Childhood asthma 'admissions down' after smoking ban

[dbgtz]

I don't dismiss sources at all (well, I do on the count that you should be sceptical with all sources and statistics - especially government ones) but what I do is look at the other sources and statistics that the other side give, and then make a rational decision on the topic... usually using history and simple logic. I know you haven't read on the global warming topic in much depth from your response, hence why when I stated there hasn't been global warming for a period of 15 years you had no rebuttal to this commonly made claim from my side of the debate - as you haven't heard of it before and are unaware of that particular argument. The same can be seen in the response of @Chippiewill; below, where he thinks that by posting the debunked hockey stick graph he's rattled me - it suggests to me that he's completely unaware of the opposing arguments to AGW, otherwise he wouldn't have posted a graph that i'd guess he picked up in Science class.

It's unwise to go into a debate when you don't know the opposing sides arguments and have reasonable rebuttals to those arguments.

I'll reiterate the first thing I said; how would you know what I've read? I've heard plenty on both sides and made no indication on what I actually believe because that's not really the point I was trying to make.

Then i'll have to confront this then, if I own a private shopping centre and I have a smoking policy that allows smoking within the building - why is this the business of you or the state? you are not forced to shop there, you don't have to come into my shopping centre. If it's such a big deal to a great many of you, the fact that you no longer visit my shopping centre will show in the sales figures and then maybe i'll change my mind.

Thats how a voluntary society works, that you can bring about changes - provided it's not via the force of the state.

Each to their own.

Ad hominem. I don't see a problem with free people in a free society deciding their own smoking policies on what is their own property - it's you and the anti-smoking lobby who are advocating the use of force via the state, not me. I never advocate force.

Ask yourself this, when have you ever seen me on this forum argue for something to be banned or regulated by the state? never. Even if I detest the issue at hand (cannabis smoking for example) i'll always argue for your right and the rights of others to smoke it - just as a number of people argued back in the late 1960s for the state to get out of the bedroom and stop its persecution of homosexuals.

The point (which you replied to) what I was making was to do with your choice of comparisons and how you say

I've always found that when people are confronted by hypocrisy within their own logic, they'll usually just dismiss the comparison

But in response to this anyway, I don't paticularly care so long as it's not in areas where there's no alternative choice.

You haven't, and for most things the state should not interfere.

If the shopping centre is privately owned, then no - it's not your business or that of the state. If it's a publically owned area or publically owned shopping centre, then fair enough you could lobby for that if you liked. But it's when you trample on property rights thats unacceptable.

Just ignore the harm principle because you know smoking would directly infringe on that.

[Chippiewill]

Ah the infamous hockey stick graph.

Tell me, have you ever examined any other graphs (or graph models) regarding the temperature of the earth? are you aware that different patterns can be achieved when placing data onto a certain type of graph or that different results can be obtained by including different sets of data from different periods? I didn't think so.

Copying and pasting me the graph out of your school science book just isn't the slam dunk you'd thought it would be.

I was showing evidence that for the past 15 years there has been warming when you claimed that there hadn't been. I was not making any assertion about other time periods.