The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As the news reports on the scottish parliment with the law for banning smokeing in public places no one gives any evidence about the effect passive smokeing can have.
I am not a smoker and I dont live in a smokeing home but it just seems very presumtuis to have a law put into place without a thorough scientific investigation. Its only because of a bunch of articles in the paper sevrel years ago that put the scare into people that seems to think passive smokeing will harm you. there is a show in america called pen and teller's bull****(the comedic magiciains) which they disprove alot of things that they deem bull**** and they research these things and have respected experts talk and they talked to people that had worked in bars and restruants that had alot of smokeing a bar owner worked for 20 years a non smoker and he had no problems and all the people that they talked to had worked in smokey enviroments for just as long or longer and had nothing wrong with them that smokeing could cause.
Seems our democrecy is turning into a big brother system they are even discussing law and fines to reduce the amount of advertising sweets soft drinks and other things deemed "not healthy" because there is a large percentage of children that are obese and they blame the advertising if I want to eat a snikers I will a snickers because I want a snickers not because an advert made me chose it over a mars bar.
If you can give evidence for or again or just your own veiw on all of this then talk away.
Excuse me for any grammaticle or spelling erros since I am dyslexic but I have tried my best to make sense.
I am not a smoker and I dont live in a smokeing home but it just seems very presumtuis to have a law put into place without a thorough scientific investigation. Its only because of a bunch of articles in the paper sevrel years ago that put the scare into people that seems to think passive smokeing will harm you. there is a show in america called pen and teller's bull****(the comedic magiciains) which they disprove alot of things that they deem bull**** and they research these things and have respected experts talk and they talked to people that had worked in bars and restruants that had alot of smokeing a bar owner worked for 20 years a non smoker and he had no problems and all the people that they talked to had worked in smokey enviroments for just as long or longer and had nothing wrong with them that smokeing could cause.
Seems our democrecy is turning into a big brother system they are even discussing law and fines to reduce the amount of advertising sweets soft drinks and other things deemed "not healthy" because there is a large percentage of children that are obese and they blame the advertising if I want to eat a snikers I will a snickers because I want a snickers not because an advert made me chose it over a mars bar.
If you can give evidence for or again or just your own veiw on all of this then talk away.
Excuse me for any grammaticle or spelling erros since I am dyslexic but I have tried my best to make sense.
Page:
Fozz wrote:
> ...? I think it shows he knows what hes talking about. Saying that a
> country was made for rights is saying that the country was made with
> the specific idea of rights in mind. If they just came into being
> later in the history of the country it shows the country changed, not
> that it was made for something that appeared hundreds of years after
> the country was formed.
What you on about? Ok so I didn't phrase it in the correct way, is that the only thing you can argue about regarding this topic. You don't give any valid reasons to why they should be a total ban on cigaretts, yet when I miss-phrase a statement your so quick to point out i'm wrong. It doesn't change the facts that we as a Country have a right to smoke, I would like to ask you what gives you the right to take my rights away? Who are you to tell when i'm walking down the street by myself harming no one but myself with a tab to stump it out?
> ...? I think it shows he knows what hes talking about. Saying that a
> country was made for rights is saying that the country was made with
> the specific idea of rights in mind. If they just came into being
> later in the history of the country it shows the country changed, not
> that it was made for something that appeared hundreds of years after
> the country was formed.
What you on about? Ok so I didn't phrase it in the correct way, is that the only thing you can argue about regarding this topic. You don't give any valid reasons to why they should be a total ban on cigaretts, yet when I miss-phrase a statement your so quick to point out i'm wrong. It doesn't change the facts that we as a Country have a right to smoke, I would like to ask you what gives you the right to take my rights away? Who are you to tell when i'm walking down the street by myself harming no one but myself with a tab to stump it out?
munn wrote:
> First of all, youkeep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the
> environment.
> At least they actually have a use.
> They help people get to where they want to go.
> All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
So are you saying that it should be banned totally?
> As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country
> are you in?
> The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created
> to give someone rights.
> That's the US you're thinking of.
I think he'll be referring to the Magna Carta, which enshrined the rights and freedoms of the individual in 1215.
Well...actually it enshrined the rights of Barons to make money, but then that's pretty much all that Bills of Rights ever amount to...
> First of all, youkeep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the
> environment.
> At least they actually have a use.
> They help people get to where they want to go.
> All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
So are you saying that it should be banned totally?
> As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country
> are you in?
> The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created
> to give someone rights.
> That's the US you're thinking of.
I think he'll be referring to the Magna Carta, which enshrined the rights and freedoms of the individual in 1215.
Well...actually it enshrined the rights of Barons to make money, but then that's pretty much all that Bills of Rights ever amount to...
VenomByte wrote:
> Thing is, you'll only dig yourself deeper by continuing to post in the
> same topic, with light 'ignored'.
>
> Your best bet, would be just to abandon this topic altogether.
>
> Alternatively, you could just admit you're wrong (regardless of
> whether you really believe it or not. It's no big deal really).
>
> Or you could just be stubborn, and continue to refuse to discuss
> anything with light or address his questions. It take two people for
> an argument, and light does it for sport, so he's not gonna back down
> anytime :)
~clicks ignore~
Nah, you're right to a large extent; I do argue for sport. But I only really have digs at people who point blank refuse to think about what they've said, and then run screaming at the thought of having to engage their little grey cells. I then take childish pleasure in poking fun at them; in my experience, people who cannot explain their supposedly strong beliefs tend to be the most self important.
In this case, Fozz has said all smoking should be banned, and then avoided explaining what his justification for that statement is. If i'm shown to be wrong or if someone can justify their statement, I'll back straight down. No, really; I will.
> Thing is, you'll only dig yourself deeper by continuing to post in the
> same topic, with light 'ignored'.
>
> Your best bet, would be just to abandon this topic altogether.
>
> Alternatively, you could just admit you're wrong (regardless of
> whether you really believe it or not. It's no big deal really).
>
> Or you could just be stubborn, and continue to refuse to discuss
> anything with light or address his questions. It take two people for
> an argument, and light does it for sport, so he's not gonna back down
> anytime :)
~clicks ignore~
Nah, you're right to a large extent; I do argue for sport. But I only really have digs at people who point blank refuse to think about what they've said, and then run screaming at the thought of having to engage their little grey cells. I then take childish pleasure in poking fun at them; in my experience, people who cannot explain their supposedly strong beliefs tend to be the most self important.
In this case, Fozz has said all smoking should be banned, and then avoided explaining what his justification for that statement is. If i'm shown to be wrong or if someone can justify their statement, I'll back straight down. No, really; I will.
munn wrote:
> But the only reason they get so easily enraged is because they need a
> fix.
> It's the same with me a caffiene.
> I was fine before I didn't drink coffee, butnow if I don't have any
> in the morning, then I get headaches and get angry easily - but
> beforehand it didn't do harm not having it.
>
> But at least I'm not clogging up peoples lungs with smoke by drinking
> coffee.
Nah, I disagree with you there. Yes, a certain amount of that...tension is due to addiction. But nicoteine also relaxes a person.
Have I got this right; are you saying that there should be a total ban on smoking?
> But the only reason they get so easily enraged is because they need a
> fix.
> It's the same with me a caffiene.
> I was fine before I didn't drink coffee, butnow if I don't have any
> in the morning, then I get headaches and get angry easily - but
> beforehand it didn't do harm not having it.
>
> But at least I'm not clogging up peoples lungs with smoke by drinking
> coffee.
Nah, I disagree with you there. Yes, a certain amount of that...tension is due to addiction. But nicoteine also relaxes a person.
Have I got this right; are you saying that there should be a total ban on smoking?
kevstar wrote:
> Rubbish,i'm not even going to bother arguing any more as your talking
> so much crap it's not funny. So if they appeared one day then they
> would be a country made for freedom and rights correct? no need to
> ask as you said it yourself. Just shows you havn't a clue.
...? I think it shows he knows what hes talking about. Saying that a country was made for rights is saying that the country was made with the specific idea of rights in mind. If they just came into being later in the history of the country it shows the country changed, not that it was made for something that appeared hundreds of years after the country was formed.
> Rubbish,i'm not even going to bother arguing any more as your talking
> so much crap it's not funny. So if they appeared one day then they
> would be a country made for freedom and rights correct? no need to
> ask as you said it yourself. Just shows you havn't a clue.
...? I think it shows he knows what hes talking about. Saying that a country was made for rights is saying that the country was made with the specific idea of rights in mind. If they just came into being later in the history of the country it shows the country changed, not that it was made for something that appeared hundreds of years after the country was formed.
Munn wrote
>BUt the reason you're stressed is because you haven't had your fix.
It's a drug addiction, most drug addicts get cranky if they haven't had a fix.
If a smoker and a non-smoker went through the same stresses in one day, both without a cigarette, the smoker would be more stressed, so you have a cigarette to lower your stresslevel to that of a person who doesn't smoke.
Plus, a car doesn't come and sit with its exhaust next to youi puffing away.
INSIDE. THat's the point in it, it's banned inside, not outside, where you're much less likely to get poisoned from it.
I don't need you to tell me if i'm addicted or not! And whats that got to do with what I asked, answer the question, just because theres a use for something that makes it alright to use even if it's bad for you? Another hypocrite.
>That bill was passed in the 1600's, hundreds of years after the UK became a country, thus this country wasn't "made for freedom and rights" they just appeared one day.
That's what I was referring to.
The US on the other hand went to war with Britain and formed its own country so it could have it's own rights and freedom from Britain.
Rubbish,i'm not even going to bother arguing any more as your talking so much crap it's not funny. So if they appeared one day then they would be a country made for freedom and rights correct? no need to ask as you said it yourself. Just shows you havn't a clue.
>BUt the reason you're stressed is because you haven't had your fix.
It's a drug addiction, most drug addicts get cranky if they haven't had a fix.
If a smoker and a non-smoker went through the same stresses in one day, both without a cigarette, the smoker would be more stressed, so you have a cigarette to lower your stresslevel to that of a person who doesn't smoke.
Plus, a car doesn't come and sit with its exhaust next to youi puffing away.
INSIDE. THat's the point in it, it's banned inside, not outside, where you're much less likely to get poisoned from it.
I don't need you to tell me if i'm addicted or not! And whats that got to do with what I asked, answer the question, just because theres a use for something that makes it alright to use even if it's bad for you? Another hypocrite.
>That bill was passed in the 1600's, hundreds of years after the UK became a country, thus this country wasn't "made for freedom and rights" they just appeared one day.
That's what I was referring to.
The US on the other hand went to war with Britain and formed its own country so it could have it's own rights and freedom from Britain.
Rubbish,i'm not even going to bother arguing any more as your talking so much crap it's not funny. So if they appeared one day then they would be a country made for freedom and rights correct? no need to ask as you said it yourself. Just shows you havn't a clue.
kevstar wrote:
> Munn wrote
>
> >First of all, you keep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the
> environment.
> At least they actually have a use.
> They help people get to where they want to go.
> All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
>
> So because theres a use for something that makes it alright to
> destroy the enviroment with it ehhh? Tabs reduce my stress levels so
> as it has a use I guess that makes it alright according to your
> logic.
BUt the reason you're stressed is because you haven't had your fix.
It's a drug addiction, most drug addicts get cranky if they haven't had a fix.
If a smoker and a non-smoker went through the same stresses in one day, both without a cigarette, the smoker would be more stressed, so you have a cigarette to lower your stresslevel to that of a person who doesn't smoke.
Plus, a car doesn't come and sit with its exhaust next to youi puffing away.
INSIDE. THat's the point in it, it's banned inside, not outside, where you're much less likely to get poisoned from it.
> >As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What
> country are you in?
> The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created
> to give someone rights.
> That's the US you're thinking of.
>
> The struggle between the Monarch and Parliament came to an end in
> 1689 when the Bill of Rights was passed. This stated that laws could
> only be made or repealed by Parliament and not by the Monarch. What
> do you think parliment does? Parliament keeps a check on the work of
> government on behalf of citizens through investigative select
> committees and by asking ministers questions. The House of Commons
> also has to approve proposals for government taxes and spending. If a
> government could not win support for its main policies in the House
> of Commons, it would have to resign and a general election would be
> called. This parliment was created to give people freedom of rights
> among other things and to say it didn't is rubbish, we had freedom of
> rights way before the Americans so get your facts right.
Yes, but the country was around before that.
Your exact words were
"people who don't understand the rights and freedom of people this country was made for."
That bill was passed in the 1600's, hundreds of years after the UK became a country, thus this country wasn't "made for freedom and rights" they just appeared one day.
That's what I was referring to.
The US on the other hand went to war with Britain and formed its own country so it could have it's own rights and freedom from Britain.
> Munn wrote
>
> >First of all, you keep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the
> environment.
> At least they actually have a use.
> They help people get to where they want to go.
> All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
>
> So because theres a use for something that makes it alright to
> destroy the enviroment with it ehhh? Tabs reduce my stress levels so
> as it has a use I guess that makes it alright according to your
> logic.
BUt the reason you're stressed is because you haven't had your fix.
It's a drug addiction, most drug addicts get cranky if they haven't had a fix.
If a smoker and a non-smoker went through the same stresses in one day, both without a cigarette, the smoker would be more stressed, so you have a cigarette to lower your stresslevel to that of a person who doesn't smoke.
Plus, a car doesn't come and sit with its exhaust next to youi puffing away.
INSIDE. THat's the point in it, it's banned inside, not outside, where you're much less likely to get poisoned from it.
> >As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What
> country are you in?
> The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created
> to give someone rights.
> That's the US you're thinking of.
>
> The struggle between the Monarch and Parliament came to an end in
> 1689 when the Bill of Rights was passed. This stated that laws could
> only be made or repealed by Parliament and not by the Monarch. What
> do you think parliment does? Parliament keeps a check on the work of
> government on behalf of citizens through investigative select
> committees and by asking ministers questions. The House of Commons
> also has to approve proposals for government taxes and spending. If a
> government could not win support for its main policies in the House
> of Commons, it would have to resign and a general election would be
> called. This parliment was created to give people freedom of rights
> among other things and to say it didn't is rubbish, we had freedom of
> rights way before the Americans so get your facts right.
Yes, but the country was around before that.
Your exact words were
"people who don't understand the rights and freedom of people this country was made for."
That bill was passed in the 1600's, hundreds of years after the UK became a country, thus this country wasn't "made for freedom and rights" they just appeared one day.
That's what I was referring to.
The US on the other hand went to war with Britain and formed its own country so it could have it's own rights and freedom from Britain.
OMG enough is enough ! !
Goatboy wrote:
> I'm so from a planet where idiocy is met with the disdain it
> deserves.
> Ask me nicely, I'll put it out - act like that and be grateful you
> don't get a facial burn.
>
> I'm just left in awe of the stupidity of the average person.
> Like today, one woman puts xmas decorations up over the inside of
> her letterbox. Yep, baubles and lights taped over the inside of
> her letterbox.
> Cue an angry postman jamming her letters in and watching as her
> trinkets fall to the floor.
> "Er Postman, could you not destroy my xmas decorations"
> "Why put them on the inside of your letterbox? Are you surprised
> that somebody dressed as a postman puts letters through?"
> "Just be careful"
> "...no, I'm paid to put your letters through that thing called a
> letterbox, if you choose to block it inside then that's not my
> problem".
> And he stomped off to continue tramping across lawns and kicking
> small children as they play in the street.
>
> Humbug
Thats hillarious. lol.
> I'm so from a planet where idiocy is met with the disdain it
> deserves.
> Ask me nicely, I'll put it out - act like that and be grateful you
> don't get a facial burn.
>
> I'm just left in awe of the stupidity of the average person.
> Like today, one woman puts xmas decorations up over the inside of
> her letterbox. Yep, baubles and lights taped over the inside of
> her letterbox.
> Cue an angry postman jamming her letters in and watching as her
> trinkets fall to the floor.
> "Er Postman, could you not destroy my xmas decorations"
> "Why put them on the inside of your letterbox? Are you surprised
> that somebody dressed as a postman puts letters through?"
> "Just be careful"
> "...no, I'm paid to put your letters through that thing called a
> letterbox, if you choose to block it inside then that's not my
> problem".
> And he stomped off to continue tramping across lawns and kicking
> small children as they play in the street.
>
> Humbug
Thats hillarious. lol.
All ciggies should have filters, (wait wait wait..I know theres one already) a way of recycling the smoke, you get it again, you dont need to smoke it as quickly, and it doesnt bother other people (who may or may not be deliberately getting in your face) and whats more you die from lack of oxygen! well, maybe if youre nice santa could get you one that lets oxygen in, instead of coal this year.
Page: