The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
What, you mean this?
Fozz wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish
> pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do
> you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the
> smoke.
> Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker
> a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing
> to
> do it yourself are you.
>
> I dont really understand your argument. Cars, rubbish pits are, of
> course, enviromental unfriendly. So what do you suggest we do when we
> bad cars, and all fossil fuel engines? Well there isnt really
> anything available now to replace it, maybe in a few years. That
> basicly means the the entire world will grind to a hault. A global
> market crash, followed by recessions in almost every country. What
> about the poorer nations who cant afford clean engines? "sorry
> guys, but its back to the dark ages for you"
Heh. Not really answering about why you want cigarette's banned are you? You're talking about cars.
Although funnily, you're happy to try as hard as possible to find justifications for things you agree with. Yet when it's smoking, you made no such effort. Presumably you're not bothered about the effect a ban would have on the economy of tobacco producing companies?
>
> How does me using a car, or rubbish pit make me a hypocrite? If I was
> a smoker, then yes I'd be one, but....just.....what??
>
> How can something with as many toxins in as cigarettes, and used as
> widely as cigarettes not damage the atmosphere? It may not damage it
> as much as car emmisions do, but to say it doesnt is just wrong.
Oh for fu...I think we're getting to the crux of your argument here. It seems to be "Just because billions of people smoke, and just because there is absolutely no evidence for me to try and say that it harms the environment, I think it's wrong so it should be banned."
So how exactly does that explain why you think it should be banned? Aside of course from it basically being a restating of "I think it's wrong".
>
> Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the
> smoke.
>
> lol. I like that little added part at the end thoose who choose to
> keep away from the smoke Cars dont kill people who thoose who
> choose to keep away from them. When was the last time you heard
> of a Penguin being killed by a car, not that they really choose.
What in the name of christ are you talking about you strange little man? He's made the point that cigarettes don't harm people other than the people who use them just so long as their is no-one around to suffer effects from secondary smoke. And you...try to be sarcastic about that. Despite the fact that, basically, you're still not addressing why you want a total ban on people smoking even if no-one else will suffer the secondary smoke.
>
> Do every smoker a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing
> to
> do it yourself are you.
> By all means I plan to stay well away from cigarette smoke. What do
> you think Ive been doing for most of my life? I am choosing to do it
> myself. The other day I was in a resteraunt, and it was pretty busy
> so we had to sit in the smoking section. Some people around us were
> smoking but the place was well ventilated enough so that it didnt
> affect us at all. I dont mind people smoking in smoking sections, or
> at home, but when its in a situation where, through no fault or
> choice of my own, Im induced with a faceful of smoke, and the smoker
> just doesnt care, and expects you to e grateful somehow, I have a
> problem.
So now you're saying you DON'T want it banned? Make up your mind dear boy. Frankly, on the evidence I've seen thus far, if I were a smoker I'd make the effort to blow smoke in your face. Lord, I'd blow it directly into your lungs...
Fozz wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish
> pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do
> you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the
> smoke.
> Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker
> a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing
> to
> do it yourself are you.
>
> I dont really understand your argument. Cars, rubbish pits are, of
> course, enviromental unfriendly. So what do you suggest we do when we
> bad cars, and all fossil fuel engines? Well there isnt really
> anything available now to replace it, maybe in a few years. That
> basicly means the the entire world will grind to a hault. A global
> market crash, followed by recessions in almost every country. What
> about the poorer nations who cant afford clean engines? "sorry
> guys, but its back to the dark ages for you"
Heh. Not really answering about why you want cigarette's banned are you? You're talking about cars.
Although funnily, you're happy to try as hard as possible to find justifications for things you agree with. Yet when it's smoking, you made no such effort. Presumably you're not bothered about the effect a ban would have on the economy of tobacco producing companies?
>
> How does me using a car, or rubbish pit make me a hypocrite? If I was
> a smoker, then yes I'd be one, but....just.....what??
>
> How can something with as many toxins in as cigarettes, and used as
> widely as cigarettes not damage the atmosphere? It may not damage it
> as much as car emmisions do, but to say it doesnt is just wrong.
Oh for fu...I think we're getting to the crux of your argument here. It seems to be "Just because billions of people smoke, and just because there is absolutely no evidence for me to try and say that it harms the environment, I think it's wrong so it should be banned."
So how exactly does that explain why you think it should be banned? Aside of course from it basically being a restating of "I think it's wrong".
>
> Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the
> smoke.
>
> lol. I like that little added part at the end thoose who choose to
> keep away from the smoke Cars dont kill people who thoose who
> choose to keep away from them. When was the last time you heard
> of a Penguin being killed by a car, not that they really choose.
What in the name of christ are you talking about you strange little man? He's made the point that cigarettes don't harm people other than the people who use them just so long as their is no-one around to suffer effects from secondary smoke. And you...try to be sarcastic about that. Despite the fact that, basically, you're still not addressing why you want a total ban on people smoking even if no-one else will suffer the secondary smoke.
>
> Do every smoker a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing
> to
> do it yourself are you.
> By all means I plan to stay well away from cigarette smoke. What do
> you think Ive been doing for most of my life? I am choosing to do it
> myself. The other day I was in a resteraunt, and it was pretty busy
> so we had to sit in the smoking section. Some people around us were
> smoking but the place was well ventilated enough so that it didnt
> affect us at all. I dont mind people smoking in smoking sections, or
> at home, but when its in a situation where, through no fault or
> choice of my own, Im induced with a faceful of smoke, and the smoker
> just doesnt care, and expects you to e grateful somehow, I have a
> problem.
So now you're saying you DON'T want it banned? Make up your mind dear boy. Frankly, on the evidence I've seen thus far, if I were a smoker I'd make the effort to blow smoke in your face. Lord, I'd blow it directly into your lungs...
Maybe you missed the point of my last, final post. Ive given lots of reasons why Im against smoking in this forum.
sweet tooth wrote:
> now now ladies !
Heh. Well; sometimes people just annoy the hell out of me with their sheer self importance. This is one of those times.
I wouldn't mind, but he doesn't even have a sense of humour about it...
> now now ladies !
Heh. Well; sometimes people just annoy the hell out of me with their sheer self importance. This is one of those times.
I wouldn't mind, but he doesn't even have a sense of humour about it...
Fozz wrote:
> well light, Ive tried to be nice to you in the past, given you the
> benefit of the doubt etc.
Yes, you have. And I've pointed out that I find you to be an unpleasant and priggish hypocrite. What, should someone's manner be a shield to somebody else pointing out someone's unpleasant character traits and flawed arguments?
Given me the benefit of the doubt? Well; how magnanamous of you. Am I supposed to tearfully fall to my knees sobbing gratitude?
>
> For the record:
> I thought we were talking about self harm and being harmed by other
> smokers.
Were we? Well, I was talking about your statement that you believe smoking should be banned even if it's not doing any harm to you personally.
>
> Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as
> you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private
> lives
> This is what I have a problem with. I stated an opinion.
And you stated it in language couched to associate something you regard as distasteful (smoking) with something that everyone dislikes (dictatorships). You stated an opinion, and I pointed out that you yourself are speaking like someone who'd love to impose his will on others. Like dictators do.
Saying "it's just my opinion" doesn't prevent people from criticising it. You're then expected to justify and explain why you hold your opinion, rather than clinging to it and repeating "I'm allowed my opinion!!".
> No light, people dont
> run out of things to say, you just insult them to the extent they no
> longer want to post. If you tried just watching a discussion people
> might say a lot more.
Guess what sweety; in life, you'll be faced with people who (and prepare yourself for this, because it may shock you) couldn't give a tinkers toss about how precious you are concerning your opinions. And they'll be a damn side more insulting about it than I am. If you take the bait every time, then you can look forward to a long life of fuming "I'm right and I know I am". Debate isn't always a polite exchange of views.
Funny; you say people (and presumably by implication, you) don't want to post in response. Yet here you are, addressing the insults but avoiding most of the points raised. And proving my point for me. Unless in this tearful self justification you actually give any reasons for why you want smoking banned? No? Funny that. Here's a hint; if you want to disprove what I'm saying, why not ignore the insults and respond to the points? Or respond to both? As is, you only respond to the insults. And that says it all.
> here I am again defending myself. If youre
> complaining about people getting off topic and focusing on your
> insults then maybe they shouldnt have ot defend themselves so often.
> Im sorry, I forgot I was meant to be perfect, and the nicest guy in
> the world, but you really cant talk light.
Right...so when I insult you, I'm a nasty bad man. You do it, and you're "defending yourself". Oh, and if you pull me up about insults then you've "tried to give me the benefit of the doubt". Yet someone pulls you up about it then you wail "i'm not perfect, don't blame me!".
By the way, do you honestly even for a second believe that I regard myself as the nicest guy in the world? I'm a deeply unpleasant and arrogant chap when I'm debating. It's amazing how many people are incapable of defending their beliefs in the face of that.
Take some responsibility for your words and opinions, you increasingly squally-eyed little boy. You have so many double standards that you're like a walking cliche of 1984.
>
> I really was interested in this topic. once.
Yes, then someone asked you to explain the thought processes behind your opinions, and you ran away crying. Jesus, no wonder you're so proud of not sleeping with women. Women like men, not wailing children.
> well light, Ive tried to be nice to you in the past, given you the
> benefit of the doubt etc.
Yes, you have. And I've pointed out that I find you to be an unpleasant and priggish hypocrite. What, should someone's manner be a shield to somebody else pointing out someone's unpleasant character traits and flawed arguments?
Given me the benefit of the doubt? Well; how magnanamous of you. Am I supposed to tearfully fall to my knees sobbing gratitude?
>
> For the record:
> I thought we were talking about self harm and being harmed by other
> smokers.
Were we? Well, I was talking about your statement that you believe smoking should be banned even if it's not doing any harm to you personally.
>
> Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as
> you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private
> lives
> This is what I have a problem with. I stated an opinion.
And you stated it in language couched to associate something you regard as distasteful (smoking) with something that everyone dislikes (dictatorships). You stated an opinion, and I pointed out that you yourself are speaking like someone who'd love to impose his will on others. Like dictators do.
Saying "it's just my opinion" doesn't prevent people from criticising it. You're then expected to justify and explain why you hold your opinion, rather than clinging to it and repeating "I'm allowed my opinion!!".
> No light, people dont
> run out of things to say, you just insult them to the extent they no
> longer want to post. If you tried just watching a discussion people
> might say a lot more.
Guess what sweety; in life, you'll be faced with people who (and prepare yourself for this, because it may shock you) couldn't give a tinkers toss about how precious you are concerning your opinions. And they'll be a damn side more insulting about it than I am. If you take the bait every time, then you can look forward to a long life of fuming "I'm right and I know I am". Debate isn't always a polite exchange of views.
Funny; you say people (and presumably by implication, you) don't want to post in response. Yet here you are, addressing the insults but avoiding most of the points raised. And proving my point for me. Unless in this tearful self justification you actually give any reasons for why you want smoking banned? No? Funny that. Here's a hint; if you want to disprove what I'm saying, why not ignore the insults and respond to the points? Or respond to both? As is, you only respond to the insults. And that says it all.
> here I am again defending myself. If youre
> complaining about people getting off topic and focusing on your
> insults then maybe they shouldnt have ot defend themselves so often.
> Im sorry, I forgot I was meant to be perfect, and the nicest guy in
> the world, but you really cant talk light.
Right...so when I insult you, I'm a nasty bad man. You do it, and you're "defending yourself". Oh, and if you pull me up about insults then you've "tried to give me the benefit of the doubt". Yet someone pulls you up about it then you wail "i'm not perfect, don't blame me!".
By the way, do you honestly even for a second believe that I regard myself as the nicest guy in the world? I'm a deeply unpleasant and arrogant chap when I'm debating. It's amazing how many people are incapable of defending their beliefs in the face of that.
Take some responsibility for your words and opinions, you increasingly squally-eyed little boy. You have so many double standards that you're like a walking cliche of 1984.
>
> I really was interested in this topic. once.
Yes, then someone asked you to explain the thought processes behind your opinions, and you ran away crying. Jesus, no wonder you're so proud of not sleeping with women. Women like men, not wailing children.
now now ladies !
well light, Ive tried to be nice to you in the past, given you the benefit of the doubt etc.
For the record:
I dont really understand your point here
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
I thought we were talking about self harm and being harmed by other smokers.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives
This is what I have a problem with. I stated an opinion.
For the record, I like putting insults in my posts because it's like a get-out clause from their having to argue. It's depressing how quickly people concentrate solely on them and hope I won't notice that they've ran out of anything remotely resembling a defence for what seems to be an ill thought out view. No light, people dont run out of things to say, you just insult them to the extent they no longer want to post. If you tried just watching a discussion people might say a lot more.
If you want to whine and wail about "petty insults", maybe you shouldn't start posts to people with "Wow you're a logic whizz". here I am again defending myself. If youre complaining about people getting off topic and focusing on your insults then maybe they shouldnt have ot defend themselves so often. Im sorry, I forgot I was meant to be perfect, and the nicest guy in the world, but you really cant talk light.
I really was interested in this topic. once.
For the record:
I dont really understand your point here
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
I thought we were talking about self harm and being harmed by other smokers.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives
This is what I have a problem with. I stated an opinion.
For the record, I like putting insults in my posts because it's like a get-out clause from their having to argue. It's depressing how quickly people concentrate solely on them and hope I won't notice that they've ran out of anything remotely resembling a defence for what seems to be an ill thought out view. No light, people dont run out of things to say, you just insult them to the extent they no longer want to post. If you tried just watching a discussion people might say a lot more.
If you want to whine and wail about "petty insults", maybe you shouldn't start posts to people with "Wow you're a logic whizz". here I am again defending myself. If youre complaining about people getting off topic and focusing on your insults then maybe they shouldnt have ot defend themselves so often. Im sorry, I forgot I was meant to be perfect, and the nicest guy in the world, but you really cant talk light.
I really was interested in this topic. once.
i think they have run away !
Fozz wrote:
> Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and
> wrong to have it.
>
> I appologise for having an opinion that doesnt meet your standards.
> From now on I'll make sure I agree with everything you say. I'll make
> sure I never have a closed mind about other peoples opinions or use
> petty insults to degrade them. I shall strive to consider that I may
> be wrong and never incorrectly quote someone. For you, El Presidente,
> I shall never twist my fellow posters words.
>
> (does Hitler Salute)
> Siegheil
~sigh~
Lighten up a little, eh? And stop taking your precious beliefs so seriously? Or at least have the guts to go through and address the various points where I discuss your lack of empathy, logic, and anything resembling a sense of proportion.
If you want to whine and wail about "petty insults", maybe you shouldn't start posts to people with "Wow you're a logic whizz". Cos, y'know, when you do it makes you sound like a hypocrite. Oh...
For the record, I like putting insults in my posts because it's like a get-out clause from their having to argue. It's depressing how quickly people concentrate solely on them and hope I won't notice that they've ran out of anything remotely resembling a defence for what seems to be an ill thought out view.
I mean christ, you haven't even tried to say that it's a state's responsibility to protect the health of it's citizens and so that's why smoking should be banned. Nor have you invoked the fact that smokers cost the NHS billions. You've simply stated "I think this" then fell back on evasiveness and, finally, gratefully grasped the insulting lifeline that meant you didn't even have to bother any more.
Not only that, but it wasn't even a particularly good effort at sarcasm. I'd put in on a par with the look my cat gives me after I've tugged myself off in whilst watching Buffy. Try harder, eh?
> Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and
> wrong to have it.
>
> I appologise for having an opinion that doesnt meet your standards.
> From now on I'll make sure I agree with everything you say. I'll make
> sure I never have a closed mind about other peoples opinions or use
> petty insults to degrade them. I shall strive to consider that I may
> be wrong and never incorrectly quote someone. For you, El Presidente,
> I shall never twist my fellow posters words.
>
> (does Hitler Salute)
> Siegheil
~sigh~
Lighten up a little, eh? And stop taking your precious beliefs so seriously? Or at least have the guts to go through and address the various points where I discuss your lack of empathy, logic, and anything resembling a sense of proportion.
If you want to whine and wail about "petty insults", maybe you shouldn't start posts to people with "Wow you're a logic whizz". Cos, y'know, when you do it makes you sound like a hypocrite. Oh...
For the record, I like putting insults in my posts because it's like a get-out clause from their having to argue. It's depressing how quickly people concentrate solely on them and hope I won't notice that they've ran out of anything remotely resembling a defence for what seems to be an ill thought out view.
I mean christ, you haven't even tried to say that it's a state's responsibility to protect the health of it's citizens and so that's why smoking should be banned. Nor have you invoked the fact that smokers cost the NHS billions. You've simply stated "I think this" then fell back on evasiveness and, finally, gratefully grasped the insulting lifeline that meant you didn't even have to bother any more.
Not only that, but it wasn't even a particularly good effort at sarcasm. I'd put in on a par with the look my cat gives me after I've tugged myself off in whilst watching Buffy. Try harder, eh?
> Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and
> wrong to have it.
I appologise for having an opinion that doesnt meet your standards. From now on I'll make sure I agree with everything you say. I'll make sure I never have a closed mind about other peoples opinions or use petty insults to degrade them. I shall strive to consider that I may be wrong and never incorrectly quote someone. For you, El Presidente, I shall never twist my fellow posters words.
(does Hitler Salute)
Siegheil
> wrong to have it.
I appologise for having an opinion that doesnt meet your standards. From now on I'll make sure I agree with everything you say. I'll make sure I never have a closed mind about other peoples opinions or use petty insults to degrade them. I shall strive to consider that I may be wrong and never incorrectly quote someone. For you, El Presidente, I shall never twist my fellow posters words.
(does Hitler Salute)
Siegheil
Fozz wrote:
> lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the
> general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
Maybe it is. But I was talking about the UK. And in the UK, self harm is not a crime.
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
For the avoidance of confusion (faked or otherwise), I'm not fussed about people smoking near me, but it seems to bother lots of people so I'm in favour of banning it in enclosed public spaces.
>
> This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free
> are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could
> walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the
> sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that
> prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well,
> wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might
> consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we
> ever be truly free?
Ah, abstract cockrot. Always good to read when someone can't come up with concrete reasons for their beliefs.
Aside from the fact that I'd be intrigued to know what the problem with walking round naked actually is, society has rules yes. The point I'm making is that society has no right to regulate the behaviour of something done by someone in their own home that causes no harm to others (unless of course, it's consenting harm). You seem to be saying that society should tell people how to live their private lives. That's what we call "totalitarianism". Can we ever be truly free? Yes, if by truly free you mean "allowed to live our private lives the way we choose so long as we do not harm another soul on this planet". Why? Don't you?
> hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an
> opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be
> given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe
> it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking
> should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As
> it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should
> be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and wrong to have it. It shows a complete lack of empathy on your part. It shows a total inability to comprehend things that you personally have not experienced. Credit to you for trying to explain the logic behind the opinion, but that logic stems entirely from your own thoughts with no allowance whatsoever for anyone else.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives, I think you could look a little closer to home for the dictator comparison.
Oh, and your last sentence is illogical; you're not going to ask for smoking to be banned but it's your opinion that it should be? That's almost as contradictory as your "I'm not saying I think less of men who brag about sex, but I think I'm better than them because I don't" argument.
>
> Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc
> choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
Yes. Yes I can say that. Just because you don't make that choice, don't assume that everyone else thinks the way you do. Lots want to quit, yes. And good luck to them in doing so. Lots of people however, don't want to quit. Would you be the one to explain to them why they have to?
> Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things
> they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your
> health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just
> USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where
> something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter
> of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING
> can be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
Yes, smoking is damaging. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that not everyone is so precious about their health as you are. As Bill Hicks said, Non-smokers die every single day. We all die eventually. If we find something we enjoy in life that doesn't harm others, well why not indulge in it?
> lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the
> general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
Maybe it is. But I was talking about the UK. And in the UK, self harm is not a crime.
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
For the avoidance of confusion (faked or otherwise), I'm not fussed about people smoking near me, but it seems to bother lots of people so I'm in favour of banning it in enclosed public spaces.
>
> This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free
> are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could
> walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the
> sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that
> prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well,
> wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might
> consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we
> ever be truly free?
Ah, abstract cockrot. Always good to read when someone can't come up with concrete reasons for their beliefs.
Aside from the fact that I'd be intrigued to know what the problem with walking round naked actually is, society has rules yes. The point I'm making is that society has no right to regulate the behaviour of something done by someone in their own home that causes no harm to others (unless of course, it's consenting harm). You seem to be saying that society should tell people how to live their private lives. That's what we call "totalitarianism". Can we ever be truly free? Yes, if by truly free you mean "allowed to live our private lives the way we choose so long as we do not harm another soul on this planet". Why? Don't you?
> hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an
> opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be
> given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe
> it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking
> should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As
> it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should
> be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and wrong to have it. It shows a complete lack of empathy on your part. It shows a total inability to comprehend things that you personally have not experienced. Credit to you for trying to explain the logic behind the opinion, but that logic stems entirely from your own thoughts with no allowance whatsoever for anyone else.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives, I think you could look a little closer to home for the dictator comparison.
Oh, and your last sentence is illogical; you're not going to ask for smoking to be banned but it's your opinion that it should be? That's almost as contradictory as your "I'm not saying I think less of men who brag about sex, but I think I'm better than them because I don't" argument.
>
> Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc
> choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
Yes. Yes I can say that. Just because you don't make that choice, don't assume that everyone else thinks the way you do. Lots want to quit, yes. And good luck to them in doing so. Lots of people however, don't want to quit. Would you be the one to explain to them why they have to?
> Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things
> they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your
> health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just
> USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where
> something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter
> of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING
> can be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
Yes, smoking is damaging. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that not everyone is so precious about their health as you are. As Bill Hicks said, Non-smokers die every single day. We all die eventually. If we find something we enjoy in life that doesn't harm others, well why not indulge in it?
Page: