[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: PhootingAPhoton OfGas ]

And now for something completely different.

/johncleese

quote:

---

Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
{edit: colorized for easier reading}

---

I thought it was one massive link. LOL

2) I didn't call you a name, I labled your constant opinion that the goverment knows better than private business owners how to run a business as what it is. Beside it also being ignorant. The US Goverment can't even run the USPS out of the red, yet UPS and Fed Ex run comparable businesses with a great profit margin.

3) There are quite a few things that are "bad" for you in this country that we use regularly, like tobacco, alcohol, firearms, automobiles, etc. Are you saying we should make them all illegal and remove everyone's own right to choose what risks they take with their own life?

Keep your laws out of MY business. If someone wants to smoke in MY restaraunt or MY home, it is MY choice to allow them to, or not, not yours.

You can't even reply to my posts without anger and name calling. You purposely miscontrue what I say and even attempt to place words in my mouth just to make yourself look good. You make me laugh.

Get the patch or the gum. Pretty soon we'll have a catapult that'll launch smokers into orbit, so you better get with the program.

Cool little disclaimer thingy.

Now we see the classic Kanid backpedal: pretending to be the injured party in a series of flames you initiated. It's getting really old, moron.

Just to illustrate the depth of your ignorance, and because I'm a helluva guy, I'll even address your ignorance point-by-point:

1. This is gibberish, and yet another half-assed attempt to associate me with something unpleasant that has nothing to do with what I've said, ever, anywhere.

Since when are safety requirements "overbearing"? You said yourself that rodents should not be allowed in kitchens because of the health risk to customers. I said that smoking should not be allowed for exactly the same reason.

Why is one an example of overbearing socialism, while the other is simple prudence? That's the question you must answer, but chose to call me names instead.

2. Point out exactly where I said, hinted, implied, gestured, intimated, mimed, or otherwise gave the impression I thought government should or could run anyone's business for them. You'll find, if you take the ideological blinders off--everyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of pinko, right?--that I consistently addressed the issue at hand as a matter of public safety.

3. If you had bothered to read my last post before responding with your usual self-rightiously indignant ignorant bullshit, you'd have noticed the following:

quote:

---

Bloodsage anticipated Kanid's lame come-back, and preempted him with:
Ordinarily, there's no reason to outlaw stupidity. In this case, however, the activity is also hazardous to those around the stupid person. Not to mention costing taxpayers such as myself untold mega-$$ to pay healthcare expenses for the stupid people who are poor.

---

3a. You seem to have run out of numbers. Keep working; you'll get the hang of the bigger ones eventually.

I recommend you not go into business for yourself--your attitudes will likely land you in jail. Operating a public establishment, such as a restaurant, confers certain obligations upon the owner with respect to public safety. That's why we have building codes. That's why there are cleanliness standards. That's why you can't store the industrial solvent in the same cabinet as the flour.

That's why smoking should not be allowed.

3b. It's a character flaw to blame others for one's own action, Kanid. Don't pretend you began calling me names with no intent to start something. Or that labeling me as a socialist wasn't intended to be insulting.

If you're constitutionally unable to have an intelligent conversation with someone with whom you disagree, you should seek help. But the first step is to admit your problem.

It's fairly obvious to everyone else, I assure you.

quote:

---

The Otaku Penguin had this to say about Robocop:
Sage, if a family comes into a restraunt that I myself own, and people are allowed to smoke, and they complain...TOUGH SHIT. If people want to smoke, let them smoke! Just like people who commit suicide, who gives a damn. And on the same lines of that analogy dealing with the miners job, sure, if you don't want to work in a dangerous environment, DON'T! No one is forcing you to work at a mine.

---

Suicides hurt no one but themselves.

If smoking were dangerous only to the smoker, I wouldn't care.

You also might try reading and thinking about what I'm saying, and maybe addressing the relevant issues I bring up.

Are you also, arguing that all public safety codes are inherently violations of freedoms that should be left to the people?

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Cuba:
Wah wah wah I can't give any factual reason why we should place more GOVERMENT controls on people, so I'll continue calling names.

---

Someone who has a socialist ideal does not make THEM a socialist. Perjoritive my ass. I don't believe in capital punisment, a very politically liberal idea, but I sure as hell am not politically liberal.

Take it as calling names if you want, put more words in my mouth if you must, but you and I both know you simply refuse to see the difference between the black death and second hand smoke.

Why don't you quit assuming you know what I'm thinking and discuss the topic politely and intelligently?

The point is that you haven't disputed the fact of what I'm saying.

Is it, then, your contention that smoking is dangerous only for the smoker?

If so, you should a) argue that, and b) find some evidence, since most of the medical data shows otherwise.

And, if you just can't bear the thought of having an intelligent, polite conversation, just shut the fuck up. Get a clue: your emotions and your politics are stupid bases for arguing, moreso since you don't seem to understand the basis for either.

Either present a factual argument, or keep quiet.

"Your ideals are socialist, and I hope you never get to make laws," is the definition of an ad hominem argument. It's offensive, as well.

Do you have anything at all to say about the topic at hand?

quote:

---

Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Are you also, arguing that all public safety codes are inherently violations of freedoms that should be left to the people?

---

No, you are seeing things in black and white and completely avoiding the gray, even when called on it.

Automobiles kill more people every year than second hand smoke, firearms, and alcohol put together. These aren't just cases where the driver kills themself, but others as well. The benefits are weighed against the costs and the number of deaths caused by automobiles is considered an acceptable number. People aren't running out in droves to ban automobiles.

But currently it's socially acceptable to get on the anti-tobacco bandwagon, so let's just make more laws prohibiting people from smoking, despite the cost to the business owners, the loss of jobs, the cost to the goverment in unemployment insurance paid out, etc.

If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, real simple, don't frequent an establishment that allows people to smoke in it. Don't be the typical soccer mom and make a law so they can't do what you don't want them to. Because then what's next? Alcohol? Remember prohibition? LEARN FROM HISTORY.

"Your ideals are socialist, and I hope you never get to make laws,"

Strange, that isn't what I said. Move the words around a little more so it looks like I slandered you and you could almost sue.

Maybe someday you can have a discussion without resorting to name calling and simply making things up. I doubt it though.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Kanid ]

Learn from history, indeed.

Automobiles can be operated safely. It is only those who use them irresponsibly who harm others. Additionally, anyone who harms someone else with an automobile is held criminally or civilly liable for the damages caused.

Not the same thing at all.

Similarly, alchohol. Consuming alchohol does not pose an inherent risk to anyone, including the drinker. One must "do it wrong," in a manner of speaking, to become a danger to others. Also, as with automobiles, anyone who harms another under the influence of alchohol is held criminally or civilly liable for the damages.

Not the same thing at all.

I thought we went over the name-calling thing. Are you honestly so stupid and immature you just can't help yourself, or were you simply seeing if I'd notice you comparing me--pejoratively--to a soccer mom?

Answer the question, and quit dodging it: is it your assertion that second-hand smoke poses no medical risk to anyone? If so, you really should provide some data, since most medical studies show otherwise.

Kanid are you trying to say that the benefits of allowing smokers to smoke in public places outweigh the dangers? That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

So lets get some things straight:

1> You do not have the right to smoke, nicotine is a controlled substance. You are allowed to smoke because the FDA does not regulate who can and cannot obtain access to it as long as they are over the age of 18.

2> You do not have the right to smoke in a public place. While it may not be specificly forbidden in some areas, it is a privilage that can be taken away legaly.

3> Bloodsage is not a liberal or a socialist, he's actually quite conservative. Socialisim isn't always a bad things, some of the things we take for granted today are a direct result of socialization of services. For example, the roads you drive upon, the schools your childern attend, the dam that provides water to the area you live in, etc. Oh and btw because we were too foolish to socialize health care we now have HMOs, wow that was a smart move. =P

Lastly I wish to make an analogy of how silly one of Kanid's earlier posts was.

If someone wants to blow up a pipe bomb and kill people in my store it is up to me if they can or can not. The government shouldn't be able to tell me if I can or can not allow random detonations in my store!

Here is what you said initially:

quote:

---

Bloodsage, I don't even know how to respond to your socialist ideals except to pray that you are never in a position to be able to make laws.

---

Here is how I paraphrased it:

quote:

---

"Your ideals are socialist, and I hope you never get to make laws," is the definition of an ad hominem argument.

---

Are you really asserting there's a meaningful difference? Are you attempting to assert that the original is somehow not ad hominem, while my paraphrase turns it into that?

'Splain, Lucy.

Quibbling is an art, Kanid. It requires, first and foremost, solid command of the language. You lack that most basic skill, and should really stick to debating main issues, rather than highlighting your verbal shortcomings by consistently making an issue of fine points of usage and being wrong.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Bloodsage!
Automobiles can be operated safely. It is only those who use them irresponsibly who harm others.

---

Incorrect. Automobiles are MADE to wear. Break pads are designed to wear out and should they be worn out the inapropriate time, the car doesn't stop when it should. Also things like tire blowouts occur as well. Maybe that's why they're called "accidents"

quote:

---

Similarly, alchohol. Consuming alchohol does not pose an inherent risk to anyone, including the drinker.

---

Incorrect. I know I don't need to show medical proof on this one. Liver damage, brain damage, etc.

quote:

---

I thought we went over the name-calling thing. Are you honestly so stupid and immature you just can't help yourself, or were you simply seeing if I'd notice you comparing me--pejoratively--to a soccer mom?

---

pirjiritivily. Darn, I made a typing mistake and that invalidates everything I say.

Acting like a soccer mom does not make you a soccer mom. You yourself once said acting like a fool and being a fool are two entirely different things.

quote:

---

Answer the question, and quit dodging it: is it your assertion that second-hand smoke poses no medical risk to anyone? If so, you really should provide some data, since most medical studies show otherwise.

---

Yes. If smoking is allowed in a bar, and you don't go into that bar, you cannot be harmed by the second hand smoke inside that bar. You will, however, be harmed more by the toxins spewed from the back of automobiles.

You CHOOSE to enter the bar, taking your own life in your hands. Freedom of choice...what a wonderful thing.

So it comes down to...why should this unhealthy minority be free to impose their health-endangering habit, one that has an immediate effect on others, on other people? If someone were to get drunk, the most immediate effect they could have is to yak on me and ruin a shirt or whatever. That's not the same as sucking down second hand smoke. Admittedly a drunk person can get behind a wheel and run me down, but that's not an immediate, in-the-restaurant effect.

Besides, smoking is vile and can be a fire hazard. Alcohol, again, isn't such an immediate problem sort of situation. I mean think about the logic of sticking something you just lit on fire in your mouth.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
It's rather bad form--one could almost say sneaky--to edit one's post to include additional points of contention, Kanid.

---

Oh, darn, now I'm sneaky because you can't even put words in my mouth without getting caught? The only reason I added that was because you posted that purposeful misquote as I was writing and didn't notice until I had replied.

Try sticking to the topic, your command of the language should at least allow you that luxury.

Are you saying that the harmful effects of second-hand smoke are an accident?

That, because brake pads wear, it's not the owner's responsibility to keep up with them, and take every reasonable precaution to avoid harming others?

Is it really your contention that, because there are other dangers in society, a restaurant owner should be able to pump whatever dangerous combination of chemicals he chooses into the air of his restaurant?

Why, exactly, is allowing smoking any different than deliberately putting dangerous chemicals into the air? Why are the dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke protected, whereas it would be illegal to store many of them on the premesis at all, if in another medium?

You're posturing quite a bit, but you've yet to address the question.

quote:

---

Kanid had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Oh, darn, now I'm sneaky because you can't even put words in my mouth without getting caught? The only reason I added that was because you posted that purposeful misquote as I was writing and didn't notice until I had replied.

Try sticking to the topic, your command of the language should at least allow you that luxury.

---

I am on topic, stupid.

I notice that you completely ignored the rest of my post to focus on the minor part.

Well, what's the difference between what I typed and what you said originally? How is the former ad hominem while the latter is not?

Dumbass.

I lack leet debate skills or else I'd post something more about second hand smoke, growing up with it, and having chronic bronchitis<sp> now.

Are you stating that you have the right to go into any private establishment you choose? Sorry, this isn't the case. "We reserve the right to refuse service."

Here's a more direct correlation for you : Exhaust fumes from automobiles. These are good for you, yet second hand smoke is not? Sad thing is, you can't avoid exhaust fumes. You CAN avoid second hand smoke.

Instead of making the goverment protect you from every scratch you might get walking down the street, why don't you use your brain and choose not to frequent establishments that choose to allow their patrons to smoke? Is it really too hard for you to think on your own?

Smokers have the right to smoke, non-smokers have the right to NOT go into smoking bars.

(Neener )

quote:

---

Kanid had this to say about Robocop:
I'm sorry, if you don't enter the bar, how are you affected by the smokers within? Answer the question man.

Are you stating that you have the right to go into any private establishment you choose? Sorry, this isn't the case. "We reserve the right to refuse service."

Here's a more direct correlation for you : Exhaust fumes from automobiles. These are good for you, yet second hand smoke is not? Sad thing is, you can't avoid exhaust fumes. You CAN avoid second hand smoke.

Instead of making the goverment protect you from every scratch you might get walking down the street, why don't you use your brain and choose not to frequent establishments that choose to allow their patrons to smoke? Is it really too hard for you to think on your own?

---

What have I said, done, or hinted at that shows an unwillingness or inability to think for myself, Kanid? Quite the opposite, I should think.

Frankly, your seeming dependence upon labels, and your constant quick retreat into ideological catechisms speaks volumes, though.

I did answer the question, stupid. It is not the proprietor's decision whether to endanger his customers. It's not a matter of choosing a restaurant that's safe if I want to remain healthy.

The "we reserve the right to refuse service" line is just stupid. Nor does it have the slightest legal standing, as you'd know if you had a clue. Are you saying you don't have to serve black people if you so choose?

Restaurants are not private establishments, in the way you are using the term. The owner does not have carte blanche either to restrict his customer base or to endanger them. He could no more intentionally pump dangerous chemical into the air than he could refuse to serve orientals.

Automobile exhaust is yet another red herring. Unfortunately, it's an inevitable by-product of one of the technological underpinnings of our society. Are you saying that society would cease to function if smoking in public were outlawed? Are you saying that it would be all right to hook automobile exhaust up to the air conditioning system of a restaurant--which is nearly equivalent to allowing smoking?

Why is smoking--whose dangers you've not bothered to dispute--exempt, when we have health codes that prevent other dangerous situations in restaurants. How is it any different than being unsanitary or storing chemicals near food, the regulation of which you don't mind?

Where did I say, or give any indication at all, that I don't use my brain or that I put myself in dangerous situations through sheer ignorance?

Moron.

You arge incoherently enough when you're not being emotional, Kanid. You should attempt a little academic distance from topics in the future.

Who knows, someday you may actually make a point.

If you want to smoke, smoke. If you want to be around smokers, be around smokers. If you don't, then turn around and go somewhere else, don't force your opinion on others.

I can't stand smoking. I can't stand second hand smoke. But I DON'T tell smokers that my choice is more important than theirs. I don't sick the goverment on their case. I avoid them and go somewhere else.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
The "we reserve the right to refuse service" line is just stupid. Nor does it have the slightest legal standing, as you'd know if you had a clue. Are you saying you don't have to serve black people if you so choose?

...The owner does not have carte blanche either to restrict his customer base or to endanger them.

---

I thought the owner could serve whomever he pleased. It's his property to do with as he sees fit, right? It's just that he'd get in trouble if he discriminated against one group or another.

I mean, you can kick someone out of your establishment if they're acting like an ass, just not if you don't like the color of their skin, right?

In other words, you don't have to serve a person, but you have to serve a people. 'r something like that.

If you want to be around rats, be around rats. If you don't want to be around rats, don't come to this bar.

Blah blah blah, you have selective thinking Kanid. Considering you approve of a ban on rodent infestation, but disapprove of a ban on smoking, both of which are serious health risks to everyone.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Tyewa Dawnsister!
Blah blah blah, you have selective thinking Kanid. Considering you approve of a ban on rodent infestation, but disapprove of a ban on smoking, both of which are serious health risks to everyone.

---

Smokers excrete second hand smoke. If an establishment allows smokers, the patrons enter knowing full well the risk to their health and they choose to take that risk.

Rats carrying the plague are not similar in the slightest. There is no choice to avoid them, you don't know they're there until it's too late, the plague is fatal, period.

Read Otku's link, I wonder how many other wonderful scientific "facts" are calculated just as bogus by the right money.

No Kanid here you are wrong, in many ways smoking is much more of a health threat in this day and age than plague. Not only are billions more dollars spent each year treating smoking related health problems than black plague, many of those are issues are caused by mere second hand smoke.

You justify a ban on rodent infestations as in the public health, thus the government has a vested interest in banning it. Then you say that a ban on smoking in public places, which in many ways is more of a threat to public health than plague has ever been in the US, is wrong as the government has no place telling businesses how to operate. Take your pick, there is no grey area here my friend.

*cough**cough**cough*

Maybe the health issues aren't so bad now, are they?

The Goverment wants to nerf cigarettes! Then they should nerf firearms, automobiles, alcohol, etc. It is all dangerous to peoples' health, nerf it all to fix everything.

If they were serious about the health risks, there would be a PROPERLY funded study with accurate results and corrective legislation based on the real problem.

I just read that some doctors say drinking Orange Juice is bad for you so should we make OJ illegal too? Gotta protect the people from themselves, right?

You gonna force me to wear my motorcycle helmet too?

Oh no, I smoke pot, and the second hand smoke from that is worse, you going to make that illegal? Wait, it already is, and damned if that didn't make a difference.

I really don't smoke marijuana, just being facious to prove a point. Laws don't fix things, education does. Stop making more laws and enforce the damn ones we already have.

I read the link, it was a piece of pro smoking drek. Nothing in there scienctificly proved that second hand smoke is not harmful, or is of minimal danger. The fact remains, smoking and second hand smoke are of a much greater importance to the public health than black plague. So why support a ban on rats, but not on smoking? It's your tax dollars.

quote:

---

Kanid proved his idiocy by saying:
Exactly Karnaj, he's using his typical ploy to misdirect.

---

Which ploy was that, exactly, dumbfuck? You have an annoying habit of labeling anything you haven't the intelligence to address as an evil ploy to take advantage of you.

I find it odd the way you--seemingly with a straight face--claim to lack the mental ability to argue a point while simultaneously claiming to be correct in every particular.

Karnaj, unlike you, has the grace and intelligence to ask a question on a point he does not understand, or which was explained poorly.

The "right" to refuse service has very little legal standing. It covers the ability to set standards of dress and conduct on the property. The ability to set standards, however, does not extend to the right to endanger customers.

One could not, for example, use lead paint, and tell customers "if you don't like being endangered, you don't have to come here." Lead paint, by the way, is much less dangerous than second-hand smoke unless it's poorly maintained.

I read TOP's link. The author is a lawyer and "self-syndicated" newspaper columnist. Looking over his other work, he seems to have an agenda no less obvious than the one Azziza began this thread with.

Use your noggin, a bit: if smoking is dangerous to the smoker, who inhales the substance through a filter, then does it not follow that the unfiltered smoke is even more dangerous? Hmmmm. Density would be the only thing at issue.

Like lead paint, huh? Which you agree should be outlawed.

Show me, anywhere in the law, anywhere in custom, anywhere in civilized society of any kind, where proprietors of restaurants have the right to endanger their customers.

If they do, explain to us why we shouldn't repeal building and fire safety codes. Why, indeed, there should be any safety standards for anything at all.

If they don't have the right to endanger their customers--you seem to argue both sides of this one--then explain why smoking is the exception.

It's rather easy, really.

If you had a clue.

Kanid you want freedom? Go buy an island and start your own country. We live in a thing call society, society has laws, society has a vested interest in looking after the public health. If something endangers society, it must be taken care of. These are basic rules of EVERY government that has survived more than 13 days.

Oh and yet another properly funded study, that some momo with a chip on their shoulder can write a riposte to cast reasonable doubt. So after that we can fund yet another proper study which will conclude the same thing we already know but will achieve nothing as someone has their profit in mind.

Tobacco is the business of harming and killing people, therefore by the rules that all governments are based upon, it must be delt with. If that means banning smoking in public, so be it.

While the smoking is an expected thing, it's kind of the same example.

quote:

---

Kanid had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I'm tired of this, it obviously isn't going anywhere. You guys want to legislate choice and I want freedom. We aren't going to agree on anything here.

The Goverment wants to nerf cigarettes! Then they should nerf firearms, automobiles, alcohol, etc. It is all dangerous to peoples' health, nerf it all to fix everything.

If they were serious about the health risks, there would be a PROPERLY funded study with accurate results and corrective legislation based on the real problem.

I just read that some doctors say drinking Orange Juice is bad for you so should we make OJ illegal too? Gotta protect the people from themselves, right?

You gonna force me to wear my motorcycle helmet too?

Oh no, I smoke pot, and the second hand smoke from that is worse, you going to make that illegal? Wait, it already is, and damned if that didn't make a difference.

I really don't smoke marijuana, just being facious to prove a point. Laws don't fix things, education does. Stop making more laws and enforce the damn ones we already have.

---

Conclusive proof you are an utter moron, Kanid.

No one, anywhere, except you, has mentioned legislated choice of activities that are harmless or which may be done safely.

By retreating into your little catechism, you display your close-minded stupidity to the world at large, while attempting to slur others who've not mentioned a single thing you accuse them of.

Fuck off.

If you can't handle an intelligent discussion, can't be civil in disagreement, haven't the goddamn brains to make a point intelligently, what the fuck are you arguing for?!

Do you honestly expect everyone to agree with you when you refuse to provide anything other than simple assertions based upon an even simpler ideology? When you can't even explain yourself or justify your stance beyond, "Government bad; freedom good!"?

You're a disgrace to Homo sapiens sapiens.

And, yes, I'm going to force you to wear a motorcycle helmet, and your seatbelt, too. I'm sick and tired of spending my tax dollars to care for stupid people. If you're too fucking stupid to take commonsense precautions, you deserve a fine if caught, and to bleed to death in the ditch as the natural consequence of your idiocy.

Why bother with debate, Kanid? You're manifestly unable to handle it, both intellectually and constitutionally.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
Why bother with debate, Kanid? You're manifestly unable to handle it, both intellectually and constitutionally.

---

This from the man who can't debate without direct personal insults.

Bow down before the great pursuader, his insults, badgering and nitpicking will drive you to take everything he says as utter gospel.

quote:

---

Kanid had this to say about Captain Planet:
This from the man who can't debate without direct personal insults.

Bow down before the great pursuader, his insults, badgering and nitpicking will drive you to take everything he says as utter gospel.

---

You really didn't need the curtain call to prove my point, but thanks anyway.

If you haven't either the balls or brains to finish flame wars, I recommend you don't start them in the future.

Everything was fine, if you'll notice, until you decided that anyone with whom you disagreed must be socialist as well as stupid and employing l33t |)3b4+3 $k1llz against you in a most dishonorable fashion.

Then again, reading comprehension was never your strong suit, huh?

{edit: typo}

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]