1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NYC stores forced to show graphic anti-smoking ads

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by outofplace, Sep 26, 2009.

  1. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    No, perspective means not simply agreeing or disagreeing with the government forcing this upon businesses based on whether it conforms to your agenda. OOP and demo, while I disagree with their support, were consistent, and I don't think the government should be involved in any of this stuff — in businesses or abortion clinics. On the other hand, you and sgd are playing politics, supporting the government's role only when it fits in with your beliefs.
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Is ACL surgery for the purpose of killing an innocent victim?
     
  3. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    OK, that's a WHOLE 'nother argument. Let's not get sidetracked and get this locked, eh?
     
  4. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    I agree on the first part. But frankly, IJAG, the second part is unnecessary.
     
  5. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    I'm just saying. You CAN carry on a rational conversation. I see you do it all the time. But instead of responding to the meat of Tony's argument, and ignoring the way in which he argued it, you just went on a "clueless" spree. My point was you're better than that.
     
  6. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    Agreed, IJAG.
     
  7. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    See? This is so EASY. :D
     
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Oh, I'm all for a complete ban on tobacco products. I absolutely believe that would be the right thing to do. It is also completely unrealistic.

    So do things like this. So tax the hell out of it. So do everything we can realistically get done to cut into smoking in this country because the fewer people that do it, the better off we are. It isn't hypocritical. It is realistic, because any reasonable person knows that a complete ban won't fly.
     
  9. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    Absolutely. Smoking rates are already below 20 percent. Seems like the things we've been doing are starting to work. And at least we're no longer telling people not to smoke on one hand and subsidizing tobacco growers on the other.
     
  10. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    It's absolutely hypocritical. With all the added taxes, the same government bent on eradicating the "evils" of smoking is raking it in hand over fist. And at a certain point, the government should not be in the business of deciding what people should and shouldn't do when it comes to legal products. They have warning labels. People know smoking is hazardous. At this point, it's just about control and power. And I say this as someone who hasn't smoked since high school and recently had a close relative go through a lung-cancer scare. We don't need a nanny state.
     
  11. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    See, it's like this:<blockquote>The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. </blockquote>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
     
  12. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    STFU.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page