betty might not have the classic SS but she like most women in modern America can experience SS on a societal level. In her example though, the inability for her to escape the second hand smoke and being forced to use an inhaler to keep from being sent to hospital coupled with her patriarchal 60's derived paradigm absolving the offending parties of any guilt leading to her defending their "right" to do her harm sure sounds like a SS situation to me. Forgive my bluntness, please. I did engage Betty and told her that she deserved better and I told her that I cared about her. And I do care about her. She deserves to have as healthy an environment as possible. I care about all of you as a matter of fact. That is why I am saying that tobacco should be banned in America. If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote and mulled it over instead of jumping to conclusions we might not be here right now. I did notice however that you liked the post from Nubs indicating that I should kill myself. Very civilized of you that.

I also will note that you are mistaken labeling Stockholm Syndrome as a mental illness. It is not a mental illness at all but a survival mechanism that can happen to anyone given the conditions listed above. And to say that calling someone mentally ill is an insult continues to further the outdated and dangerous notion that those who suffer from mental illness are bad and should be ashamed of their condition. People who suffer from mental illnesses should be supported and encouraged to seek help and not continued to be forced to live in the shadows of our society. Again, very civilized of you.

2.5 million non smokers have died from second hand smoke since 1964. That is 50,000 people a year dead from second hand smoke. It is a serious problem. On the other hand, there has just been a study done that shows exposing infants to peanut butter dramatically reduces the risk of developing a peanut allergy later in life. Do you know what happens when you expose infants to second hand smoke? They die. Tell me how those two things are like one another?

All you have done in this thread is obfuscate the issue by comparing unlike things. Now exposure to perfume sounds very dangerous for you and for that I am sorry. However, excessive perfume application is not currently a societal ill that costs our economy roughly 293 million in lost productivity and health costs per year.Now I am writing very logically and I have accepted many things that I don't think you have allowed yourself to. The main issue is that cigarette smoke is dangerous. Full stop. Also that it is perfectly civilized and right to object to practices and norms that do harm to a majority of the people affected by said practices and norms. That is the basis for civil disobedience.
 
jakeman

jakeman

Well-Known Member
Section106 said:
I'm very interested in having a civilized conversation. I didn't call Betty a troll. I said she is acting like a troll. She quoted me repeatedly to say the same thing over and over again and then she told me to go somewhere else with out any context. That is acting like a troll. If you recall I said that agreeing with and defending those that would do you harm is akin to Stockholm Syndrome. The conditions for having SS are; perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat, the captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror, isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor, perceived inability to escape.

Betty might not have the classic SS but she like most women in modern America can experience SS on a societal level. In her example though, the inability for her to escape the second hand smoke and being forced to use an inhaler to keep from being sent to hospital coupled with her patriarchal 60's derived paradigm absolving the offending parties of any guilt leading to her defending their "right" to do her harm sure sounds like a SS situation to me. Forgive my bluntness, please. I did engage Betty and told her that she deserved better and I told her that I cared about her. And I do care about her. She deserves to have as healthy an environment as possible. I care about all of you as a matter of fact. That is why I am saying that tobacco should be banned in America. If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote and mulled it over instead of jumping to conclusions we might not be here right now. I did notice however that you liked the post from Nubs indicating that I should kill myself. Very civilized of you that.

I also will note that you are mistaken labeling Stockholm Syndrome as a mental illness. It is not a mental illness at all but a survival mechanism that can happen to anyone given the conditions listed above. And to say that calling someone mentally ill is an insult continues to further the outdated and dangerous notion that those who suffer from mental illness are bad and should be ashamed of their condition. People who suffer from mental illnesses should be supported and encouraged to seek help and not continued to be forced to live in the shadows of our society. Again, very civilized of you.

2.5 million non smokers have died from second hand smoke since 1964. That is 50,000 people a year dead from second hand smoke. It is a serious problem. On the other hand, there has just been a study done that shows exposing infants to peanut butter dramatically reduces the risk of developing a peanut allergy later in life. Do you know what happens when you expose infants to second hand smoke? They die. Tell me how those two things are like one another?

All you have done in this thread is obfuscate the issue by comparing unlike things. Now exposure to perfume sounds very dangerous for you and for that I am sorry. However, excessive perfume application is not currently a societal ill that costs our economy roughly 293 million in lost productivity and health costs per year.Now I am writing very logically and I have accepted many things that I don't think you have allowed yourself to. The main issue is that cigarette smoke is dangerous. Full stop. Also that it is perfectly civilized and right to object to practices and norms that do harm to a majority of the people affected by said practices and norms. That is the basis for civil disobedience.
Click to expand...
Do the smoking sections at Disney cause all that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom