Im sick and tired of having stupid friends...

[turambar85]

My two cents on smoking in public places. Public buildings, I agree with the no
smoking ban. In most cases people must go there to transact business and have
no choice. Restaurants and Bars. It should be up to the owner if he wants to allow
smoking. Those that don't like smokers or whatever are not forced into going
into them. Same with owners that ban smoking. Smokers don't have to go there.
I am not going to really comment on the perils of second hand smoke. There are
arguments on both sides of the issue.

Gays - marriage and adoption. Dealers choice. I only see the marriage as part
of an age old tradition that some want to destroy and twist. But again that is
my opinion and I have expressed it to my political representatives. I am quite
sure when I become a minority I will lost the argument. Until then, I have won
the argument, legally.

Well, there are many age-old traditions that people have tried to twist Mr. X-ray.

1. That women stay at home, in their own personal sphere, because this is desired by God.

2. That blacks are slaves, and are inherently inferior.

3. That only white land owners can vote.

4. That women not work.

And there are many more. All of these views were looked at as sacred traditions, and the people trying to change them as trying to subvert the morality and way of life of decent people.

There is no difference in the rights for women, the rights for blacks, and the rights for gays and lesbians.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would it be a miserable failure, Chump? If the Government makes it a law that all businesses much reach a certain level of ventilation in order for indoor smoking to be legal, then there are no problems.

What level? In which area? What would seperate the areas? Who would check the effectiveness? When would the check be made? How many tax dollars would you want to devote to this for every public building in the state?

And it is better than a ban because in any situation where we can make things work for both parties, where neither is inconvenienced, it is the best possible method.

A ban actually helps the smokers because they get some exercise going outside. Win-win.

As said, some people go to bars to conduct business. So they should be forced to leave if they choose to smoke? Just because your girlfriend enjoys going in and out does not mean that others do. There are some people who spend hours upon hours at a bar, and having to leave would be a major pain in the ass.

Tonight, with her pool league and karaoke, she'll be in the bar for about seven hours. Cry me a river for the folks with two good legs. Their lazy asses can smoke outside.

[BeerIsGood!]

I am a member of Facebook.com, mainly because it is a good way to keep in touch with friends. However, I also use it to try to start debates with friends about their beliefs using the new facebook news feed, which shows everything that all of your friends have done; such as what groups they joined, what they added to their site, and most importantly, what campaign views they promote.

I was looking through some of my friends views, and almost every single one of them contain a few of these, "abolish smoking cigs, against the adoption of kids by gay couples, anti-gay marriage, modest is hottest, george bush rocks, yes on prop 9, protect the sanc y of marriage."

I put the Bush one, the abolish cigs, and the modest is hottest as a joke, those beliefs annoy me, but are not hate inspired like the other 3.

Why do people, especially in the South, have such an issue with these subjects?

I would like to pose these two questions, to put them up for debate.

1. Why should gays not be allowed to adopt?

2. Why should gays not be allowed to marry?

Lets roll.

Gays should be allowed to get married so they can be just as miserable as every other married couple.

[turambar85]

And actually divorce was one of the 1st things about marriage that these heartless bas s did to ruin the sanc y of marriage.

They twisted and distorted a noble tradition set down by God.

The nerve!

[ChumpDumper]

Depends on your definition of right.

If you believe that right is what is in the true best interest of the individual people living in a society, then yes.

So where do those beliefs come from?

[turambar85]

What level? In which area? What would seperate the areas? Who would check the effectiveness? When would the check be made? How many tax dollars would you want to devote to this for every public building in the state?

The level designated by the government group designated to test for the safety of the bars patrons, they do it for food, they do it for cleanliness, and they do it for worker safety, no difference.

In all areas. Every place in which people smoke must be checked and certified under these laws.

The above group checks their effectiveness/how much they keep up on a yearly or bi-annual basis.

[turambar85]

So where do those beliefs come from?

Depends on the law. But every good law comes from people trying to decide what works the best in the publics interest. If something truly hurts people, then we hang it...if something truly benefits people, then we introduce it.

But in a country with more than one religion, and a SUPPOSED seperation of church and state, you CANNOT allow people to make laws based on their religious views.

[turambar85]

And if something hurts some people, and helps another, then we compromise.

Hence my smoking proposition.

[ChumpDumper]

The level designated by the government group designated to test for the safety of the bars patrons, they do it for food, they do it for cleanliness, and they do it for worker safety, no difference.

In all areas. Every place in which people smoke must be checked and certified under these laws.

The above group checks their effectiveness/how much they keep up on a yearly or bi-annual basis.

Get back to me with your estimates on how much all this will cost.

Here's my plan: Ban smoking indoors. Cops show up about as often as they do now and make sure folks aren't smoking.

Which plan costs less? Which plan is easier implement? Which plan is easier to verify? Which plan is easier to enforce?

[ChumpDumper]

And if something hurts some people, and helps another, then we compromise.

Hence my smoking proposition.

Whom does smoking help again?

[turambar85]

Smoking helps the smokers.

And Duh, we all know smoking actually hurts the smokers, but we know that, they know that. So as long as they are smoking, it helps them to be allowed to do so in places that they frequent.

[ChumpDumper]

So help the smokers hurt the smokers. Good logic.

The smokers can hurt themselves outside.

[turambar85]

The smokers will hurt the smokers regardless, and we can not make laws to help people who dont want to be helped.

It is a wast of both of our time for you to make sop ric arguments like that.

It is completely irrelevant to the argument, and its only purpose it to take attention off of the true issue by adding in sub-fields for me to argue. It is an argument by attrition, where not all of your ammo is meant to hit the target.

[ChumpDumper]

The smokers will hurt the smokers regardless, and we can not make laws to help people who dont want to be helped.

But we can help those who do want to be helped -- the nonsmokers.

It is a wast of both of our time for you to make sop ric arguments like that.

You made the argument. I do agree it was a waste of time.

t is completely irrelevant to the argument, and its only purpose it to take attention off of the true issue by adding in sub-fields for me to argue. It is an argument by attrition, where not all of your ammo is meant to hit the target.

What are you talking about? You said you were helping the smokers and I questioned that. If you can't defend your own argument, don't post it.

[turambar85]

And regardless, I had no intention of arguing this topic.

I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.

This thread was made in order to debate legislating morality, and gay marriage/adoption.

Can we get back on target? i feel like I have needlessly lost 2 hours of my life.

[turambar85]

And no, you didnt question the true meaning of helping the smokers, which I agreed that you only do by not making things hard on them, not that cigs actually help them.

You, knowing this, made the stupid argument that we help the smokers kill themselves. You knew this was not what I meant, so it was a complete waste of time.

I said that helping them by means of not making things unreasonably hard on them. If they will do it regardless, why should we make it unecessarily troublesome?

[turambar85]

Now, I don't have time to argue this issue. It is simply not that important.

I have no intention of saying anything else in that regard, at least on this thread, so do not waste your time making more arguments for nobody to counter.

Call it a tie if you will, I simply do not care enough to put off my essay, that is due tommorow, any longer.

[ChumpDumper]

And regardless, I had no intention of arguing this topic.

Tough. I'm for all the other crap.

I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.

Welcome to SpursTalk.

This thread was made in order to debate legislating morality, and gay marriage/adoption.

Can we get back on target? i feel like I have needlessly lost 2 hours of my life.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well, my problem with that is that the law does not care what you want to smell like when you go somewhere.

No, but I have the right not to have my danger of lung cancer increased because you want to smoke a cigarette.

Im assuming aggie is out of commision and out of the race because he is having a hard time wrapping his mind around the fact that I was joking about my friends being stupid for liking Bush, or banning cigs, but that I simply am annoyed by those views.

Half your responses in this thread have been to Chump Dumper on cigarette smoke, tell me again who is having a hard time staying on topic?

I'm not having a hard time grasping anything other than your weird ass post led "I'm sick and tired of having stupid friends", mentioning cigarette smoking in your thread, and then getting pissed when someone calls you out on it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I do not feel strongly enough about smoking indoors to spend this much time convincing someone who will not be convinced of my reasoning.

So basically you only like having conversations if you can convince someone to agree with you? Sounds like you need to go hang out at the local Democratic party meetings. That, and maybe an elementary school and then maybe you can convince them to agree with you about Pokeman and all that .

[ChumpDumper]

[jochhejaam]

I said I do not think theyre stupid for the reasons including cig banning, I think they are stupid for the hate inspired views pertaining to gay marriage and adoption.

Why do you assume their views are hate inspired? Have you asked them what their reasoning is and if it's based on hate?

[TreeWhisperer]

Ok, in reply

Joch, I assume this because I have talked to them. They believe that " s" are an abomination, and that half of their arguments include the belief that it is simply disgusting.

Aggie, I love having conversations where people disagree with me. However, I will not spend 2 hours doing so when I have an essay due in the morning. And it is not that he wont agree, it is that he wont stay on a particular point, but wants to keep expanding it every time I make a reply. It is simply a waste of time, and not getting anywhere. If it were developing, and moving forwards as most arguments do, then it would be a different matter. But fact is that I am too busy to do it right now, if I didnt have an essay things might be different.

And again for Aggie, half of my posts have been in response to him because he is the only person responding to me. Dear lord man, thats simple mathematics. If I put out a post, and only 1 person responds, and then I respond to him in fashion and form as an argument, then most of my posts will be towards him. The fact that even 1/3 of my posts are related to anything different is a mark on my desire to move the topic along.

I mentioned my friends being stupid, and within 2-3 posts pointed out that half of the reasons were in jest, and told you the real reasons. Now, if you are too simple minded to grasp that reality then it is no fault of mine, and I am truly sorry for you.

And finally, Chump. This is no occasion of my waving a white flag. It is simply a case of me having to leave, so I can not spend all day hammering out an argument that I dont even feel that strongly about anyway. It is simply not a big deal to me, I argued it at 1st simply to hear the opposing views, but since you arent doing an adequate job of providing those views, and instead resort to pretending to misinterprete my statements, then it is a waste of my time, and failing to achieve the only possible goal that it could have had.

[turambar85]

Sorry, I went to my fiancees house and forgot that she had last been on Spurstalk on this computer. That last message, obviously, was meant to be from this screen name.

[turambar85]

And I would never have that opportunity of speaking to people at the democratic convention because I am not a democrat, at all. I would just as soon slap somebody if they called me a member of either party.

Nothing irks me more than to be lumped in with the simple-minded drones who simply fall into party line and agree with everything that one party puts out, or votes for somebody simply because of the party name he claims.

It was not a matter of me wanting to win the argument, or him agree with me. Rather it was me wanting him to at least concede to me that I was saying what I was saying! lol. It gets tiring for people to see you say one thing, and simply for ammunitions sake try to twist that into something else...something it obviously was not.