RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:15:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MellowSir If it can be done then why are americans still fighting a worthless cause in Iraq? Try disarming the factions there, oh that's right, already been tried.....demand=supply.... Well the US administration created the demand in the first place by the fucked up reasoning violence solves problems. Actually there were plenty of guns there in the first place but the US and Britain have given them something to shoot at but hey, don't worry, there is many more there now. I'm wondering why all those posters who feel guns are their human ruight, aren't signing up for that great gun promotion in Iraq.

Asraii -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:24:00 AM)
quote: I'm wondering why all those posters who feel guns are their human ruight, aren't signing up for that great gun promotion in Iraq. I am not a big supporter of guns; I am however a supporter of the rights of individuals. I served in the military when Kuwait happened; I was up close and personal with gun promotion. It has not changed my views one bit. I find that those who take an argument for gun control; and turn it instead into an argument for or against war; to have no real stand on the issue at all.

RythymMan -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:33:09 AM)
if hate were banned, or, if you prefer, if hate was banned... that would work for me. A ban on stupidity would be OK too, but then there would hardly be anything on TV or CM...

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Asraii I find that those who take an argument for gun control; and turn it instead into an argument for or against war; to have no real stand on the issue at all. The mentality that violence solves problems is relevent to both issues. Iraq was not about a matter of defence, it was a matter of imposing ones views on someone else through arms.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 11:23:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent A person smoking in their own home - fine, their health, their call. But, smoking in a public place is rightly limited. The reason being, it is proven that this will knock years off peoples' lives - the burden of proof has been satisfied. As will drink and drinking causes violence, look at any British town on Saturday night, that is proof enough and traffic fumes cause far more respiratory damage to third persons rather than smoking, yet I don't see anyone calling for the banning of private transport in cities and towns which by and large is unnecessary and would score a direct hit on improving public health. Calls for bans tend to be fashionable rather than rational. Except the call for a ban on guns for the simple reason every population possesses about 1% extreme psychopaths and its easier to do a mass killing with a gun than a baseball bat. There's a key difference: You smoke in my face and you will damage my health. There is no doubt. You drink in my company and the results are open to debate. You may start clumping the nearest bloke if you're that way inclined, but it's a stretch to say it's a reason to stop people from having a beer down the pub, and people should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even John Prescott, who can't get past a political campaign without trying to spark the nearest dissident.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 11:40:37 AM)
quote: You smoke in my face and you will damage my health. There is no doubt. There may be "no doubt" but there is also no proof. PROOF not 'study'. Scientific proof such as placing rats in a secondary smoke environment and ALL of them getting cancer. Never been done - because it never happens. Non-smoker, non-gun owner, eater of trans-fat; fighter against any legislation replacing free choice. - Merc

mistoferin -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 11:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Scientific proof such as placing rats in a secondary smoke environment and ALL of them getting cancer. Never been done - because it never happens. It still wouldn't convince me because I have a sneaking hunch that lab rats may be genetically pre-disposed to cancer.[;)]

Mercnbeth -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Scientific proof such as placing rats in a secondary smoke environment and ALL of them getting cancer. Never been done - because it never happens. It still wouldn't convince me because I have a sneaking hunch that lab rats may be genetically pre-disposed to cancer.[;)] ummmm, I notice that too. Maybe laboratory rats cause cancer in lab rats? [8\|]

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You drink in my company and the results are open to debate. You may start clumping the nearest bloke if you're that way inclined, but it's a stretch to say it's a reason to stop people from having a beer down the pub, and people should be given the benefit of the doubt. Even John Prescott, who can't get past a political campaign without trying to spark the nearest dissident. Aah so massive police costs and violence in town, and innocent victims, stress on A&E staff and stretching health resources every weekend is fine. My guess is your opinion of what should and should not be banned is down to your particular vice. NG.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:41:59 PM)
No. You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health. You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health. See the difference? Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:51:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No. You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health. You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health. See the difference? Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me. Not if we are in a different building but like all those people for banning smoking, they declare the right to go into smoking bars and complain about smoking. They could stay out of them. Actually this is something like the feminists complaining about men only clubs and their right as women to go in them and also their right as women to have all female clubs (as if anyone was stopping them in the first place). They never went into all male clubs after they were forced rto accept women, it was all about their (feminists) power to ban them and nothing else. However, on the drink issue, your attitude to resources and violence in society seems to change somewhat from your normal stance.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 1:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No. You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health. You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health. See the difference? Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me. Not if we are in a different building but like all those people for banning smoking, they declare the right to go into smoking bars and complain about smoking. They could stay out of them. Who's they? If it's a smoking establishment, then I agree. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver However, on the drink issue, your attitude to resources and violence in society seems to change somewhat from your normal stance. I'll cope with your seeming changes.

petdave -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 5:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Guns are designed to kill and killing is their sole raison d'etre. That and making inadequates feel powerful. Inadequates? That's an... interesting perspective. What puts homo sapiensat the top of the food chain is our ability to use tools. i would argue that those who fear weapons, and would prefer that all conflict take place on the caveman level, are the inferiors. There's an old saying in the U.S.- God made men. Sam Colt made men equal. i'm pretty consistently anti-ban, in that i have no problem with "hate speech", weapons, mind-altering chemicals, or sex toys- i'm pretty much an anarchist-fringe libertarian.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Actually there were plenty of guns there in the first place but the US and Britain have given them something to shoot at but hey, don't worry, there is many more there now. I'm wondering why all those posters who feel guns are their human ruight, aren't signing up for that great gun promotion in Iraq. Probably because of public opinion from individuals like "you" that sadly factors into our protocol and those out there are left like sitting ducks, unable to fire until fired upon. Thank you, but I believe in peace and war, not police action where political nonsense and public opinion make the decisions. As for your earlier argument I have found that you miss the whole point of what rational is. Your thought that guns should be banned unlike cars because they could kill 32 people in one go has not distinguished them from cars, which you say should not be banned. In fact, that merely opens up a can of worms. Gasoline in a 5 gallon can and a tank of propane (along with a car) are all capable of killing 32 people or more and are not banned. Your argument makes no sense from a logical point of view whatsoever. Simply allowing the 1% fringe element to dictate the lives and decisions of the 99% of society is the height of irrationality, and that is what you don't get. If your argument is truly the case that 1% are psychos/potential mass murderers with potential to unleash their mass mudrers on the other 99%, then the "rational" argument is to screen the population, and either quarantine or euthanize them (not necessarily the moral argument... the rational one). Your argument is not only irrational (because it treats like cases differently for a reason you have failed to articulate) but it is completely flawed, since all your solution would do is displace the means by which these mass-murderers would use to make their attempt. Instead of guns it's blades, blunts, machines, and/or improvised explosives.

DiurnalVampire -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:20:22 PM)
quote: Guns are designed to kill and killing is their sole raison d'etre. That and making inadequates feel powerful. Of course guns are designed to kill. But they arent designed necessarily to kill people. If you ban guns, you now cannot hunt animals for food either. Do you not see the point in that? There is no way to ban something becasue it is used inappropriately for one purpose without hurting a legitimate use. If it were somthing that would not benefit anyone in any way thats one thing. However there are as many GOOD uses of guns as there are bad ones.

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: You smoke in my face and you will damage my health. There is no doubt. There may be "no doubt" but there is also no proof. PROOF not 'study'. Scientific proof such as placing rats in a secondary smoke environment and ALL of them getting cancer. Never been done - because it never happens. Non-smoker, non-gun owner, eater of trans-fat; fighter against any legislation replacing free choice. - Merc Here is the deal, and this is from a friend of mine who was head of Oncology at a local hospital. Whether smoking will damage your health is subject to the interaction between your genetics and harmful substances in cigarette smoke. The harmful substances have been proven. The genetic aspects to it have been proven. So the idea that one is not damaging a person by blowing second hand smoke on them assumes you have a complete understanding of that person's genetic factors. There is an element of hubris associated with the idea that you should be free to blow smoke in my face because you believe there is no proof. My urine and flatulence has never been proven to be dangerous, I imagine if I farted on your meringue or seasoned your lobster bisque, you would apply similar standards to my behavior as you apply to your own. Anything else seems rather myopic. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Not if we are in a different building but like all those people for banning smoking, they declare the right to go into smoking bars and complain about smoking. They could stay out of them. Tell that to the employees who work there. Sinergy edited to point out that it is against State (California) and some Federal laws to subject employees to poisonous subjects (you can google toxic substances in cigarette smoke to get the Hazardous Material Data Sheet) in the workplace. Dont like it, change the law.

kitbaloo -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent No. You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health. You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health. See the difference? Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me. Limitations should be set on the whole banning of smoking, first of all they used to have seperate sections but there was no division -- then they changed it to the restaurant/bar/club/whatever had to have a seperate room to limit smoking to.. seperate room = not in your face, yet and still non-smokers/reformed smokers still whined which resulted in the complete ban which is just plain stupid. People aren't happy unless they got something to complain about and frankly, cigarettes are legal thus banning smoking in the first place is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to live their lives how they choose. Besides, secondary smoke is supposedly more dangerous than actually smoking.. so why not just shut up, stop whining, and light up a cigarette already. By golly if I'm going to die which I will eventually die just like every other person on this planet at least I'm going to die doing something I like rather than have to listen to the incessant cry babies of the world.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 7:33:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kitbaloo Limitations should be set on the whole banning of smoking, first of all they used to have seperate sections but there was no division -- then they changed it to the restaurant/bar/club/whatever had to have a seperate room to limit smoking to.. seperate room = not in your face, yet and still non-smokers/reformed smokers still whined which resulted in the complete ban which is just plain stupid. People aren't happy unless they got something to complain about and frankly, cigarettes are legal thus banning smoking in the first place is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to live their lives how they choose. Besides, secondary smoke is supposedly more dangerous than actually smoking.. so why not just shut up, stop whining, and light up a cigarette already. By golly if I'm going to die which I will eventually die just like every other person on this planet at least I'm going to die doing something I like rather than have to listen to the incessant cry babies of the world. Banning smoking in the first place might be boneheaded or wrong, but calling such a ban unconstitutional shows a complete misunderstanding of the legal process. It is completely permissible given due process for the state to exercise its police power to regulate or even ban a thing or an activity that is not constitutionally protected (hence, gambling and prostitution may be regulated or banned). If you don't like the decision, then organize. If you can't mobilize popular support to pressure legislation into finding a more equitable situation then you have the option to move.

Archer -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 8:52:57 PM)
Default possition of freedom, bans outright are a power grab to make folks feel good and make the choices for others based on your values. Don't like the smoke fine don't go to that bar, the market will open a bar that will cater to non smokers and it should be allowed to work the other way as well. Cigar Bar's cigarette bars, etc employees would know the atmosphere when they applied for the job. Hire only smokers, LOL if companies can hire only non smokers then the reverse logic should apply as well. Want to make guns like cars liscenced insured and registered just like cars? I'll buy that, but exactly like cars. If I keep the car on my property and never put it on a public road I don't have to register it insure it or have a liscence. If however I do liscence register and insure it I can drive it everywhere in the US. So If I liscence insure and register a gun I can take it out in public anywhere in the US as well. If I put the car in/on another form of transport, (towed on a wrecker or truck) I can move it freely so long as I don't actually drive it on public property. So In a case I can transport the gun to the range without need for a liscence and home again. I'd take treating guns like cars in a flat second.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875