Lawnmower Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 An outsider reading the musings of the smokers on this thread can see what is obvious - but the smokers cannot. It is obvious that weevled and insinuated inside their head is the Little Voice of Nicotine which makes them think the way they do and say the things they do. It is starkly obvious that the noxious parasite is dictating to them how to think and behave - It is so obvious because it is obviously the Same Voice used by all the smokers - it's as if they were one person - the same language and phrases. Or maybe they are different persons driven by the central Mind Control of nicotine. Smokers, stop being subjective - stand back and take an objective look at what is actually being said by you all. Nicotine's way of helping you is to make you blame everyone else. Re-read the whole thread with an open mind, not the mind being controlled, and you will realise how you are being controlled by Mr. Chemical Dependant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 albert was pointing out its just one small link in a chain .. just one more jumped up bunch of cunts playing the PC card and in doing so trampling on peoples liberties .. and lets not forget we are talking about smoking on an open deck of a big ship moving lots of air at 30mph+ ffs you have as more chance of being shit on by a gull than catching a whiff of smoke.. Thats why I think its a totally stupid ban, its an open deck FFS!! Doesn't affect me as I don't go on the boat (may have to at some stage though), but thats all besides the point, A line has to be drawn somewhere, human rights or some shit, smoking ban on an aeroplane....fair play, on the open deck of a ferry?.... ridiculous! I don't like the smell of sick on the boat, it makes me feel ill, so where are these sickers going to be placed?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 That's a correct but spurious argument though isn't it? Private companies can and do set all sorts rules or Terms & Conditions, tariffs - you name it, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss, disagree and even challenge those terms. In this case the SPC can a. Charge what they like b. Sail when they like c. to where they like d. provide whatever onboard service they like, of whatever quality they like, at whatever cost they like Ultimately, provided it is within the law, our only choice is to take it or leave it. But we've discussed all these issues on here. I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that it's a spurious argument. Ultimately, yes, it's a take it or leave it environment and if you don't like it then you have another free right and that is to use an alternative service. If all of the issues have been discussed, why are they still banging on about fucking windspeeds and smoke being blown in other people faces? They're not going to get the chance to find out as it's being banned anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Eh?, its outside in the fresh air? Its about as good as banning smoking on the prom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 albert was pointing out its just one small link in a chain .. just one more jumped up bunch of cunts playing the PC card and in doing so trampling on peoples liberties .. and lets not forget we are talking about smoking on an open deck of a big ship moving lots of air at 30mph+ ffs you have more chance of being shit on by a gull than catching a whiff of smoke.. Manxman2, you often mention things as being PC, but almost everything you do refer to have nothing to do with political correctness. I think you are confusing the term with general increases in authoritarianism of the government. Yes, I kind of agree with you. I do think there are lots of sanctimonius arseholes who like to feel good about themselves by recognising that they themselves do not smoke. And they think that because they have been exposed to smoke in the past or know about its dangers that they have the right to stop people smoking or support any moves to make it more difficult for people to smoke. I personally think that people should be educated to recognise that smoking is dirty and is a nasty addiction, and to dispel the silly ideas that people smoke simply because they enjoy it. If nobody will breath in smoke on an open deck then it has no justification. But smokers should ask non-smokers whether that is true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 i said i agree with alberts stance on the wider picture of state control and influence. It isn't about state control or influence. But explain how it is? I don't see the connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Indoors/enclosed shared environment. Not relevant to this debate. Relevant to the extent that you didn't do anything about it when they stopped you from smoking on their services. This is not strictly about the legality of smoking in enclosed spaces, it's about the right of the company to prohibit you from smoking on their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Eh?, its outside in the fresh air? Its about as good as banning smoking on the prom. ffs now john faragher will put that forward .. motion for banning smoking on promanade as speeding cyclists may inhale second hand smoke on their second hand bikes. plus when a smoker is actually smoking he is not concentrating on where his feet are .. and is 43% more likely to step in dog shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 The IOMSP ban on smoking has nothing to do with a persons health, its a safety issue brought on by insurance companies due to the materials used in the construction of the fast crafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Eh?, its outside in the fresh air? Its about as good as banning smoking on the prom. Go and smoke on the prom, nobody is stopping you. They're just telling you that they don't want you smoking on their boat. If you want to smoke, get off their boat. That's right, the boat that they own privately and operate. You know, just like your own house or car if you didn't want people to smoke in or on your property, you would have the right to do that, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 plus when a smoker is actually smoking he is not concentrating on where his feet are .. and is 43% more likely to step in dog shit. Please keep that in the correct context. It must at all times be referred to as regulation white dog shit. This thread demands perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Smokers, stop being subjective - stand back and take an objective look at what is actually being said by you all. Nicotine's way of helping you is to make you blame everyone else. Re-read the whole thread with an open mind, not the mind being controlled, and you will realise how you are being controlled by Mr. Chemical Dependant. Intolerance is subjective. Liberal Democracy is objective and does not countenance intolerance. By all means educate, but taking away someones right or opportunity to do something perfectly legal for whatever reason they may wish to do it, that doesn't affect others in an outdoor environment, is simply intolerance - as well as (in your context) seeking to control other people's minds and how they should live their lives. No one is blaming anyone for anything, other than trying to take away their freedom for no good reason, simply other than for the sake of their own anti-smoking (often quasi paranoid religious) beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Eh?, its outside in the fresh air? Its about as good as banning smoking on the prom. Go and smoke on the prom, nobody is stopping you. They're just telling you that they don't want you smoking on their boat. If you want to smoke, get off their boat. That's right, the boat that they own privately and operate. You know, just like your own house or car if you didn't want people to smoke in or on your property, you would have the right to do that, wouldn't you? Its all besides the point Stav, could the government ban smoking because they own the road, or the pavement?.... Its outside where you're exposed to the elements with 5% of your body touching the steam packets "property".., its not an enclosed space like an aeroplane FFS, like I said it doesn't effect me but its the principal. How does someone smoking outside affect you or other passengers?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Well if you dont like it, its no good saying theres a boat in the morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Smokers, stop being subjective - stand back and take an objective look at what is actually being said by you all. Nicotine's way of helping you is to make you blame everyone else. Re-read the whole thread with an open mind, not the mind being controlled, and you will realise how you are being controlled by Mr. Chemical Dependant. Intolerance is subjective. Liberal Democracy is objective and does not countenance intolerance. By all means educate, but taking away someones right or opportunity to do something perfectly legal for whatever reason they may wish to do it, that doesn't affect others in an outdoor environment, is simply intolerance - as well as (in your context) seeking to control other people's minds and how they should live their lives. No one is blaming anyone for anything, other than trying to take away their freedom for no good reason, simply other than for the sake of their own anti-smoking (often quasi paranoid religious) beliefs. Are you quite sure then that others do not breathe in your smoke when you travel on the seacat and smoke at the back of the boat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.