I don't like this thing. Let's ban it! Watch

n00
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
(Original post by Arkasia)
If you call someone racist for no reason other than to slander them, you are a ****. What's the problem?
I have no idea, you're the one getting upset about name calling why don't you tell us?
0
reply
Asexual Demigod
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by WeedCanKill)
A simmering narcissism with a feeling of entitlement with a pinch of an inflated sense of self-importance.
Okay, but I'm actually a diagnosed narcissist (npd) and I don't want anything banned. Sure, I sometimes look down on others who have different views but I don't try to censor them. I'm a narcissist, not a totalitarian. Big difference.
0
reply
WeedCanKill
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Asexual Demigod)
Okay, but I'm actually a diagnosed narcissist (npd) and I don't want anything banned. Sure, I sometimes look down on others who have different views but I don't try to censor them. I'm a narcissist, not a totalitarian. Big difference.
Cool story bro. If I wanted to read anecdotes, I'd buy a woman's "real life" magazine.
0
reply
Asexual Demigod
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by WeedCanKill)
Cool story bro. If I wanted to read anecdotes, I'd buy a woman's "real life" magazine.
You're criticising narcissists for something not all narcissists even do or care about. Thus, I took it as a personal attack on myself and my disordered personality.
1
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
"Fireworks are noisy and messy"

"Page 3 makes me uncomfortable"

"I don't like the word slut"

LET'S BAN THEM ALL.

I'm curious to get inside the mind of these people. What sort of thinking leads you to the conclusion that how you feel should impact the rest of the population?
Very true Viva. Totalitarians, moral conservatives, and puritans are who. They have had these names thrown at them so many times though that now they roll there eyes at them, as if because they're called them a lot it means they're somehow not true. They are of course very patently true, and no amount of rhetorical gymnastics can extinguish this truth.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
You do get people calling for ridiculous bans. Fireworks, page 3, "lad's mags", etc. A few years ago an animal rights group was even trying to get shooting magazines banned.

However, I would happily ban Chinese lanterns for the fact that they can set fire to the countryside and the wires can be harmful to livestock.
1
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by llys)
Curious: do you think nothing should be banned?
Did you really write this and think 'Oh, I've got her with this one!'? What a stupid comment.
2
reply
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by KingBradly)
Very true Viva. Totalitarians, moral conservatives, and puritans are who. They have had these names thrown at them so many times though that now they roll there eyes at them, as if because they're called them a lot it means they're somehow not true. They are of course very patently true, and no amount of rhetorical gymnastics can extinguish this truth.
It's nice to see you agreeing and not accusing me of bumming Muslims every second of the day
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by KingBradly)
Did you really write this and think 'Oh, I've got her with this one!'? What a stupid comment.
Must have repped you recently but this has had me laughing for the full 7 minutes since you posted it.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by james1211)
I would ban it in parks. I don't like it and it annoys me when I see it. Do I stand to gain anything by being tolerant of it if I have the chance to abolish it? Nope.

Posted from TSR Mobile
How appropriate is it that you have an EU flag as your avatar. How utterly myopic can you be?
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by james1211)
Do we need to think more deeply than that though? Stand by the principles you've set out in your OP and you'll just be ****ed over in life.

Posted from TSR Mobile
So you think that the world would be better if everyone did as you told them to.

What if it was someone else who you didn't agree with who was in control?
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
It's nice to see you agreeing and not accusing me of bumming Muslims every second of the day
Except for your bizarre cognitive dissonance on the matter of Islam, I think we probably have pretty similar views.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by cole-slaw)
All the time. Drugs. using e-cigarettes indoors. Beer above 6% in off-licences. Drinking in the street. Topless women on magazine covers. Cheap alcohol. None of these hurt anyone else, so it should be peoples right to choose whether or not they want to use them.

There are also pushes to ban smoking in parks (wtf), a minimum price on alcohol, and page 3.
I don't think the argument against drugs, alcohol strength and price is that someone doesn't like them. It's that they cause harm. To the users mainly, but also to other people - druggies comitting crime, drunk people causing violence etc.

You might disagree with the idea that they do cause the harm (indeed on harm principle alcohol should surely be banned if cannabis is!).

You might disagree that the state should protect people from themselves.

But harm is the principle is the argument.

Topless women I give you.
0
reply
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by KingBradly)
Except for your bizarre cognitive dissonance on the matter of Islam, I think we probably have pretty similar views.
I'll admit my opinions on the matter aren't always as fully formed as I think they are before I post them, but then if I banged on about them 24/7 they probably would be a lot more watertight.
0
reply
chazwomaq
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
Do things ever actually get banned just because people don't like it? :holmes:
You should check out Leviticus. The Lord doesn't like a whole lotta things..

And what about homosexuality in many countries of the world?
0
reply
llys
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by KingBradly)
Did you really write this and think 'Oh, I've got her with this one!'? What a stupid comment.
No, I was just genuinely curious. There are people who think nothing should be banned. I disagree with those people. OP is evidently not one of them though, and establishing this first off saved me a lot of tedious discussion.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I don't think the argument against drugs, alcohol strength and price is that someone doesn't like them. It's that they cause harm. To the users mainly, but also to other people - druggies comitting crime, drunk people causing violence etc.

You might disagree with the idea that they do cause the harm (indeed on harm principle alcohol should surely be banned if cannabis is!).

You might disagree that the state should protect people from themselves.

But harm is the principle is the argument.
Well that can't be right because banning drugs doesn't reduce harm it increases it, so it must just be some bull**** ***** come up with to look less like *****.
0
reply
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by chazwomaq)
I don't think the argument against drugs, alcohol strength and price is that someone doesn't like them. It's that they cause harm. To the users mainly, but also to other people - druggies comitting crime, drunk people causing violence etc.

You might disagree with the idea that they do cause the harm (indeed on harm principle alcohol should surely be banned if cannabis is!).

You might disagree that the state should protect people from themselves.

But harm is the principle is the argument.

Topless women I give you.

They may or may not cause harm to the participant, depending on how exactly they are used, but then the same argument applies to many things. You can overdose on water, lets ban it just in case.

The fundamental point is that I have an unassailable right to my own body. I own it, it is my property. You do not own it, and neither do the government. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to it as long as I don't harm anyone else.

It is entirely ethical contradictory that I'm legally allowed to kill myself but I can't smoke dope.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by Viva Emptiness)
I'll admit my opinions on the matter aren't always as fully formed as I think they are before I post them, but then if I banged on about them 24/7 they probably would be a lot more watertight.
Touché
0
reply
Asexual Demigod
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by chazwomaq)
You should check out Leviticus. The Lord doesn't like a whole lotta things..
That's because "The Lord" is a massive pussy. Oh no, mixing garmants. Oh no, people who don't worship me 24/7. Oh no, gay sex. Seriously. "The Lord" sounds like a total douchebag.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (234)
39.39%
No - but I will (40)
6.73%
No - I don't want to (43)
7.24%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (277)
46.63%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed