Twilo Beauty Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe iliana - please try and make a relavent point if you choose to go to frat parties or bars where you're likely to get beat up that's your choice. there are plenty of bars that aren't like that. you can avoid them and still go to 95% of the bars / clubs in the city. (so you have a choice)however, 0% of the bars and clubs in the city offer a smoke free environment. (no choice)try and stay on topic honeyyou remember the SAT? that had that analogy section hon Again...since assholes like you have a hard time comprehending, if you don't like cigarette smoke to the point where you get soo sick, I'm sure you wouldn't be frequenting bars. You have a choice to go to a smoke free restaurant and have your drinks there or go out clubbing with your friends and (HACK) breath in all that horrible smoke ...ewwww-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Iliana:try checking even a 5th grade dictionary:1. things are either true or false: this has to do with their intrinsic nature and the laws of physics, not with evidence. There are tons of things that are true that we know nothing about. Please don't throw even 5 letter words around when you don't know what they mean.2. you may have noticed that there are emissions tests and laws governing the amount of pollution factories, cars, etc. can produce. they get fined, taken off the road, etc. if they don't meet them - so these are being regulated. this law is just about regulating the amount of cigarette smoke allowed in the air. perhaps monitoring devices should be put in bars and clubs and when the level of pollutants in the air is below a certain threshold you can smoke....3. i'm not putting social of health or the other way around. if it were up to me people who smoke would have to pay for all cancer related treatment out of their own pockets. and, btw...this topic isn't about other drug use and how good or bad it might be...the point is you can't compare them since you don't get "2nd hand" coke addiction. if you'd like to start a seperate topic about what's worse "2nd hand smoke or crack addiction" i'd be happy to chat about it with you.as for opening my eyes...i would if you'd stop blowing smoke in themnow, i know its tough to stay on topic when you don't really understand stuff, but give it a shot next.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe Iliana:try checking even a 5th grade dictionary:1. things are either true or false: this has to do with their intrinsic nature and the laws of physics, not with evidence. There are tons of things that are true that we know nothing about. Please don't throw even 5 letter words around when you don't know what they mean.Again, let me re-state that people who "swallow" information without getting a solid fact, proof, or evidence is basically a dumbass, much like yourself. SO you're saying things are either black or white??? MY GOD YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID! What things are true that we know nothing about?? I would like to know.. Oh wait, you can't tell me becasue YOU DON'T KNOW!! lolllol (FUKCING IDIOT)2. you may have noticed that there are emissions tests and laws governing the amount of pollution factories, cars, etc. can produce. they get fined, taken off the road, etc. if they don't meet them - so these are being regulated. this law is just about regulating the amount of cigarette smoke allowed in the air. perhaps monitoring devices should be put in bars and clubs and when the level of pollutants in the air is below a certain threshold you can smoke....I actually like this idea. At least I can still smoke in a bar. Kudos to you!3. i'm not putting social of health or the other way around. if it were up to me people who smoke would have to pay for all cancer related treatment out of their own pockets. and, btw...this topic isn't about other drug use and how good or bad it might be...the point is you can't compare them since you don't get "2nd hand" coke addiction. if you'd like to start a seperate topic about what's worse "2nd hand smoke or crack addiction" i'd be happy to chat about it with you. Actually, to state an ARGUMENT, you do have to bring up various points concerning "health andvarious forms of drug use and its affect on the public" SO WHY DON'T YOU ADD TO THE TOPIC INSTEAD OF TRYING TO BELITTLE OTHER PEOPLE'S ARGUMENTS WITHOUT INFORMATION TO BACK UP YOUR SHIT?HMM?????? -iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codica3 Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Fuck this law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 1. you just made a ton of assumptions. who said a swallowed anything? my point is that things are true or not true regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. evidence comes clear over time. to you that old example: the earth has always been round. people just didn't have evidence for it for a long time. so is your argument that people who thought the world was round BEFORE it could be proven were dumbasses? or more to the point, people who thought that smoking causes lung cancer were dumbasses while they were compiling evidence for it?i'm not saying things are black and white...most things are opinions and preferences. however, scientific things ARE black and white - science is based on cause and effect. and regarding things that are true and we don't know about them, here are some: - god exists or doesn't: we don't know for a fact, but this is either true or not true - you can travel through a black hole: this is either true or not truejust cause we don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't a true answer.2. about drug uses affect on the public: you're right. the point is that this argument is about public, 2nd hand peoples health. not their wallets. someone snorting coke doesn't affect the "public's" health, it affects their own health. smoking on the other hand does affect the "publics" health - hence the term 2nd hand smoke. i have never heard the terms "2nd hand shooting up" and "2nd hand deteriorating septum".again you prove the point that you have no idea what this is all about...please, try again hon...try and make a point that's relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlou Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 talk about flogging a dead horse...this conversation can go on and on and on ad infinitum. neither side wants to see the other's point of view. you're not going to convert anyone, it's pointless. true, many valid points have been brought up, but its all fallen on deaf ears.give it up already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 as i've stated before, personally i don't care about smoking in bars...i smoke myself from time to time.the point is that one should be able to understand both sides:sideA: doesn't want their habbit taken away. they can't argue that the habit isn't bad for them, but will fall back on the 2nd hand smoke isn't PROVEN to be bad for you. of course, we all know this is a crock of shit but is a good argument since we don't take away people's freedoms lightly in the US when money and revenue are at stake.sideB: cigarette smoke, like any type of particulate matter, is bad for your lungs if you inhale it. we should try and minimize exposure to this type of thing.Problem is sideA people can't recognize sideB argument cause it chops their legs out.Iliana just makes no sense and is fun to argue with (btw...if you don't want to read anymore of this, don't open it and go back to discussing the weather or sports or whatever dead horse you happen to own) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammarPolice Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe do you know why you cough? its to remove irratants - in other words things that shouldn't be in your lungs and throat. non-smokers get this type of cough all the time after going to a bar. guess what? its from inhaling 2nd hand smoke.Just because someone is allergic to the fumes from perfume, doesn't mean that person somehow has a "right" to walk into a perfume shop and demand that the shop close down (or eliminate its perfume samples) because the smell of the perfume causes an allergic reaction in that particular person. The only "right" the perfume allergic has is to choose not to go into the perfume shop. No claim about the perfume shop owner's not having a right to conduct business can be made on the grounds that his right to conduct business stops at the end of someone's nose or someone's having a "right" to perfume-free air. Someone who decides to work in a perfume shop has MADE THAT CHOICE and has to live with it.If I'm allergic to peanuts, I do not have the right to go to a Thai restaurant and demand that all their food be peanut-free, even though peanuts are an essential ingredient in many Thai dishes. No, but I have a right to choose not to eat in Thai restaurant or even to choose not to eat Thai food at all. In this way, real private property rights (guaranteed constitutionally to property owners) ALWAYS trumps non-existent "rights" to smoke-free or perfume-free or auto-exhaust-free, germ-free or odor-free air, no matter what tired sound bite the anti-tobacco lobbyist such as yourself pulls out of his own hot air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammarPolice Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 And to add, no one has a "right" to either smoke-free air nor smoke-filled air. The only "rights" involved are private property rights. Presumably, the owner of a business/building/enclosure also owns the space (i.e. the "air") contained within the walls of the enclosure, unless something within that space is itself illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe 1. you just made a ton of assumptions. who said a swallowed anything? my point is that things are true or not true regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. evidence comes clear over time. to you that old example: the earth has always been round. people just didn't have evidence for it for a long time. so is your argument that people who thought the world was round BEFORE it could be proven were dumbasses? or more to the point, people who thought that smoking causes lung cancer were dumbasses while they were compiling evidence for it?no one was trying to take aways anyone's liberty when they stated "the world is flat". What does that have to do with banning smoking? Wy don't you stay on topic, huh?i'm not saying things are black and white...most things are opinions and preferences. however, scientific things ARE black and white - science is based on cause and effect. True. And ther are no HARD FACTS that second hand smoke kills. and regarding things that are true and we don't know about them, here are some: - god exists or doesn't: we don't know for a fact, but this is either true or not true - you can travel through a black hole: this is either true or not truejust cause we don't know the answer, doesn't mean there isn't a true answer.Hey, again STAY ON TOPIC!but to answer you, Wether God exists or not, has nothing to do with taking away my right to smoke in a bar. Your examples are useless.-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somebitch Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by jlou talk about flogging a dead horse...this conversation can go on and on and on ad infinitum. neither side wants to see the other's point of view. you're not going to convert anyone, it's pointless. true, many valid points have been brought up, but its all fallen on deaf ears.give it up already yeah that was the best point made so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Grammarpolice:- if u'r allergic to perfume why would you go into a perfume shop?- if u'r allergic to peanuts you can go to the thai restaurant you just have to be careful what your order. if the guy next to you eats peanuts it doesn't cause you to have an allergic reaction.- a small (very small) percent of people are allergic to peanuts...this is what lawyers call a "special case". on the other hand EVERYONE's body is or isn't harmed by particulate matter contained in smoke of anysort in the lungs and mucus membranes. some people may also be particularly allergic to cigarette smoke but we ain't talking about them here.this has nothing to do with allergies - its not that "some" people are allergic to smoke and some aren't. smoke contains particles that are bad for everyone's lungs - this is irrefutable. the only item open to question is: is 2nd hand smoke below the threshold society requires to label it "harmful enough" to warrant taking away some smoking freedoms.the issue is that bars are primarily places that sell alcohol. if you want a place that is primarily for smoking, like a cigar room, go to it. that's your choice. and in terms of privacy: go smoke at home, just like you can do lots of other things at home that you can't do other places because they would invade the public's right to reasonable privacy and tasteful social conduct (like walking around naked, peeing in the bushes, having sex, etc.)ok, try again with something relevant. you may also want to check out that analogy section Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynkid Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe again you prove the point that you have no idea what this is all about...please, try again hon...try and make a point that's relevant. She's not going to say anything relevant. We went through this yesterday. The bottom line is that she, like many others, is selfish and has zero regard or respect for those around her. When cornered she lashes out with nothing but foot stomping and name calling.If you ask me, some people don't have any more decency than the DC sniper, and that's sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 true enough mikey - thing is its kinda fun chatting with her..prepares me for trying to explain stuff to kids one day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlou Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 i am all for debate and intelligent discussion, dont get me wrong. this thread has strayed a bit far from that though. this is now filled with cheap-shots, name-calling, and racial slurs. each side is unwilling to see the other's point of view. so now this has just become a pedestal from which people preach their own beliefs without listening to an opposing view. i do agree that this thread does have some sort of entertainment value. i must be a glutton for punishment, i keep coming back for more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammarPolice Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe ok, try again with something relevant. you may also want to check out that analogy section That's your constant refrain. If you can't debate without trying to sound like you're condascending or intellectually superior (and I guarantee you, you're not), then shut the fuck up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sxyaznchiq Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by jlou talk about flogging a dead horse...this conversation can go on and on and on ad infinitum. neither side wants to see the other's point of view. you're not going to convert anyone, it's pointless. true, many valid points have been brought up, but its all fallen on deaf ears.give it up already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 fine, then get a moderator to help you stay on topic and shit.explain how the issues of the 1/10th of a percent of people allergic to peanuts has anything to do with whether the 50% plus of people who don't smoke should be forced to breath in 2nd hand smoke in establishments opened and licensed to sell alcohol / showcase music?if you want to debate the points i'm happy to do it...As for sounding intellectually suprior, u'r the one that started with the "that's a baseless statement" and crap that sounds like you asked your librarian for a quote "That's nice, but you don't address the fact that meta-analyses of many anti-smoking studies consistently show flawed experimental techniques.", not me.peace out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynkid Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by jlou i am all for debate and intelligent discussion, dont get me wrong. this thread has strayed a bit far from that though. this is now filled with cheap-shots, name-calling, and racial slurs. each side is unwilling to see the other's point of view. so now this has just become a pedestal from which people preach their own beliefs without listening to an opposing view.Fair enough. What I ask is this:Will someone please prove to me that imposing your vice on me is acceptable.Forget studies and health issues for a moment and just think about all the things you are allowed to do to yourself but not allowed to do to others. How is this one thing different?"because it just is", "if you don't like it, go somewhere else", "smoking and drinking just go hand in hand" are not acceptable answers. I challenge someone to convince me that what you do to yourself is perfectly OK to do to me also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrumanoid Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 hi, i don't get it, can u explain it to me, how mayor could make such a rule... what if the owner of the bar , let me smoke in his/her bar. what then ? would i get any penalty or what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by GrammarPolice That's your constant refrain. If you can't debate without trying to sound like you're condascending or intellectually superior (and I guarantee you, you're not), then shut the fuck up. Thank you Grammar Police.What this dumbasses don't get is the same way they're trying so hard to sound like smart individuals with relevant points, I bask in my brash statements and fun name calling. Guys, stop TRYING to impress on clubplanet ! LOLLOL-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilo Beauty Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 Originally posted by barvybe fine, then get a moderator to help you stay on topic and shit.explain how the issues of the 1/10th of a percent of people allergic to peanuts has anything to do with whether the 50% plus of people who don't smoke should be forced to breath in 2nd hand smoke in establishments opened and licensed to sell alcohol / showcase music?if you want to debate the points i'm happy to do it...As for sounding intellectually suprior, u'r the one that started with the "that's a baseless statement" and crap that sounds like you asked your librarian for a quote "That's nice, but you don't address the fact that meta-analyses of many anti-smoking studies consistently show flawed experimental techniques.", not me.peace out. The difference between you and Grammar police is that GP IS INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR and you're ARE NOT.-iliana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barvybe Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 lol...once again resorting to name calling when you don't have anything to say and stuff...which is fine i have no intention of impressing anyone with anything. it would be nice if you guys could actually come up with answers to some of the questions that make sense is all...try starting with brooklynkid's if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotcheme Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 is this thread ever going to be moved to drama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlou Posted October 15 Report Share Posted October 15 since when does making a racist remark constitute "fun name calling"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.