Vic_08 wrote: » They don't put bins in cars either, does that make it okay to fling used fast food wrappers out the window? Why should smoker's be given a pass on littering? Sadly we share our small island with a lot of disgusting pigs, hedges and ditches beside our roads are covered with stuff people have flung out of cars.
Hammer89 wrote: » Chewing gum is cheaper. Let me know how you get on a month from now.
adrian92 wrote: » Yes, the filter is the environmental problem. The problem could be solved easily if a ministerial order was made to the effect that cigarettes should have either no filter or a biodegradable filter
Hammer89 wrote: » I don't believe you. I don't believe you would sacrifice the convenience of a tumble-dryer, for example, just to lower your carbon footprint. I just don't buy this boyscout act I'm afraid. I think you're just making stuff up as you go along. Want proof? Today you wrote: "Behave like a child, you get treated like a child." Last week you wrote: "Treat people like infants and they'll resent their employer and find ways around it." Verbatim. So do you reduce your footprint or did you just make it up on the spot in response to what was a very good point? Could you do more to reduce your footprint? If so then why exactly are you calling me lazy and questioning my attitude. Maybe I'm not the one who needs a good look in the mirror. At least I know my stance on things.
Graces7 wrote: » don't eat meat, !
Grab All Association wrote: » Coffee cups, Tayto bags and fast food packaging are the biggest litter problems along roads. I’d be more pissed off about this than a cigarette butt.
Hammer89 wrote: » Digging? I've been consistently making valid points throughout this entire fiasco.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Justifying scumbags littering isnt making valid points, regardless of what you tell yourself.
Hammer89 wrote: » Well then do what I suggested Andrew and we'll see how decent you are when you have to discard something very small between 10-15 times a day in public. Believe me, on some occasions you're not going to go out of your way to find a bin if there isn't one nearby. On some occasion you will litter it because it's the most convenient solution at that time. Do the experiment.
Grab All Association wrote: » Jesus Christ it’s only cigarette butts. Along comes another car and squashes the butt flat on the road making it almost unnoticeable. Rain comes along and breaks down the cigarette butt. Coffee cups, Tayto bags and fast food packaging are the biggest litter problems along roads. I’d be more pissed off about this than a cigarette butt.
Hammer89 wrote: » I have made valid points. I've made quite a few of them come to think of it. In fact I come across better than most of you lot in this thread. I'm not lying and saying I care about the environment or calling people scumbags or knackers. Some fella even questioned my upbringing. As I said to the other lad, you boys are coming across as way bigger assholes than someone who flicks cigarettes away from time to time. That's the irony that none of you get
Guy:Incognito wrote: » How about all scumbags just stop being scumbags, right from cigarette butts all the way up to large household items.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » The gas thing is that majority of people who litter aren't scumbags. I'd be willing to place large wager that the same sort moaning in this thread litter themselves.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I don't do gum or smoke, but when I have litter, I find a bin. I had a paracetamol packet on Friday, so I waited till I found the bin at the Luas stop. I'm not a saint or an environmental hero. I just don't litter, like most decent people..
Hammer89 wrote: » Except you wouldn't find a bin if you had to discard the same thing 10 times a day and a bin wasn't available! You wouldn't buy an ashtray and bring it around with you. You wouldn't wrap the butt up in a little bit of tissue every single time you had a smoke and waited until you find a bin. You wouldn't keep it in your pocket. You've never been a smoker evidently so you can't see how unrealistic and how impractical these solutions are.You would, like everybody else, throw it away from time to time if there wasn't a bin around. As the other fella said, 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered each year, but if you smoked then you reckon you'd be able to go a full year without contributing to that number? Nonsense. But guess what, it's grand. Nobody cares. It doesn't make you any less of a husband or a brother or a father or a son. You can still be a very, very decent human being even if you flick smokes away from time to time. I know, mental, but it's completely true. That's what the people in here don't seem to realise. They think they're incorruptible but they've never been smokers, so frankly they have no idea whether they would litter cigarette butts or not. How could they? What, just because you don't flytip or throw away empty bottles of Sprite it means you'd have the same morals on a cigarette butt? No it doesn't quite work like that. You're going to have to believe me that if you smoked, you would, from time to time, do what you're saying you'd never do. Show me a smoker who has never littered his or her cigarette ends and I'll show you Ireland's biggest liar. This goes to all of you, all of you sanctimonious, holier-than-thou people who know everything about cigarette butts and yet nothing at the same time. You's all know how long it takes for them to decompose, and the effect they have on maritime creatures, but you've have never had one of them in your hand and having nowhere to put it except the ground. You don't know how they smell much worse than the smoke itself and trust me, if you were sharing an office with somebody who kept their cigarette butts in their pocket until finding a bin you'd wish they had thrown them away. Get off your high horse, all of you. You're not superior beings. You're narrow-minded and dare I say far more ignorant than I am. What could be more ignorant than taking a firm stance on something while having no frame of reference beyond a National Geographic article? Astounding.
Graces7 wrote: » I do not ever litter. Period. And please define "scumbag"? Thank you Littering is illegal and antisocial
Kimbot wrote: » Why?
Stateofyou wrote: » Take a nap, good god. That's a lot of false assumptions. When actually, it's YOU who wouldn't. Speak for yourself. It's not grand, and a great many people (and animals) care you absolute ignoramus. You can be a good person in other ways, but one can still admit where your faults are, which you are completely incapable of doing. And making positive changes where you can. That's lacking in your character, clearly. You have somewhere to put cigarette butts, what is wrong with you? You can buy a pocket ashtray for a couple euro. There are a number of possible solutions but you're not interested in that. Just because you're not interested in solutions doesn't mean they don't exist. What could be more ignorant than having a cheap solution at your fingertips and refusing to acknowledge it or do better.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » Go way out of that. Every has littered at least once in their lifes. Lying fake as**oles haven't tho. So which one are you?
Hammer89 wrote: » Except you wouldn't find a bin if you had to discard the same thing 10 times a day and a bin wasn't available! You wouldn't buy an ashtray and bring it around with you. You wouldn't wrap the butt up in a little bit of tissue every single time you had a smoke and waited until you find a bin. You wouldn't keep it in your pocket. You've never been a smoker evidently so you can't see how unrealistic and how impractical these solutions are.
Graces7 wrote: » I have never littered. Nor used such language. Your problem is that you think everyone is like you? We were trained and taught , " Take your rubbish home with you" and to respect the countryside and not litter the streets. Those were good habits for life.
B.A._Baracus wrote: » So not even once? You are a liar
Hammer89 wrote: » No they're realistic and practical assumptions because I'm a smoker, and you're not, so let me decide what's true and false. This is the most bizarre conversation I've ever had. Basically, you read an article from National Geographic and formed your entire opinion around it without having any experience on the actual subject. Let's pretend you read an article about war. Imagine how unfathomably stupid it would be to then think you're qualified to talk about war to a soldier of one. That's what it's like. 'OMFG are you actually comparing a soldier to a smoker.....?' This is what you were going to say, right? Of course it is because you continuously miss the point so why stop now.
Stateofyou wrote: » You don't decide what's true and false for anyone else, pal. Jesus... you're aggressive, calm down. I have a biology degree, and a lesser award in Environmental Economics so you can actually shove it up your assuming hole with all the rest of your absurd assumptions. Better yet, collect all your litter and plug it with that. You should stop, while you're behind. Seriously doubt this is the most bizarre conversation you've ever had. :pac:
Hammer89 wrote: » You do realise that by telling me to calm down you're actually saying 'I'm very angry' right? And you are angry. Incidentally, using that pacman emoji is another sign I think. It's quite a passive way of pretending you have the upper hand in a discussion because you're not intelligent or articulate enough to achieve it through words, so you turn to emojis as a red herring.
Stateofyou wrote: » There you go assuming again. You know what they say about people who assume right? Loving the armchair psychology! You're a sad case, man. A better use of your time would be to order a pocket ashtray for yourself. Have you done that yet?
Hammer89 wrote: » This entire thread is full of liars. The only honest ones are the smokers.
