.

[Shinjula]

This is what makes people see you as a jerk. Sure, your guests were king in your house when they stayed over, because that's being hospitable. However, being hospitable doesn't mean you suddenly lose authority in your house. If you refuse to go to someone's house because they won't let you smoke inside of it claiming that they're being rude and unhospitable, then yes, you are a selfish jerk.

 

well done for completely misinterpreting what I said. I wouldnt go to someones house if they wouldnt let me smoke there out of deference to them. I dont want to upset someone or smoke where they dont want me to. I didnt claim anyone was rude or inhospitable. I just would feel given how much I smoke there wouldnt be much point since I'd spend all my time outside in the freezing cold. How on earth does that me selfish.

 

 

 

Also, you can't compare a country to a house. A country holds millions of people over thousands of miles. In an average household of 4, if 1 person smokes, the entire family is affected for days or weeks.

 

So democracy isnt something to be bothered with on a small scale?

[Shinjula]

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.

 

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.

[warri0r45]

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.

 

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:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

 

My point in that question was to denounce the idea that I'm egotistical should I want you to smoke outside

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.

[Shinjula]

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

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.

 

 

 

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.

Sure, totally agree with you.

 

 

 

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.

Sure thing boss, page 8 post 4

 

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.

 

 

 

As for the second point, what exactly did I misinterpret? Im confused.

 

This debate between you and I has only come out of one comment I made which was purely about your comment about the smell, that it would be egotistical to make cigarettes illegal purely on the basis of that. You agreed that if I had a thing which produced the smell, but none of the irritation or health problems of a cigarette, you wouldn't make it illegal, since you wouldn't make cigarettes illegal anyway. That's the only time I've said the words egotistical, to my knowledge, if I've said it anywhere else I apologise I shouldn't have (but I don't think i have).

 

As a separate issue I have also made arguments against not putting people outside 100% of the time but I'm not saying its egotistical of you to disagree with me. For the majority of what we are saying I disagree with you but have no hard feelings, the smell thing which you already agree with me on has just got caught up in the whole thing.

 

 

 

Both involve one party impinging on the other in some way and expecting them to take it

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.

 

 

 

Also, how exactly is generalizing the argument like I have a step too far? I dont see how it is.

because youve missed out the bit where i said it is ONLY making the judgement on the basis of smell alone that i am talking about.

 

 

 

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.

Im sorry that was not what i meant, you have been nothing but courteous and an excellent debating partner tonight, however you have consistently missed out on a couple of points, so I was merely advising caution in the hope that those points were picked up.

 

 

 

EDIT: I'm tired and heading to bed now, have fun and catch you later. Peace out.

[warri0r45]

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

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.

 

 

 

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.

Sure, totally agree with you.

 

 

 

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.

Sure thing boss, page 8 post 4

 

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.

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Both involve one party impinging on the other in some way and expecting them to take it

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.