hunter was right on the money in that food thread - people who touch their old fella then waltz right on out smearing their urine or faeces on the handle as they go need their head read

people who cough and sneeze into the open air around other people also need a wake up call

saying that you need exposure to germs in order to be able to combat them is a stupid argument - building up an immunity and living unhygenically are two very different things, and so are virus and bacteria

i as eating jim.

:(

ok so if ur in public and you need to sneeze or cough what do you do?

and what's this you saying hunter is correct
that's not like u

Put your face inside the collar of your shirt and sneeze/cough. (assuming you arent blowing chunks)

if carrying a hanky or your cupped hands or something is too hard for you, at least do it far enough away from people so the thousands of little globules of crap that come flying out of your mouth and nose aren't likely to land immediately on someone's hand or face, or be breathed in by them in their next breath

your turniong in to the part Jack nicholson was playing in As good As it Gets :P

I'd like to see all forms of human interaction cancelled out in favour of IRC and ordering things over the internet.

Physical contact? eewwwww! That's gross!

if carrying a hanky or your cupped hands or something is too hard for you, at least do it far enough away from people so the thousands of little globules of crap that come flying out of your mouth and nose aren't likely to land immediately on someone's hand or face, or be breathed in by them in their next breath

oh, but we could also ask the same of smokers as in, DONT f***ING SMOKE NEAR ME, OUTSIDE DOORS TO BUILDINGS, OR IN PUBLIC PLACES, but will they listen to that? no.

thats just it
if someone is smoking and u dont like it
cough/sneeze on them
especially if u have asked them to stop

works best if u cough alot before hand ( pretend u have a cold, or u actually hve one)

Damn straight, and on an added note, the train I rode home this evening stank to high heaven of urine. I just got up and changed carriages asap. So gross.

eeewww

come to think of it how unhygenic is money, really how many grubby hands and things has it gone through....ewww

I agree with cyph, i hate the fact that at some shopping centers, who call themselves proud the be smoke free, you walk out the door, and cant see 2 meters ahead of you because of cigarette smoke.

Disgusting fags (N-O-I Eds), note also, no pun intended.

Dangles, yeah money is pretty hygenic...so I think the best plan of action is to let me quarantine everyone's money. I will redistribute it as it cleansed, and all will be good.

Laundering eh?

um edit your post :P

sif, but really it is very unhygenic me thinks

just carry heaps of tissue.

oi hunter do u use icq?

hehe dangles, could that be y a lot of ppl prefer to use plastic?

I have ICQ, yes. I don't use it much because it is a memory leaking little bitch of an app.

plastic is just as bad.

hunter get on icq and talk to meh!!

shot_gun, so when you walk outside of a no smoking area, and people are smoking, you find that rude? Do you ever stand outside the door of your house in the rain then bitch and moan about getting wet?

I reckon if they had a "shoot on sight" rule for smokers they'd give up pretty quick...

Go dangles

Go dangles?? wtf??

It's called inuendo, it's usually harmless.

do you guys know that farting emits little bits of bacteria in the air? Some scientist did tests on it (sounds like a load of crap but i'm gullible :) ) and he found that stuff was growing in petri dishes that he had people fart on from a distance of 30cm or something.

Just think - you're breating this in and getting their anal bacteria in your mouth, down your throat and all over you.

i was just wondering y u said it?

i didnt need to know that doober, ewwww

smoking is s***

i dont see whats so 'cool' about smoking

Doober, that doesn't surprise me. I'm always copping a ribbing from the guys I know because of my supposed "clean freakness" or whatever they think it is. Obviously some people do not put a lot of thought into how easy it is for bacteria to spread. Did you know that some bacterium can survive in volcanoes, space and radioactive environments? Some even eat uranium. I don't want my dick to fall off because some a****** who had some dick-falling off disease didn't wash their hands after taking a leak.

dick-falling off disease, bahahahhahaha

lol

I'm sure theres a disease that makes it fall off!

leprosy (sp?)

well just dont go waving ya dick about too much :P

*sings* "Detachable Penis"....
anyone heard that song? lol

Haha yeah I've heard that song, in fact I still have it on cassette somewhere.

hahaha gawd i love these forums sometimes, they just crack me up soo bad :P

I have it on the same cassette as "a******".

umm "detachable penis" and "a******" dont mix very well u know :P

Ahaha true, it was sheer coincidence I swear!

yeah yeah yeah :P

WTF. Who cares. It's your f***ing choice if you want to wash your hands. If you want to be clean and/or are paranoid about it, use a tissue when you open the f***ing door handle.

bunch of fagets.

a penis, a penis, a penis is always detachable, detachable, detachable

is that how it goes, cant rememember

Ummm... no.

When i walk out a shopping center, i find it very rude. Rude because i hate smoking, and being anywhere near it, and so do man other ppl, therefore i dont like coming out of a shopping center then coghing (sp?), wheezing, and general feeling ill.

Aside from that, how the f*** can you compare getting wet to cigarette smoke???

Your a bit of a grub deeper, it's pretty basic cleanliness to wash your hands after having anything to do with toilets.

People are gross I used to work as a cleaner and part of my job included cleaning toilets. It was at the casino is Brisbane, my advice - Anything you touch in the toilets use paper towel, seriously. If at all possible don't even go in the toilets !!
People s***ting on the floor, breaking open syringe disposal boxes to get a needle ti use then leaving 15+ needles lying around on the floor, junkied hitting a pulsle while shooting up spraying blood up the walls etc etc !! Anything you can imagine I have seen...

Did I mention people used to take a s*** on the floor ?? Oh and some people used to be that drunk/gross that they would just piss on any old wall in the toilets... Hmmm those were the days...

Well with all these bacterias and whatnot floating around I'm glad I've got an Immune System !.....

"Your a bit of a grub deeper, it's pretty basic cleanliness to wash your hands after having anything to do with toilets."

Err, actually, I always wash my hands. That's not the point. The point is, I'm not criticising other people is they choose not to, and I sure don't bitch about opening the handle to exit the bathroom either...

One thing I would like to bring up, is those filthy f***s who take a piss all over the f***ing toilet seats. Have to walk to the f***ing servo or something to take a s***. Jesus. Learn to aim you SKs.

[quote]thats just it
if someone is smoking and u dont like it
cough/sneeze on them[/quote]

Yeah, good idea. And I'll put my cig out on your f***ing forehead.

DarkAngel: You lame fag :P

I do think that walking out of an area marked as non-smoking and walking into stinking cigarette smoke is indeed rude. The only exception to that is if I've walked into an area clearly marked as being set aside for smokers to smoke in and that area actually contains the smoke and doesn't let it drift outside the designated area.

The main problem with the entire issue of non-smoking and smoking areas, is that there simply shouldn't be any areas marked as non-smoking - there should only be areas marked as allowing smoking, because anywhere else is assumed (by people considerate to others) as non-smoking anyway. People who are inconsiderate need to have it explained to them, that they do NOT have the right to let their smoke come into contact with other people without their consent. Even if they have a 'smokers are voters' bumper sticker.

In this context, non-smokers aren't doing anything anti-social in the first place - but smokers are - they're releasing the smoke from their cigarettes into the air. This smoke should not come into contact with another human unless that human enters an area marked as being set aside for people wishing to release their cigarette smoke into the air.

If you now feel compelled to introduce other issues into this clearly defined argument such as applying the same reasoning to things like motor vehicle exhaust emissions or consumer by-products etc, you should probably do a couple of years worth of research and get points of view of many people before doing so.

If you're not prepared to do that though, but instead, all smokers are prepared to stop smoking except inside special buildings which dispose of the smoke so that non-smokers never catch a wiff of it, I will gladly cease driving an internal combustion motor vehicle and releasing any non-biodegradeable/non-odurless product into the atmosphere.

mmmm charming thread

So you are saying that you want all us smokers to go stand in the middle of the f***ing sports oval?

I would like you to stop smoking, but short of that, middle of the sports oval works for me.

I'm really sure THAT will happen.

Phhhh... Bloody whingers, I dont smoke as a habit, but
I will take smokes when offered, and I figure if you dont like it, dont smoke.

People are too precious about the notion of passive smoking. You realise that unless someone is smoking in your house or INSIDE your place of work everyday (in which case f*** them, coz they shouldnt), the effect will be absolutely negligible. More likely to find that mobile phones or power lines are causing you more harm...

Why would you think the middle of a sports oval would be a good place for a group of smokers to smoke? What part of this don't you understand?

When you smoke, your smoke is often carried by air currents to other areas where other people breath it in. This is not the fault of those air currents - it's the fault of the person who lights the cigarette. You should only smoke in places where this can only happen to other smokers.

That's not true at all.

You're one of these weird people that jim alluded to that just doesn't get it. Its f***ing disgusting, don't do it near us, please.

stopshootingme: not smoking is exactly what we are trying to do - but if smokers keep smoking in places where the smoke can move to the air space we are also breathing, how can we stop?

just how much damage can be done by passive smoking is not known by you _at all_ but more importantly, is not the only reason for us not wanting to have smokers near anyway - another reason is the sheer stink of it

it stinks! it is an absolutely putrid stench

A textbook I had ages ago for uni said that 1% of the air in LA was cigarette smoke

I'm not a smoker, but I couldn't give a rats ass where other people smoke.
What other people do is thier business, I encourage quitting but in no way pressure it.

If im sitting around a campfire and the smoke comes my direction, I move.

I very much doubt that... Cool statistic though.... :)

P.S. Jim and friends. I am not a smoker, so its unlikely youll ever be breathing in my smoke, but ive gotta say: GROW UP!

Why dont you just go and wrap yourself in frecking bubble-wrap and never come out of your house??!
The only thing that bothers me about passive smoking is when its say... parents with a new born child and they continue to smoke a pack a day indoors, then act all baffled when the kid has chronic asthma at age 5...
Aside from that, there are more important health issues to worry about in our lives right now, for example:...
Statistic: (This year)
Do you realise that more than 50% of all HIV positive people (men and women) continue to have active sex lives? Most of which never tell thier partners they are HIV postive? About 40% of those admit to rarely using a condom??? THAT is inconsiderate to the general public.

I fart in Jim's general direction.

Cop them anal pheremones, my bum is now in your mouth!

you bum was allready in his mouth obes

While we are on the subject of petty quibbles & pet-hates ... it really annoys me when people insist on putting midi sound in thier mobile phones ... IN PUBLIC !!#! They are so inconsiderate ! The music , which they initiated , emanates from thier brain-cancer causing communicator where it is picked up by my audio sensorium , to my chagrin !!
Theres prolly some other stuff wot pisses me off as well ! Damn getting along with free-thinking agents eh !? ;o]

you crazy nerd

Hahahaha, that s***s me no end, demon. Then they pretend to be lookin at the caller ID for a while so everyone can pause to admire the persons phone, and be annoyed by the ring...

Interesting peice of trivia: A species of bird in or around one of the capitals here in Australia (I have forgotten which) has adopted the trademark Ericcson (or Nokia?) ring as its new hostility call. TRUE! Now when you walk under the little bastards' trees they do the little jingle at you till you go away. Apparently it started in a localised area (prolly above a cafe in a public park or something :) )and is now spreading rapidly through the region.

Pretty cool for the company, even if they go out of business, theyve left a little peice of themself behind. :)

stopshootingme: why do you gotta say: 'GROW UP!'?

what does growing up have to do with not wanting to breath and smell cigarette smoke?

why do think I should wrap myself up in a bubble and never leave the house?

why is the degree of lack of consideration shown by smoking parents with newborn children ok for you, but not my own intolerance with the degree of lack of consideration shown by smokers who let their cigarette smoke enter the nostrils of people who don't want to smell it?

who are you to say which health issues are more important for me to worry about? I've been monogamous since the age of 18, so your weak parellel has no bearing on me anyway. I already made a life decision regarding my sex life which has the nice side effect of protecting me (for the most part) from the dangers you claim I should be more worried about.

Like I said in my earlier post - before you go introducing other irrelevant issues, do some research and think about it some more - what a shame that even my having the forethought to include such a suggestion in anticipation of small-minded individuals prone to giving little thought to a matter before attempting to make silly weak arguments, would be paid so little attention so early in the piece.

The statistics you quoted only serve to back me up in proving that a vast number of people are incredibly inconsiderate of other people when it comes to what they do in their day-to-day lives. And watch those numbers grow as the society that thrives on that inconsiderate attitude, grows evermore inconsiderate as a result.

Having said all of that, why do you think just because there are other issues that also need attention, issues such as the inconsiderate behaviour of many smokers should be ignored?

And acidreign - another person who likes to introduce silly 'parallels' such as a campfire. How on earth do you draw a comparison between sitting at a campfire and being a non-smoker?

If you're sitting at a campfire, you are exactly the same as a smoker in this context - not a non-smoker.

A huge DUH to you :)

And anyway, just because you take such an apathetic stand on the matter, what makes you think anyone else should?

I'll pay anyone 10 bucks who can prove that StopShootingMe's story is true

Smoking does suck, as an ex smoker let me tell you it smells f***ing fowl, espically around food. Even when not smoking a smoker smells like crap, you don't realise it but you reak, you may as well be out rolling in dog s*** cos it smells as bad (worse actually).

Except Port Royal go figure they make my mouth water.

Jim, if people want to smoke, then they will f***ing do it. It is their decision, not yours, so basically put up and shut up. Tis a fact of life.

And StopShootingMe has a point. It's like, for f***s sake, talk about f***ing paranoid. I would be very surprised if someone died from lung cancer by being around smokers at a QGL LAN.

Smokers all trundle outside for a smoke, sit in the cold and stuff, and do you hear us f***ing whinging?
Would you prefer it if we all smoked INSIDE?
Of course not. So, take what you get.

I used to smoke aswell and I have just gotten over a cold... You should have seen the black s*** that I was coughing up, and that was only from about 6 years of smoking...
And it does stink bad, you realise after you have quit.

Heh, this is pretty funny, no matter how many times Jim tries to get his point accross, people like StopShootingMe and Bob just ignore it and keep going with their own broken record of "My choice, live with it". Have you even read the posts in this thread before replying?

Yes, sure, its your choice if you want to smoke, go ahead and be my guest and slowly kill yourself for all I care, just be a little considerate and dont do it somewhere where you are going to punish all the other people who have chosen not to follow in your crazy dance of death. Everyone keeps bringing up the "Passive smoking isn't that dangerous" angle, but really, is that even the point? The point is it smells disgusting and is something you have no right to inflict upon other unwilling people. I dont care if cigarette smoke was 100% completely harmless, I'd still want you nowhere near me. Have a bit of respect, thats not TOO much to ask is it?

bob the fruit comes through with another hugely flawed response

Jim, if people want to smoke, then they will f***ing do it. It is their decision, not yours, so basically put up and shut up. Tis a fact of life.

What do you think I do everyday, silly billy? Do you think I attempt to physically enforce what I believe?

DUH

And StopShootingMe has a point. It's like, for f***s sake, talk about f***ing paranoid. I would be very surprised if someone died from lung cancer by being around smokers at a QGL LAN.

No he doesn't. I already rebutted his attempts at making a point, and you're still yet to validly respond to my rebuttal.

Smokers all trundle outside for a smoke, sit in the cold and stuff, and do you hear us f***ing whinging?
Would you prefer it if we all smoked INSIDE?
Of course not.

Let me get this straight:

1) smoker desires cigarette
2) smoker feels obliged, or is required by law to 'trundle' outside because of the implications of his desire
3) sometimes it's cold outside, and stuff

So because of the above 3 facts, non-smokers now owe smokers some kind of gratitude or debt?
Non-smokers, in their neutral behaviour of doing nothing, are now expected to show compassion for the smokers who forsake their neutral stance by going out of their way to do something, that is, to smoke a cigarette?

You show, by your responses, that you lack a fundamental understanding of social interaction, and the common sense required to come to a valid conclusion in matters that involve social interaction such as smoking in the presence of other people.

As a result, this comment of yours is also, invalid. It's now marked off as being a possible path to pursue in this discussion, and we are now back on track at square one with the statements I made in my original post.

Thanks for coming.

/me attempts to resuscitate Mr Common Courtesy.

/BobTheFruit comes along and kicks me in the balls.

ahaha

the smoking debate is as simple as this.

Smokers.
Try and not be a f***ing cocksnap when you are smoking, if your indepth ability to detect others peoples discomfort at your smoking is growing (maybe because you are standing in the doorway/stairwell at qgl ... maybe you should move over to the seat nearby (which is probably better because then non smokers do not have to actualy pass smokers to get to the phone/cars/road.

Non smokers ...

JUST f***ING ASK. If the smoking bothers you and they are in a stupid place (which looking back on it the doorway/stairwell wasnt the brightest place to light up (although that ciggertte bin thing there might encourage it)), just say hey .. I was wondering if you woul mind moving away from the door a litte.

Most smokers would gladly move over 3 f***ING METERS (thanks cyph !) As they do not want to put anyone out.

I for one always get a little annoyed with the non smoking section of qgl ... not only do they whine like whores who havnt been paid , in a forum which is way after the time of the problem... they could never be f***ed asking if the smokers would kindly move.

I am more than happy to move over to the side, to try and be more considerate to all the guys who don't smoke, and I will encourage every other smoker I see to kindly do the same (its the right thing to do after all) ...

But realy if you have a problem mention it to that person, or get the f*** over it. Whining like a whore online, doesnt solve it.

By Cyph

my campfire paralell is fine from my point of thinking.

If im at a table and a smoker is sitting at an angle that its getting in my face i just shift around a bit.

Its something I have little problem with, not smoking myself.


I don't understand the point in preaching to people about what they do.
There'll always be the people that will keep going just in spite and go out of thier way to piss the preachers off, that's anarchy.

Society is f***ed up enough. Now I really have no idea on statistics and s*** so if I'm completely wrong here don't have a barry, but I'd imagine that there'd be more people hurt by domestic violence as a result of alcohol consumption than people that are hurt by passive smoking.

So many things that we do have ill effects on other people.


The main argument here is the health issue, but other people are bitching about the smell and comfort?
Really, does that mean that BO and flatulence should be outlawed too, where's the line?

typodemon - well i see my point got across then about not smoking near doorways if you picked up on it! (not meaning any insult there at all)

of course, you've really got to appreciate the lack of intelligence on behalf of the people who choose where to put cigarette bins and s*** right near the doorway which are meant to be used when walking in to a building.

the smokers just go outside, camp next to it (loose term there), and light up.

I've gotten to the point that cigarette smoke annoys me so much (and i AM an asthmatic), that I f***ing hold my breath when walking past smokers, or through a cloud of smoke, which I shouldnt have to f***ing do. of course, you ask someone to not smoke near you, and they probably wouldnt listen at all.

Well, at least I can say one thing.

I was clever enough to not take it up, and at least I'm not addicted to nicotine.

the way i see it, is that the segragation between smokers and non smokers has left each side believing that they aer king of the world, which shouldnt be the case.

I understand the 'need' to light up, but i dont understand the need to light up in such a place that causes me discomfort... Most of the time its at parties, and when i do ask them to move, their inflated sense of self-pride kicks in and they usually blow it in my face, which smells a lot worse than the smoke drifting off the end of the cigarette.

Its really at parties i have a problem, the rest of the time smokers are fairly considerate, and do move or even put it out sometimes.

listen to yourselves, and realise, that they arent going to go away, so its not going to help abusing the f*** through them (even if they deserve it) and smokers, realise that this isnt your world, we have to live in it too. dont infalte your egos to the point that we start to suffer.

my 2 cents

Tung

http://members.optushome.com.au/geoffpolzin/ciger.gif

haha, that rocks, but it would be funnier if it was a windows dialog

hahaha yeah, macs give you cancer anyway.

Lol at the gif!

I absolutely intensely dislike people who do not consider others when smoking. Good examples of this is the train station and in some cases, on the train itself. People don't seem to take ANY notice of the blatantly obvious signs that read: "No smoking" or "Smoking prohibited on platforms" and in the Queensland Rail timetables which explicitly state that smoking is prohibited on QR trains and train stations.

I too try to hold my breath around smokers or I end up with mild headaches, something I usually only get after working near some kind of chemical agent such as paint stripper, petrol, industrial adhesives (bear grip), tar, bleach, ammonia - the list goes on.

And would you be surprised to know that cigarettes actually contain many toxic chemicals ( some I mentioned ) that workers must suit up in order to work around due to workplace health and safety regulations?
Think about what you are putting into your body, think very very hard. Do you want lung disease when you're older? Coughing up blood and chunks of diseased lung aren't very attractive either. Not to mention the fact that they can render you impotent.

I don't care if you don't care about what YOU are doing to YOUR BODY but I do care if YOU do it to MY BODY. I don't want to go limp nor do I want to have headaches caused by highly toxic, carcinogenic chemicals.

If that doesn't convince you, think of it like this: Would you drink or sniff paint thinner? Would you drink or sniff petrol? Would you eat mothballs (napthalene sp?)? Would you sniff or eat industrial adhesives? I think the answer would almost definately be a resounding NO. Yet you do it any how? How long will you remain ignorant of the consequence of YOUR actions???

And lastly, what do YOU do with your butts when finished? Most likely you peg them into a garden or into a drain - which is a major environmental hazard. Get a clue, stop putting others at risk and stop whinging.

Nah, the campfire thing was dumb, just accept it

If you're at a campfire, you're exactly related to the smoker because you're deriving pleasure/comfort from something that you initiated that gives off smoke and odurs. moving to another spot to avoid the smoke of that comfort is like putting a filter on the cigarette - you get less of the crap and smell, but the smoke coming from the end of the cigarette still makes it way to other people - much like your campfire.

And AGAIN with yet another dopey parallel - the body odur and flatulence. For crying out loud, at least pick unpleasant things that _aren't_ natural bodily functions.

Are you getting the picture yet? You keep on introducing these completely invalid retorts - please, go and have a better think about things before you try and offer more

Even if you DO come back with something, refer back to my post where I said (in direct expectation of the dopey kinds of responses you and one or two others have given):

If you now feel compelled to introduce other issues into this clearly defined argument such as applying the same reasoning to things like motor vehicle exhaust emissions or consumer by-products etc, you should probably do a couple of years worth of research and get points of view of many people before doing so.

If you're not prepared to do that though, but instead, all smokers are prepared to stop smoking except inside special buildings which dispose of the smoke so that non-smokers never catch a wiff of it, I will gladly cease driving an internal combustion motor vehicle and releasing any non-biodegradeable/non-odurless product into the atmosphere.

And the point in preaching about it is (suprise suprise!!) so that people are prompted to think about it, possibly awakening them to a line of thinking they'd not heard or considered before - or even awaken some sense of responsibility or guilt in people who know better, but put the truth out of mind where it's easier to deal with (or not deal with, in actual fact)

If you want to stay comfortbly numbed against what's really right and wrong, that's your choice I guess - I'd just recommend refraining from participation in discussions where your standards which help promote lack of consideration for other people, are brought to light irrefutably - otherwise you might actually have to make an effort to do the right thing in order to not feel bad.

Its a deal, jim.

i may have come into this a little late, but as far as i see it, if u wanna smoke, go outside away from everyone else, have a smoking section, that pretty much settles, just make it no smoking in the hall simple as that, everybody happy

yeah lithios I reckon you are a tad late, the hall has been non-smoking forever :)

mmmmmm industrial adhesives

I'm up for saying smokers have to goto the middle of the oval (not to one side) to have a smoke :D

can we laugh and point at them?

You can keep missinterpreting my analogies, you wont change my opinion.

The campfire has no ill effect on health, you're getting a benifit of warmth with the downside that you're clothes will smell of smoke the next morning .. like they wouldnt smell the next day if you didnt have the fire.

So I can't compare the bitching about the smell to unavoidable bodily functions? what about women that wear strong perfume or a collegue that eats really strong smelling tuna at work.


f*** the analogies, it is what it is, I couldnt care less where people smoke .. there are thousands of things in society that are more worth bitching about than this crap.

Righto: Im sorry its taken this long for me to put in a reply (though I bet some ppl arnt *cough* Jim! :) )

* Jim: I was aware that my early arguments were a tad weak at the time I wrote them, but I felt an immediate response was warrented, so I belted them off in ten seconds or so... Meh? Who cares?

First: The HIV thing was not intended as a parallel to rampant passive smoking in society, it was merely an illustration as to what REAL inconsideration is, to make your argument seem petty. Nor for that matter did I expect you to lecture me about the nature of your (nonexistant j/k :) ) sex life.

The other example (parents smoking in the same house as young children) was my example of when passive smoking is a serious issue. (Hunter I suspect your "Headaches" (poor little thing...) are the result of you HOLDING YOUR BREATH you imbecile!!!!!

Second: I believe you said (in regards to me having a point, ta Bob:) )

No he doesn't. I already rebutted his attempts at making a point, and you're still yet to validly respond to my rebuttal.

Correction: You made a half-arsed attempt at a rebuttal, which basically ammounted to you sticking your fingers in your ears and going "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH IM NOT LISSSTENING!!!!!!!"

Third: I couldnt agree with you more about your thoughts on societys ills (many at least) being due to human inconsideration. To my mind, the only difference between cutting someone off on the road and beating some poor bastard to death in a parking lot is merely one of scale.

Conclusion: I think that you like to harp on about people showing you some courtesy, but you seem to overlook sending any back the other way. If a smoker intentionally blows smoke in your face or smokes on public transport, etc, etc... By all means talk to him/her or give 'em a smack in the head.
HOWEVER- you should respect thier right to sit around destroying thier lungs if they so choose. God knows if I were a smoker and some toss walked up and gave me a fake smile and asked me to move, id probably blow smoke in thier face too...

I just finished a huge f***ing assignment on "Human Unity" so my brains a tad f***ed at the moment.

I will usually go sit on the seat just around the side of the entrance (mainly cause I can't be f***ed standing). Sometimes, I forget and smoke near the ashtray (which, for some odd reason, is placed right in front of the door). If I am out with friends, I will move to one side so that I do not blow smoke at them, rather to the side into a breeze or whatever.

And I agree with Khel. If people are finding it irritating that I am smoking near them, then all they have to do is ask politely and I will gladly move away. I am human, I do make mistakes, and I'm most likely talking to some mates so I don't realise that people around me are in discomfort.

And Jim, StopShootingMe is right. Alot of your arguments are just "I ain't listening to you, cause you are nasty smoker, who rapes old ladies and steals lollies from small children" type affairs.

Anyway, as my propaganda assignment says "The campaign slogan 'Global Strength through Global Unity' is short and informative.". So, there you have it kids.
Anyway, I've been working on this f***ing thing for the past week, so I'm pretty f***ed.
Bed time. Must sleep.

Oh, and can you try and get that block of showers opened up this time?
I wouldn't mind having a shower at this LAN. I hate feeling like a Frosty Flake.

Assignments are no excuse for mental incapacity!
I've been workin on one all night, I ain't whinging!

for once

Here is my song of protest, peace man.

You dont smell nice, you dont smell pretty. I wish you wouldn't smoke near me, its a real pity.
You can smoke if you want, your will is free, just take your smell away from me.
All we want is a bit of clean air, come on smokers, at least have a care!
Smoking is your choice, I wont deny it. My hair is wet though, just let me dry it.
A bit of respect, thats all I ask. Keeping your smoke out of our way, too much of a task?
Passive smoking is not the problem. You smell pretty bad, like some dirty smoking goblin.
Really I think, its not that big of a deal. Just keep away from me and, bro, keep it real.

lol that was funny only cause its 11:28pm :)

Then you look at the forum post time and its 11:54pm :P.

My stance is simple - If you are a smoker and someone nearby to yourself looks and seems uncomfortable dealing with the external results of your habit - Politely move away from that person. Putout your cigarette, or eat the rest if you feel that dire need to have tobacco.

If you are a non-smoker, politely ask your fellow gamer to extinguish his tobacco stick or to move away from your current position if you were there first. If he is an impolite bastard and you dont want to argue, move away.

Its a two way world and everyone has to deal with everyone else. I hate drunk morons stumbling around in the middle of the night in the city jeering and screaming expletables at me and my gf but I dont bitch about it. Like Typo said, the non-smoking crowd of qgl do bitch and moan a hell of a lot, and while I'm pretty neutral on the subject (I enjoy a smoke every now and again, particularily with alcohol or after TAFE), and I dont mind if smokers are around or being in smoke filled clubs. It just not a bother. But if at least both sides of the story be polite to each other.

Dont scream at someone for smoking. Dont call them a f***** or a loser or how they are going to die and how their habit is entirely EVIL. Just, as written above, politely ask them to move away or put the damn thing out.

Dont blow smoke in other peoples faces ( I HATE THAT - Its horrible, the last time a f***** did that to me I punched him in the face), dont purposely be an arrogant f*** and smoke around non-smokers. A lot of people, like trog, are athematic and that stuff you are breathing in can kill him. Look at the situation and see how you can continue your habit WHILE not annoying or hurting everyone else. Simple.

As for smoking in the hall? Get a grip. You can walk outside. Id hate to try to sleep while smelling the stale stench of smokes that has wafted into the air con.

As for showers - PLEASE open them up this time. Wearing the same clothes for 2 days is one thing, but waking up looking and smelling like something from Diablo 2 isnt something I like doing. People - bring deodorant PLEASE!!!!

the last time a f***** did that to me I punched him in the face

... you didnt punch anyone in the face.

Sif I didnt. It was at a party in yr 11 and the f***** was trying to be cool so I simply punched him. He had done it like 5 times that night and had really annoyed the f*** out of me.

there are thousands of things in society that are more worth bitching about than this crap.

Well, its obviously a matter of perspective. From my perspective (someone who has had their lungs continually butt-f***ed by smokers), its something that is definitely worth bitching about.

And Jim, StopShootingMe is right. Alot of your arguments are just "I ain't listening to you, cause you are nasty smoker, who rapes old ladies and steals lollies from small children" type affairs.

Actually, I don't think they are, I think you'll find that jim's arguments are fairly well-reasoned and all you smokers are MISSING THE POINT, which is funny, because that's basically the point he's making.

Its like smokers are totally oblivious to the fact that non-smokers don't want it anywhere near them. Judging from this thread, its like you guys simply can't comprehend it, and don't understand why it should be their responsibility (as socially aware and polite humans that like to co-exist in peace with their neighbours) to be somewhere else when pursuing their behaviour.

I'll agree with the bodily functions thing though; I'd be pissed if someone came over and farted next to me and then grinned like an idiot thinking it was funny (you guys that do that know who you are). Its a silly, dumb, anti-social thing to do. For me personally though, its not as bad as someone walking over and blowing smoke at me, because it doesn't make my lungs constrict and cause me to have trouble breathing, in addition to stinking me and my clothes all up.

The only real excuse that smokers can come up with for NOT being somewhere else is that they're lazy, couldn't be bothered going somewhere else to do it, and don't care enough about the non-smokers as far as I'm concerned.

BPA friendly mov: http://files.wireplay.com.au/pub/incoming/artery.mov


Quit Now!

Like I wrote though - Not ALL of us smokers have teh same opinions - did you read my post?

BTW - The .mov doesnt work :)

works for me

If it doesn't work for you: right click here and save target

I still firmly believe that they should create an insitution where smokers are tied to beds and forced to go cold turkey, sort of what they do with heroin addicts. Then they are re-educated afterwards. I think someone has included a stupidity gene recently - more and more young f***ing morons take up smoking in an effort to look cool. You won't be so cool sitting at home hooked up to an oxygen tank coughing your god damned lungs up - or even 6 ft under for that matter. Face facts: smoking kills. Don't smoke to look socially cool, because in the end, you'll lose.

Yup, acid, stopshootingme, and bob the fruit are definitely missing it. They are _still_ repeating the same things that I've already provided clear and so far, unanswered responses to. And now they're saying that I'm the one refusing to see the point.

Guys - I have read your comments - you are not actually making points, you are providing attempts at making points, to which I have already provided answers that you have so far failed to negate. In fact you've admitted that some of the comments you made were weak, or only served some other purpose other than to actually rebut mine. The worst thing is that you've then reused some of the ones you admitted weren't up to it. heh!

You can't just keep replying with the same old things and side-step the rebuttals without even attempting to offer a reasonable response to them - and then on top of that, claim that I didn't offer rebuttals at all when I very clearly did. They're right there for everyone to see.




Summary:

smokers and non-smokers are not equal. that's right! smokers choose to pursue a habit that infringes on the rights of other people. do you see the difference here?

1) the non-smoker is neutral - he/she does nothing to infringe on another person

2) the smoker isn't neutral once he/she lights up - he/she takes action which can infringe on the rights of others

You keep trying to say that non-smokers owe smokers something, or that smokers have the right to smoke in such a way as to have their smoke enter another's personal space and that non-smokers should:

a) just accept it
b) move away
c) worry about other things first
d) ask politely before they expect their fundamental rights to be upheld
e) recognise the token effort you make to uphold their rights (if you do in fact choose to uphold them)
f) refrain from 'preaching' to smokers about the way they infringe upon the rights of non-smokers
g) not consider general passive smoking a serious issue because there are far more serious cases of passive smoking such as babies born into houses where parents smoke inside

I think that you like to harp on about people showing you some courtesy, but you seem to overlook sending any back the other way. If a smoker intentionally blows smoke in your face or smokes on public transport, etc, etc... By all means talk to him/her or give 'em a smack in the head.

How am I overlooking sending courtesy back the other way? Please explain. What courtesy is it that I'm supposed to extend to a smoker? Can you please point out where I indicated I fail to show courtesy to smokers?

HOWEVER- you should respect thier right to sit around destroying thier lungs if they so choose.

Can you please show me the part where I fail to respect this right?

God knows if I were a smoker and some toss walked up and gave me a fake smile and asked me to move, id probably blow smoke in thier face too...

That would be wrong of you. You would be infringing upon the rights of that person. Furthermore, you should note that if someone gives you a fake smile and asks you to move, they are not infringing upon your rights UNLESS they do it in a manner that suggested there would be consequences for you should you fail to comply with their request, ie: a threatening manner

Three more irrelevant comments, rendered completely void. And here's some more form acidreign:

The campfire has no ill effect on health, you're getting a benifit of warmth with the downside that you're clothes will smell of smoke the next morning .. like they wouldnt smell the next day if you didnt have the fire.

What on earth does this have to do with defending your right to not smell a smoker's cigarette smoke?

what about women that wear strong perfume or a collegue that eats really strong smelling tuna at work.

These examples are nearly up to it. They definitely cover the annoying smell aspect, but probably fail to live up to the physical harm aspect except maaaaaaaybe with the perfume due to it's chemical composition and people's allergies.
Nevertheless, I agree - people who load up on perfume or eat stinking fish in the same office as others are inconsiderate.

f*** the analogies, it is what it is, I couldnt care less where people smoke .. there are thousands of things in society that are more worth bitching about than this crap.

Again with the apathy, and yet again with the 'there's far greater things to be worried about' answer!!

So again, I will rebut. (Will it be in vain again?)

Re: apathy: that's your choice - however, you have no right to expect other people to maintain the same stance as you and let smokers take away their rights. So now that we know this is an invalid point, we'll not see you attempting to use it again, yes?

Re: better things to worry about: a completely void comment.
Even if cigarette smoke was the absolute least important thing in the entire universe that I could ever worry about (in your opinion of course) it is my right to choose what problems I try and worry about at any given time. How is it that you think you have the right to tell me what I should worry about, or what priority I place on problems? The answer is, you don't. So let's hope that you also cease attempting to use this line of thinking as well - cos that's what you do in a discussion, did you know? Once something you've offered is discounted, it's discarded - you don't keep trying to keep using it unless you're a very silly billy, or are drunk.

The only reason I read that f***ing novel was because Jim wrote it.

...and Jim is always right.

drop your weapons!

Jim. I frankly couldnt be stuffed typing any more, coz my fingers are beginning to ache QUITE a bit. So ill just leave you with this:

Perhaps 6 months ago I might have, nay, I WOULD have agreed with you. However, since then I have elected to worry myself about more important things than other peoples' sometimes irritating habits, unless they INTENTIONALLY inflict them on others.
My arguements here have not been attempts to invalidate yoyr opinions, since (contrary to what you seem to believe) invalidating someones opinion is technically impossible; I have been offering advice. Admittedly I should be one of the last people to be allowed to offer anyone advice, however in this case im making an exception.

"DONT WORRY SO GOD DAMN MUCH!!!!"

Thats it. As I said above, if someone deliberately makes a nuisance of themselves, start a fight, and if im in the near area, ill happily join in/hold the arms behind their back while you pummle the stomache. But until then youre probably going to enjoy life more if you just mellow out a little.
Dont bother presenting a rebuttal, as I dont intend on checking this thread again.

Here is my song , not in protest , I'm not trying to say anything with these lyrics ... but its a good song hey !?

Who cares about the life of a knave ?
When we give birth it's quiet and brave
Being healthy, it's carcinogenic !
And life's a game show called "It's Academic"

Why aren't crocodiles vegetarian ?
How come Atilla wasn't a honey ?
Why didn't Hitler stay a librarian ?
Why don't people find rock bands funny ?

Life kills, life kills
Life's a sentence, read all about it

Who invented the business man ?
Who told bankers the meaning of love ?
Who gives right or wrongs out ?
Who told teenagers they've got a mind of their own?

I'm going down to the Waterside Worker's Hotel
Lose all my clothing and I'll yell
Here's a broken bottle boy, send me to hell !
If life is my alternative I might as well !

Life kills, life kills
Life's a sentence, read all about it
Life's a sentence, read all about it

I'm dying , I'm dying , I'm dying , life kills !!
You die at the moment the sperm hits the ovum
You're dying as a foetus breathing through gills
You die in the birth there ain't no supposing
You die in your life and even Blind Freddy
Knows your children will die to a perspective
Your parents will die if they're not dead already
Life's just death mega perspective
You're trapped in your life from the very first moment
By your mother and father
Who must've been mad
When they decided to add
To their own torment
By having a child
Like their own Mum and Dads
Mum and Dads , Mum and Dads , Mum and Dads , Mum and Dads !
If I could describe it in a poem I'd cry !!

© T.I.S.M. Life Kills

something for everyone there ! ;o)

You allready know that Im not a smoker, and that I choose not to care.

Im just sick of people bitching about every nasty little thing that could possibly do someone somewhere harm. Smoking just seems like a good punch bag to have a whinge about.

Get over trying to argue me down, you're not going to change my opinion one bit, I don't give a s*** about it and Im never going to.
Why you would want to change my mind beats me, I'm not the one giving you passive cancer.

Acid, you still don't get it - you yourself made the move to post here asking us why we feel compelled to bitch about the inconsideration of smokers. News flash - that's YOU trying to change OUR minds - not the other way around. Is that, or is that not the truth?

So once again you introduce fud to the issue.

Stopshootingme, the reason you now make out that it's no big deal and not worth pursuing, is because you now realise you foolishly entered your misdirected opinion into a debate that you'd given very little forethought, and are now left in the awkward position of having no answer to the responses you've been given.

Poor babies - big bad old argumentative jim just won't give up so you're going to write him off as stubborn and not worth debating with - whatever you need to feel better guys.

You'd find I would shutup if you provided a response that actually proved my arguments were invalid.

So cheap! So weak! So empty!

Im not trying to change anyones opinion on the matter, merely stating my own. You can think what you like.

What I don't like is preachers, I hate them in all thier forms.
I hate the mormon f***heads that knock on my door, I hate the ads and TV and radio tell me what I should buy, I hate the pop music scene that dictates what the average person should listen to. I hate the government that says I can't gamble at an online casino (if I wanted to).

That and im bored at work :)

Claim what you like, but your actions in this thread are defined by the word 'preaching'.

Preach \Preach\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Preached; p. pr. & vb. n. Preaching.] [OE. prechen, OF. preechier, F. pr[^e]cher, fr. L. praedicare to cry in public, to proclaim; prae before + dicare to make known, dicere to say; or perhaps from (assumed) LL. praedictare.


So weak! So empty!

that definition is tops!

Now to selectively quote that definition and take it out of context to be funny...

to cry in public

haha

Jim, you must realize that you are as guilty as the people you accuse of "missing the point". You refuse to accept that they refuse to accept the preconceptions upon which your entire argument rests. This is tantamount to hypocritical considering the amount to which you've harped on endlessly about them failing to understand your viewpoint.

You put forward a few, in your mind, axiomatic truths which you then base your entire argument on. Perhaps foremost amongst these is your belief that, as opposed to the smoker, the non-smoker is in some way "neutral" and as thus, is afforded some special precedence when conflict arises. You make no attempt to explain why the non-smoker by his or her inaction should be given special consideration merely because he/she has some semantic "neutrality".

If you choose to believe that the party of relative inaction takes precedence over the party of relative action in a conflicting scenario then that is entirely within your rights as a thinking human. You seem, however, unable to accept that others do not subscrube to this reasoning and can thus be stood accused of being inconsiderate to others.

Obviously I am not arguing one way or the other for smoking. I am simply trying to clear up the issue, as you seem to have a hard time realising that others disagree with you not within the logical framework of your argument, but rather with the basic tenets upon which it lies.

-plok

ahaha, just when you thought the thread was other plokles opens his thesaurus.

plok, i swear i couldnt understand half of what you just said... Far to advanced for me.

this is ghey

hah on the topic of urine smelling trains..

there was this homeless dude on the train today.. must have been wacked up on cheap liquor. He was stumbling around the train, being drunk. Then he walks into the bit between carriages.. well he got stuck in there. Then he decided he was in a urinal and whipped out the old fella. this was one of the newer trains, so he was pissing on the clear door. LOL! there was about 50 people staring at him, i couldnt believe it!
f***en dirty c***..

Plok, you're mistaken. I looked for this possible reason for their lack of acceptance. But they don't even respond by arguing against what I claim are fundamental right and wrongs.

Please, see past the opportunity to exercise your vocabulary and stick to the issue.

I repeat - nowhere do they deny the 'tenets' on which my arguments lie, do they? No.

Secondly, of course a non-smoker is neutral. They aren't doing anything that has an effect on another being.

neutral adj 1: neither moral nor immoral; neither good nor evil, right nor wrong 2: having no personal preference; "impersonal criticism"; "a neutral observer" [syn: impersonal]

A smoker performs an action which moves them from a position of doing nothing to infringe upon another person, to a position where they ARE infringing upon another. This doesn't mean they waive their rights, or that non-smokers are granted some sort of special precedence over them - all it means is that they are now guilty of infringing anothers rights, and that they need to cease doing so and move back to a neutral position.

You also said "If you choose to believe that the party of relative inaction takes precedence over the party of relative action in a conflicting scenario then that is entirely within your rights as a thinking human."

If others do not subscribe to this fundamental belief, it doesn't render their failure to consider others any less wrong than it is if they DO subscribe to it.

yay, jim gives me quotage material for sig.

I've allready said Im not out to change your opinion, you can think what you want (its your right).

I don't need to pick apart your argument and rebutt points, I've read the points, and as valid as they may be for you I dont think the impact it has on my life warrants any out of the way course of action.
If I walk past a smoker smoking or someone painting a park bench it has the same impact on my life.

That's why I don't agree with the 'preaching', obviously my use of the word here does not fit the definition you found so let me clarify the context in which I am using it so that you can't come back with some half assed twist on my words.
"pressuring someone else to accept your beleif on a given situation as thier own when they were confident and content with thier previous beleifs".

And again, let me remind you that I dont care what you or any other non-smokerist think about the situation that's your take on it.
I just dont agree with changing others for personal satisfaction through deliberate action.

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

That's fine - you're entitled to take the stance that lets you deal with issues as comfortably for yourself as can be, or with as little effort as possible.

There were no half-assed twists on your words though. You made a mistake, and are having trouble coming to terms with that. You feel uncomfortable with this, and as a result are seeking ways of releasing the feelings by flailing at me by accusing me of twisting your words.

The best way to deal with it though, is to be truthful with yourself.

There was a compelte blatent twist on my words, you took my use of the word preaching completely out of its intended context.
You have no idea what I am "feeling" with this and what I am "coming to terms" with so f*** off with all that phsycoanalysis bs.
Unless you have some PHD in psychology that I am unaware of (and hell, even if you did), you have no grounds to belittle me in a personal manner in order to try and make your 'preaching' sound better.

Can you point out where the twist of words was? How did I take your use of the word preaching out of context? You're probably confusing your misunderstanding of the word 'preaching' with me taking you out of context. But by all means, please point out how I twisted your words if you feel you can. Don't just babble on either - actually do it so we can put this to bed. If you can't, let it go so once again, it can be put to bed.

And you're wrong - what people are feeling is very apparent by their reaction to something, or the way they deal with something. I can make a very good determination of they way you personally deal with things from the way you put yourself across, and the attitude you display. There's a whole science based on these facts, and people who study that science could tell a whole lot more than I can. Being readable isn't something to be embarresed about - we're all human, and we're all made of the same stuff. You're not special over anyone else in that you can't be summed up to an extent by your behaviour or response or attitude.

And even if I did have a phd in psychology, I still wouldn't have any grounds to belittle you personally. Fortunately though, this is not what I did. You may have felt that this is what I did, but that just means that your own insecurities led you to come to that conclusion. You can certainly _feel_ belittled in your own mind, but to actually _be_ belittled is for others to judge, not yourself. Anyway all I did was make observations on the way you deal with issues. That's not belittling someone.

Incidentally, you don't need a phd in anything to understand people and know why they do the things that they do.

Clearly I wasn't far as from the mark as you make out anyway - your increased hostility is a dead giveaway.

What is this? The battle of the intellects, of which the general populus cant usderstand a sentense spoken.

Let me clear it up =]

string smoke;
if (smkoing = true) {
___if (smoking = near another person) {
______smoke = ("BAD");
___} else {
______smoke = ("ALRIGHT, BUT NOT GOOD");
___}

___stdout.println(smoke);
}

Think of it as extremely accurate psudocode

What is this? The battle of the intellects, of which the general populus cant usderstand a sentense spoken.

Let me clear it up =]

string smoke;
if (smkoing = true) {
if (smoking = near another person) {
smoke = ("BAD");
} else {
smoke = ("ALRIGHT, BUT NOT GOOD");
}

stdout.println(smoke);
}

Think of it as extremely accurate psudocode

why cant we use spaces in our posts... that makes things really annoying... =\

My increase hostility has nothing to do with how close you were to 'the mark'.
I don't like being judged, making these personal observations at me is clearly a result of your argument being piss weak, blah, blah #sarcasm

Stay on track, your feud isnt with me, I don't even smoke ffs.

Claim what you like, but your actions in this thread are defined by the word 'preaching'.

Then you went on to state some dictionary definition.

Because I refered to your argument as preaching you tried to twist it around and call me a preacher.

Thanks, I'm over it.

You call it being judged, I call it making observations and reaching conclusions. It's my perogative to do that.

I'd love to stay on track, but you keep on introducing these distractions. If you go back and follow the thread thorugh, you'll see that this has been the case righ through.

I didn't try and twist it around - all I did was respond to your distraction - in this case, you called me a preacher as though it were something wrong, and as though it wasn't something you do - when in fact by your very posting in this thread and putting your feeling across, you too, were preachng.

That is NOT twisting your words, and it is NOT taking you out of context.

Do you understand now? Can we put this distraction that you yourself initiated and took us off track, to rest now?

When someone else tries to tell me what Im feeling and how I should react, that's akin to the whole thing I've been arguing about in this thread.
As for this 'observation' crud, there's a pretty thin line between judging someone and the way in which you stated it really was quite degrading.

Other people have no right to tell and make other people what to do and especially what to think.

Now I have no idea how far back this passive smoke issue goes for you, but I wouldnt be surprised if you have put some guy on his ass after he wafted smoke in your direction.

Ok, I'm happy to concede that you're right there - it's definitely a thin line - in fact in all honesty, there's no line at all - I am actually making a judgement on your reaction and the way you deal with things.

I disagree with you when you say that other people have no right to tell other people what to do, or what they should think - within reason of course. People need to be told what to do, and I know you've expressed a clear distaste for this, but unfortunately (for you I guess?), that's just too bad. It's a fact proven time and time again throughout the entire recorded history of man, and is still being proven every single second that passes.

I agree with you when you say that people have no right to _make_ others do things in the general context, however I disagree with you when it comes to appointing governmental bodies and their enforcement bodies that make others do things.

I disagree with the manner in which these governmental bodies are determined, but I definitely recognise their authority and attempt to uphold their law, and I expect consequences if I fail to.

I also recognise my own incredible shortcomings and the fact that I am an imperfect human being and require guidance throughout my life.

And no, I have never, ever phyically attacked a person for smoking near me, and I hope that I never do. I've never even made the threat of physical violence to someone who smoked near me. That would be wrong of me, and would make me as bad or even worse than they are for smoking near me.

damn, that really made sense.
gg.

Society does need a few rules to stop stupid people hurting themselves.

Like those whackos that went out and took photos of themselves standing on a whale carcass surounded by sharks.

but then, it was prolly a real rush standing on a whale carcass in the middle of a shark infested sea .. were they really being 'stupid', who's to say?

People do alot of extreme stuff just for a kick and you shouldnt make a law against it just because one person kills themselves doing it, yet they do.
Outlaw every roller coaster because one somewhere in uzbekistan crashes.

The main issue here with cigarettes is that it has an impact on others, not just yourself.

I'm fine with this factor because I don't beleive the risks to my person are significantly high, but then, I don't have asthma, I don't have kids.
Once again no hard stats, but there are a heap of other things in day to day life that are shortening your life.

I guess I justify it by thinking that they're still doing more damage to themselves than me.
But in any case, I sure don't lose any sleep over it.

Personal Hygene is my area. I will not sneeze into my hands and get snot all over my hands because that is gross. If i do i will wipe it on the closest thing I can find regardless of what it is. I will smoke where I can and I suppose i try and respect people personal space but if they come near me they can get f***ed.

I cough out loud and chew with my mouth open its not that I am gross its just I dont care about you or like you

If I sneeze on something important I wont be lazy and rub it in I will usually eat it off

*chuckles*

Oh ross.

sprinkles, everyone knows that inconsiderate people like you exist - that's not the debate.

Sprinkles it was to begin with I read your post and then skipped the drivvle of morons to state my point relevant or not :)

I do believe Jim has posted other posts then the one above on this thread regarding the topic

so it was
silly me

Plok, you're mistaken. I looked for this possible reason for their lack of acceptance. But they don't even respond by arguing against what I claim are fundamental right and wrongs.

Indeed, it was perhaps a little rich of me to expect you to rebut arguments which had not been raised against you. Nevertheless, upon reading their posts I felt that this was perhaps an underlying issue and that just because not everyone can express their viewpoint with the clarity you have displayed, does not mean that you could not, or should not, try and get the crux of their argument. If I have presumed too much on their behalf then that's my mistake, but I do believe a level of intereperation and extrapolation above and beyond the literal text of their arguments, whilst potentially dangerous, is still valid and perhaps even necessary.

Please, see past the opportunity to exercise your vocabulary and stick to the issue.

Obviously you are capable of disregarding the text of someones argument and forming your own opinion of their intentions or meaning. Perhaps then, you should apply it not to snobbish remarks that do nothing to further the argument, but rather to the issue at hand?

I repeat - nowhere do they deny the 'tenets' on which my arguments lie, do they? No.

Again it is my contention that simply because they have not displayed the clarity of expression to say such a thing explicitly, it does not follow they don't hold such a view.

Secondly, of course a non-smoker is neutral. They aren't doing anything that has an effect on another being.

There are two issues, but the first is perhaps made obsolete by the second.

Issue the first :- "A non-smoker is neutral".

You have made a good argument to the validity of this statement, but I do not believe it is conclusive. This also lies upon the fundemental assumption that a person has the right to do nothing. A non-smoker by his/her presence is perhaps infringing on the right of the smoker to light up because of current social attitudes. Before you deride it out of hand as stretching too far, take a second to think about it. Why should inaction be rated above action in terms of who is infringing upon whom? The non-smoker's "neutrality" causes the smoker to modify his/her behaviour due to physical proximity.

You also said "If you choose to believe that the party of relative inaction takes precedence over the party of relative action in a conflicting scenario then that is entirely within your rights as a thinking human."

If others do not subscribe to this fundamental belief, it doesn't render their failure to consider others any less wrong than it is if they DO subscribe to it.

Perhaps, but you are simply defining them into a position of inconsideration. Without addressing the issue of the right to smoke/not smoke, you end in a position where each side can call the other inconsiderate of their needs and rights.

As I believe you've mentioned somewhere in this thread, we all live in a society that puts us in physical, emotional and cognitive proximity of many, many people each day. We do this because there are substantial benefits, I believe, to humanity at large. The downside is that everyone must compromise and curb their personal desires and behaviours to keep society functioning smoothly. There are a number of strategies we use to achieve this including amongst them things like: the Law, Government, Social Conditioning of concepts like consideration etc. The key to having this all work is compromise. Too much control and people will dissent and perhaps even rebel. Too little and society loses order which will eventually lead to unhappiness for the people. As to the issue at hand, namely smoking, I don't believe that there is an inherent right to not be exposed to others' smoke. People need autonomy and the priviledge to engage in activities pleasing to them for society to function, insofar as society deems that such activities do not encroach unreasonably on a significant number of others. Now, I have no problem with you contending smoking in public falls largely into the latter case. I'm simply trying to clear the issue and perhaps give you an insight into the reasoning that allows people to maitain the viewpoint that smoking in public is not as inherently wrong as you make it out to be.

-plok

Lots of people maintain lots of viewpoints that are stupid; that is merely one of them.

Thanks for trying to give me that insight plok. As it happens (and as I mentioned) I had already entertained that concept, simply for the reason that there is surely sometimes something other than pure selfishness driving people to do the things they do.

I didn't disregard your text - I answered it. I'll admit I formed an opinion of what motivated you to write it. You know I was right in that conclusion though. Everyone who knows you, knows I was right. :)

Naturally it's fine for you to question the validity of whether or not doing nothing to another person, is actually as questionable as blowing smoke on them, but I believe that you're maintaining that stance simply for the sake of it, and not because you believe it could actually be true. Likewise for the claim that people have an inherent right not to be exposed to other people's smoke.

No doubt you might also maintain the stance that you could offer your employer the idea that you weren't able to say for sure whether you actually existed or not because all of your senses are driven by electrical signals to your brain which makes it incredibly difficult for you to actually determine your existance, and thus in turn, your ability to actually fulfill your role at your place of employment. If he bought that, he might also buy the idea that a person, doesn't in fact, have the right to not have smoke blown on them by another person.

I'm going to maintain _that_ stance for the sake of it, regardless of any claim to the contrary you now make. :)

Seriously though, I don't agree with your idea that a non-smoker, by their very neutrality, is causing the smoker to modify their behaviour - because it's the smoker themself who is modifying their behaviour. They are the one taking that unnecessary initiative which is not only harmful to themelf, but harmful to others whose rights I am saying that they infringe. If you picture a person's life as a line of undetermined length, what the smoker is actually doing is shortening that line by an undetermined amount every time they, by their actions, cause a non-smoker to breathe their smoke. I'm fairly certain this is a scientifically 'proven' fact - otherwise I'll withdraw that kind of argument.

Given that it is proven though, I would really be interested to see a line of reasoning that would allow society to accept your idea. Even without the physical harm aspect behind it, the sheer smell of cigarette smoke itself is offensive enough to the majority of people.

Thanks for trying to give me that insight plok. (SNIP)

You're welcome.

I didn't disregard your text - I answered it. I'll admit I formed an opinion of what motivated you to write it. You know I was right in that conclusion though. Everyone who knows you, knows I was right.

I'm not going to deny that I don't enjoy waffling on with big words. To go from that to "ipso facto that's why you're writing at all" is unwarranted I believe. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I did feel prompted to respond in an attempt to give a clarity of perspective that I felt the other side was lacking. Only when arguments are fully, or as fully as possible, represented on both sides can they be satisfactorily resovled.

Naturally it's fine for you to question the validity of whether or not doing nothing to another person, is actually as questionable as blowing smoke on them, but I believe that you're maintaining that stance simply for the sake of it, and not because you believe it could actually be true. Likewise for the claim that people have an inherent right not to be exposed to other people's smoke.

Whether or not people have the right not to be exposed to smoke was not something I was addressing directly. I emphasized inherent for a reason. In trying to give the big picture I was displaying that everyone must compromise for the sake of the larger population. I was maintaining that the question was not about inherent rights to not have people do something that affect others, but more whether or not being exposed to smoke was one of the compromises that people have to make in agreeing to live in society. I felt that this is where the argument should be met, not on some questionable abstracts of perceived "neutrality" etc.

No doubt you might also maintain the stance that you could offer your employer the idea that you weren't able to say for sure whether you actually existed (meangingless drivel snipped)

I'm not sure what you were trying to say with this paragraph so I'll let it drop unless you care to elucidate further.

I don't smoke. Having people around me smoking does not really bother me though. Whilst I respect your opinion that it is rude, invasive and incosiderate of others, it by no means prevents me from appreciating opinions that differ from that. Surely you must see that there has to be some compromise somewhere and that it is extremely difficult, to the point of impossibility, to live in close proximity to millions of other individuals and not engage in activities that don't affect adversely those around you. I applaud and respect your views and attempts to minimise any effects your actions have on others, but I do not expect you or anyone to never step on others' toes.

-plok

Seriously though, I don't agree with your idea that a non-smoker, by their very neutrality, is causing the smoker to modify their behaviour - because it's the smoker themself who is modifying their behaviour. They are the one taking that unnecessary initiative which is not only harmful to themelf, but harmful to others whose rights I am saying that they infringe. If you picture a person's life as a line of undetermined length, what the smoker is actually doing is shortening that line by an undetermined amount every time they, by their actions, cause a non-smoker to breathe their smoke. I'm fairly certain this is a scientifically 'proven' fact - otherwise I'll withdraw that kind of argument.

I don't think you should offer scientifically 'proven' facts unless you are definately, as opposed to "fairly", ceratin of their validity. Even couched in your scapegoat wording, why mention it at all if you aren't certain it's true? The only effect such an action serves is to introduce FUD into the argument. In any case, your example is much too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Firstly, I have problems with picturing a life as a line of undetermined length. Secondly, I'm not so sure of the proposition that the level of passive smoking the average person is exposed to decreases life expectancy measurably. Even glossing over these issues it still doesn't change my original argument to compromise. If 1 year less of senility is a burden that society asks me to bear to keep it running smoothly and everyone happy, then I'd gladly accept that.

Given that it is proven though, I would really be interested to see a line of reasoning that would allow society to accept your idea. Even without the physical harm aspect behind it, the sheer smell of cigarette smoke itself is offensive enough to the majority of people.

It does seem that most people find the smell offensive. But again, that does not detract from the argument that it may be a compromise people are asked to make so that society continues smoothly.

Only when arguments are fully, or as fully as possible, represented on both sides can they be satisfactorily resovled.

If we're to take your idea seriously, this argument can never be resolved, because practically any opinion imaginable must be deemed as being possibly valid, no matter how ridiculous it might be.

trying to give the big picture I was displaying that everyone must compromise for the sake of the larger population.

Thankfully, not many share your opinion, and the greater good of those who DON'T infringe others rights, are being given more and more priority - much to the chagrin of smokers.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say with this paragraph so I'll let it drop unless you care to elucidate further.

That despite your request to not deride it out of hand as going too far, it was hard not to, so I introduced another equally as ridiculous point of view.

I don't smoke. Having people around me smoking does not really bother me though. Whilst I respect your opinion that it is rude, invasive and incosiderate of others, it by no means prevents me from appreciating opinions that differ from that.

It's your choice whether or not to 'appreciate' other opinions. There are always other opinions - but often you can actually consider them only that - opinions. When it comes time to actually apply principles in real-life situations, it's an undeniable fact that some opinions are discarded. The ridiculous opinion that a smoker is not taking the initiative to infringe upon another persons's rights is easily discarded, I'm sure any sound-minded person will agree.

I applaud and respect your views and attempts to minimise any effects your actions have on others, but I do not expect you or anyone to never step on others' toes.

It's your choice to allow other people to violate your rights - it's not your choice to expect that I entertain the idea that I should allow others to violate MY rights.

I don't think you should offer scientifically 'proven' facts unless you are definately, as opposed to "fairly", ceratin of their validity.

I think it's fine to be fairly certain. I realise you're entitled to your opinion though. However, I'm happy to change my statement to read "I'm 100% certain that smoking harms the smoker, and others that breathe in the smoker's smoke". Any perceived fud you were hampered by can now be considered fact. I'll leave the onus on you to debunk the idea that smoking is harmful.

In any case, your example is much too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Firstly, I have problems with picturing a life as a line of undetermined length.

This is a very simple concept. Life begins at one point in time, and ends at another. How come you didn't explain why you have problems picturing this?

Secondly, I'm not so sure of the proposition that the level of passive smoking the average person is exposed to decreases life expectancy measurably.

I am. So is the surgeon general. If you're asking me to take your word over his, you're asking too much. Additionally, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you don't think I should introduce what you deem fud, but you feel fine introducing fud such as the above quote.

Even glossing over these issues it still doesn't change my original argument to compromise. If 1 year less of senility is a burden that society asks me to bear to keep it running smoothly and everyone happy, then I'd gladly accept that.

This is not a compromise plok. What compromise does a smoker make, unless they ensure their smoke doesn't go to another person?

And why on earth do you feel that lessened life is an acceptable compromise?

fark me, u pricks can whinge.
u guys think the world owes u some consideration?
as far as i'm concerned, if it's not a sanctioned non-smoking area, i'll smoke in public wherever i like.
u guys dont like it, have a cry about it, like i give a flying toss.

flame away, f*****s

yeah what he said

bunch of softcocks =)

tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
n.
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.


ver·bi·age (vûrb-j, -bj)
n.
An excess of words for the purpose; wordiness.
The manner in which something is expressed in words: software verbiage.

for·bear·ance (fôr-bârns)
n.
The act of forbearing.
Tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation; patience. See Synonyms at patience

fag·got2 (fgt)
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man or CS player, or both.


I think there's something in there for everyone. Cept plok, who prides himself on his excessive syllable to word ratio.

Holy f***.

Remind me never to argue with Jim or plok.

axe, I'll punch your f***in head in if you smoke near me ya f***in softcock f***head c***

oops!

hahaha
ok, u do that jim, i'll try to not hurt myself laughing
:)

:(

This whole thing is pretty simple.

Smokers have the right to smoke.

Non-smokers have the right not to inhale smoke.

Because smokers can't smoke without non-smokers losing their right not to, and because non-smokers outnumber smokers, smokers have to put up with our choice to not breathe in their smoke.

Passive smoking doesn't even need to come into it.

Majority rules, ok?

Not that it's going to matter in 20 years. The way smoking is going, it will be outlawed everywhere but your home within 5, and that will lead to the end of smoking eventually, without money, the smoke barons can't control the govt, and we'll get our smoke-free environs.

Another point I'd like to introduce is the smell that people like blahnana produce. I know it's only really the beginning of a fight against such unpleasant odours, but surely with a little effort, the crusade against these pheremones of phear can be taken as seriously as the anti-smoking debate?

It's a team effort, Jim.

Like we say in Gympie and Mississippi:

'there's few problems that a length of rope and a sturdy tree can't solve'

hehe

I'm not going to deny that I don't enjoy waffling on with big words. To go from that to "ipso facto that's why you're writing at all" is unwarranted I believe.

haha

Cyph no my point was made to your attitude on IRC ..

" yeah right, like their not gonna be lazy and just go there anyway"

Never has anyone ever asked me if I would move away from the doorway. Sure now that everyone has bitched about it on the forums and on irc I can see how that isn't the best place for it.

Most smokers are willing to compromise, at least be as considerate as possible to the non smokers as possible.

I have tried to give up and its realy hard. Much harder than anything else I have ever done. Quite frankly its f***ING hard. I can understand how non smokers feel about it, so I try and be nice.

Although I do expect that Non smokers try and give us a chance too, ask us to move (not unrealistic mesures) but a decent distance away from somewhere like the doorway/stairwell at qgl is more than fair.

If any of the online whingers have a problem where I am smoking, here is a handy hints.

If I am preforming my smoking act in a walkway (eg direct line from the cars to the stairwell (or in the stairwell), please ask me too move. I might not realise that I am causing you destress at my activities.

Athough I can understand that people do not want other people smoking in the same building, or near them. It does makes me wonder if they are anywhere near aware to the s*** that is poured into our surroundings at any given time, and do they bitch and whine about that? Do they bitch that people drive leaded cars because of lead posioning that can occure from it? How about unleaded petrol because it can cause cancer in a gasues form? Not to mention other harmfull pollutions cuased by this ?

How about passive electro magnetic radiation? Industrial pollution. What about the f***heads who speed, and drive like wankers?

Untill smoking becomes illegal or I quit, I will smoke in public venues, where it is permitted ...

I like the Green Extra.

I admit that I was wrong, and that I was pretty homo for even trying to continue in my futility - it's just something I do

The Blue Extra is ok. But I like the freshness of the Green.

gobo like small word =[

http://www.conhugeco.org/junk/arguing.jpg

courtesy gim

I just had a good idea (well I thought it was a good idea).

Take 4-6 QGL people who are argumentative on the forums (I'm looking at Jim, trog, plok, me, Acid, and other's I can't remember :), and come up with a provocative topic of the day.

Divide the 4-6 people into 2 teams and one argues the affirmative, and the other the negative. You would submit the answers simultaneously so that rebuttal is not an issue until later. Then, once the responses have all been posted, we start up a poll and a forum thread on the issue and determine the winner of the debate through votes in the poll. If nothing else, we'll have a great debate in the process.

Who else reckons the Great QGL Debates would be a good idea?

damm you cycosis. yeah you know what i mean :)

hehe great qgl debates would own, but is dongs a valid argument under competition rules?

i live with 2 smokers, and i dont smoke. i can contest to the absolute arrogance that at least some of them show. one of them used to smoke in my room, while playing on my computer while i was at work. he got all defensive when i told him to 'get the f*** out of my room if you want to smoke', as he was infringing on my rights to not breathe in the same cancer causing crap he does.

they smoke indoors, and basically the house smells like an ashtray, and he cant understand why i dont leave my room(the only place in the house that doesnt smell like cigarettes) very often while im at home. the fact that it irritates my sinuses, causing hayfever that can last for days doesnt change his view on that no one can tell him not to smoke inside the house. the fact that his smelling ability has diminished alot because of his smoking would explain why he/they cant understand why i bitch about the smell of the house.

amusing fact: one of my roomates' gf, *made* him quit. he smokes like a chimney during the week when she isnt around, but stops smoking on the weekend when she is. anyway, she's obviously a blonde, because she doesnt seem to notice him coughing up blood and mucus every weekend morning, the traits of someone who smokes alot.... he has supposedly stopped smoking for 6 months now..

that's just f***ed, people who smoke inside a home where there's no air con should be shot.

You sound like you could use some new flatmates bloke.

cainer, according to plok you're wrong to think your flatmates are out of line

They do have just as much right to live there and treat thier house as they like. (or how the lease agreement permits).

If i was in that situation, I wouldnt be telling them to get out, I'd be moving somewhere else myself.

Yeah sure, I hate houses where people smoke inside, but I hate even more houses that allow dogs inside .. even those little f***ed up fluffy ones.

I just wouldnt move in with someone that had a lap dog, same deal.

In the end, the choice is yours.

that's a bit different from what you said to cainer before, EH

A bit yes.

Putting myself in the situation though, Im usually one to avoid conflict.
EH!
I SENSE CANADIANS!

Kane stop f***ing posting that rediculous picture man. It was funny once. Now its f***ing annoying

nah, it's still funny

HAHAH HHAHAH AAHAHAH HA HAHHAHA

and yes, canadians!

Dongs is quite a valid argument, whether anybody is inclined to agree with it is another matter though acid... Seriously though, this topic is dead now, what can we kick the Great QGL debates off with?

also, dongs

i'm inclined to agree with that sentiment Jim...

My uber post was k-owned(@&!*!

cainer, according to plok you're wrong to think your flatmates are out of line

cainer, according to jim you practice bestiality regularly.

Why is it Ashaman is always talking about animal love.

PS debates are gay..
infact the first debate should be, "is the debate idea dongs."

They turned me into a newt.

this topic is long ... :(

seems to have gone off on this whole smoking tangent ...

but did anyone notice how much coughing and s*** was going on at qgl ... a lot of ppl had colds and s*** ... me included ...

holy f*** ... i said "and s***" twice ...

nG!

righto, new QGL rule. No smoking directly outside the door, i can tell you that i am not the only one who hated the fact that the very strong wind was blowing piles and piles of cigarette smoke into the hall.

Although, come to tihnk of it, it was blowing all over the cs players, so i guess it aint that bad =P j/k

It really was pretty disgusting.

Also, there were some idiots who were smoking inside the hall. When we were cleaning up their were butts everywhere.

yer there were 2 near where I was sitting.

and I vote no smokers right outside the door, they should have to goto the driveway/road thingo at least

HULAG

another insightful and deep comment from jim

another insightful and deep comment from jim

... then I realised Tung played CS and it all made sense...

then i realised that ploks previous attempts to sound intelligent by using unnecessary synonyms had failed, and he resorted to using my homosexuality against me.

I thought I sounded very intelligent =[

You certainly did plok

well why did you need to use homosexuality then plok. you couldve owned me with intelligence, i wouldve countered, and we both wouldve won

Because your apostrophe key was broken, a sure sign of homosexuality begging to be exposed.

'''''' '''' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' '

insert as you see fit

insert as you see fit

See, I knew you were begging to be outed.

touche :(

im far too tired to come up with anything yet, ill wait till later tonight.

tung's homosexuality is just far too easy a target it's not fair.

just you wait. soon being homosexual will be the next fashion statement, and you all will cower in my awesomeness. i know acid knows this, and is getting a head start with res.
ARENT YOU, YOU FORBIDDEN LOVE MACHINES

wow this thread is now 216 posts long.

Whats a dong?

HULAG

Jim had sex with 7 out of 10 of the bread buns last QGL =[

yeah baby

who had sex with the remaining 3 out of 10?

they are still virgins

um yeah i smoke and if it gets in your eyes and cloths i really couldnt give a s***. as typo said if the smell is disagreeable then ask the smoker to move. its not like im gonna butt out the smoke on your face or somthing.


oh and i saw the i dont know why people think smoking is cool. what are you 10 years old

f*** man i smoke because i find it an enjoyable pasttime not unlike gaming not because its gonna get me a f***ing populartity award.

I can understand the stench thing though
i refuse to smoke inside even in my own home i go out the back and close the door