The first thing is to grasp that a smoker and a non-smoker are not equally free in a railway coach.
In this situation, since neither would like to get off the train, one must adjudicate between the relative weights of each persons choice. I would tend to think, given that passive smoking is very harmful, that the non-smoker has a greater right to ensuring his health than the smoker who neither cares about his own health nor of others.
As for taking away 'freedom of choice' well, that is an everyday matter for all social beings. One may suddenly verbally attack or physically injure someone else on the street. The law takes care of the latter - the former is controlled only by self-regulation. We are a society simply because we have developed norms of social behaviour, ethical behaviour and so on. Occasionally the authorities have to step in as for example in the case of smokers in a confined space with non-smokers.
Another subject arises and that is the righteousness expressed by both camps, smokers and non-smokers - and a third group..born again ex-smokers. The latter are truly horrendous while the fight between the first two groups is a legitimate 'political' fight. The born again should be sent to Devil's Island.
I really dont think this is an abstract or philosophical issue. Somethings are obvious and this is an 'obvious' issue. Those to try to bring in 'rights'and ' freedom of choice' are taking refuge in philosophy. Every scoundrel takes refuge either in philosophy or in patriotism.
I think it is pretty useless Venere yo expect enthusiasts at CS for stem cell research. Half have never heard of it and the other half consider it anti-christ.
Obama today announced governmental financing for stem cell research. He also spoke of Christopher Reeve (the actor, among thousands of others, who died being denied of treatment which could have saved him by Bush's administration).
Obama had also acted on the Guantanamo problem. But these are problems with differing complexities.
And yet some 55% to 65% of Americans believe in creationism and are totally benighted. Will Obama survive despite this mudslide in his backyard?
I think I will be rejoicing with some champagne this evening!
Though our forefathers dont know how we live, we know how they lived. Consider just one thing: teeth. Are we better off or not today?
Greed has always been there. Advancement cannot but have a price. But we are surely destroying the globe and well, that one item is a inescapable daisy.
So you start by declaring that you believe in GOD. Then you speak of evidence - in favour or against. I'm afraid it doesnt work that way. Belief requires suspension of any critical thought. Scepticism and Science uses Occam's razor - the simplest explanation to fit a set of facts. (Never mind history which reveals how religions has killed more people than anything else and kept them in total ignorance).
By the way, lay interest in matters ecclesiastical is often a precursor to insanity
Those must be the 'friendly' drunks who dont get morose and endup in a fight or maudling. But I think friendly drunks outnumber the mean drunks.
The soberiety act is actually a mirror refection of happy drinking times. It's the withdrawal; the crashing hangover; the worry what they may have said or how they may have behaved. This most well expressed when a company or a bank have had their annual (or Christmas) dinner - oh what chummerie at the dinner. But very low profiles the next day at work.
Salaried people are taxed at source - not because they want to be honest but because their employers are obliged to tax them at source.
Business people have far greater flexibility: if they are exporters they can 'underinvoice' and there a billion ways to evade taxes by 'transfer pricing' etc etc etc.
It is not a question of honesty dear Sommer.. Honesty is about far greater human qualities...such as truth, life and relationships. Taxes, rather rebelling against taxes brought down the British Imperium in America and India. Taxes, today, such as tax cuts for the rich as in Bush's time, is a policy - a policy of discrimination. The world is a bit more complex than you think.
Individuals live mostly within themselves unless they are dependent on someone else. What you say makes total sense. When someone is needy then some effort should be made to give them comfort. But it is quite impossible to know what it is exactly that has triggered insecurity in the other. That is when you have to make the effort, empathise as far as you can.
If a person, an adult in particular, is upset for not being understood, then I believe that in most cases the problem is with the 'misunderstood' person.
I did not mean to be polemical about the film. It is a film which arouses one's spirit and brings one back to the essential dimensions of being...being a person or being a non-person.
I would like to recommend a couple of other films ie. Revolutionary Road and Burn after Reading. The first is like a slow motion plane crash in domestic life. The second is a marvellous parody of war and secrecy.
That is exactly what keeps me going. Fear. For too long I have felt foolishly immortal - as every young person does. But I am far from young now. Too aware of mortality, to conscious that management of my health in years to come is and should be my principal concern.
Thanks. I havent reached that 7 month point. The feeling I have is that I cant get smoking out of my head. I am largely inactive and quite bored - and smoking creates the illusion of doing something when infact one is not doing anything.
Let's see. Perhaps I should look at more pictures on the web of the insides of a smoker's heart, lungs and other tissues. I have to scare myself!My closest friend died of lung cancer from being a long term smoker. Another person I knew well died a devastating death from emphysema.
I am not doing the exercise nor the hobby thing. It's a sort of depression that I'm in.
I had too many drinks today - at lunch. Naturally, I could not smoke in the restaurant but right next to it was a Tabac. I started towards it to buy a packet but instead bought a magazine - just, very just, in time.
I know of so many people who quit cold turkey - and amazingingly all quitters I know claim to have been 2 or 3 pack (20 oe 25 a pack) smokers a day. Is that plausible? I know I have the will power of a seaweed so it amazes me. 4 months I am not smoking. But I have reached a plateau. Got to do something else to keep me on this path
Of course. Now I get it. When the govt or corporate sector are 'giving out jobs'- as a favour presumably, no matter what it means in economic terms, then I cannot disagree with you. However, you see this is capitalism and free markets perpetually obsessed with the bottom line and the govt. with budgetary constraints. NOBODY ACTUALLY EVER HAS GIVEN OUT JOBS FROM SENTIMENTS OF CHARITY - exception being affirmative actions by some govts and companies. Immigration policies of the British (and other govts) and the more recent offshoring of business have had quite different criteria from 'charity'. When manpower (skilled or otherwise) was required immigration was relaxed. When local costs exploded in an environment of intense competition, company jobs were offshored. This applies, quite inflexibly and universally, to every western economy. It is simply a matter of demand and supply of labour vs costs.
I am aware that when popular feeling gets into the mix then there is a lot of negative sentiments towards foreigners; a lot of xenophobia; a lot of absurdities propounded in so called economic terms...such as charity; it is always someone else's fault that I am in trouble and miserable. Beat the drum and drive out the foreigner!
I feel strongly about this issue as it is always a matter, not of understanding the true nature of affairs, but a matter of finding scapegoats.
If you take the trouble of learning some basic economics as well as economic history - of every western nation which have been previous imperial powers (but also including Swizerland which hasn't been one)you will find answers to the questions that arise out of free trade, protectionism, movement of labour etc.
You say 'charity starts at home'. Wow! Have you heard of the 'bottom line' which dictates corporate behaviour? You really think that it was a sentiment of charity that encouraged overseas workers come into Europe and North America?
Are there really nine Magraritas? That would be fantastic.
With reference to your questions :
1. You say a 'male' meeting a 'genuine lady'. That is obviously part of the problem - I mean, your problem. Obviously, you see yourself as the 'genuine lady'and the 'male'as some generic quantity which cannot be refined further in definition. If you meet, say a 'gentleman' would you still say that he tries to destroy everthing? It is a little problem of definitions right at the outset. If you agree, would you please define what a 'genuine lady'is in real life.
2. This assertion is hard to support. It may be your personal experience but that experience is hardly universal.
3. This is the same point as you make in (2) above.
I have read your profile and you are a passionate person with a high degree of self-esteem. Perhaps you may be a a little touchy about men trying to be dominating - and that is often the case and I thing all 'males' would admit to it. But that is not the same thing as trying to take-over a woman and eventually leading to a destruction of a budding relationship.
Misunderstandings and different views are the stuff of life. They dont need to precipitate a breakup...a little understanding and give-and-take is all it needs. Hi, friends from CS, I have 3 questions:
I am impressed by your profile, your strenght of conviction although it might be a wee bit too egotistic.
onlooker100 Forum Posts (22)
RE: Does the smoking ban in public places go against human rights?
The first thing is to grasp that a smoker and a non-smoker are not equally free in a railway coach.In this situation, since neither would like to get off the train, one must adjudicate between the relative weights of each persons choice. I would tend to think, given that passive smoking is very harmful, that the non-smoker has a greater right to ensuring his health than the smoker who neither cares about his own health nor of others.
As for taking away 'freedom of choice' well, that is an everyday matter for all social beings. One may suddenly verbally attack or physically injure someone else on the street. The law takes care of the latter - the former is controlled only by self-regulation. We are a society simply because we have developed norms of social behaviour, ethical behaviour and so on. Occasionally the authorities have to step in as for example in the case of smokers in a confined space with non-smokers.
Another subject arises and that is the righteousness expressed by both camps, smokers and non-smokers - and a third group..born again ex-smokers. The latter are truly horrendous while the fight between the first two groups is a legitimate 'political' fight. The born again should be sent to Devil's Island.
I really dont think this is an abstract or philosophical issue. Somethings are obvious and this is an 'obvious' issue. Those to try to bring in 'rights'and ' freedom of choice' are taking refuge in philosophy. Every scoundrel takes refuge either in philosophy or in patriotism.