| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 84962 | 2007-11-24 19:46:00 | Do you think the Government intrudes too much... | Myth (110) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 614897 | 2007-11-28 20:00:00 | Why wouldn't one comment on boring?your logic is as bad as your politics. So give us all the benefit of your logic. I've noticed that hardly any of your posts on any thread are about the topic - usually just snide remarks posted against members you dislike. If my logic is faulty, go ahead and refute it with some logic of your own. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 614898 | 2007-11-28 20:30:00 | So give us all the benefit of your logic. I've noticed that hardly any of your posts on any thread are about the topic - usually just snide remarks posted against members you dislike. If my logic is faulty, go ahead and refute it with some logic of your own. Whilst that may or may not be true,it's not boring,you sir have mastered that art. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 614899 | 2007-11-28 20:48:00 | If my logic is faulty, go ahead and refute it with some logic of your own.I did. I followed your line of thinking to its logical conclusion (no bars) and posted it. Your response was "that's not true" with no evidence to back it up. I feel that if you want to enter into a political debate, you need to be prepared to back up any points you state - you can't expect blind belief from someone with an opposing viewpoint. Just a question for ya - do you believe that personal responsibility (i.e. taking responsibility for ones self) is a good thing? |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 614900 | 2007-11-28 22:15:00 | Whilst that may or may not be true,it's not boring,you sir have mastered that art. while you, sir, have mastered the art of being annoying back on topic!:badpc: |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 614901 | 2007-11-28 22:30:00 | while you, sir, have mastered the art of being annoying back on topic!:badpc: One day sir,I hope to enter your class,my hopes are low though. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 614902 | 2007-11-28 22:46:00 | One day sir,I hope to enter your class,my hopes are low though. it is a fine art, using reason and facts to frustrate others who wish to continue blissfully ignorant:thumbs: never argue with an idiot: he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience:lol: now, personal responsibility: could it be a good thing?!:rolleyes: i say good thing, as (by definition) it makes people responsible for their actions, but bad thing, cause i don't want to pay my speeding ticket and would rather blame society, the cop, ltnz, honda, my parents, my destination for closing so early etc etc seriously though, there is a line, made fuzzy by idiots not knowing any better when they reach into that toaster with a knife to retrieve their prize. it's when idiots high up forget this line that we'll start having warning labels telling us to read the warning labels... oh wait... already happened:groan: |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 614903 | 2007-11-28 23:43:00 | I once walked into a lunatic asylum,they all wanted to make points,one soon learns not to argue with morons. | Cicero (40) | ||
| 614904 | 2007-11-29 00:17:00 | Bletch, to be fair, most of your comparisons about the smoking in bars really aren't valid. A person visiting the bar isn't forced to drink alcohol, and nobody minds the TV. They are, however, forced to breathe in second hand smoke. Yes, the loud music argument is fine, but again, most people want the music and nobody wants to breathe in second hand smoke. Taking it to "no bars" is ridiculous. The law enables people to go to bars and know that they won't be forced the inhale second hand smoke, whereas otherwise I'm sure 99% of bar owners would allow the smoking. Of course, the easy solution is to have a smoking section of the bar, and this is a much better compromise than banning smoking in bars. It's not as stupid a policy as you make out though. So, I don't support making smoking in bars illegal, but I think it would be a good idea to say that if a bar is to allow smoking they must provide a smoking section of the bar which is moderately separated from where non-smokers can sit. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 614905 | 2007-11-29 00:42:00 | I think the point is missed George, people who go to a bar choose to on their own will. They arent forced to do anything let alone sit there in smoke. If they want a smokefree bar then they can buy or build one. In the states Joe was saying its going to be illegal to smoke in your own car soon which is the same principle of 'you own it why is government poking there nose in?' Soon they will want to now what you are doing in your own home.....which has already started. Another point about the smoking in bars was a test showed with a proper vent system, the air was much cleaner then outside when using this system. Alot bar owner said they will use this, but the Guv said NO! and so they made a law so they can fine people. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 614906 | 2007-11-29 00:56:00 | I did. I followed your line of thinking to its logical conclusion (no bars) and posted it. Your response was "that's not true" with no evidence to back it up. My response was "no". I don't support banning bars completely. Not "that's not true". You tried to reduce my argument to absurdity but you introduced a whole set of new premises - one of which is that loud music and alcohol is comparable to cigarette smoke. I hold that it isn't comparable and that staff deserve to be protected from carcinogens in the workplace. Just a question for ya - do you believe that personal responsibility (i.e. taking responsibility for ones self) is a good thing? Yes, personal responsibility is a good thing. But don't we have laws in place for those people that show none of it? Bar owners gave little or no thought to staff working in a cigarette smoke laden environment before the law forced them to. Libertarianism is fine - but in the end it's a utopian dream. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||