warri0r45

Human by Death (album).

The Drapery Falls by Opeth.

Hell yeah, I'm really happy for Johnson - every such performance proves to the selectors that he's Aussie test team material. Good on him. Well done to the Aussies as well of course. Sorry to hear about your injury too, mate. Sounds painful.

I didn't watch the match because I was at a party. Damn, I'm so shocked that we lost, especially considering our 52-0 thrashing of Fiji in the semis. Well done to NZ I suppose ( :o I just congratulated the Kiwis... I think I'm going to throw up). :P

I think it's true that kids are generally getting more feral, loosing respect for parents, etc. You could probably put it down to crappy parenting for the most part. This whole attitude that parents have to be friends to their kids is nonsense and needs to change. Parents are the authority figure, and should act as such. Sure, after some time the parents role as authority figure will morph into being friends, but younger kids (up to the age of 15, especially) need to be taught respect and be given boundaries. The most interesting trend these days seems to be with girls getting more violent, almost rivaling the guys. Anyone else noticed this?

On the whole, I'd say it's negative. I think laws are necessary to restrict freedom somewhat so that the majority of people can do the majority of what they want the majority of the time, so long as the freedoms of others are impinged as little as possible. It's a matter of getting the balance right, essentially. ie democracy ;) Yep, essentially. :)

On the whole, I'd say it's negative. I think laws are necessary to restrict freedom somewhat so that the majority of people can do the majority of what they want the majority of the time, so long as the freedoms of others are impinged as little as possible. It's a matter of getting the balance right, essentially.

You did, but it just seems to come across in what you say, there is quite a lot of misunderstanding going on and im am really unsure of your position because you seem to say one thing and then say a thing which counters it, so im unsure which stand your actually taking, this is just the nature of people of course we are contrary creatures, but thats why these misunderstanding occur. Sure, totally agree with you. Sure thing boss, page 8 post 4 I really couldn't be bothered trying to continually defend that I'm not against smokers, smoking in general, that I don't want smoking to be illegal, etc, etc, etc. If you're taking out any vibe contrary to that then you've got me wrong and I'm really not interested in arguing something so vague as a vibe. If you have a straight question you want me to answer about my opinion on any related issues, then ask it. Otherwise, we'll just be wasting time with more misunderstanding or misinterpretations. As for people who make rules like "I'll smoke in my own house when I want to", you're right, I did say that they were jerks. I was wrong, and I'm happy to wear it when I am. Yet, the point I was making still stands based purely on it being the more reasonable solution to the problem. Perhaps the main point of contention lies along the fact that we live in different countries with vastly different climates and hence we look at the issue from a different position. In my country, it's the simplest thing in the world for a smoker to go outside so as to not bother the guests inside, regardless of whether it's their house or not. As I've said, my family does this all the time, and I'm the only non-smoker in my family. In your scenario, I take it that it's much colder outside and hence more difficult to go outside so as not to bother the people inside. I understand your point. As I said after that which you quoted, if it comes down to the smoker being so adamant that its too cold outside, I will move to another room or leave. Hope thats all cleared up, and it should also clear up the following point: As you say, both could split up and not bother or they could easily a agree to a 50-50 split. You could agree not to fuss about it if they lit up in their home and they could agree to not smoke in yours, or half the time when at either yours or theirs they could go outside. My way the smoker and the non smoker get to keep their friendship intact. i should probably mention that in the UK, with the temperatures we have here going outside is not a universally accepted thing, people are generally quite grumpy, if still willing to comply. I would probably be very happy going outside if i living in Australia. As for the final points where I apparantly misinterpreted something you said and generalised another point too much, sorry, I'm still at a loss for where I went wrong and I'm really not interested at trying to spend more time wracking my brain to try and figure it out.

Yet chaos affects us in adverse ways. Your argument falls down there.

I havent said its unreasonable, I think its perfectly reasonable. I'm trying to get you to understand that the other way round is also reasonable but all your arguments seem to be only one way, I stand here respecting the rights of the non smokers, but you dont respect any rights of the smokers. You think its "It's not unreasonable to lay down basic ground rules for your house" but earlier say that you think any smokers who chose the rules "Ill smoke in my own house when i want to" are jerks, it just looks like people can make any rule for their house as long as its one you agree with. If that's what you get out of what I've been saying, it looks like this discussion has been one huge waste of time. I thought I made it clear enough that I supported the right of a smoker to do so (about three three times or so now); all I'm doing is defending the rights of the non-smoker. A non-smoker has as much right not to be exposed to smoke as a smoker does to smoke. I suppose that would be the general thrust of what Im saying. And where exactly did I say that people who make the rule "I'll smoke in my own house when I want to" are jerks? Come on, show me the quote. All I have said is that in my experience, smokers would usually be happy to go outside and smoke, even if it is their own house. Please don't misconstrue my words, I've never said that people can make any rule for their house so long as I agree with it. I have, however, said that if they were adamant enough about wanting to smoke inside their own house, I would probably move to another room or leave: I didnt say they'd be a jerk for asking me to smoke outside, i said id think them a jerk if they asked me to eat a kebab outside because of the smell. I can understand you making the inference that my reaction would be the same for smoking, but it was a response purely to the idea of smell, the health issues do change the reaction completely. Again misrepresenting what I was saying, it was specifically directed at your comment which was quite isolated from your other comments about health, and I specifically made clear at the time that i was meaning it separately to other issues of health. Not allowing someone to smoke purely because of the smell is egotistical, not allowing someone to smoke because it irritates your throat is quite quite different ,and finally transfering it to a completely generalistic "I'm egotistical should I want you to smoke outside" is a step far too far. Please pay attention to the things I am actually saying rather than lashing out at me. I am an intelligent person, if it sounds like im saying something completely crazy its probably because youve misread what I'm saying or trying to say. As for the first point there, we've already cleared that one up (in the sense that smoke is not the same as garlic, considering the health issues), so I'll leave it alone. Sorry for jumping ahead of you and making a hasty inference. As for the second point, what exactly did I misinterpret? Im confused. Health issues or not, the argument can still be countered: you say its egotistical for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to smoke outside yet its likewise egotistical, according to your reasoning, for a smoker to force a non-smoker to breathe his smoke. Both involve one party impinging on the other in some way and expecting them to take it. If there is such a stalemate with this scenario, then as Ive said, either they should separate or I (non-smoker) would probably leave (considering the factor of temperature and assuming that we're in the smoker's house). I'm not going to explain that point again because this would be about the third time. Also, how exactly is generalizing the argument like I have a step too far? I dont see how it is. Finally, I'm really not interested in your complaints about my debating style or your intelligence for that matter. It's really just a condescending tangent to make me out to be a monstrous prat when I've been trying my best to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Yes, it should be legal and ideally it should be regulated for STDs. If a woman wants to sell sex and a man wants to buy it, so be it. I'm ok with that.

Then I'd simply not visit them, particularly in view of the stuff in the next paragraph, but also in general, I live in a democracy, and I supposrt democracy. if you make your house a dictatorship i will not go there. I realise this to many people is a strange idea, but think about it, think about how you would view a country with those sort of rules and whether or not thats actually a system you want in place in your very home. I was raised in a culture where hospitality was a major feature, in my parents house the guest was almost king for a day, now I dont go that far myself, but having everyone present to be part of the decision making process at any time is not an unreasonable way of living. I hope you understand. I understand, but I disagree fundamentally. It's not unreasonable to lay down basic ground rules for your house because it's your house and you own it. I'm all for being hospitable, but that means hospitable for all people and not just the smokers. My house rule #1 would be only smoking outside. Sure, smoke all you like, and I'd likely join you out there because the breeze usually sorts it out. Rule #2 would be empties in one spot so I can chuck them out tomorrow. Rule #3 would be everyone pitches in for the strippers. And yes, you are invited to the party.

Can I ask where you live and what sort of temperatures you deal with? Admittedly, I live in Australia where the climate is typically warm (say an average of 25-35 deg. C in summer?). Given this, there's no real reason not to go outside if you're a smoker.

Then I suppose we agree after all, for you see I was including the whole experience. Cigarette smoke is an irritant and doesn't sit well with people. As I tried to make out in my original post, it's not just an odour thing, nor is it exactly equitable to smelling garlic or curry, etc. As for my reaction to stagnant smoke being atypical, I've had some negative experiences with it as I explained, but I don't think my reaction to it is so out of the ordinary for non-smokers to have (remember, I'm talking a fair bit of stagnant smoke here). Perhaps they aren't bothered by it to the exact degree that I am, but that's beside the point when we're comparing cigarette smoke and an orange t-shirt. Either way, I think I'll let other people here decide their feelings on stagnant cigarette smoke. Consider this an open invitation for replies, people. As for the golden pedestal quip, it was mostly directed at the point that you still feel that the host is a jerk should they tell you to smoke outside (freezing or not), which essentially means you value your right to smoke inside more than their right not to breathe in your smoke, does it not? My point in that question was to denounce the idea that I'm egotistical should I want you to smoke outside - in reality it's a pretty unreasonable thing to confront someone with (calling the non-smoker egotistical), considering the circumstances. Added, If that were the case, then you would be egotistical for forcing me to breathe in your stagnant smoke. I think "inconsiderate" would be a more apt term to use, but that's going off on a tangent anyway.

I see what you're saying, but I think we need to bring some context into this. If you go to someones house, it's their rules or the highway as far as I'm concerned. That could potentially mean no smoking inside; no exceptions, no 50/50. But, if I go to your house and your rules are that smoking inside is ok, then I'd have to go along with that and remove myself from your vicinity should you decide to light up. The thing about this scenario is that I feel such a person would be an inconsiderate jerk, whether it be their house or not. Again, many reasonable people I know (family included) are quite happy to go outside and smoke, even if it's their own house. The reason being: it's not that big of a deal to go outside for a smoke to avoid giving your friend a lungfull. As for the scenario of it being freezing cold outside, I've never had to deal with that one but I suppose the people involved would have to have that argument amongst themselves. If my smoking friend was adamant enough about the temperature, then sure, I'd probably go to another room or leave.

Atheism is NOT being "unsure" of a god. It isn't by it's very definition. That's agnosticism, buddy. Nobody debates the points you put up because you never make any logical contribution to the argument, and continue to post biased sources like "http://www.intelligentchristianity.net/" and "www.icr.org", and even "www.talkorigins.com". Can't you do any better than providing blatantly biased sources? "Some" would imply that you planned on naming more than one. I just thought I'd say that talkorigins is the pro-evolution one. http://www.talkorigins.org/ At least it gives the reader actual links to scientific journals from time to time. As for Saruman, you can't expect to post biased christian fundamentalist sources and have everyone agree with you. The only real unbiased sources as a whole are the scientific literature, i.e. the collection of work which makes up the consensus position which says that evolution happened. It's so mechanised by that stage that the body of work as a whole has virtually no bias to it. That's not to say that it's perfect, because it is a human endeavour, but it's the best science as of now and it tells a pretty definitive story.

Well firstly I'm talkin about forcing your will onto others because the thread is about whether or not smoking should be made illegal and so I assume (reasonably I think) that if people are putting forwards arguments against smoking that they are doing so in support of the proposition that smoking should be illegal. If you aren't doing so, then I'm not convinced that you aren't using the thread to get a bit of complaining about smokers done to relieve tension, something I can understand but it could do with being labelled as such so it isn't confused with the topic. No, thats not what Im talking about, which Ive tried to make painfully clear so as to avoid this kind of confusion. Once more for clarity: I do not think smoking should be made illegal, I just had a comment on stagnant second hand smoke. Also, Im not complaining about smokers, only inconsiderate people and the smell of second hand smoke. Id have to say by and large smokers arent that inconsiderate, so thats a positive. You seem not to have addressed the counterargument, either. OK Sure, explain to me where the difference actually lies? Remember we are purely talking about the smell here rather than any health concern, each of them is a sensory input which is disliked, I really can't see the difference, sure the orange t shirt thing is ridiculous, but the implication I'm making is that because the nature of the two is identical then from someone elses perspective the dislike of the smell of smoke would appear just as ridiculous. The difference is firstly one of scale; I can quite possibly see many people like me that just cant stand the smell of stagnant cigarette smoke. I cant possibly see such a number of people with such an adverse reaction to the colour of a t-shirt. Secondly, the former would be rational, because its irritating my very olfactory system, yet the latter is irrational, because theres no reason to have such an adverse opinion of a colour. That is, unless there is some biological reason; say because the colour orange generates an irritating sensation like having a torch shone into your eyes or something. As for the health reasons associated with second hand smoke, thanks for bringing them up because they only further my point. Again, Shin, I dont think its that much to ask not to breathe in your stagnant smoke, should that scenario ever arise. I take it you dont really care about the rights of a non-smoker not to breathe in your stagnant smoke, do you? Ive not really heard your opinion on that, yet. You seem to be dead against anyone taking away your right to fill a room with your smoke, but what do you say about the rights of the other people in that room? There is no problem with you disliking it at all, its when your dislike impinges on my actions I have a problem with it. So I see that you understand the counterpoint as well? Such that you should have a problem with smokers impinging on my wishes not to breathe in their stagnant smoke? A little give and take is what makes society work, my friend. Ive already given my stamp of approval to people such as yourself smoking to your hearts content. I would expect you to be somewhat reasonable and try not to make me smoke as well, if at all possible. After all, you cant get annoyed at non-smokers for asking you to smoke elsewhere should you light up in their house because youre restricting their freedom too. The same goes for lighting up next to a non-smoker in a bar. Just on that point, there are laws that separate smokers and non-smokers and now I see why it minimizes what people dont want. For non-smokers its breathing in smoke (particularly in non-ventilated areas), and for smokers its not being able to smoke. Very fair I say! :) I would certainly do so because of the health reasons. But if someone asked me to eat a kebab outside because the garlic sauce smelled bad I would certainly look at them funny. I'd probably say something along the lines of "Oh c'mon, its flipping freezing outside, its only a kebab, can we just open the windows please?). I'd reluctantly agree to go outside after all its their house but id still think they were a jerk for making a fuss (I live in Newcastle and its flipping cold outside). It's exactly the same thing Its exactly the same thing as the smell of garlic? Right. Again, I think youd be hard pressed to find people with such an adverse reaction to the smell of garlic, nor does the smell of garlic tend to fill a room like cigarette smoke can. For the sake of discussion, suppose there are two rational thinking friends, one loves garlic kebabs and the other has a serious dislike for the smell. Of course the two will part ways for the duration of the meal, because theyre reasonable people. I suppose the easiest solution is for the eater to go outside because the smell is more easily dispersed there. Though of course, if the second friend doesnt mind the smell of garlic, the first could happily eat the kebab in front of him. Sure, the same could be true of a smoking and non-smoking friend, but I seriously doubt that would be so likely. I tend to think exactly the opposite of what you seem to Id say you would be the jerk if you smoked in someones house against their wishes. I dont care how cold it is outside. If you cant hold off until you get back to your own house/car, then too bad. You cant seriously expect people to sit back complacently while putting your rights on a golden pedestal by enduring your cigarette smoke. Thats ridiculous. Because the only reason I would do so are health reasons. Health trumps likes/dislikes. You didnt quite answer the question directly, did you? Is it because by your own reasoning it makes you out to be a total jerk?

Because its still just a smell. The idea that you would force your will onto others make them change the way they want to live their life simply because of a personal preference is egotistical. To put it another way, suppose I said that I thought people really shouldnt wear orange TShirt simply because I dont like the colour orange? You'd think i was mad. It would be fine for me to make the statement "I dont like the colour orange", but its arrogance for me to go around expecting other people to change their behaviour simply because of it. Who said anything about forcing my will onto others? I said I'd rather not be exposed to stagnant cigarette smoke because I can't stand the smell. Besides, the argument cuts both ways: who are to force your will on me by essentially filling my lungs with your smoke? Am I to call you egotistical now because you think it's fine to make me smell your stagnant smoke? I don't think it's too much to ask not to breathe in stagnant cigarette smoke, Shin. A bit of a fleeting smell of smoke while walking down the street I can deal with, but I'm not talking about that here. I'm not talking about something as innocuous as the colour of a t-shirt either, so please don't reduce the argument to something so rediculous. I've already said that I don't mind if people smoke, all I'm saying is that I don't like the smell of stagnant smoke nor do I like being exposed to it. As a matter of fact, most reasonable smokers I know (my family included) are quite happy to comply by avoiding smoking around non-smokers/in the house or car of non-smokers. Any reasonable human being would do the same as far as I'm concerned. Let me ask you this: would you smoke in the room of a non-smoking friend's house and upon hearing his demands for you to stop just call him egotistical? Of course you wouldn't, so why are you arguing the point with me?

She Rides by Danzig. Woah. I have to buy this album...

How many of those hard drug addicts also drank coffee? :lol: Correlation does not imply causation. You'll need something else if you wish to argue that marijuana is a gateway drug. I agree with you, but the coffee comparison is pretty ridiculous. For one, going to buy coffee has little to no chance of exposing you to people willing to sell you hard drugs.

Awesome song, learning to play it on guitar. :) Currently listening to Synaptic Plasticity by Blotted Science.

I realy don't know what you're talking about, or what you mean by "bugs". Its a reference to the film Starship Troopers As for the smell, those complaining are really going to have to get over yourselves, its one thing to complain about the health problems, even secondary smoking for which the evidence has been completely overblown (I'm not implying it isnt true that second hand smoke does increase your likelyhood of cancer, but the studies were specifically only about people in confined spaces with smokers). However implying that the smell is anything other than the tiniest of irritations is great egotism. I couldn't disagree more. The smell of stagnant smoke lingering in a room is not a tiny irritation for me - it's easily one of the most horrible smells I've ever encountered. I don't know why this has anything to do with ego, either. For my entire life I've lived with smokers, such that I'm the only non-smoker in my family. To tell you the truth the smoking never used to bother me because my family usually did it outside where the breeze could carry the smell away. But ever since I experienced a stagnant load of smoke in my house one morning with the air conditioner going and all the windows and doors closed, I've had a seriously adverse reaction to stagnant smoke. These days my dad and my brother both know that they can only smoke outside, yet there have been slip-ups which they (my dad, usually) thought they could hide from me. Suffice it to say that I could smell their slip-ups from a mile away, and it's never been a minor irritation, that's for sure. Having said that, I don't mind in the slightest that they smoke, and I never tell them that they shouldn't. They now have a great big deck out the back where they can smoke and I say they can do so to their heart's content. The breeze usually sorts out the smoke when it's outside anyway.

Why exactly would you hold your breath if they weren't smoking? I would assume he's talking about the bad smell of some smokers, particulary heavy smokers. That stale smoke smell is very unpleasant. What's worst is when a smoker lights up in an unventilated room and the smoke stagnates for a while. Horrible smell.

Testimony of the Ancients by Pestilence (album). Brilliant.

Blink, what's the status of Travis after that plane crash? I hear he had some pretty serious burns.