How old were you when you started smoking ?.

[zabu of nΩd]

Goddammit people, it's spelled breathe.

 

[Έρεβος]

Goddammit people, it's spelled breathe.

:Smokin:

 

[Matt]

Actually, no-one "needs" to breathe. They could just die. In the same way, no-one "needs" to smoke or do anything else risky yet enjoyable. They could just never live. Same fucking thing.

Faggot.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Actually, no-one "needs" to breathe. They could just die.

Priceless

 

[Έρεβος]

Faggot.

Who's the Dream Theater fan here?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Actually, you are the one who wants to change the status quo in order to better serve your own wommanly needs. I am merely saying, suck it up or stay at home.

Actually you are wrong once again (surprise!). I'm saying the opposite of that. How is supporting the current situtation wanting to change the status quo, exactly? I'm fine with how it is now. It's you who wants to go back to the way it was. And from my perspective, the ban on smoking indoors, despite some early resistance, has been very well recieved. And obviously there has been enough support for it to become law all over this country and others.

You should also be laughed at for being so resistant to a simple change that goes only to benefit the health of others.

It's merely a observation based on what is generally considered to be 'wussy' around here, all based on something completely substantial. And I'll take that first part as a compliment, coming from a iron-less little hillbilly boy like yourself.

Around here, that is how it generally (used to) work (there's a ban now). If the smokers were outnumbered, they'd be considerate if it's not ridiculously cold, and vice versa. No one I knew were bloody cry babies about it.

Ah, I get it now. You just come from a place that has fucked up and archaic values. I guess I can't blame you for being such a savage, then.

And I still don't understand where you are getting the absurd idea that I am a "hill billy". I actually live in pretty affluent community. Not that it matters, though, since it isn't by my doing, but since you seems to be so concerned with my social class, I figured I would educate you and debunk your ridiculous arguments at the same time.

Actually, no-one "needs" to breath. They could just die. In the same way, no-one "needs" to smoke or do anything else risky yet enjoyable. They could just never live. Same fucking thing.

Are you for fucking real? That is the most retarded excuse for an argument I've ever read. It isn't even worthy of a counterpoint.

 

[A8]

Actually, no-one "needs" to breathe.

thats a dumb fucking point, howabout you stop breathing?

this whole argument is fucking stupid. Just because some people smoke does not give them the right to harm other people with second hand smoke. If you want to smoke, then do it in private. With all the evidence that second hand smoke is a killer, it is insanely selfish and stupid to argue that smokers should have the right to fill up bars/restaurants/etc. with their smoke. when i smoke, i dont mind stepping outside for a minute, sure its a bit inconvient but at least im not harming other people that way. sure, lots of things in this world cause cancer, its impossible to avoid them all, but second hand smoke helps it along

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

when i smoke, i dont mind stepping outside for a minute, sure its a bit inconvient but at least im not harming other people that way. sure, lots of things in this world cause cancer, its impossible to avoid them all, but second hand smoke helps it along

For a girl, you seem to have much bigger balls than Crimson Velvet and everyone he knows. Going by his logic, anyway.

 

[A8]

For a girl, you seem to have much bigger balls than Crimson Velvet and everyone he knows. Going by his logic, anyway.

thanks

 

[Έρεβος]

Are you for fucking real? That is the most retarded excuse for an argument I've ever read. It isn't even worthy of a counterpoint.

I was half-joking. The concept still applies.

 

[skeptik]

"Practically at no risk?" "So quit bitching and start running; you'll be perfectly safe around smoke then." Please dear god tell me that you're intentionally using hyperbole.

Everybody knows that the risks of smoking and second hand smoke are inflated and that one's own physical health can do much in preventative measures as far as damage from smoke is concerned. But you're an asshole if you think that this is virtually no effect on one's body as long as you're in shape. One could be in peak physical condition and still develop chronic lung cancer from abuse of nicotinic products and die. It effects everybody differently. The fact remains that smoking, light or heavy, and second hand smoke, is a genuine and unnecessary health risk. And unlike breathing, which is an essential activity in which living things much engage in to survive, smoking has not essential qualities and is in fact recreational, so comparing to breathing just makes you look like an idiot.

As for "changing the status quo" by mildly inconveniencing smokers to engage in an activity that they can choose not to do at any given time by asking them to step outside, this is an abysmally weak argument. Smoke is a health risk and an occupational hazard and it is the government's duty to monitor health risks and occupational hazards, so requesting that smokers step outside if they so wish to light up is by no means an unreasonable, "wussy," or "womanly" request.

 

[Έρεβος]

And unlike breathing, which is an essential activity in which living things much engage in to survive, smoking has not essential qualities and is in fact recreational, so comparing to breathing just makes you look like an idiot.

There was no direct comparison. It was a philosophical point. Life has risks, risks of harming yourself and others, but these risks need to be taken. If they aren't, you never live. It's very simple, how are you people missing that? I was also saying recreation is just as important as essential activity, as it gives the essential activity meaning and purpose. Both recreation and essential activity OFTEN present (small) risks to others and yourself, but shunning them for that would be foolish.

 

[A8]

It's very simple, how are you people missing that?

just because compairing that there is no need to smoke with that there is no need to breathe was ridiculous in a way

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

"Shunning" is a pretty grandiose term to describe "asking to stand outside for a minute".

 

[Έρεβος]

just because compairing that there is no need to smoke with that there is no need to breathe was ridiculous in a way

Now we're arguing semantics. That is not what the comparison was truly expressing and that is dead obvious.

 

[Matt]

Who's the Dream Theater fan here?

Who's the Incubus fan here?

 

[Έρεβος]

"Shunning" is a pretty grandiose term to describe "asking to stand outside for a minute".

"Asking to stand outside for a minute so that the bar may smell like ass and BO" would be more like it. And it is far from that simple in the winter. It should be up the establishment owner, not the fucking state. How can that seriously be argued? The government has no right in forcing establishment owners to enforce a ban on something those owners want to be allowed in their establishment. Go to a non-smoking bar/restaurant/whatever if you want, but don't ruin it for the rest of us, as has been done.

 

[Έρεβος]

Who's the Incubus fan here?

Damn...

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

Damn...

get the fuck off my internet beyotch, you're a disgrace to metal fans everywhere

 

[wolf]

metal church
Dio-holy diver
Slayer-haunting the chapel
queensryche