thank you for smoking (one (a few) day(s) in the life of stewe stewe)
sirb...@hotmail.com
doublespeak, but it's the bleeding obvious for anyone with a brain.
still, for what it's worth, we get to see stewe as he thinks out his
days, teaches his son the libtard way, and offers his love to the
world.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/
actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing. the morons can
smoke themselves to ashes for all i care. but it's the way it harms
non-smokers that the libtards have revealed their true self by
defending. just like with the peer to peer internet file sharing they
abhor, the gun-ownership or the corporate authoritarianism at the core
of their every move, these nazis' only interest is in aligning
themselves with the greater authority. the militant militarist pricks.
so afraid of the individual when they claim to be the very defense of
the individual. the phony abject creeps.
anyway, i dont care bout the smoking just like i dont care about the
alcohol. and besides the smokers and drinkers are also to blame.
they're part of these corporations, nothing new under the sun. marquis
de sade knew it. not to mention the gun-ownership creeps. the true
problem with this mooee is it's only skin-deep. drinking and smoking
arent by far the worse consequences of capitalism. in fact more often
than not, they're a solution. so this mooee is really just another
neocon fantasy on a moral panic that it shares with the far left,
blaming it all on sex drugs and rock and roll and hoping for a previous
state of married morons in dw griffith mooees.
this smoking thing certainly is capitalistic in the sense you have to
consume far too many cigs for medium effect while with maria it's a lot
fewer for triple. but sex drugs and rock and roll are not by a long
shot the malaise of capitalism, in fact they're usually far far better
than the true cores of the system. had this mooee been more honest and
really politically incorrect it would've explored hierarchies and
domination in all spheres of ''work'', something wassup rockers, for
instance, does in more detail, but still so shitty. or haneke's code
unknown, marvelously. or godard's career, beautifully. but this is
america, this is a hollywood owned by corporations and neocon lobbies,
what can you expect from it? so what do you get? well, watered-down, in
fact politically correct epidermic critique. it's hinted at every now
and then, like when our brave libtard defends the baby seal poacher and
other libtard fascinations. or when the mooee hints to a society
dominated by the image and a neocon media. or when the same exposure of
the amoral immorality of capitalism spreads to katie holmes' job as a
journalist. but that's not good enough. just like borat, this'll
irritate the likes of gaza, richa, stewe or calvin, but anything
remotely subversive or dismissive of their reich and warlord is far
left to them. the true core behind the richas and calvins of our day
are the masses flocking to nascar. the poor masses at the cinema too. a
funny games a la artaud. but then the mooee wouldn't have had an
audience. which is precisely what happened to antonioni.
Immortalist
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> amusing and politically incorrect satire of libtard rightard
> doublespeak, but it's the bleeding obvious for anyone with a brain.
> still, for what it's worth, we get to see stewe as he thinks out his
> days, teaches his son the libtard way, and offers his love to the
> world.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/
>
>
> actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing. the morons can
> smoke themselves to ashes for all i care. but it's the way it harms
> non-smokers that the libtards have revealed their true self by
> defending.
I have not seen the movie yet. Do you mean it harms non-smokers because
there is empirical evidence that secondary smoke increases the chances
of getting lung cancer in non-smokers or does it harm non-smokers and
smokers because of the trillions of tax dollars we fork out as we
pamper their coal miners lungs and then probably take one out?
ni...@verizon.net
Immortalist wrote:
>
> I have not seen the movie yet. Do you mean it harms non-smokers because
> there is empirical evidence that secondary smoke increases the chances
> of getting lung cancer in non-smokers or does it harm non-smokers and
> smokers because of the trillions of tax dollars we fork out as we
> pamper their coal miners lungs and then probably take one out?
>
Unfortunately we live in a country where we cannot selectively
determine where our tax dollars go. If that were not the case, some
would choose not to pay the taxes that support war blunderers, or
support government bail outs of incompetently run corporations, or
assistance to the elderly, or the building of schools to house
incredibly inept school curriculums, or gasoline taxes that feed the
coffers of the greedy, etc., etc., etc.
As long as you're goring the smoking ox, why not cough up some of this
"empirical evidence" that supports your paranoia about the harm of
secondary smoke. No junk science please.
Lighten up paranoid guy. Figure how much you are personally taxed for
"pampering coal miner's lungs" and I'll send you a check to make it
right. Use the money to get your sphincter muscles loosed up.
Immortalist
ni...@verizon.net wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
>
> >
> > I have not seen the movie yet. Do you mean it harms non-smokers because
> > there is empirical evidence that secondary smoke increases the chances
> > of getting lung cancer in non-smokers or does it harm non-smokers and
> > smokers because of the trillions of tax dollars we fork out as we
> > pamper their coal miners lungs and then probably take one out?
> >
> Unfortunately we live in a country where we cannot selectively
> determine where our tax dollars go. If that were not the case, some
> would choose not to pay the taxes that support war blunderers, or
> support government bail outs of incompetently run corporations, or
> assistance to the elderly, or the building of schools to house
> incredibly inept school curriculums, or gasoline taxes that feed the
> coffers of the greedy, etc., etc., etc.
>
You claim that there are no cases where we can control or influence
where taxes go. But if we elect a particular political party we
selectively control where tax monies go. There are some expenditures
that cannot be much influenced by political parties and interest groups
and some that can. Therefore there is only some truth to the above
paragraph.
> As long as you're goring the smoking ox, why not cough up some of this
> "empirical evidence" that supports your paranoia about the harm of
> secondary smoke. No junk science please.
>
Parents that died from lung cancer? When one of them lost a lung my
family quit. Good enough evidence for us, beside they make you cough
and for some of us we get more colds and flus.
When I was in my early 20s I studied cell biology like it was my
religion. Researchers discovered that there is a track of cilia that
are tubes that roll around in wide circles, pull debree up out of the
lungs. In the morning when you cough you taste this crap whether you
smoke or not. When they got the tissue living on glass they bley smoke
on it and the spinning of the cilia slowed down. This would cause more
toxins to remain in the lungs, lump up, irritate the lung cells and
maybe cause a few of them to start dividing in two and then dividing
till there is a lump called a tumer.
Even if the air you breathe is dirty or polluted, your respiratory
system filters out foreign matter and organisms that enter through the
nose and mouth. Pollutants are breathed or coughed out, destroyed by
digestive juices, or eaten by macrophages, a type of blood cell that
patrols the body looking for germs to destroy. Tiny hairs called cilia
(pronounced: sih-lee-uh) protect the nasal passageways and other parts
of the respiratory tract, filtering out dust and other particles that
enter the nose with the breathed air. As air is inhaled, the cilia move
back and forth, pushing any foreign matter (like dust) either toward
the nostrils, where it is blown out, or toward the pharynx, where it
travels through the digestive system and out with the rest of the
body's waste.
http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/your_body/body_basics/lungs.html
> Lighten up paranoid guy. Figure how much you are personally taxed for
> "pampering coal miner's lungs" and I'll send you a check to make it
> right. Use the money to get your sphincter muscles loosed up.
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following
structure:
X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do
X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a
fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not
make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
I am not sure if that is the mistake in your reasoning but it is better
to ask for the evidence of cancer like you did above than to just say
that we should never look at particular cases of tax expenditure if we
can't address all cases of tax expenditure. Sound like and excuse to do
nothing to me. In fact in the USA our legislature does consider
particular case on their own merit.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Fucking scummy Randaphobic fascist fucking liar.
> but it's the way it harms
> non-smokers...
If you can prove *physical* harm caused by a smoker, to a non-smoker
then in a libertarain political system that is called the initiation of
force and would be a matter for the courts.
Its not surprising how desperate these wanking fascist fuckwitted
Randaphobic sirbloboshit idiots have to get and lie about what it means
to live in liberty, especially given the threat that individual freedom
therefore individual responsibility is to their evil fucked up
parasitcal philosophy.
Michael Gordge
ni...@verizon.net
Is it me, or is this egghead just full of himself. Appears to be one of
those lofty academicians caught up in the institutional custom of
loving to hear himself talk. Rhetoric vs real world - what a quandary.
Thanks for helping us with the correct pronunciation of cilia. While
you're at it perhaps you can help us with the correct spelling of your
words - "bley, tumer, and debree".
Faux intellectuals - you can sniff them out quicker than stink on a
skunk.
sirb...@hotmail.com
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing.
>
> Fucking scummy Randaphobic fascist fucking liar.
>
> > but it's the way it harms
> > non-smokers...
>
> If you can prove *physical* harm caused by a smoker, to a non-smoker
> then in a libertarain political system that is called the initiation of
> force and would be a matter for the courts.
except a little fascist authoritarian piece of shit like you, mike, is
as close to being a libertarian as a sofa is close to falling in love
with a butterfly.
>
> Its not surprising how desperate these wanking fascist fuckwitted
> Randaphobic sirbloboshit idiots have to get and lie about what it means
> to live in liberty, especially given the threat that individual freedom
> therefore individual responsibility is to their evil fucked up
> parasitcal philosophy.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
oh go watch a propaganda doc on that fascist bitch and wank away at
images of her naziesque neoconservative ramblings, you lying mafia thug.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> except a little fascist authoritarian piece of shit like you,
What the fuck is so *fascist authoritarian* about me advocating a
government of freedom, one that would enshrine into law YOUR right to
live YOUR life accordng to YOUR values, albethey as a silly, fucked in
the head, dopey, masochistical and sadistical robotic indoctrinated
member of the flock of moronic sad and desperate Kantian sheeple,
suffering the horrible affliction and scourge of Randaphobia?
AND guess what dopey? Welllllll, the really really good news is dopey,
ewe dozey moronic commie cunt, the ONLY condition IS, that ewes dopey
whukwits (*wh* is said F) find other equallly as fucked in the head
moronic sadistical masochistical hosts to be the parasites of, now
sirbloboshit, was that the best ewe've got?
Michael Gordge
ni...@verizon.net
ni...@verizon.net
understanding of language, poor speller, hyper-sensitive, super
defensive,angry, and simple-minded.
Hardly the right tools for one desiring to partake in philosophical
reparte,
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Oh looook its a new hag on the block, go fuck yourself you useless
commie cuntess, ewe're obviously very good at it. How fucking dare ewe
come on here and tell me how to go about my fucking business, you
useless fucking bitch, fuck off, dont read me, I dont give a fuck you
stupid ignorant arrogant slut, no one gives a fuck what you say about
me, ask chaz and kev. Goodgod
Michael Gordge
steve
<reanima...@yahoo.com> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing. the morons can
> > smoke themselves to ashes for all i care. but it's the way it harms
> > non-smokers that the libtards have revealed their true self by
> > defending.
Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a biased
statistical study), there would still be no violation of non-smokers rights
because no one is forced to be in the presence of smokers. If your job or
social life involves breathing 2nd hand smoke, you are responsible for
accepting that situation. Until someone puts a gun to your head and forces
you into the presence of smokers, the question of the damaging effects of
2nd hand smoke is a practical, not a moral, issue. Legal proscriptions on
smoking in "public" places (i.e. private property, like restaurants and
bars) are attacks on property rights in the name of a false right. If you
cant stand the smoke, dont work at or patronize the business. No one puts
a gun to your head forcing you to inhale smoke, so dont put a gun to a
property owners head and force him to prohibit smoking on his property.
"Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!"
steve (AKA stewe)
Immortalist, this little rant is aimed at Blob, not at you. I have the
psycho killfiled, so I only see his nonsense when others respond.
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
sirb...@hotmail.com
steve ha escrito:
> On 5-Dec-2006, smacked up and reeling, "Immortalist"
> <reanima...@yahoo.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing. the morons can
> > > smoke themselves to ashes for all i care. but it's the way it harms
> > > non-smokers that the libtards have revealed their true self by
> > > defending.
>
> Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a biased
> statistical study),
nope. based on fact.
there would still be no violation of non-smokers rights
> because no one is forced to be in the presence of smokers.
you fucking abject creep you deserve a right beating you do. why does
your logic work only in your direction? why not ''it would still not be
a violation of smokers if bars forbid their entry, where non-smokers
are present and do not want their presence''?
If your job or
> social life involves breathing 2nd hand smoke, you are responsible for
> accepting that situation.
this your ''libtard'' crap, again, you fascist little cunt?
nope, in this case, it's the corporation that's responsible, not the
lower rung employee.
Until someone puts a gun to your head and forces
> you into the presence of smokers, the question of the damaging effects of
> 2nd hand smoke is a practical, not a moral, issue.
until the law forbids corporations from forcing their low pay employees
to work in such conditions, such a situation is clearly a moral and
practical issue.
not that a little shit like you would know shit about ethics and
morality.
Legal proscriptions on
> smoking in "public" places (i.e. private property, like restaurants and
> bars) are attacks on property rights in the name of a false right.
in the name of the careless harm inflicted upon others, which is
precisely why you far right morally abject creeps have sprung up once
again. whenever someone is harming another, you spring up to defend
whoever's doing the harming. in the name of the individual. which
individual?
If you
> cant stand the smoke, dont work at or patronize the business.
if you can't stand the smoke, organize your union and go on strike to
stop your corporation from forcing harm on your health, creep.
No one puts
> a gun to your head forcing you to inhale smoke, so dont put a gun to a
> property owners head and force him to prohibit smoking on his property.
passing a law that stops harming of non-smokers, not to mention taxing
murderous tobacco industries and forbidding their advertisement in
certain places, is not putting a gun at anyone's head. what will you do
with a waiter who doesn't want to stand smoke in a country which, in
the name of ''competition'' will force him to stand it? put a gun at
his head when he finds himself homeless?
no wonder stewe needs ayn rand. that way ''putting a gun at someone's
head'' always applies to something he disapproves of.
> "Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!"
>
> steve (AKA stewe)
>
> Immortalist, this little rant is aimed at Blob, not at you. I have the
> psycho killfiled, so I only see his nonsense when others respond.
yup, this little piece of shit only sees my posts when michael gordge
responds. and when he talks about a psycho, he's really talking about
gaza, who he doesnt have killfiled and who he's very fond of. stewe's
moral abjection is more than well-known in the past films newsgroup.
he's a worthless scumbag and always will be. i've never given him
enough of what he deserves.
i actually rate calvin far far higher than stewe.
Kingo Gondo
a bit far here.
What evidence is there in the recorded annals of history that governments
are best suited to regulate what substances should be ingested or inhaled by
private citizens on private property? I mean for Exhibit "A" I give you The
War On Alcohol (f/k/a "Prohibition"). Exhibit "B" would be The War On Drugs,
at 70+ years (minimum) and counting. Your childlike faith in government
competence and fairness is, uh, remarkable, to be charitable.
I don't mean to scare you, but now that people are informed about the
dangers of smoke (firsthand, secondhand, however many hands you want), why
wouldn't the market solve this problem to a much better extent? Obviously
the actions of the cigarette companies in trying to hide such data in times
past is reprehensible--I have no problem with civil actions addressing those
specific misdeeds. But now the data is out and you have to be a fucking
moron not to know about the dangers involved. And once you have an informed
market (or, if it makes you feel more comfortable, an informed proletariat),
what makes you think the goddamned government is better at looking after
their own interests and desires than they are? Have you seen US legislatures
in action? God Almighty, it will put you off your feed for a week just to
watch fucking CSPAN.
If a bar or pub wants to cater to smokers, God bless 'em--I won't be there.
Since most people DON'T smoke, the largest market force will be pushing
non-smoking solutions (which I think is a good thing). I know concepts like
"a market" are very scary notions to tired old Marxist wannabees (you were
born too late, my friend), but as dicey as it sounds, I will take it over
the pompous asses that constitute any government any day.
David Oberman
>Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a biased
>statistical study),
Which biased statistical study are you referring to? One of these?
California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure
to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6
Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the
Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006
He, J.; Vupputuri, S.; Allen, K.; et al. Passive Smoking and the Risk
of Coronary Heart Disease-A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies.
New England Journal of Medicine 1999; 340: 920-6.
>Until someone puts a gun to your head and forces
>you into the presence of smokers, the question of the damaging effects of
>2nd hand smoke is a practical, not a moral, issue.
Exactly. It's a question of politeness. It's polite to forgo smoking
these days when you're around groups of people who aren't smoking,
unless your host gives you the green light. But it's not fair to force
business owners to abide by your personal wishes. If a restaurant
owner lets customers smoke & you don't like it, go to North Woods Inn
instead!
____
Most people keep their thermostat set to around 78. That's
way too damn hot. I prefer the thermostat set to about 72.
-- Spinoza
Phil
A real class act, here. If you were able to read for comprehension, you
would understand that nowhere did I tellyou how to go about you're
business. I could care less about your kind. My only observarion was
your total lack of manners and your stupidity.
You may add anger to that list.
steve
<doberman@[socal.rr.com]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> >Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a
> >biased
> >statistical study),
>
> Which biased statistical study are you referring to? One of these?
I dont recall which study was highly publicized, but the trick was to expand
the confidence interval after the fact to support the hypothesis. It's a
classic statistical manipulation technique. Here's the idea: You have two
populations, one for control (no 2nd hand smoke exposure) and the other is
the test group (exposure). In any two populations there will be random
variations in the number of people who meet your criteria (smoking related
health problems). How do you decide if the test group has a statistically
significant difference in that measure from the control group? Before
examining the data, you calculate the number of health problems that will
lead you to conclude, with a pre-determined degree of confidence, that the
two populations are, in fact, different. In the publicized test, the
generally accepted confidence interval (the decision criteria initially
employed) lead to the conclusion that there was no difference in the
populations...so they adjusted the confidence interval and publicized the
alternative conclusion. That's bias.
I dont have time to investigate the several studies/repoprts you cite, but I
wouldnt be surprised if they are all based on the same publicized analysis.
If a credible (unbiased) study had shown evidence of health effects, that
would have been big news.
steve
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Phil wrote:
> A real class act, here.
Phillis go fuck yourself, you gutless useless PC control freak little
fascist / commie cunt.
I will debate and I have debated philosophy and politics with anyone, I
have debated philosophy and politics with people who consider
themselves far more important in the world of philosophy and politics
than you could ever dream you are or wanna be.
I will and I do stick to the subject being debated and I will NEVER
back down.
I however will NOT tolerate it when ewes useless, gutless, evil and
anti-human PC commie cunts try to turn the debate around or who leave
the subject completely and try and make the subject about me Michael
Gordge and the methods I have chosen to use to get my points of
philosophy and politics across.
NOTE, ewes is the word I have coined for dumb arsed unthinking moronic
socialist follow the leader sheeple.
The subject of this thread is about the anti-human anti-smoking nazi
brigade and their disgusting world-wide campaign to do exactly what ewe
are tryng to do with me, control what peaceful human beings do with
THEIR fucking lives.
Now lets see how good you really are in matters of morality, philosophy
and politics, what do YOU have to say on that subject?
I say:
What a peaceful human being chooses to do with his or her body in or
around his home is his or her decision and their decision alone. (the
subject is smoking)
I say:
Smoking is a moral decision / choice for the human individual (adult)
all by him/herself to choose or reject based on the evidence he/she
chooses to accept or ignore?
I say:
Who smokes when and when is a *private property rights* matter, e.g.
the banning of smoking in so called *public pubs and bars* etc, by law
of the land, instead of by the decision of the *owners* of those
establishments, is an act of fucking disgusting fucking fascism.
I say all of those things because, I believe absolutely and without
reservation in the right to human life, which means I believe
absolutely the right of the pursuit of property and the pursuit of
happiness of the human individual.
I say those things whike knowing that I do not always like the moral
choices that some human beings make, however I draw a very distinct and
unambiguous line in the sand, which in a nutshell is called *The
non-initiation of force principle*
Which means, so long as what a human being does, does not require the
use of the *initiation* nor the threatened initiation of physical or
the use of fraud, then I have no choice but to leave them alone. If I
cant persuade them peacefully then I have no moral right to physically
force them, UNLESS they are a direct and imminent danger or threat to
me, my family and or my property.
This is YOUR life and I believe absolutely in the right that YOU and
YOU alone ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the
results of YOUR energy, which in reality can only be derived from YOUR
ideas.
I believe that YOU and YOU alone are the owner of YOUR life I believe
that because I want to be able to hold YOU and YOU alone accountable
for YOUR ideas and YOUR actions.
Michael Gordge
David Oberman
>> Which biased statistical study are you referring to? One of these?
>
>I dont recall which study was highly publicized, but the trick was to expand
>the confidence interval after the fact to support the hypothesis.
This 1993 EPA study may be what you were thinking of:
http://www.lpconline.com/secondhand_smoke.html
A British Medical Journal study maintains that secondhand smoke danger
is a myth:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224
Earlier this year, Calabasas (CA) gov't banned smoking everywhere
outdoors wherever nonsmokers might be within 20 feet of smokers:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1
I grew up breathing my mom's cigarette smoke. I don't suffer from
asthma or other bronchial or breathing problems--I'm in outstanding
physical shape, although mentally I'm cracking up--but I'd like to see
an X-ray of my lungs. I hope my little cilia are still pink & vibrant
& waving around in the liquid muck down there!
Phil
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > A real class act, here.
>
> Phillis go fuck yourself, you gutless useless PC control freak little
> fascist / commie cunt.
SO, THEN, YOU'RE REALLY NOT OUT TO WIN ANYONE OVER TO YOUR WAY OF
THINKING WITH THAT UMPOLISHED DEMEANOROF YOURS, EH?
> I will debate and I have debated philosophy and politics with anyone, I
> have debated philosophy and politics with people who consider
> themselves far more important in the world of philosophy and politics
YEAH, OKAY, NEWSGROUP SCHOLAR WHATEVER YOU SAY. LOL!
> I will and I do stick to the subject being debated and I will NEVER
> back down.
MOST EGO DRIVEN KNOW-NOTHINGS DON'T.
> I however will NOT tolerate it when ewes useless, gutless, evil and
> anti-human PC commie cunts try to turn the debate around or who leave
> the subject completely and try and make the subject about me Michael
> Gordge and the methods I have chosen to use to get my points of
> philosophy and politics across.
WHERE IS THE PRACTICE OF AD HOMINEM TRITENESS SEEN AS VIABLE DEBATING
STRATEGY?
> NOTE, ewes is the word I have coined for dumb arsed unthinking moronic
> socialist follow the leader sheeple.
MY, MY . . .THE ANGER.
> The subject of this thread is about the anti-human anti-smoking nazi
> brigade and their disgusting world-wide campaign to do exactly what ewe
> are tryng to do with me, control what peaceful human beings do with
> THEIR fucking lives.
WHO CARES WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR LIFE? I CERTAINLY DON'T.
> Now lets see how good you really are in matters of morality, philosophy
> and politics, what do YOU have to say on that subject?
I SAY LIVE AND LET LIVE AND APPROACH OTHERS WITH A CIVIL TONGUE. THOSE
ARE USUALLY PRETTY GOOD SIGNS OF EMOTINAL MATURITY. REMEMBER THE OLD
FLIES/HONEY ADAGE?
> I say:
>
> What a peaceful human being chooses to do with his or her body in or
> around his home is his or her decision and their decision alone. (the
> subject is smoking)
AGREED.
> I say:
>
> Smoking is a moral decision / choice for the human individual (adult)
> all by him/herself to choose or reject based on the evidence he/she
> chooses to accept or ignore?
AGREED
> I say:
>
> Who smokes when and when is a *private property rights* matter, e.g.
> the banning of smoking in so called *public pubs and bars* etc, by law
> of the land, instead of by the decision of the *owners* of those
> establishments, is an act of fucking disgusting fucking fascism.
I AGREE BUT PERHAPS IN A LANGUAGE WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT STOP TO LISTEN
RATHER THAN TURN AWAY LAUGHING.
> I say all of those things because, I believe absolutely and without
> reservation in the right to human life, which means I believe
> absolutely the right of the pursuit of property and the pursuit of
> happiness of the human individual.
AGREED.
> I say those things whike knowing that I do not always like the moral
> choices that some human beings make, however I draw a very distinct and
> unambiguous line in the sand, which in a nutshell is called *The
> non-initiation of force principle*
NOT SURE WHAT THAT ONE MEANS
> Which means, so long as what a human being does, does not require the
> use of the *initiation* nor the threatened initiation of physical or
> the use of fraud, then I have no choice but to leave them alone. If I
> cant persuade them peacefully then I have no moral right to physically
> force them, UNLESS they are a direct and imminent danger or threat to
> me, my family and or my property.
>
> This is YOUR life and I believe absolutely in the right that YOU and
> YOU alone ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the
> results of YOUR energy, which in reality can only be derived from YOUR
> ideas.
AS LONG AS YOU DON'T YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER - AGREED
> I believe that YOU and YOU alone are the owner of YOUR life I believe
> that because I want to be able to hold YOU and YOU alone accountable
> for YOUR ideas and YOUR actions.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SHOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THAT BASIC
CONCEPT.
SO MAYBE WERE SAYING THE SAME THINK, ONLY I CHOOSE TO PUT MY POINT
ACROSS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO NOT IMMEDIATLY TURN PEOPLE OFF. TOO MANY
ANGRY PEOPLE OUT THERE. I'D JUST RATHER NOT BE ONE OF THEM.
sirb...@hotmail.com
> Wow, I am not usually against people calling steve names, but you have gone
> a bit far here.
nah, he deserves it all and more. stewe belongs to a class of his own,
that remote one that's killfiled me but not gaza, pretends to not
understand things or dismiss an opponent as mad whenever it's
conveniant, and lies about killfiling people; now it's merely a matter
of discipline, unlike the 4 or 5 previous times he stated he'd
killfiled me, this time he'll have to stop short from the temptation of
responding to me. turds like him will always be the decieving little
cowards they are.
>
> What evidence is there in the recorded annals of history that governments
> are best suited to regulate what substances should be ingested or inhaled by
> private citizens on private property? I mean for Exhibit "A" I give you The
> War On Alcohol (f/k/a "Prohibition"). Exhibit "B" would be The War On Drugs,
> at 70+ years (minimum) and counting. Your childlike faith in government
> competence and fairness is, uh, remarkable, to be charitable.
>
what a crock of shit, once again, from gongo, another famous phony slut
from past films ng.
ok, let's see i can address this crapbag's ''arguments''.
you got the meaning of ''government'' twisted and wrong. given that
it's merely an uncool word and it's not yet the year 2200 and the
libtards haven't yet completely changed its meaning to suit their
twisted fascist capitalistic ways at least in dictionaries, i won't
give it the respect you intend for it, so i'll relabel it gubbamunt.
why the fuck is it when anything anti-consumerist is gubbamunt and when
it's consumerist it's libtardtopia at work?
why is it gubbamunt when the murderous industry is forbidden from
subjecting public places to their brainwashing advertisements?
why is it gubbamunt when non-smokers are being protected instead of
murderous multinational corporations?
because you, like the birdman from topaz's links, like rand and stewe,
have your head so far up your arse you need oxygen rammed up your dick.
all you do is for go for that treasure-island word known as
''libertarian''. and it's precisely the ones with something to hide who
label themselves ''libertarian''. stewe, after years of fascist
doublespeak, recently admitted to the term ''negative liberty''. those
appropriating ''libertarian'' these days are clearly the far right. it
provides a post-political scenario that fakes its neutral politics by
giving you the choice of being a christian or a libtard, as if those
are the two only possibilities, so it's a great boost for the far right
and its desire to maintain power in place. many of the austrian and
chicago morons were ''christian'' creeps and their libtopia is a great
way for institutionalised religion to multiply since in the first place
most of the land and money belongs to them. in fact, these randian
libtards are the ultimate neoconservative reactionaries, everything
that is static and same as before is freedom and liberty. all change is
suspect (another essential reason why they claim to love change is
because they're against it, for instance their love of homosexuals
deep-down is the segregation of homosexuals and their politics just a
trick to drag a few homos and homolovers into their party, since why
would a libtard legislate homomarriage since this would ''offend
heterosexual marriages, which are majority''? see how the libtard
doublespeak works wherever they want it to?) with all that stock
exchange, all the theist institutionalised religion creeps get to do is
sit around while their pernicious ideology is reproduced ad eternum.
this is where marx was wrong, ignorance doesn't cancel itself out,
ignorance searches for fellow ignorance to reassure itself, so instead
of disappearing, the major religions- muslim, jew, christian, hindu-
will only hyperrealise themselves in the following century, just like
they did in this one. and one shall ask them why they're of any
specific religion, and it's always the same answer, they were
brainwashed as kids by superstructural financial networks, the god
corporations.
libtoads just look at scenarios of domination and labels them freedom
and liberty and when these aren't taking place it's ''gubbamunt''.
as for those exhibits? well exhibit b what do you propose, the
legalisation of hard drugs? WHAT? all those reefers have gotten to you,
eh gongo. if anything we should be talking about a tougher fight on
hard drugs and on stronger taxing of nicotine, not the opposite, if
we're to talk about individual's rights.
and the nicotine that gets smokers addicted in the first place? once
again, the murderous tobacco industry and capitalism's fault. BOTH with
active and passive smokers.
> I don't mean to scare you, but now that people are informed about the
> dangers of smoke (firsthand, secondhand, however many hands you want), why
> wouldn't the market solve this problem to a much better extent? Obviously
> the actions of the cigarette companies in trying to hide such data in times
> past is reprehensible--I have no problem with civil actions addressing those
> specific misdeeds. But now the data is out and you have to be a fucking
> moron not to know about the dangers involved. And once you have an informed
> market (or, if it makes you feel more comfortable, an informed proletariat),
> what makes you think the goddamned government is better at looking after
> their own interests and desires than they are?
what is wrong with you? denial? the unfathomable notion that people and
power work in dystopic ways if subjected to structures of domination?
what do you think your great times 10 grandfather was doing if he
wasn't a yes-man to some warlord? and who are you a yes-man to or who
is your yes-man now? some chap dressed in ralph lauren attire instead
of the kurosawaesque manners of ran? where do you think you sprung up
from and your very own organism depends on, gongo, if it wasn't and
isn't from the dry and explicit notions of power, control and
domination? the notion that taxing petrol or tobacco halts fascist
cunts like gordge or stewe from their murderous ways is so baffling to
you? did you see how that twatboy doberboots dismissed the question a
few hours ago? here:
''It's a question of politeness. It's polite to forgo smoking these
days when you're around groups of people who aren't smoking, unless
your host gives you the green light. ''
you see, apparently, in doberboots' dishonest lalaland of abject
stupidity, when someone enters a pub, he politely asks everyone in
there present, say 60 people, if he can smoke, and they all say yes.
in the real world, however, that does not happen and permission for
smokers to smoke is a prohibition for non-smokers to breath clean air.
so in the classical tradition of those worthless hypocrite little shits
like stewe and boots, i shall say that smokers are free to smoke
somewhere else. just outside the pub, perhaps, up their arse, maybe,
but not in the air that belongs to non-smokers.
and in the name of competition and market tyranny, pub owners would
never have forbidden smoking by themselves. waiters would have
continued inhaling the shit like they did for years with the knowledge
available to the mostly non-autistic population (you read that piece of
shit stewe wrote a few hours ago about ''biased surveys''?), which is
why such a measure was legislated in european countries like ireland,
norway, spain or italy to great success and popularity. of course,
gongo, over here in europe we're all super-marxists aren't we, not like
in that reasonable country a fucktard like you lives in.
Have you seen US legislatures
> in action? God Almighty, it will put you off your feed for a week just to
> watch fucking CSPAN.
>
> If a bar or pub wants to cater to smokers, God bless 'em--I won't be there.
> Since most people DON'T smoke, the largest market force will be pushing
> non-smoking solutions (which I think is a good thing). I know concepts like
> "a market" are very scary notions to tired old Marxist wannabees (you were
> born too late, my friend), but as dicey as it sounds, I will take it over
> the pompous asses that constitute any government any day.
me a marxist? crikey. i'm a reactionary and a right-winger. how are any
of my deconstructions of the likes of stewe, calvin or peatty gonna
have any resonance when the little shittards are autistic by
requirement and people never change? no. i'm just having fun, and
that's hardly revolutionary. you're just projecting your own
intellectual shortcomings gongo, in your case perhaps it's the cannabis
like in slutplod's it was other drugs, i dunno. ah your big ghost,
something you call ''marxism'', well whatever makes you rise n shine.
if you need a gong, buy yourself one. which reminds me, i've been
meaning to ask you, do they sell cannabis on amazon or ebay?
surrounded by shithead far-right morons, of course, i seem far far
left. you one of those americans who think the democrat party is
leftist? and every four years, do you participate in democracy or a
collective wankfest consensus? all i'm doing, gongo, is remind your
amnesic ways of their origins. i can understand how that can shock and
that you should want to apply reductionism and label me a ''marxist''.
it is mildly amusing.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Phil wrote:
> I SAY LIVE AND LET LIVE AND APPROACH OTHERS WITH A CIVIL TONGUE.
6,000,000 gassed Jews tried the same trick. Niceness is a virtue NOT
owed to scum.
> > What a peaceful human being chooses to do with his or her body in or
> > around his home is his or her decision and their decision alone. (the
> > subject is smoking)
>
> AGREED.
So why ya yelling at me if not because you want to make what I do your
business?
> I AGREE BUT PERHAPS IN A LANGUAGE WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT STOP TO LISTEN
> RATHER THAN TURN AWAY LAUGHING.
I'm not here to be nice to scum, if you want to go ahead.
>
> NOT SURE WHAT THAT ONE MEANS
Why dont you read the entire post before replying?
>
> AS LONG AS YOU DON'T YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER - AGREED
Who else but a leftist retard who knows nothing about the concept of
property rights would regurgitiate that one?
> SO MAYBE WERE SAYING THE SAME THINK, ONLY I CHOOSE TO PUT MY POINT
> ACROSS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO NOT IMMEDIATLY TURN PEOPLE OFF.
6,000,000 Jews were hoping for the same result of course.
The PC commie morally corrupt cunt who started this thread is a piece
of leftist scum, if you think being nice to these filthy rotten
anti-human shitheads is going to change anything about them, then go
ahead I dont give a fuck.
Michael Gordge
Phil
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Phil wrote:
>
> > I SAY LIVE AND LET LIVE AND APPROACH OTHERS WITH A CIVIL TONGUE.
>
> 6,000,000 gassed Jews tried the same trick. Niceness is a virtue NOT
> owed to scum.
>
> > > What a peaceful human being chooses to do with his or her body in or
> > > around his home is his or her decision and their decision alone. (the
> > > subject is smoking)
> >
> > AGREED.
>
> So why ya yelling at me if not because you want to make what I do your
> business?
>
> > I AGREE BUT PERHAPS IN A LANGUAGE WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT STOP TO LISTEN
> > RATHER THAN TURN AWAY LAUGHING.
>
> I'm not here to be nice to scum, if you want to go ahead.
>
> >
> > NOT SURE WHAT THAT ONE MEANS
>
> Why dont you read the entire post before replying?
>
> >
> > AS LONG AS YOU DON'T YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER - AGREED
>
> Who else but a leftist retard who knows nothing about the concept of
> property rights would regurgitiate that one?
>
> > SO MAYBE WERE SAYING THE SAME THINK, ONLY I CHOOSE TO PUT MY POINT
>
> 6,000,000 Jews were hoping for the same result of course.
>
> The PC commie morally corrupt cunt who started this thread is a piece
> of leftist scum, if you think being nice to these filthy rotten
> anti-human shitheads is going to change anything about them, then go
> ahead I dont give a fuck.
>
APPARENTLY YOU ARE TOO ANGRY AND TOO SLOW OF A LEARNER TO EVEN ATTEMPT
ANY REASON. SO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE YOUR OWN FUTILE CONFRONTATIONAL
STYLE OF RANTING. I'F YOU HAVEN'T LEARNED BY NOW HOW INEFFECTIVE IT IS,
YOU WILL LEARN SOONER OR LATER.
ANGRY PEOPLE ARE A DIME A DOZEN IN TODAY'S SELFISH AND "WANT IT ALL MY
WAY" STYLE OF LIVING. LANGUAGE LIKE YOURS CAN BE HEARD ON ANY STREET
CORNER, IN ANY POOL HALL, OR IN ANY SEEDY NEIGHBORHOOD DIVE. IT'S
HARDLY IMPRESSIVE AND CERTAINLY NOT WORTHY OF THE TIME OF ANY
REASONABLE OR DIGNIFIED PERSON.
BUT LIKE YOU SAY, TO EACH HIS OWN. IF YOU'RE CONVINCED THAT YOUR
RANTING STYLE WORKS FOR YOU THEN KNOCK YOURSELF OUT, BUT DON'T GET ALL
WORKED UP IF FOLKS JUST SHAKE THEIR HEADS IN BEWILDERMENT OR JUST PLAIN
CHUCKLE.
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Phil wrote:
>
> APPARENTLY YOU ARE TOO ANGRY
And coming from someone who is doing all the fucking shouting, that's
supposed to make me feel what exaclty? you dumb arsed mystical moron.
Looook you stupid cunt, IF and I say IF again, you are libertarian in
your political ideas, then I am NOT your fucking enemy, sooo fuck off
and hunt the bad bastards, there's billions of them.
I get the feeling you're of the god squad ilk, right?
Michael Gordge
Phil
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> >
> > APPARENTLY YOU ARE TOO ANGRY
>
> And coming from someone who is doing all the fucking shouting, that's
> supposed to make me feel what exaclty? you dumb arsed mystical moron.
NOT SHOUTING, JUST OVERLY EMPHASIZING FOR SOMEONE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY SLOW
TO CATCH ON.
>
> Looook you stupid cunt, IF and I say IF again, you are libertarian in
> your political ideas, then I am NOT your fucking enemy, sooo fuck off
> and hunt the bad bastards, there's billions of them.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY ENEMIES. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, A LOT OF
LOW-LEVEL. OVERLY EMOTIONAL, ANGRY PEOPLE WHOM I FIND RATHER
IRRITATING, IRRELEVANT, AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE AND USELESS.
> I get the feeling you're of the god squad ilk, right?
NO. JUST OF THE ILK WHO APPRECIATES DIGNIFIED AND REFINED PEOPLE.
ANGRY, HYSTERICAL VULGARIANS REALLY DON'T IMPRESS ME. SORRY.
>
> Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Phil wrote:
> NOT SHOUTING, JUST OVERLY EMPHASIZING..
Arrogant git.
Sammybaby
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> NOTE, ewes is the word I have coined for dumb arsed unthinking moronic
> socialist follow the leader sheeple.
noted.
You call men (and probably women) cunts and ewes, the latter FEMALE
sheep.
You think it packs more impact if the men think you are associating
them with females.
You should know, your bark makes you look scared.
Of women, of other men.
Go ballistic in response to this.
Surprise, that's a confirmation.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Sammybaby wrote:
> You call men (and probably women) cunts and ewes, the latter FEMALE
> sheep.
Ewes is the name I have coined for ewes as in sheeple, I dont give a
fuck what sex ewes sheeple are dopey. Got your bags packed for North
Korea commie?
MG
Phil
Angry, vulgar, and mindless. Truly a handicap in any civilized society.
Phil
ARROGANCE AND FEELINGS OF SUPERIORITY FLOW NATURALLY WHENEVER I'M
COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR TYPE. CAN'T HELP IT. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN YOU
AND SOMEONE COMMUNICATING ON A RATIONAL, COURTEOUS, AND REASONABLE AND
MILD LEVEL IS STARTLING.
ONE NEED NOT STEP UP TOO HIGH IN AN ATTEMPT TO RAISE THE LEVEL. SEE HOW
MUCH DIFFERENT MY APPROACH IS TO YOURS? YET I AM STILL HOLDING YOUR
ATTENTION. HOW 'BOUT THAT?
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Phil wrote:
>
> ARROGANCE AND FEELINGS OF SUPERIORITY FLOW NATURALLY WHENEVER I'M
> COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR TYPE.
No no arrogance means pretending to know more than you do Phil, you
delinquent queer commie khunt, you a freedom fighter? a pig's arse more
like.
Michael Gordge
Anim8rFSK
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Dec-2006, smacked up and reeling, "Immortalist"
> <reanima...@yahoo.com> blindly formulated
> the following incoherence:
>
> > > actually i dont give a shit about this smoking thing. the morons can
> > > smoke themselves to ashes for all i care. but it's the way it harms
> > > non-smokers that the libtards have revealed their true self by
> > > defending.
>
> Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a biased
> statistical study), there would still be no violation of non-smokers rights
> because no one is forced to be in the presence of smokers. If your job or
> social life involves breathing 2nd hand smoke, you are responsible for
> accepting that situation. Until someone puts a gun to your head and forces
> you into the presence of smokers, the question of the damaging effects of
> 2nd hand smoke is a practical, not a moral, issue. Legal proscriptions on
> smoking in "public" places (i.e. private property, like restaurants and
> bars) are attacks on property rights in the name of a false right. If you
> cant stand the smoke, dont work at or patronize the business. No one puts
> a gun to your head forcing you to inhale smoke, so dont put a gun to a
> property owners head and force him to prohibit smoking on his property.
> "Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!"
The obvious example is children raised by smokers.
--
Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
Troy....@gmail.com,video...@yahoo.com
videono...@yahoo.com,telen...@yahoo.com
steve
On 12-Dec-2006, smacked up and reeling, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> > Even if 2nd hand smoke was as damaging as widely believed (based on a
> > biased
> > statistical study), there would still be no violation of non-smokers
> > rights
> > because no one is forced to be in the presence of smokers. If your job
> > or
> > social life involves breathing 2nd hand smoke, you are responsible for
> > accepting that situation. Until someone puts a gun to your head and
> > forces
> > you into the presence of smokers, the question of the damaging effects
> > of
> > 2nd hand smoke is a practical, not a moral, issue. Legal proscriptions
> > on
> > smoking in "public" places (i.e. private property, like restaurants and
> > bars) are attacks on property rights in the name of a false right. If
> > you
> > cant stand the smoke, dont work at or patronize the business. No one
> > puts
> > a gun to your head forcing you to inhale smoke, so dont put a gun to a
> > property owners head and force him to prohibit smoking on his property.
> > "Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!"
>
> The obvious example is children raised by smokers.
In which case it is the parents who make the decision to expose thier
children to smoke. Questions of childrens rights are always difficult
because children are generally incapable of making important decisions and
running thier own lives. The will of the parents is considered an
appropriate proxy for the will of the child, though parents cannot treat
children as if they are property and the parents range of decisions cannot
morally include recklessly endangering or abusing children. If there was
evidence that exposure to 2nd hand smoke was more damaging than a host of
acceptable parental decisions (allowing kids to play sports, eat junk food,
watch "R" rated movies, rejection of medical treatment, etc.)..and I would
think the risks would have to be a lot higher... then (and only then) could
there be an argument for the state protecting the child. Legitimate science
doesnt place the risk anywhere near that level.
When discussing the legitimacy of govt power, it's always a mistake to begin
with questions of childrens rights. That just confuses the basic issue of
childrens competence with the specific topic at hand.
steve