Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:15:24 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to MellowSir)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:24:00 AM   
Asraii


Posts: 91
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:33:09 AM   
RythymMan


Posts: 58
Joined: 12/11/2006
Status: offline 		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...



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:33:21 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Asraii)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:23:02 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:40:37 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
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

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:49:23 AM   
mistoferin


Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 12:02:28 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 12:08:21 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 12:41:59 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 12:51:22 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 4/24/2007 12:55:51 PM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 1:00:28 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 5:54:50 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
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.



(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 6:14:17 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 6:20:22 PM   
DiurnalVampire


Posts: 8125
Joined: 1/19/2006
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I will be your Dominate if you will be my submit - Fox

Snarko Ergo Sum
If you cannot change your mind, how are you so sure you still have one? -proverb

*Owner of Fox - collared 10/13/07*
VampiresLair

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:00:07 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:02:00 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
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. 

< Message edited by Sinergy -- 4/24/2007 7:04:59 PM >

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:13:00 PM   
kitbaloo


Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 7:33:37 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 4/24/2007 7:34:59 PM >

(in reply to kitbaloo)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 8:52:57 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094