If you could make one thing illegal...

[ElkNight]

I would make smoking in most public places illegal (some exceptions) I just can't stand it.

 

Edit: I guess it is "Blocked to abuse" whatever that means

[Orpheus]

I'd make the internet illegal to piss people off. :lol:

 

 

 

or gas guzzling cars.

 

I would have to kill you.

 

And death threats.

 

I'd make it illegal for 12-year-olds to be on the internet.

[deloriagod]

There's quite a lot, but I think the one that I'd want is smoking and allowing tobacco smoke (or the chemicals therein) to reach a non-smoker. This includes unborn children, for which there should be even harsher penalties.

 

 

 

Please take the time to inform yourself about how secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as the gov't leads you to believe. The ONLY reason I don't like secondhand smoke is because it makes me want a cigarette, which I've had trouble giving up.

 

...and Secondhand smoke smells like [cabbage]. Also, it gives me a sore throat if I am around a smoker for too long.

 

 

 

Oh noes! You don't like the smell? Maybe I don't like the smell that some cars produce? I sure as all don't like it when people fart near me or if someone has bad body odor. You get a sore throat, maybe I get a headache from prolonged exposure to those smells. Should we make everything that doesn't smell good illegal?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Those wacky ties people get.

 

 

 

Meaningless things like "blue sky thinking".

 

 

 

Posh emos. 'Oh no, daddy can't afford to get me a new TV. I'm stuck on my old 17" flatscreen', was a comment that really wound me up a few months back.

[Nadril]

id make porno illegal for the lulz.

 

 

 

If you did that I'd raep you for the lulz

 

 

 

[bleep] it. I retract my earlier statement about not making anything illegal. I would gladly make 4chan illegal. :)

[NoMoreDead]

I don't understand why my posts keep getting deleted. They have legitimate answers in them.

 

 

 

I would make it illegal to create any legal document which is created under the precedent of religious sacredness. (IE: PROP 8)

 

 

 

I also don't really understand the "Banning smoking" idea. It's a liberty, isn't it? Freedom of choice. If it's not affecting you, why bother? If you can't stand to be in a room with smokers, why be there?

[Shazarabbit]

I don't understand why my posts keep getting deleted. They have legitimate answers in them.

 

 

Possibly because they may contain some spam, if you have a problem with posts getting deleted best thing is to discuss the issue with an administrator to solve the issue. It may be a mistake.

 

 

 

I would make it illegal to create any legal document which is created under the precedent of religious sacredness. (IE: PROP 8)

 

To be honest i have no idea what this means. LOL

 

 

 

I also don't really understand the "Banning smoking" idea. It's a liberty, isn't it? Freedom of choice. If it's not affecting you, why bother? If you can't stand to be in a room with smokers, why be there?

 

 

 

There's freedom sure, but when parent's are blatantly ignoring the dangers of it when it comes to their children, endangering other people someone needs to step in and ensure it gets better.

[NoMoreDead]

 

I also don't really understand the "Banning smoking" idea. It's a liberty, isn't it? Freedom of choice. If it's not affecting you, why bother? If you can't stand to be in a room with smokers, why be there?

 

 

 

There's freedom sure, but when parent's are blatantly ignoring the dangers of it when it comes to their children, endangering other people someone needs to step in and ensure it gets better.

 

 

 

I agree with that. I don't think people should smoke, especially when raising a child/carrying a child, but I think it's their right to. If it causes birth defects in the child, I think that they ought to be legally prosecuted for child endangerment and child abuse.

[venomai]

All persons of age should have the freedom to smoke cigarettes in their own home as well as in open places. The government is not our nanny -- if an adult wishes to, say, eat fatty foods -- even after the health risks are made clear to them -- we should allow them to do so without any sort of legal consequences.

 

 

 

If it causes birth defects in the child, I think that they ought to be legally prosecuted for child endangerment and child abuse.

 

Birth after a certain age greatly increases "defects." Ought that to be illegal as well?

[Barihawk]

I don't understand why my posts keep getting deleted. They have legitimate answers in them.

 

 

 

I would make it illegal to create any legal document which is created under the precedent of religious sacredness. (IE: PROP 8)

 

 

 

I also don't really understand the "Banning smoking" idea. It's a liberty, isn't it? Freedom of choice. If it's not affecting you, why bother? If you can't stand to be in a room with smokers, why be there?

 

 

 

The reason your posts were being deleted were because you were likely presenting them in a manner that was considered trolling. Saying "banning religion" would be trolling. Saying what you did in the second line of the replied post is perfect and well written. It's a very fine line between a serious criticism of religion and trolling it, just make sure you present some kind of support to your claim (like you did above).

 

 

 

While the Christian in me disagrees, the rest of me agrees with your statement. Hence why I'm a moderate (while most of you for some reason think I'm some right wing fascist :o).

 

 

 

As for smoking, I am for an "inside" ban as smoking not only effects you, but those around you. Even if not for health reasons, it infringes on their rights to clean air. Smoking outdoors or in your own home? Whatever. Although you are going to be stuck with a foul smelling house nobody will want to visit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, I agree with Nadril. I retract my "mandatory classes on religion before criticism" (although it was universally agreed to be good) because it's worth it to destroy all 4chan and memes.

[Leoo]

New one for me: Smoking. I honestly cannot stand smoke being blown in my face. I don't smoke for REASONS, so I don't expect imbersiles to blow smoke in my face on the street. Especially when I have asthma.

[Seraphi]

make illogical thinking illigal.

 

that, or smoking.

[henman888]

Smoking, I don't see why non-smokers should have their lungs damaged by breathing in smoke from smokers.

[deloriagod]

I think I need to take a stand against what the gov't is teaching kids as many people here obviously think they're going to get serious damage done to their lungs from merely being around someone smoking once in a while..

[NoMoreDead]

Smoking, I don't see why non-smokers should have their lungs damaged by breathing in smoke from smokers.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

 

Please take the time to inform yourself about how secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as the gov't leads you to believe. The ONLY reason I don't like secondhand smoke is because it makes me want a cigarette, which I've had trouble giving up.

 

 

 

New one for me: Smoking. I honestly cannot stand smoke being blown in my face. I don't smoke for REASONS, so I don't expect imbersiles to blow smoke in my face on the street. Especially when I have asthma.

 

 

 

Let's face facts here folks. You don't have a smoker walk up to you on the street and blow smoke in your face. Nobody does.

 

 

 

You have every right to get up and walk away from any person around you who is smoking.

 

 

 

 

Birth after a certain age greatly increases "defects." Ought that to be illegal as well?

 

 

 

Excellent point. I don't think these people should be having children in the first place, considering it is extremely hard to raise a child after a certain age who has a need to be active (obviously this differs for all human beings). I don't know what you'd do about that legally, though. I just think that it'd be common sense to not do something to harm yourself or your potential child.

[Sam]

Cigarettes

 

Chavs / Yobs

 

Bean can exhausts.

 

 

 

They all [bleep]ing annoy me.

[venomai]

make illogical thinking illigal.

 

that, or smoking.

 

Is this a joke? :lol:

[l0rd]

 

And your logic is flawed because no "idiots" could obtain nuclear technology let alone have such of a whimsical of a motive for using it.

 

 

 

You have never heard of terrorists? The higher grade ones steal high-grade military products from smaller and corrupt nations like candy, it would be easy for them to get a nuke if they really needed one.

 

 

 

While I hate nukes, I would rather they be legal. They create a balance of power that if one nation has one, nobody else will use theirs. That's what keeps us safe.

 

 

 

First off, did you know that developed countries struggle to obtain nuclear technology? How do you think a terrorist group could possibly obtain such technology and still consider them "idiots". Terrorist and idiot are not synonyms, nor should the obtainment of nuclear technology ever be described as easy.

[I_am_Geed]

I migh be starting a flame war with the fandom, but

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BAN TWILIGHT

 

 

 

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[deloriagod]

 

BAN TWILIGHT

 

 

 

 

Aye, I'll second this.

[AdamMonkey0]

Not playing RuneScape? :lol:

 

 

 

That was my non-serious one, but here is my serious one: maybe I'd make it illegal to have any light giving advice on a certain day every 3 months. This would help stargazers like children who want to peer into the night sky and see the amazing stars. I hope 4 nights out of 365 would be acceptable for people. It would be nice to just look up and actually see stars in the sky from the city :

[l0rd]

 

BAN TWILIGHT

 

 

 

 

Aye, I'll second this.

 

 

 

Aye, thirded.

[purfishx]

 

BAN TWILIGHT

 

 

 

 

Aye, I'll second this.

 

 

 

Aye, thirded.

 

 

 

Aye, fourthed? And the Jonas Sisters.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

I'd make any form of expression illegal, impossible idealists and naive people who think the world is all rainbows and ponies until the day comes when they get [bleep]ed and go crying and bawling "WHY ME?!".

[Agunimon979]

 

BAN TWILIGHT

 

 

 

 

Aye, I'll second this.

 

 

 

Aye, thirded.

 

 

 

Aye, fourthed? And the Jonas Sisters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWWWHHHHHAAAAATTTT????!!!

[Barihawk]

 

And your logic is flawed because no "idiots" could obtain nuclear technology let alone have such of a whimsical of a motive for using it.

 

 

 

You have never heard of terrorists? The higher grade ones steal high-grade military products from smaller and corrupt nations like candy, it would be easy for them to get a nuke if they really needed one.

 

 

 

While I hate nukes, I would rather they be legal. They create a balance of power that if one nation has one, nobody else will use theirs. That's what keeps us safe.

 

 

 

First off, did you know that developed countries struggle to obtain nuclear technology? How do you think a terrorist group could possibly obtain such technology and still consider them "idiots". Terrorist and idiot are not synonyms, nor should the obtainment of nuclear technology ever be described as easy.

 

 

 

I think he was referring to "idiot" in the sense of "jerk" or someone who will use a technology for an impractical purpose, hence being "dumb." He was not referring to them having a lack of intelligence.