great video from FOX news
- Thread starter vapero
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And here I was all convinced that I'd never hear anything on Fox News that wouldn't leave me like this: 
I just watched this and they hit the problem rite on the head.
These e cigs would have saved many many lives in the past including a lot of my relatives.
This is just vapor----this Video Should be "THE Official Vapers Anthem Video"
Thanks for postig this great VIDEO.
These e cigs would have saved many many lives in the past including a lot of my relatives.
This is just vapor----this Video Should be "THE Official Vapers Anthem Video"
Thanks for postig this great VIDEO.
Their choice of video to run in the background was a lot better than other TV here, especially for a stretch starting about 1:50. Instead of trying to make vaping look bad, it seemed to try to put people at ease about vaping, especially smokers who might worry that it's difficult to learn to how. I liked Greg's rant but the discussion was only partly good.
I don't care for Fox News, but on vaping, they've been mostly very good.
I don't care for Fox News, but on vaping, they've been mostly very good.
This was an older video from 2014 - new one tonight. The response by some is - taking a favorite Ted Kennedy quip on an old maxim - depends on whose ox is being gored - If you are normally a regulation loving liberal, then you won't like Fox News much. But if you're a normally regulation loving liberal and a vaper, then you're going to love Greg Gutfield on vaping only - but not love anything else he has to say.
But if regulation on vaping is bad - then what about regulation in general? It's so nice to be able to pick and choose that way. But that old regulation theme tends to seep back in like a bad sewage pipe in the form of cautions about diketones and other practices - sub-ohming perhaps, that gets one 'back on track'. 
If you're suggesting Since Fox News is right on vaping, I ought to be willing to give their views on other regulation more consideration, OK, I might. I want some of the same is/ought waivers for my views, though.This was an older video from 2014 - new one tonight. The response by some is - taking a favorite Ted Kennedy quip on an old maxim - depends on whose ox is being gored - If you are normally a regulation loving liberal, then you won't like Fox News much. But if you're a normally regulation loving liberal and a vaper, then you're going to love Greg Gutfield on vaping only - but not love anything else he has to say.
Gutfield's been great on e-cigs, and even in that clip, he handled that crazy doctor better than Shepp did when she was slandering vaping on Fox before.
Not directed at you unless you fit the description. I think there have been some who have started to re-evaluate some the stuff they bought into from the other networks, school, Hollywood, media in general. Some look at vaping as the 'exception that proves the rule' - a concept with which I've never fully agreed.
If Fox News is right about Tobacco Harm Reduction, maybe they ought to rethink their views on other issues of Harm Reduction, eh?Not directed at you unless you fit the description. I think there have been some who have started to re-evaluate some the stuff they bought into from the other networks, school, Hollywood, media in general. Some look at vaping as the 'exception that proves the rule' - a concept with which I've never fully agreed.
Just like you to pose the question in that manner. How about Fox, or Gutfeld at least, is for people's choice to vape? The general anti-regulation argument is on my side, no matter how you mess with the wording - newspeak style. And those who are rethinking their brainwashing when confronted with restrictions of something they like to do, should follow that same logic in other manners, but I really don't think most will - it takes more than one instance to rid someone of years of propaganda - from pre-school to doctorate and beyond.
There is one issue with the "rights" argument. For each "right" one side may claim, the other side can find a "counter-right" to claim too. Like in "right to smoke" vs. "right to fresh air". So eventually it leads nowhere.
I used to post that quote here too. It's addressing the fact that there is no such person as "the public" and thus we cannot reffer to his "rights".
To extend it, one could argue that there is no such thing as "public health", the only thing that really exists is statistics and they have no rights as a person either.
However the discussion was about physical person rights like in mine vs. yours. Ayn doesn't tell us whom's rights shall prevail.
To extend it, one could argue that there is no such thing as "public health", the only thing that really exists is statistics and they have no rights as a person either.
However the discussion was about physical person rights like in mine vs. yours. Ayn doesn't tell us whom's rights shall prevail.
She does, but not in the context of second hand smoke/vapor....
"If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”"
and:
"A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.
Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man."
And:
"There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."
On ecology in general:
"City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men(though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem--not a political one--and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death."
and a few more passages that may interest some:
Ayn Rand on Environment
- Status
Similar threads
