Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    its their fault for wanting to work clearly...

    its funny seeing so many people advocating "segregated everything" just to appease people who want to destroy their health. madness.
    Youre the one promoting forced segregation according your own convictions, not us. Which of your dislikes do you plan on banning next?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Let's look at his original post, which he saw fit to edit:



    It's obvious to me that this is a threat, and intended as such. I responded the way a sensible person responds to that kind of talk. Calling something "inevitable," and then declaring (gloatingly) that one is either on its side or on the losing side, is emblematic of the worst kind of Bolshevism. "Hey, man, heads ARE gonna roll: you can either join the revolution or lose yours when the time comes."

    It should be obvious that if any socialized scheme is to be tolerable, all this bean-counting regarding personal behavior will have to stop. Yawn, you said that the obese only affect themselves: not anymore. If we allow this mentality to go unchecked, the obese will be viewed as theives, picking all our pockets for the medical treatments they disproportionately need. Eventually, societies will be full of snoops and spies: everyone jealously watching what everyone else is eating & drinking in search of the treacherous pork rib or fried wing. Soon, even recreation will be under scrutiny: amateur athletes are too injury-prone to be cost effective, so goodbye to rock-climbing, football, who knows what? This mentality is a recipe for disaster, or at least for a society that's stupifyingly boring and restrictive.

    As I said, if we are to socialize institutions (and I'm generally in favor of it), we have to do it with an agreement that everyone minds their own business. And that should start with a hearty rejection of proposals like the above.
    I didn't intend toedit my post - I pressed 'edit' in error, instead of 'reply' and wrote what I wrote. It was only when I saw the post I had just submitted, that I realised what had happened - and at that stage iI thought 'f*** it' - leave it be!

    Anyway, you can be a nasty piece of work, making aggressive personal comments even when you are smoking. I would hate to think what you are like without your 'fix'.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Youre the one promoting forced segregation according your own convictions, not us. Which of your dislikes do you plan on banning next?
    But you welcome segregation - look how you promote the 'apartheid wall' in Israel.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Sorry---allowing bars to function freely is "appeasing" somebody? Oh, thank you for withholding your iron fist!

    As for the choice between your sanity, and the "madness" of people who enjoy something as simply enjoyable as tobacco, I'll quote Mark Twain (who made his point very well):

    "I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. . . . You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from NOT smoking."
    i see little more than idiocy in the quote.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Youre the one promoting forced segregation according your own convictions, not us. Which of your dislikes do you plan on banning next?
    not quite.

    no one would be segregated at all. you could sit anywhere in the bar or restaurant, and so could i.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I didn't intend toedit my post - I pressed 'edit' in error, instead of 'reply' and wrote what I wrote. It was only when I saw the post I had just submitted, that I realised what had happened - and at that stage iI thought 'f*** it' - leave it be!

    Anyway, you can be a nasty piece of work, making aggressive personal comments even when you are smoking. I would hate to think what you are like without your 'fix'.
    I know, it would sure be easier if we'd surrender our freedoms with a smile and a nod. But that's the funny thing about puritanical meddling---it just has a way of getting on people's nerves. Crazy but true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I know, it would sure be easier if we'd surrender our freedoms with a smile and a nod. But that's the funny thing about puritanical meddling---it just has a way of getting on people's nerves. Crazy but true.
    funnier is you thinking you have freedoms.

    you have controlled freedom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    funnier is you thinking you have freedoms.

    you have controlled freedom.
    Yeah, that's cute. "You're right, by God, you're right---take all these 'freedom' illusions away! Put me in chains already, I beg you!"

    I hope people are noticing that the only CONSISTENT arguments for the smoking bans are coming from someone who doesn't believe in freedom.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They can even have seperate smoking rooms like they used to have in some pubs. I can understand restaurants and workplaces though.
    As I said, there should be excellent air conditioning. If you choose a job in a bar or pub then you've already signed up for what's there i.e. glorious tobacco.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    But you welcome segregation - look how you promote the 'apartheid wall' in Israel.
    Im sure you must close to scraping the barrel here.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    I think we should have a full ban in public places (Personally I 'd love to see an even wide ban on smoking in the strret and in any room where chidlren are present, like in homes, or even making it illegal, but I see these as impossible steps for now).

    I think e should have the ban as it is bestfor nearly every single person, ealthwise,in the long run and would even be better financially for many people.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Im sure you must close to scraping the barrel here.
    No, you beat me to it when you scraped it by asking if I was a communist!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    No, you beat me to it when you scraped it by asking if I was a communist!
    You advocate state control of private property and tyranny of the majority over the private lives of others. Since you havent denied these points, asking whether you have Communist beliefs is fairly legitimate. Or are you one of the many people on this forum who use the words 'free markets', 'freedom' and 'liberty' as buzzwords, claim to support small government and refute the suggestion that they are in anyway statist and then vote for a total ban on smoking without hesitation because,

    a) you and the state know better than anyone else - "smokers know that smoking is bad for them, they pathetically try to justify it however because they are addicted"

    "i dont personally think you should be free to damage yourself "


    b) You infringe on the free market for your own selfish demands, but expect it to be there for you on a Saturday night, "I would have a hard time finding social venues and may have to never go out again."

    "what right smokers have to restrict my life in this way - denying me the pleasures of having a social drink with friends?"

    "That means a good percentage of our population simply cannot go into bars, pubs, cafes etc because near to non are non smoking at the mo"

    c) you have a basic lack of respect for individual freedom

    "you see as infringements on peoples freedoms and liberties. i dont suffer from such worries."

    "I cant light up in my own house?...Correct"

    " All this talk of choosing whether to go into a pub or not is irrelevant "


    As if credibility wasnt already in free fall, when I advocate that private owners be allowed to permit smoking on their own property, you compare this to support for the Israeli security fence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    smoking in public is disgusting and irritating. If people want to kill themselves, then let them do it in the own homes and not in public.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    You advocate state control of private property and tyranny of the majority over the private lives of others. Since you havent denied these points, asking whether you have Communist beliefs is fairly legitimate. Or are you one of the many people on this forum who use the words 'free markets', 'freedom' and 'liberty' as buzzwords, claim to support small government and refute the suggestion that they are in anyway statist and then vote for a total ban on smoking without hesitation because,

    a) you and the state know better than anyone else - "smokers know that smoking is bad for them, they pathetically try to justify it however because they are addicted"

    "i dont personally think you should be free to damage yourself "


    b) You infringe on the free market for your own selfish demands, but expect it to be there for you on a Saturday night, "I would have a hard time finding social venues and may have to never go out again."

    "what right smokers have to restrict my life in this way - denying me the pleasures of having a social drink with friends?"

    "That means a good percentage of our population simply cannot go into bars, pubs, cafes etc because near to non are non smoking at the mo"

    c) you have a basic lack of respect for individual freedom

    "you see as infringements on peoples freedoms and liberties. i dont suffer from such worries."

    "I cant light up in my own house?...Correct"

    " All this talk of choosing whether to go into a pub or not is irrelevant "


    As if credibility wasnt already in free fall, when I advocate that private owners be allowed to permit smoking on their own property, you compare this to support for the Israeli security fence.
    You seem to be attributing comments I did not make to me! I would not dignify your questions to me on whether I support 'state control' of private property with an answer, as the analogy was so ludicrous as to be nonsensical.

    You described the imposition of a smoking ban as segregation of smokers and non-smokers which you apparently find offensive - yet you do not see the physical separation of Israel and Palestine as offensive. I went off thread with that comment as you did by maintaining that a ban on smoking in public places was tantamount to 'tyranny' - 'state control' and other ridiculous descriptors.

    All this because you are addicted to cigarettes! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Dwight66)
    smoking in public is disgusting and irritating. If people want to kill themselves, then let them do it in the own homes and not in public.
    There you go - advocates of denying non-smokers the right to not smoke - the overwhelming majority opinion is a total ban!

    Let us hope that when the official nationwide consultation commences next Monday the people will make their voices heard loud and clear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    There you go - advocates of denying non-smokers the right to not smoke - the overwhelming majority opinion is a total ban!

    Let us hope that when the official nationwide consultation commences next Monday the people will make their voices heard loud and clear.
    This website is not a representative sampling of society. The educated classes, who have always disproportionately found smoking "disgusting and irritating," are disproportionately represented here.

    This is not to deny that your side is indeed winning.

    It is winning by means of a massive propaganda campaign, deceiving the public with fraudulent research, inflating the results of the research into alarmist press releases. Your victory means a victory for big chain businesses, giant pharmaceutical firms, and recirculated stale air as opposed to fresh air---but worst of all, it means a victory of lies: a victory of the lie repeated a thousand times, hammered into the public consciousness until it replaces common sense. It means a defeat for the personal freedom of millions of individuals, thousands of bar owners ... and, incidentally, a nation full of trusting souls who think that (in a world with ever-increasing rates of fossil fuel burning) their respiratory diseases are caused by the burning of a few dried leaves.

    I sure hope you're proud.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You seem to be attributing comments I did not make to me!
    I attributed the comments to the 40+ statists.

    I would not dignify your questions to me on whether I support 'state control' of private property with an answer, as the analogy was so ludicrous as to be nonsensical.
    Perhaps you could tell us what the difference is between legislation interfering into the management of private property and state control of private property?

    You described the imposition of a smoking ban as segregation of smokers and non-smokers which you apparently find offensive
    No, I dont believe I ever made that clear.

    - yet you do not see the physical separation of Israel and Palestine as offensive.
    Do you find the seperation of France and Britain offensive?

    I went off thread with that comment as you did by maintaining that a ban on smoking in public places was tantamount to 'tyranny' - 'state control' and other ridiculous descriptors.
    The state imposing legislation in order to interfere in the management of private property is not "state control"? As far as Im aware you claim restaurants and bars to be "public". What makes them public if the state isnt controlling them?


    Imposing legislation on two people in private because the majority dont agree with the actions of those two people, is not "tyranny"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dwight66)
    smoking in public is disgusting and irritating. If people want to kill themselves, then let them do it in the own homes and not in public.
    Is a privately owned bar or club, public property or private property? (big clue in there).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    This website is not a representative sampling of society. The educated classes, who have always disproportionately found smoking "disgusting and irritating," are disproportionately represented here.

    This is not to deny that your side is indeed winning.

    It is winning by means of a massive propaganda campaign, deceiving the public with fraudulent research, inflating the results of the research into alarmist press releases. Your victory means a victory for big chain businesses, giant pharmaceutical firms, and recirculated stale air as opposed to fresh air---but worst of all, it means a victory of lies: a victory of the lie repeated a thousand times, hammered into the public consciousness until it replaces common sense. It means a defeat for the personal freedom of millions of individuals, thousands of bar owners ... and, incidentally, a nation full of trusting souls who think that (in a world with ever-increasing rates of fossil fuel burning) their respiratory diseases are caused by the burning of a few dried leaves.

    I sure hope you're proud.
    Smokers are in the minority - the opinions coming from whatever source are for banning smoking in public areas.

    The results of research have proved the case that passive smoking is damaging to non-smokers.

    Emotive language cannot change logic.

    You'll get over it - and maybe you might even give up the 'deadly weed' yourself one day!
 
 
 

1,154

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.