Smoking 'To Be Banned'

[Irene Swaine]

On 04/10/2023 at 08:24, Chekhov said:

It's the modern way, regulating people's lives and banning stuff, get used to it because you'll be seeing even more of it over the coming years.

I fear that you are right. We need to stop letting them ban things so freely. 

[Chekhov]

On 06/02/2024 at 10:41, Mister M said:

No, nothing like allowing people to drive on the roads, some of whom may inadvertently injure or kill others.

Cars and transport serve as a useful function in society. They allow people, and goods to get to their intended destination. Smoking has no useful social function whatsoever. It's a habit which kills.

Yes cars, buses, lorries sometimes kill. But that's why there is the Highway Code, to ensure people's safety.

No doubt you think the Highway Code is some kind of fascistic manual, an authoritarian's wet dream. 

I go back to the point made on another thread why would anyone object to the creation or application of a law which safeguards children from those who wish to use social media to bully them to suicide - simply because there are too many laws.

Sensible people don't object. Ideological fanatics like you do.

Rubbish, it's exactly the same.

It's cost v reward

These parents who apparently object to some people videoing races (their kids are in) do so because any photography ban does not negatively affect them, so the fact it makes close to zero difference to their kids safety is of no concern to them (rather selfishly I may add). 

On the other hand they continue to drive their kids around, even though they are far more danger from that, because it would make their lives very much more difficult if they stopped doing so.

Hypocrisy comes to mind, either that or an appallingly low comprehension of risk probability.

[ECCOnoob]

12 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Rubbish, it's exactly the same.

It's cost v reward

These parents who apparently object to some people videoing races (their kids are in) do so because any photography ban does not negatively affect them, so the fact it makes close to zero difference to their kids safety is of no concern to them (rather selfishly I may add). 

On the other hand they continue to drive their kids around, even though they are far more danger from that, because it would make their lives very much more difficult if they stopped doing so.

Hypocrisy comes to mind, either that or an appallingly low comprehension of risk probability.

Here we go again....

 

Another thread where you bring up your obsession about freely filming in the swimming pool.   

[Chekhov]

19 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Here we go again....

Another thread where you bring up your obsession about freely filming in the swimming pool.   

You are purposefully misquoting me again, I should complain about it as it's far more serious than a bit of light banter in spelling an overly complicated name wrong.

I do not actually think people should be banned from using cameras in pools at all, but I realise that's one too far in this paranoid world we live in where, apparently, all adults are considered Paedos unless proven otherwise. Thus I have never argued that point. But what I have argued, as you know full well, is that people should not be banned from videoing swimming galas, which is something quite different.

Edited February 7 by Chekhov

[Mister M]

42 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Rubbish, it's exactly the same.

It's cost v reward

These parents who apparently object to some people videoing races (their kids are in) do so because any photography ban does not negatively affect them, so the fact it makes close to zero difference to their kids safety is of no concern to them (rather selfishly I may add). 

On the other hand they continue to drive their kids around, even though they are far more danger from that, because it would make their lives very much more difficult if they stopped doing so.

Hypocrisy comes to mind, either that or an appallingly low comprehension of risk probability.

Utter crap.

You've still not justified why you think it's okay not to have laws, or not to apply the laws we have to punish and deter young people from bullying other children to death, simply because you think we have 'too many laws'.

Nor have you really explained why you think banning smoking is something akin to something about banning driving.

To be honest I don't really care. It's all symptomatic of the fevered imagination of an ideological Ayatollah....

You must've been creaming yourself as Liz Truss took to the stage yesterday to tell us all how wonderful her plans are. She too is a great believer in the 'small state'. Except when she's enjoying all the trappings of being PM. Then she was quite happy to live the dream at the taxpayer's expense.

 

Edited February 7 by Mister M

[altus]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You are purposefully misquoting me again, I should complain about it as it's far more serious than a bit of light banter in spelling an overly complicated name wrong.

I do not actually think people should be banned from using cameras in pools at all, but I realise that's one too far in this paranoid world we live in where, apparently, all adults are considered Paedos unless proven otherwise. Thus I have never argued that point. But what I have argued, as you know full well, is that people should not be banned from videoing swimming galas, which is something quite different.

He didn't misquote you - he quoted your entire post. Turning the part of a post you are specifically responding to bold whilst leaving the rest there to provide context isn't misquoting. It's better than quoting a bit out of context and certainly better than inserting your own text into someone else's post like you do.

[Chekhov]

30 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Utter crap.

You've still not justified why you think it's okay not to have laws, or not to apply the laws we have to punish and deter young people from bullying other children to death, simply because you think we have 'too many laws'.

Nor have you really explained why you think banning smoking is something akin to something about banning driving.

To be honest I don't really care. It's all symptomatic of the fevered imagination of an ideological Ayatollah....

You must've been creaming yourself as Liz Truss took to the stage yesterday to tell us all how wonderful her plans are. She too is a great believer in the 'small state'. Except when she's enjoying all the trappings of being PM. Then she was quite happy to live the dream at the taxpayer's expense.

Why is it "utter crap" ?

It's about restricting people's freedoms in order to make us all safer. That concept is valid, but only if it is proportionate. i.e. for a statistically quantifiable risk to other people.

[Chekhov]

24 minutes ago, altus said:

He didn't misquote you - he quoted your entire post. Turning the part of a post you are specifically responding to bold whilst leaving the rest there to provide context isn't misquoting. It's better than quoting a bit out of context and certainly better than inserting your own text into someone else's post like you do.

Utter cobblers, this was his entire post :

 

Here we go again....

Another thread where you bring up your obsession about freely filming in the swimming pool.   

 

and my answer explaining why he is misquoting me :

 

You are purposefully misquoting me again, I should complain about it as it's far more serious than a bit of light banter in spelling an overly complicated name wrong.

I do not actually think people should be banned from using cameras in pools at all, but I realise that's one too far in this paranoid world we live in where, apparently, all adults are considered Paedos unless proven otherwise. Thus I have never argued that point. But what I have argued, as you know full well, is that people should not be banned from videoing swimming galas, which is something quite different.

 

 

[altus]

13 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Utter cobblers, this was his entire post :

 

Here we go again....

Another thread where you bring up your obsession about freely filming in the swimming pool.   

 

and my answer explaining why he is misquoting me :

 

You are purposefully misquoting me again, I should complain about it as it's far more serious than a bit of light banter in spelling an overly complicated name wrong.

I do not actually think people should be banned from using cameras in pools at all, but I realise that's one too far in this paranoid world we live in where, apparently, all adults are considered Paedos unless proven otherwise. Thus I have never argued that point. But what I have argued, as you know full well, is that people should not be banned from videoing swimming galas, which is something quite different.

In that case, you don't understand what misquote means. Here are some definitions.

 

 

[Chekhov]

51 minutes ago, altus said:

In that case, you don't understand what misquote means. Here are some definitions.

All right, just to keep you happy, he was misrepresenting my position (which amounts to the same thing).