cordless drill not working

[Jim Yanik]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

A "lot"? whatever,it doesn't negate my statement about cotton.

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

Irrelevant. one wrong does not make another 'right'. and you certainly do not see cans in the quantities that cig butts are found by the roadsides.

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.

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

[krw]

Yes.

If it were "unprofitable" it wouldn't be grown. There are other crops.

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

Not irrelevant. Why aren't you supporting a ban on everything that people discard or may have discarded illegally? The truth is, you're just another statist.

By volume?

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

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

[Kurt Ullman]

Whose definition. All my econ classes indicated that paying good money for something meant it had a use for that person. No discussion of goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't mean anything in this area, by definition.

[krw]

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

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.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101.

[Jim Yanik]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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

"everything"??? hyperbole. a sign your argument is weak.

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

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

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.

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

[Jim Yanik]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

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]

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

I know someone who almost lost a house on Christmas 2008. The cause of the fire was never determined, but it was likely smoking in bed, or a candle used to hide the stench.

BTW, the FPE electrical panel didn't help.

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

There's a restaurant I was considering going to, but decided otherwise after finding out it's the only one in this town that still allows smoking. "No Smoking sections" are useless when the smoke won't obey signs.

[Kurt Ullman]

Which of course is not what you were arguing. The response was to the immorality of tobacco. You suggested that just because "good money" (whatever that is) was spent that tobacco by definition was a good thing. Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

[Kurt Ullman]

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

[krw]

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

Facts are facts. Your argument is no better than the leftist losers'.

[krw]

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

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

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

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

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

[krw]

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.

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.

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

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

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

[Kurt Ullman]

I have come to the conclusion that we weren't discussing the same thing, even though be both obviously thought we were. Which probably explains why neither thought the other was getting it.. probably because neither of us was...

[krw]

Tobacco has utility/value, which is *makes* it good (at least in the mind of the purchaser). Tobacco is inanimate so it cannot have morals of any sort. Whether you wish to place a moral value on it is *your* issue and has nothing to do with the "morality of tobacco".

[aemeijers]

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...

[HeyBub]

Neither does designer water, Versacci gowns, auto tail fins, one color paint over another, or anything beyond, as Mao Tse-Tsung said, a watch and a bicycle. "Good use" or "need" is not the determining factor; WANT is the only thing that counts.

Or leaves. Cigarette butts are completely biodegradable.

Well, if we should conform our actions to the requirements of the municipal waste-water treatment plant, we've got some serious work to do regarding, for example, condoms.

[HeyBub]

Or an electrical short. Or an arsonist. Or a lightning strike. Or a squirrel gnawing through a wire. Or a cat on fire brushing past the drapes. Or spontaneous combustion.

Or, and don't discount this, a miracle (think Moses and the burning bush). Did the homeowner start a church?

[Jim Yanik]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

it IS anarchy; 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.

you have no facts.just allegations.