If you really had any security in your position, or in your intellect, you wouldn't need to lower yourself so.

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

Your abrasive, holier-than-thou attitude is useful only for continued self-agrandizement. You don't bother to educate or instruct, you just bash, insult, and change topic as it suits you to make yourself look the hero. Let's go off on another tangent on a misspelling or mistype here or there!

Maybe someday you'll get off your high horse, or get knocked off, and see there is more to the world than being right all the time. Educating and learning are both far better pursuits. Every time I try to learn from you, you simply dig yourself as low as you can and fling poo.

If that's your goal, well pat yourself on the back, you've succeeded again.

As to the topic, I may be wrong, but nothing you've said has changed my mind, maybe due to the manner in which it was presented, I don't know.

I still despise smoking, and second hand smoke, and still feel the goverment shouldn't be telling bar owners they should stop people from engaging in a legal activity in their bar.

I am a commie bastard. I don't want to breathe smoke because someone walking down the street is smoking. Or because someone opened up the door to a 'green room' esq bar.

Biased articles and all aside, second-hand smoke is harmful. You can't tell me that a child living with a heavy smoker can die of lung cancer only because they themselves MUST be smoking. It is utter insanity.
Driving with bald wheels, a broken light, or non-fuctioning brakes is as illegal as drinking and driving perfectly safely.

Smoking produces smoke, it harms things. This is the object of smoking. Driving a car produces smoke, the smoke from the car harms things as well. That, however, is not the object and desired output of driving. I fail to see how you can pass such a flimsy comparison as an acurate one. Oh wait, you couldn't. You even moaned about Sage using tactics against you. How cruel of him!

So whaddayagonnado?

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

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Pvednes Phoenixfeather ]

quote:

---

Kanid had this to say about pies:
What your self-promoted intellect has failed to even catch a glimpse of is that I sincerily am looking for a good point or two to actually change my opinion. I come at this with an open mind, and usually I learn something. I've actually changed my opinion on a few things due to things I've learned here.

Your abrasive, holier-than-thou attitude is useful only for continued self-agrandizement. You don't bother to educate or instruct, you just bash, insult, and change topic as it suits you to make yourself look the hero. Let's go off on another tangent on a misspelling or mistype here or there!

Maybe someday you'll get off your high horse, or get knocked off, and see there is more to the world than being right all the time. Educating and learning are both far better pursuits. Every time I try to learn from you, you simply dig yourself as low as you can and fling poo.

If that's your goal, well pat yourself on the back, you've succeeded again.

As to the topic, I may be wrong, but nothing you've said has changed my mind, maybe due to the manner in which it was presented, I don't know.

I still despise smoking, and second hand smoke, and still feel the goverment shouldn't be telling bar owners they should stop people from engaging in a legal activity in their bar.

---

Can you really be that stupid, Kanid? Is it physically possible you're this dense, yet still remember to breathe?

Re-read the fucking thread, asshead. (Thanks, Woody, for the cool term.)

It was perfectly civil until you decided anyone who didn't agree with you was not only socialist, but stupid.

How dare you start a fight, then blame anyone who pushes back.

If you had the least intent to learn, or to debate honestly, you'd have answered the questions posed rather than acting like a spoiled child who's been told there's no Santa.

Look at the thread, moron. Where, exactly, did I "bash, insult, and change the topic"? Oh! I ceased being polite when you called me a socialist who shouldn't be allowed to make laws.

Who was being holier-than-thou, again? Dipshit.

The funny part is actually you calling me stupid and insecure. As if you had a fucking clue.

Would you like to try proving either of those assertions?

I can prove not only your inability to read critically, but your inability to understand rather simple concepts--as well as your penchant for starting flame wars then blaming others when you don't get the best of it. Well, I can't actually prove inability, but one has to accept the inability/unwillingness dilemma as given.

Either way, you've got a bad habit of retreating into staid ideological platitudes at the first whiff of an argument you don't think you can handle.

I'm quite aware I choose not to put up with bullshit like yours. I'm also quite aware that I have no obligation, legal, moral, or ethical, to do so.

Most people have broken the code, and we have wonderfully polite conversations on a variety of topics. Even religion. Even politics. Hell, even furries.

You, however, with the demonstrated brains of lichen and the grace of a hippo climbing a tree, can't seem to figure it out.

Hey, feel superior in the innards of your dark, twisted psyche all you want, but if you bring it in public, be prepared to show some evidence.

If others having informed opinions based upon years of study in a variety of disciplines offends you, you're the one with the problem.

{edit: technicolor!]

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

I don't really have a strong enough opinion on this smoking issue to say which side is correct. On a personal level, I lived for years in a household with a smoker, so second-hand smoke doesn't really bother me; I don't even notice it. I'm one of those people who just ask for "first available" in resturaunts when asked whether I want smoking or non-smoking. On the other hand, I understand the problem that many have with second hand smoke, it seems that you have to take a health risk (however large or small it may be) because of a stupid choice someone made years ago to start smoking.

This comes down to a question of freedom vs. saftey, as many problems do. How much should the freedom of the 10% (or whatever the percentage of people who smoke) to do what they enjoy and, in at least one sense, need, be impinged by the desire of the 90% to be safe from things that can hurt them. This isn't as clear-cut as it may seem, neither total saftey (1984) nor total freedom (living in a cave) is ideal in virtually any circumstance, including this one. No one would argue that a person should be prevented from smoking in their own home because a single wisp of smoke might reach a neigbor's house and possibly hurt that person's lungs an immeasurably small amount. That's powerfully violating a person's freedom to do as they wish to themselves for the sake of a pitiful amount of safely. On the other hand, no one would argue that a person should have their entire town overrun with smoke, ensuring later health problems simply for the sake of enjoyment of others. comfortable to really help out

So the question comes down to where do resturaunts fit between the extremes. They are already doing some small things to keep safety high, like segregating smokers to a different part of the resturaunt, reducing the air pollution for others.

However, a resturaunt is a place where a person is forced to be exposed to smoke for extended periods of time, possibly the longest remaining blocks of exposure in the day if there isn't a smoker in the household. This is possibly the biggest safety risk from second hand smoke remaining. On the other hand, now that most workplaces have banned smoking, transporation systems have banned it, and so on, eliminating resturaunts would remove one of the only places where a person can relax socially while smoking. Taking it away would take away a smoker's last chance to really just unwind with friends and be comfortable talking socially, without worring about craving a cigarrette. That's a pretty significant breach of freedom.

I think the best path would actually not be to either ban cigarettes, or just leave things as they are. Rather, I think the best solution might be to impose standards of air quality in resturaunts. For instance, the installation of an intake vent or two in the ceiling above the smoking section to suck up smoke would be ideal. It would improve the quality of the air to no end, probably halving, quartering, or even further reducing the amount of smoke reaching non-smokers. However, smokers could still enjoy their evening. Safety is improved for non-smokers, freedom is improved for smokers. A near-ideal solution.

___________________________________________

Kanid, Bloodsage, I think you two may eventually have to work out this growing enmity between you. Both of you head straight to the newest political or philosophical debate, both of you always end up on opposite sides, and it always seems to end like this. Neither of you seem to enjoy these fights very much (with the possible exception of Bloodsage, but I think he'd like an interesting debate even more. ) I think a little bit of understanding could go a long way.

Bloodsage, one thing that you may or may not have noticed about Kanid's "attacks" is that they're really not intentionally directed at you personally. Rather, Kanid's style of writing is simply more sarcastic, including a remark or two which I can see you take as an attack. This thread is a perfect example of that, the initial "hope you don't make the laws" was not a jab where he was saying that you were taking idiotic views that would ruin the country, it was just a little side comment he thought was funny at the moment, in a sarcastic sort of humor. He's not sending them out as personal commentary on you, he's just making a snide side statement that really isn't the heart of the argument. He doesn't see these as attacks, as you can easily see by how he responds to your response, saying he doesn't attack first.

I know that you probably already realize this, and just decide not to put up with the comment, but with a touch of tolerance, I think you can stop this continuing cycle: He makes a comment, you make a response, he responds to you with one of the side remarks, you respond with "Flames from Hell"(tm) in your post, he turns immediately defensive, and things go downhill. If you two have just one or two debates without the flamewar, I think you'll find those side-comments dissapear. Perhaps, instead of just going straight into flaming when you see one of those kinds of remarks, you give him a warning that he's gone over the edge of what you'll tolerate, and give him a way out of the sticky situation without destroying the argument.

And Kanid, I think you'll find you're much better off with bloodsage if you avoid the sarcastic remarks, like the one that started this. I know you probably find it perfectly fine and wouldn't even blink if someone wrote something like that to you, and I know that you probably find the statement perfectly factual (banning smoking would be a move of safety over freedom, a socialist ideal, and you wouldn't like it if Bloodage made laws, as you two disagree on everthing ). However, even you have to admit the tone for that sentace was very negative, and moving towards attacking the person, rather than debating the idea. Every single attack bloodsage has thrown at you was, in his mind, because of one of those kinds of remarks. If you simply didn't make those kind of remarks, you two wouldn't ever get into these kinds of flame wars.

And second, if I judge Bloodsage right, one of the best ways you can get out of these flame wars is through apology. When Bloodsage first took your "socialism" sentance the wrong way, (and I believe you didn't really mean it as an insult) a simple "Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come out like that, I was wrong." Would probably end the flamewar right there, and you two could continue the debate without falling into the usual trap of flames. I realize he doesn't leave much room for an apology and clarification when he launches into the insults straight away, but I think that it would still be able to help a tremendous amount.

*Sigh* I realize that I'm probably sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, but I just feel that something has to be done, or else this will probably continue to get worse. Can't blame a guy for trying.

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

But it all looks very impressive, so I'll have to conclude you're all geniuses.

Here are high-paying jobs with foul-smelling socks. Enjoy your stay here at Parcelan, Inc.

[large]ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG AND NO ONE IS RIGHT [/large]

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

quote:

---

Chalesm had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
*snippity-snip*

---

That's pretty much what I would say if I had the patience to write everything out that's in my head. Thanks to you, a lazy bastard like me doesn't have to.

quote:

---

JooJooFlop had this to say about Duck Tales:
That's pretty much what I would say if I had the patience to write everything out that's in my head. Thanks to you, a lazy bastard like me doesn't have to.

---

It's not so much patience that let's me write those huge monsters down, it's more of an act of procrastination to avoid the homework due tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I've tried exactly what you suggest. It doesn't work. The gloves come off sooner now.

And, frankly, I'm getting sick of taking shit from people who expect me--somehow--to divine their intent from poorly worded, insulting gobbledegook. It's not my job to bend the language in order to interpret other people's words in the best possible light; it's up to them to express themselves clearly.

I don't punt Parcelan, and I expect others not to insult me.

You're right about one thing, though: I never hold a grudge past an apology.

If the whole thing was a misunderstanding, the best way to clear it up would be to explain it and apologize rather than call me stupid because I "read it wrong." If there's one thing I'm not likely to do, it's read something in a manner not supported by the text.

When I make a mistake and offend someone, or flame someone who doesn't deserve it, I always apologize. In public.

I expect no less from others.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:

You're right about one thing, though: I never hold a grudge past an apology.

---

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:
You do have a point, Chalesm.

Unfortunately, I've tried exactly what you suggest. It doesn't work. The gloves come off sooner now.

And, frankly, I'm getting sick of taking shit from people who expect me--somehow--to divine their intent from poorly worded, insulting gobbledegook. It's not my job to bend the language in order to interpret other people's words in the best possible light; it's up to them to express themselves clearly.

I don't punt Parcelan, and I expect others not to insult me.

You're right about one thing, though: I never hold a grudge past an apology.

If the whole thing was a misunderstanding, the best way to clear it up would be to explain it and apologize rather than call me stupid because I "read it wrong." If there's one thing I'm not likely to do, it's read something in a manner not supported by the text.

When I make a mistake and offend someone, or flame someone who doesn't deserve it, I always apologize. In public.

I expect no less from others.

---

I understand what you mean with that bloodsage, I've seen places you've left open for clarification in the past, and had it ignored. I agree that you shouldn't have to put up with insults and the like.

However, this situation can't afford do go on like this forever. There needs to be some kind of improvement if we're to have debates that don't fall into this again and again.

How about this: if or when Kanid responds to this, If he agrees that he'll try to be a little more cautious of his remarks in debates, then you'll agree that if/when you see a remark you'd normally flame right off, you'll leave an opening for him to clarify and/or apoligize instead of launching into the flames right off, and you'll be willing to look at his remarks with an open mind, without the past history that's built up. After all, if he does screw up or misunderstands where your border for what's a flame lies, it's pretty much impossible for him to apoligize if he's being called a moron.

It would only be a temporary idea, if it turns out that he says he will change and doesn't, then all you've lost is the little time it takes to make a post or two saying where you have a problem with his insult, and things will go back to this, with the flame replies. So, worst case senario, we continue exactly as we are after a few failed attempts at civility. Seems harmless enough, and it may have a chance, however slim, to finally end these flamewars.

And Kanid, I'm not asking for a drastic change in how you write, or that you censor yourself to avoid views that would oppose bloodsage. I'm just asking that you be willing to try, just for a bit, to discard your enmity towards bloodsage, and show a real attempt at civility and politeness towards him. I realize that you probably don't like the idea of having to reread your posts after you write them to check for some small nuance you missed that might concievably offend him, but it needn't be that severe. Just removing a side comment or two in debates would help enormously; though yes, it's a bit inconvent, think of the benifits it could bring. I think you would be amazed at the effects it could have. It could solve so many of the problems that occur between you, and for once you would be able to walk away from a debate with bloodsage having gained understanding and knoledge, and not just losing respect for him. Just think about it for a moment, before you dismiss the idea, that's all I ask.

quote:

---

Kameks stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:

You're right about one thing, though: I never hold a grudge past an apology.

I am proof you do

---

Lies don't count, Kameks. Your first how many apologies and promises to be good were lies?

Despite that, when you came back, I gave you a chance to prove your sincerity.

You blew that.

You really should pay more attention.

~~~

Chalesm,

Fine by me.

Flames, or debate, it's all fun.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]

Neener.

Take that back, you, you guy-who-is-mean-to-me!

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about (_|_):
Lookie! It's Gut-me Elmo. How darling.

---

Awwwwww....

quote:

---

Blind Swordsman wrote, obviously thinking too hard:

---

That is possibly the most disturbing thing I've ever seen in relation to Sesame Street, and considering I read Plif, that's saying a lot. And note, that is not a challenge to find something worse.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Chalesm ]

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Kanid wrote:
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.

---

You mean the ones funded by the tobacco industry that they covered up for years that showed they knew the dangers of cigarette smoke but lied to the American public about?

Oh there's only one or two of those, I hear.

I suppose the dangers involved probably has something to do with the fact that many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are classified as class A carcinogens -- the same as asbestos and radon.

But another point I've noticed hasn't been mentioned is that the reason for the smoking ban in California is that it was put in place to protect the workers at these establishments. The benefits to the rest of the public are merely a nice side effect.

I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to repealing the ban, if we put into place appropriate safety laws for the workers that are in constant contact with dangerous chemicals for 8 hours a day. What do people who work with asbestos wear anyway? Gas masks?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go open up a Murder Club, where patrons kill each other. If you don't want to be killed, just don't come in the door, it's that simple. Don't you dare tell me that I can't start up a Murder Club; yeah I know how dangerous it is to the patrons, but it's my club.

The law was first passed in the City of LaJolla in the 80s and was passed by the city for the patrons, not the workers.

Bloodsage, I'm sorry what I said was not clear enough for you to understand my intent. It is my fault in the presentation, I'll attempt to be more verbose and explicit in the future. As Chalesm understood, at no time was it my intent to insult or attack you.

~~~

As for workers, you still miss the point, Kanid.

Coal dust is not illegal, yet mining companies are required by law to protect their employees from its harmful effects. Allowing indoor smoking is exactly the same thing as exposing miners to coal dust without protection.

I'm a huge advocate for personal freedoms, however, and unless there is no other option, I don't like to see anything made illegal.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Robocop:
As for workers, you still miss the point, Kanid.

Coal dust is not illegal, yet mining companies are required by law to protect their employees from its harmful effects. Allowing indoor smoking is exactly the same thing as exposing miners to coal dust without protection.

---

I thoroughly understand your point.

Mining Coal is not banned outright though, right? Protective measures are put in place for the workers. My guess is it would be far easier to protect workers from second hand smoke than from coal dust.

quote:

---

First Dragon had this to say about John Romero:
Ok, resaurants are -public- places, therefore, the government has the right to make laws for it. Nya.

---

Why?

If I'm a blacksmith and you come to me and want me to make horseshoes for you and I don't want to for whatever reason, there is no law saying I HAVE to allow you into my place of work, or perform services for you for a fee, right?

Why is it different for a restaraunt owner?

And the goverment has the right to make laws pertaining to private places also, so that's really not a good point.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Kanid ]

quote:

---

First Dragon had this to say about Captain Planet:
Ok, resaurants are -public- places, therefore, the government has the right to make laws for it. Nya.

---

No, restaurants are -private- establishments, in which patrons happen to be admitted freely by the owners. However, as the restaurants happen to be in the area claimed by the U.S., they are bound to laws just like you're bound to pay property taxes.

quote:

---

Kanid thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Why?

If I'm a blacksmith and you come to me and want me to make horseshoes for you and I don't want to for whatever reason, there is no law saying I HAVE to allow you into my place of work, or perform services for you for a fee, right?

Why is it different for a restaraunt owner?

And the goverment has the right to make laws pertaining to private places also, so that's really not a good point.

---

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Sound familiar?

On one hand you have Kanid, represented by a wolf. Favors freedom over some of the trappings of society. Good argumentative fangs, and a strong bite to his point.

On the other, you have Bloodsage, represented by a mastiff. A domesticated breed of canine. In favor of some of the more attractive trappings of society, especially those meant to protect humans (doggies like humans). And if I'm not mistaken, mastiffs were used to hunt wolves.

So I have to ask myself, when man started driving off wolves by using bred dogs, were the battles amongst canines fought on such ideological levels?

<Wolf> I want freedom to live by my natural edicts!
<Dog> Stupid! World's changing! We're willing to give up a little public freedom for lots of public safety!
<Wolf> Asshead! I'm not! I want to live life on the edge!
<Dog> Stupid! You sound like a cigarette ad!
<Wolf> ...
<Dog> ...

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael ]

quote:

---

Kanid thought this was true:
If I'm a blacksmith and you come to me and want me to make horseshoes for you and I don't want to for whatever reason, there is no law saying I HAVE to allow you into my place of work, or perform services for you for a fee, right?

---

This point was addressed earlier: while there are certain circumstances under which you may deny service to someone, you are, in general, required to serve everyone at your place of business.

You may set standards of dress and behavior, as well as physical safety, but arbitrarily turning customers away would generally not be allowed.

Since we're discussing restaurants in this thread, a restaurant manager would not be able to turn customers away on a whim. He would, in fact, be required to serve anyone who wished, as long as they behaved appropriately.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I find the parallels interesting.

On one hand you have Kanid, represented by a wolf. Favors freedom over some of the trappings of society. Good argumentative fangs, and a strong bite to his point.

On the other, you have Bloodsage, represented by a mastiff. A domesticated breed of canine. In favor of some of the more attractive trappings of society, especially those meant to protect humans (doggies like humans). And if I'm not mistaken, mastiffs were used to hunt wolves.

So I have to ask myself, when man started driving off wolves by using bred dogs, were the battles amongst canines fought on such ideological levels?

<Wolf> I want freedom to live by my natural edicts!
<Dog> Stupid! World's changing! We're willing to give up a little public freedom for lots of public safety!
<Wolf> Asshead! I'm not! I want to live life on the edge!
<Dog> Stupid! You sound like a cigarette ad!
<Wolf> ...
<Dog> ...

---

Personal liberty is a good thing.

Anarchy is a bad thing.

Making the entire world a place where victims are entirely responsible for their own safety, where it's okay to engage in activities dangerous to others, with the understanding that "if you don't want to be endangered, don't leave your home," seems a bit extreme to me.

No one's right to do something stupid extends past the point of harming themselves. When stupidity harms others, it needs to be regulated.

Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, for example. Ordinarily, I fully support the right of stupid people to kill and maim themselves. Unfortunately, however, untold billions of dollars of tax money every year goes to provide ambulance service and medical care for people too stupid to take commonsense precautions like wearing a seatbelt.

Being stupid is your right. Asking me to pay for the consequences of your stupidity is not.

Hope that clears up my position with respect to personal freedom.

quote:

---

Bloodsage thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
No one's right to do something stupid extends past the point of harming themselves. When stupidity harms others, it needs to be regulated.

---

I agree.

Now what's wrong with smokers having a private restaraunt where they can go, relax and eat among other smokers, while smoking, with the employees being either protected or fellow smokers who choose to work there knowing the risks of second hand smoke?

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Cuba:
Whooooaa....easy Sage I wasn't ripping on you. I was making a silly joke.

---

I was just saying. Not offended in the least.

I knew I should've put a smiley in there somewhere.

Just wanted to point out that the very definiton of civilization is an exchange of personal freedom for public safety.

~~~

The thing wrong with that, Kanid, is that there are certain rights it's not legal to waive. A safe working environment is one of them. Just as coal miners are not allowed to waive their right to be protected from coal dust, restaurant workers (in California, and elsewhere soon, I hope) are not allowed to waive their right to breathe reasonably clean air.

There was one bar--in S.F., I think--that was able to get around the law by building a smoking section that was completely enclosed and had a separate ventilation system. Wait staff did not go in there, but passed drinks and food through a little double-door arrangement.

I've no problems with that kind of solution.

Oddly, the only reason we're even having this conversation, as Drysart alluded to, is tradition coupled with decades of deceit by tobacco companies.

Were someone to take some of the nastier ingredients in cigarette smoke, combine them into a jar with an aerosol attachment, and spray it randomly in public places, they'd be arrested immediately, I'd bet. Even if the proportions of nasty chemicals were no higher than in cigarette smoke.

The question isn't really, "Do people have the right to smoke?"

The question is, "Do people have the right to poison those around them?"