North Sydney : No Smoking

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

SMOKERS will be asked to butt out of Sydney’s second-largest CBD if the council gets its wish to create what is possibly a national-first smoking ban.
At a council meeting earlier this week, North Sydney mayor Jilly Gibson put forward the idea to make the CBD the first smoke-free business district in the country.
“Cigarettes are not only bad for smokers; their cigarette butts litter our streets and the second-hand smoke is detrimental to everyone’s health,” the mayor said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald .
“It is important that we create a safe environment for our community where everyone can enjoy our outdoor open spaces.”
North Sydney councillors unanimously passed the motion and the proposal now goes to community consultation.
Smoking is already banned in a number of public places in North Sydney including Elizabeth Plaza and Brett Whiteley Place.

Despite the community consultation, Ms Gibson said she believes North Sydneysiders will back the public smoking ban.
Ms Gibson said she even hopes to eventually make North Sydney the first smoke-free municipality, where around 70,000 people live.
“Why not try these big ideas?” Ms Gibson told AAP.

“Even if we reduce people’s smoking in the CBD by, let’s say, 50 per cent, that would be a huge result.”
Ms Gibson said the latest move wasn’t about punishing smokers but about improving the amenity of the area for residents, workers, visitors and schoolchildren.
North Sydney councillors said they would not enforce the ban through fines but rather through encouragement and goodwill.
“When we made Brett Whiteley Place and Elizabeth Plaza smoke-free, there was no resistance whatsoever, just absolute positive feedback,” Ms Gibson told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Council is expected to finish consultations by December and will start handing out “NS.NS” stickers, an anagram for “North Sydney. No Smoking”, to let residents show their support.
The NSW town of Glen Innes in the Northern Tablelands introduced a smoking ban across its CBD in 2015.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/council-votes-unanimously-to-ban-smoking-on-all-north-sydney-streets/news-story/1f1650769b4325459c42532984d2bcad

by nicko Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:47 am

Waste of time unless ALL cars, Buses and Lorries are banned as well.

by veya_victaous Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:03 am

how is that even related?

is there Car Butts left on the street?

there is Absolutely ZERO correlation between Vehicles and Cigarettes.

by Eilzel Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:06 am

nicko wrote:Waste of time unless ALL cars, Buses and Lorries are banned as well.

How is it a waste of time?

If someone quits eating chocolate and cakes, are they wasting their time if they don't also quit drinking coke and eating cheese?

Cars, buses and lorries obviously have a use beyond recreational, they are NEEDED.

There is no NEED for cigarettes and, as veya said, there is if anything the fact of the littering of streets by smokers.

Don't conflate two unrelated issues.

by nicko Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:40 am

"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers ! I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:57 am

nicko wrote:
Waste of time unless ALL cars, Buses and Lorries are banned as well.

Afraid not, nicko...

Cigarettes are far worse these days, in the grand scheme of things...

Butts pollute waterways; harm sewerage plants; fuck up our beaches; poison wildlife..

Plus, cars don't spread highly contagious diseases, unlike the more filthy (read spitting..) breed of smokers.

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:06 am

nicko wrote:
"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers ! I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

You undid your own argument with your second sentence there, nicko...

You are correct that smoking is "habitual" behaviour -- it is a voluntary lifestyle choice on the part of that particular kind of drug user..

It is not necessary to life; it is not a positive contributor to the economy -- costs to health services, lost work hours, shortened life expectancy, pollution and fires, here in Oz exceeds the tax take on tobacco by $$hundreds of millions$$; it pollutes local air and work spaces; the butts litter waterways and beaches, and poison wildlife; and tobacco remains the #2 cause of cancers and heart disease, after high fat diets .

And as for your reference to volcanoes -- that's simply getting silly..

by Eilzel Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:18 am

nicko wrote:"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers ! I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

Shall we start telling habitual cocaine and heroin abusers that they are OK to 'need' their fixes too? Just because someone thinks they need something doesn't mean we should allow or encourage it everywhere.

Also, I know the chocolate and cake argument is irrelevant, JUST LIKE your statement on banning cars and lorries...

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:38 am

And yet again the lefties think this will make a blind bit of difference to non-smokers health. Now its about a poor argument on waste, when we now have bins for people to place their cig butts in.

To say this is a step in the right direction, when its infringing on peoples rights. Show some here are more concerned at discriminating against smokers, when as stated pollution is now the biggest problems humans now face. Than actually doing something about health on preventing cars within public spaces.

As seen that makes a huge difference on pollution

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:40 am

Eilzel wrote:
nicko wrote:"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers ! I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

Shall we start telling habitual cocaine and heroin abusers that they are OK to 'need' their fixes too? Just because someone thinks they need something doesn't mean we should allow or encourage it everywhere.

Also, I know the chocolate and cake argument is irrelevant, JUST LIKE your statement on banning cars and lorries...

And its their right to abuse their bodies, not you to say

So how about you mind your own buisness

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:49 am

nicko wrote:"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers ! I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

Its ridiculous and i do not see a proposal to stop obese people being allowed to eat in fast food outlets or any resturants

Or closing all pubs, and bars, to stop drinking, vastly reducing anti-social behaviour and making it a safe environment for everyone?

I mean the view being made here in the article. Is to encourage health, but can you imagine the outrage over such a proposal mate?

As seen smokers are easy targets

You dont try and force people to stop, you help them with resources and education

by nicko Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:34 pm

Typical lefty, don't like people smoking outdoors, so ban it. If I thought it would make a difference i'd agree with you. My comment about Volcano's and Cows is revelent. Stop the seas letting methane into the air, Stop thousands of other pollutants, Stop hundreds of other Countries polluting, those that don't give a shit about doing it. It's pathetic mate !

by Original Quill Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:47 pm

nicko wrote:"There's no need for cigarettes" tell that to habitual smokers !

We try...all the time. It's a kindness that we offer, to rid them of a horrible disease. Part of the effort is to limit the areas where smokers can use. We limit the areas where cocaine users and heroin users can use. Why not nicotine?

Look at it this way, any area where smoking is allowed is an area inviting disease. Imagine a room or garden in a hospital, with a sign: "This area set aside for people who want typhus." Smoking causes cancer, and that's what smoking areas offer.

nicko wrote:I don't smoke myself bye the way. Your post about Chocolate and Cake is irrelevant. Why not ban Volcanoes and farting Cows ?

The difference is, volcanoes are not man-made. We can do something about smoking.

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:35 pm

Bullshit, as the motive is based on those who have a dislike of smoking itself.

Hence the view to ban this

Smoking in the open air is unlikely to effect many people. Espically when it disperses into the air. I have never seen one study that concludes that smoking is harmful in the open air.

Not one and only then it would be if the person was litterally smoking in their faces.

The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Even here the view was based onto help smokers.

Well by the same token, we should ban obese people from driving, eating out and limiting the amount of food they can buy. Ban all alcohol in public places, bars etc, to decrease anti-social behaviour and again it would make them healthier.

In other words, the view is clearly seeking to and only discriminate one group of people at risk, from their social habits and nobody else.

by nicko Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:42 pm

by Original Quill Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:31 pm

Didge wrote:Bullshit, as the motive is based on those who have a dislike of smoking itself.

Hence the view to ban this

Smoking in the open air is unlikely to effect many people. Espically when it disperses into the air. I have never seen one study that concludes that smoking is harmful in the open air.

Not one and only then it would be if the person was litterally smoking in their faces.

The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Even here the view was based onto help smokers.

Who cares what the motive is? As someone once said: "There is no right time to do what is right." Likewise, Any motive is appreciated, as long as it creates right.

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Bullshit, as the motive is based on those who have a dislike of smoking itself.

Hence the view to ban this

Smoking in the open air is unlikely to effect many people. Espically when it disperses into the air. I have never seen one study that concludes that smoking is harmful in the open air.

Not one and only then it would be if the person was litterally smoking in their faces.

The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Even here the view was based onto help smokers.

Who cares what the motive is? As someone once said: "There is no right time to do what is right." Likewise, Any motive is appreciated, as long as it creates right.

Well people care, when their rights are being infringed upon, and based off a falsehood, that this is out to look after their health.

No such measures are palced to force other groups, that have bad social habbits.

In other words its blatant discrimination, if by using the view to force onto them health life changes

by Original Quill Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:35 pm

Didge wrote:The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Haha...anything is permissible, until it is impermissible. We spend billions preventing cocaine use. What about cocaine-users rights?

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Haha...anything is permissible, until it is impermissible. We spend billions preventing cocaine use. What about cocaine-users rights?

Well, I backl the view to decriminalize drugs and back the view to allow people to do what ever they want with their bodies.

Alcohol kills far more people that cocaine

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:51 pm

Didge wrote:Bullshit, as the motive is based on those who have a dislike of smoking itself.

Hence the view to ban this

Smoking in the open air is unlikely to effect many people. Espically when it disperses into the air. I have never seen one study that concludes that smoking is harmful in the open air.

Not one and only then it would be if the person was litterally smoking in their faces.

The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Even here the view was based onto help smokers.

Well by the same token, we should ban obese people from driving, eating out and limiting the amount of food they can buy. Ban all alcohol in public places, bars etc, to decrease anti-social behaviour and again it would make them healthier.

In other words, the view is clearly seeking to and only discriminate one group of people at risk, from their social habits and nobody else.

Yet again, you are full of total bullshit, Dodger...

There is no such thing as "smokers rights"...

The whole concept of some inalienable "right" for braindead cigarette smokers to inflict their filthy habit on society at large, and to assault bystanders with the pollutants from their filthy habits, while imposing untold damage on the environment, is nothing more than an artificial construct from tobacco industry lobbyists, a.k.a. thieving criminal fuckers, to help them fight against anti-tobacco findings, education and policies since the 1970s..

The tobacco industry's bad reputation is well founded in this regard, down there with "Big Oil", big Pharma, agribusiness, asbestos, paper mills and arms manufacturers, in the lying anti-social bullshit stakes.

*****************************************

When those braindead and inconsiderate smokers are walking around in plastic bubbles, no longer inflicting their filthy habit onto bystanders, stinking up our streets, polluting our waterways and beaches, killing the wildlife, starting untold bushfires every summer, and clogging up the health system..

Then you can make your idiotic bullshit claims that they only harm themselves...

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:56 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Didge wrote:Bullshit, as the motive is based on those who have a dislike of smoking itself.

Hence the view to ban this

Smoking in the open air is unlikely to effect many people. Espically when it disperses into the air. I have never seen one study that concludes that smoking is harmful in the open air.

Not one and only then it would be if the person was litterally smoking in their faces.

The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Even here the view was based onto help smokers.

Well by the same token, we should ban obese people from driving, eating out and limiting the amount of food they can buy. Ban all alcohol in public places, bars etc, to decrease anti-social behaviour and again it would make them healthier.

In other words, the view is clearly seeking to and only discriminate one group of people at risk, from their social habits and nobody else.

Yet again, you are full of total bullshit, Dodger...

There is no such thing as "smokers rights"...

The whole concept of some inalienable "right" for braindead cigarette smokers to inflict their filthy habit on society at large, and to assault bystanders with the pollutants from their filthy habits, while imposing untold damage on the environment, is nothing more than an artificial construct from tobacco industry lobbyists, a.k.a. thieving criminal fuckers, to help them fight against anti-tobacco findings, education and policies since the 1970s..

The tobacco industry's bad reputation is well founded in this regard, down there with "Big Oil", big Pharma, agribusiness, asbestos, paper mills and arms manufacturers, in the lying anti-social bullshit stakes.

Yes its our habbit and none of your buisness when in public

So whether you agree of not, this is blatant discrimination

As no view on health from this health brigade is looking to reduce cars in public areas, which can easily be done. To help bring down pollution and do you know why none advocate?

because they are two faced and selfish themselves to help bring down pollution

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:01 pm

More corporatist and tobacco-apologist lies from the tobacco industry's friend...

Once again here today, the Dodger has gone out of his way to prove that he doesn't give a damn about his fellow human beings, or the wider environment at large..

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:04 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

More corporatist and tobacco-apologist lies from the tobacco industry's friend...

Once again here today, the Dodger has gone out of his way to prove that he doesn't give a damn about his fellow human beings, or the wider environment at large..

Nothing to do with corportists

Its about my and others rights to smoke in public, without others trying to force us to stop smoking

As stated, you will only then have people push back and rightly so.

That is not how you help people quit.

by Original Quill Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Haha...anything is permissible, until it is impermissible. We spend billions preventing cocaine use. What about cocaine-users rights?

Well, I backl the view to decriminalize drugs and back the view to allow people to do what ever they want with their bodies.

Alcohol kills far more people that cocaine

And tobacco much more than alcohol. So you agree, such dangerous substances should be banned.

I'm glad.

by Victorismyhero Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:45 pm

not necessary

foreign fast food........often anti social
cars over 2.5 ltr often anti social
night clubs,, often anti social and the purveyors of unhealthy life styles
most modern music, often anti social and some positively subversive
fashion Items either male OR female...very often the trigger for bullying etc

yet another of the righteous lefty nazi agenda to reduce everyone to mute clones with no individuality (unless it serves the lefty adgenda)

oh and Quill ...there is nothing so toxic as the man who claims to be doing right "for your own good"....THAT lie was uncovered at the end of the middle ages.

and wolfie......in the UK at least, revenue from tobacco brings in millions more than the cost of any of its outcomes.....and whats worse since stopping smoking has NOT been PROVEN to improve those outcomes if someone has smoked for more than a few years, the country would be subject to a massive loss of revenue which was not balanced by improved outcomes for many many years.......a loss of revenue that would have to be found elsewhere...I suggest a 10% idiot tax on leftys.

This "attitude" of we know whats best for YOU and you WILL comply is one of the reasons I abandoned any concern or leanings for the left.......

out doors second hand smoke is a minor concern, as nicko says it is far outweighed by other pollutants.

leftys...I find YOUR constant bleating and interfering with my right to go about my lawful business as vile and objectionable as you find the idea that someone might want to do something you find "unnecessary". I find your constant bleatings about multiculturalism and your ridiculous soft stance on the offenders in other cultures offensive and a danger to MY way of life.

In fact to coin a common lefty phrase YOU OFFEND ME.....To follow with a lefty response.........I feel violated and despoiled...I must find a "safe space" to cry........then I'll go and riot somewhere.

idiots

by Victorismyhero Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:00 pm

oh...and I'm an "ex smoker"...now gone over to vapeing (the pen type, not those over blown attention seekers nirvana the "cloud chaser") tyhey ARE anti social sending forth vast clouds of wierd smelling vapours and looking like a steam train under full power and a busted boiler......

by Original Quill Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:09 pm

Vic wrote:oh and Quill ...there is nothing so toxic as the man who claims to be doing right "for your own good"....THAT lie was uncovered at the end of the middle ages.

Who cares? It's the right thing to do. The right thing is the right thing, regardless of why.

If you don't like his attitude, go out behind the barn and kick his ass, I don't care. Just do the right thing.

Congrats on quitting, so far as you've gotten. I hear that vaping is equally bad, but I don't know. I just know that the lungs are the worst drug delivery device in the world.

by Guest Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:19 pm

Lord Foul wrote:not necessary

foreign fast food........often anti social
cars over 2.5 ltr often anti social
night clubs,, often anti social and the purveyors of unhealthy life styles
most modern music, often anti social and some positively subversive
fashion Items either male OR female...very often the trigger for bullying etc

yet another of the righteous lefty nazi agenda to reduce everyone to mute clones with no individuality (unless it serves the lefty adgenda)

oh and Quill ...there is nothing so toxic as the man who claims to be doing right "for your own good"....THAT lie was uncovered at the end of the middle ages.

and wolfie......in the UK at least, revenue from tobacco brings in millions more than the cost of any of its outcomes.....and whats worse since stopping smoking has NOT been PROVEN to improve those outcomes if someone has smoked for more than a few years, the country would be subject to a massive loss of revenue which was not balanced by improved outcomes for many many years.......a loss of revenue that would have to be found elsewhere...I suggest a 10% idiot tax on leftys.

This "attitude" of we know whats best for YOU and you WILL comply is one of the reasons I abandoned any concern or leanings for the left.......

out doors second hand smoke is a minor concern, as nicko says it is far outweighed by other pollutants.

leftys...I find YOUR constant bleating and interfering with my right to go about my lawful business as vile and objectionable as you find the idea that someone might want to do something you find "unnecessary". I find your constant bleatings about multiculturalism and your ridiculous soft stance on the offenders in other cultures offensive and a danger to MY way of life.

In fact to coin a common lefty phrase YOU OFFEND ME.....To follow with a lefty response.........I feel violated and despoiled...I must find a "safe space" to cry........then I'll go and riot somewhere.

idiots

+1

by Victorismyhero Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vic wrote:oh and Quill ...there is nothing so toxic as the man who claims to be doing right "for your own good"....THAT lie was uncovered at the end of the middle ages.

Who cares? It's the right thing to do. The right thing is the right thing, regardless of why.

If you don't like his attitude, go out behind the barn and kick his ass, I don't care. Just do the right thing.

Congrats on quitting, so far as you've gotten. I hear that vaping is equally bad, but I don't know. I just know that the lungs are the worst drug delivery device in the world.

bullshit Quill

right and wrong are mere concepts and subject to emotive points of view and opinion

even you dont seem to grasp the truth that in a world of what we consider evi...evil would be good and vice versa, also you cannot know one without the other

ALL that matters as far as a viable society is concerned is order, so a "lawful evil society" would be capable of succeding as a lawful good one. what destroys society is chaos and anarchy.

who is to say that FORCING a smoking ban is good...either for society OR the individual, surely coersion is as evil as anything. you have a very limited perception as to what constitutes good, the greatest good is the one that allows the greatest freedom, even if that freedom is ultimately harmful to the individual concerned.

not only that but what is right, depended from what YOU (lefty's) consider needful or needless is not freedom but dictatorship, the worst form, dictatorship in a velvet bag.....the tryrany of its for your own good....the church used to say that as it tortured innocent folks to death over a minor matter of doctrine......True you leftys today are too cowardly to torture anyone in the physical sense, today you rely on the torture of social exclusion, the politics of the pariah, and financial torture and the indefinite threat of the "howling mob" of lefty militants whos mob mentality accords no accountability for their individual members.

by nicko Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:23 pm

+1,00000000000.

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:04 am

nicko wrote:Typical lefty, don't like people smoking outdoors, so ban it. If I thought it would make a difference i'd agree with you. My comment about Volcano's and Cows is revelent. Stop the seas letting methane into the air, Stop thousands of other pollutants, Stop hundreds of other Countries polluting, those that don't give a shit about doing it. It's pathetic mate !

but it's not about Air pollution Suspect

it's about stopping people being Nicotine Junkies
and your first part is right as in that is and always has been the way it works
Society doesn't like Heroin junkies either So we ban it.
Nicotine Junkies just need to accept they are now classed with other chemical addicts

P.S. Volcanoes have the 'right' to Ban Humans, not the other way around Wink

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:08 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The reality is, this is again infringing on the rights of smokers, when no view put forward claims, that it does actually harm people in the open air.

Haha...anything is permissible, until it is impermissible. We spend billions preventing cocaine use. What about cocaine-users rights?

exactly

society has spoken

Nicotine Junkies are unacceptable
Smoking a cigarette is now as acceptable to do in Public as Ripping a Bong or doing a line of Coke.

AND Almost all of the streets they are talking about making No Smoking zones are Already No consumption of Alcohol zones Smile

by Original Quill Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:28 am

Vic wrote:bullshit Quill

right and wrong are mere concepts and subject to emotive points of view and opinion

So you don't believe in the substance of morality, which is the very essence of right and wrong.

Well, I guess there is an existential premise to metaphysics, and it's a legitimate position. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote Beyond Good and Evil, expressing the same sentiment.

But what we are talking about here is a very practical good and evil. Do you want to live or die? Let's assume you want to live...well, that defines good for us.

It's a statistical reality that you will die sooner, which is to say, enjoy less good, if you smoke. If you have some other, more elusive philosophical definition of good, go play with it. I can't be bothered.

by Guest Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:59 am

veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:Typical lefty, don't like people smoking outdoors, so ban it. If I thought it would make a difference i'd agree with you. My comment about Volcano's and Cows is revelent. Stop the seas letting methane into the air, Stop thousands of other pollutants, Stop hundreds of other Countries polluting, those that don't give a shit about doing it. It's pathetic mate !

but it's not about Air pollution

it's about stopping people being Nicotine Junkies
and your first part is right as in that is and always has been the way it works
Society doesn't like Heroin junkies either So we ban it.
Nicotine Junkies just need to accept they are now classed with other chemical addicts

P.S. Volcanoes have the 'right' to Ban Humans, not the other way around

So forcing your beliefs onto others

How very fundementalist of you

I have nothing against heroin junkies and why should anyone else?

So where certain socities do not like homosexuality, blasphemy or adultery, thus using your methodology. You think that is then okay to ban it?

Do you see the slippery slope you are going down with such unethical views?

Trying to force people to quit, is not how clinics work with such addicts. They continue using Heroin, to wean them off the drug, but this has to be with the individual recognizing they have a problem and want help to get off using the drug.

So your view is very unethical and even medical programms to help people quit smoking, do not force them to stop and again use programms that gradually recue them smoking and with the help of aids, like medication and patches

So you are not helping a damn thing here and as seen its all about what you want. By trying to enforce something onto people.

Its typical regressive attitudes like this that are proving how unprogressive the left are becoming.

by Guest Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:06 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Haha...anything is permissible, until it is impermissible. We spend billions preventing cocaine use. What about cocaine-users rights?

exactly

society has spoken

Nicotine Junkies are unacceptable
Smoking a cigarette is now as acceptable to do in Public as Ripping a Bong or doing a line of Coke.

AND Almost all of the streets they are talking about making No Smoking zones are Already No consumption of Alcohol zones

So you back the view in countries in Africa and the Middle East, where homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, apostasy is unnacceptable. As to you, society has spoken?

You just proved right what Lord Foul just stated.

You are just one in a long line in history, trying to enforce your views onto others, based on a view to what people think is right or wrong.

You mean they have stopped the bars, retaurants and pubs selling alcohol?

That is not a no alcohol consumption zone.

People are free to choose where they like to go, but now you want to restrict people, based off your needs and not theirs

I always agredd with the ban in enclosed spaces, as it does greatly harm those not smoking, but in the open air. There is no justication for such a call to ban smokers. Its basically ostracizing them from society.

That is making a society less free

by Victorismyhero Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vic wrote:bullshit Quill

right and wrong are mere concepts and subject to emotive points of view and opinion

So you don't believe in the substance of morality, which is the very essence of right and wrong.

morality is no more an absolute than good and evil, since, for example a lawful evil society may consider, say, alturuism to be immoral. Morality is merely a form of expressing and formalising what you consider "good". few would consider parts of the morality of the middle ages to be "good" today. Morality said that homosexuals were evil not very long ago.

Well, I guess there is an existential premise to metaphysics, and it's a legitimate position. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote Beyond Good and Evil, expressing the same sentiment.

But what we are talking about here is a very practical good and evil. Do you want to live or die? Let's assume you want to live...well, that defines good for us.

you should not make assumptions for other people....the point may be yes I want to live.....how I want to live...but not how YOU demand

BUT, what of those who, for good reason wish to die, current "morality" forces these people to endure an unendurable existance, and this is considered good.......

what next in your destruction of individualism

It's a statistical reality that you will die sooner, which is to say, enjoy less good, if you smoke. If you have some other, more elusive philosophical definition of good, go play with it. I can't be bothered.

the reality is I dont have an all encompassing philosophical definition of good, since "my" good may well be different to "your" good in some aspects, however the first rule is GTFO of my life unless and until you can show proof positive that what I am doing is negatively impacting you on a significant enough level to be of concern.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:21 pm

Vic wrote:morality is no more an absolute than good and evil, since, for example a lawful evil society may consider, say, alturuism to be immoral. Morality is merely a form of expressing and formalising what you consider "good". few would consider parts of the morality of the middle ages to be "good" today. Morality said that homosexuals were evil not very long ago.

I am not opposing your ideas as much as I don’t understand them. I am used to understanding morals as rule-based. That is, you state a rule, and then apply it.

I was trying to ferret out your rule, and the best I could come up with is that you feel morality is “subject to emotive points of view and and opinion.”

How am I to read that? The best I can come up with is, good and bad depend upon how you feel. The closest I can come to that is existentialism. Existentialism is

Wilki wrote:“…the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.”

Moving on:

Vic wrote:you should not make assumptions for other people....the point may be yes I want to live.....how I want to live...but not how YOU demand

But you should try to understand them. I was searching for the rule, which is the standard way to understand a person.

Vic wrote:BUT, what of those who, for good reason wish to die, current "morality" forces these people to endure an unendurable existance, and this is considered good.......

what next in your destruction of individualism

Everyone has idiosyncrasies. My rule is general, but simple: all people wish to survive. Applying my rule to the subject of smoking: the best answer is, any way to stop people from dying has got to be good.

That applies most of all to, and for the individual. But we live in a society where rules must prevail. Hence, laws that limit or prevent the opportunity for destructive moments for the individual, are the most good for the most people.

by Guest Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you don't believe in the substance of morality, which is the very essence of right and wrong.

morality is no more an absolute than good and evil, since, for example a lawful evil society may consider, say, alturuism to be immoral. Morality is merely a form of expressing and formalising what you consider "good". few would consider parts of the morality of the middle ages to be "good" today. Morality said that homosexuals were evil not very long ago.

Well, I guess there is an existential premise to metaphysics, and it's a legitimate position. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote Beyond Good and Evil, expressing the same sentiment.

But what we are talking about here is a very practical good and evil. Do you want to live or die? Let's assume you want to live...well, that defines good for us.

you should not make assumptions for other people....the point may be yes I want to live.....how I want to live...but not how YOU demand

BUT, what of those who, for good reason wish to die, current "morality" forces these people to endure an unendurable existance, and this is considered good.......

what next in your destruction of individualism

It's a statistical reality that you will die sooner, which is to say, enjoy less good, if you smoke. If you have some other, more elusive philosophical definition of good, go play with it. I can't be bothered.

the reality is I dont have an all encompassing philosophical definition of good, since "my" good may well be different to "your" good in some aspects, however the first rule is GTFO of my life unless and until you can show proof positive that what I am doing is negatively impacting you on a significant enough level to be of concern.

Excellent post and he still has not grasped the main point you are making

He moves onto rules and how many rules are based on emotional thinking?

He is trying to dodge your points and badly so

Misdirecting about rules

He neglected your point that rules have come and gone in history

Like for example how you say and rightly so, there was a rule, that homosexuality was wrong. This has now rightly changed.

by Victorismyhero Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Vic wrote:morality is no more an absolute than good and evil, since, for example a lawful evil society may consider, say, alturuism to be immoral. Morality is merely a form of expressing and formalising what you consider "good". few would consider parts of the morality of the middle ages to be "good" today. Morality said that homosexuals were evil not very long ago.

I am not opposing your ideas as much as I don’t understand them. I am used to understanding morals as rule-based. That is, you state a rule, and then apply it.

exactly, and as I have said those "rules" depend upon ones POV........and thus morals depend ALSO upon ones POV a lawful evil person could have as sound a morality within the rules of his civilisation as any person from a lawful good society. those without morals (from either POV) are "chaotic" and hence not good for that society.
As you say morals are mere codifications on what is considered right within a given society. however THAT (what is right) is both fluid and totally subjective. (and this is also why you cannot for instance decide that the romans for instance were "evil" for their love of pederasty, since within their society this was acceptable. one cannot project the mores of todays civilisation upon an older one, or even a "different one" the best you can say is "by our standards.........")

I was trying to ferret out your rule, and the best I could come up with is that you feel morality is “subject to emotive points of view and and opinion.”

there is no "one rule to bind em all" and of course morality is subject to "emotive pov and opinion" since the rules it codifies are conditioned by such.....

OR at least morality can ONLY be defined as the willingness to follow the rules set down, an act (actus?) cannot in itself be immoral...it is either good bad or neutral to whatever degree, the person commiting that act is the one to whom morality is applied....if it is an evil act (depending on your POV (remember that lawful evil society)) the the person is acting immorally, if good then he is acting morally...one does NOT commit an immoral act...one is immoral for commiting an act which is evil within the social concience.

How am I to read that? The best I can come up with is, good and bad depend upon how you feel. The closest I can come to that is existentialism. Existentialism is

Wilki wrote:“…the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.”

The problem arised because the strict definitions of things change in time and language becomes a problem, within the philosophy of this subject one has to be careful to handle semantics carefully, or you end up arguing the whichness of why

Moving on:

Vic wrote:you should not make assumptions for other people....the point may be yes I want to live.....how I want to live...but not how YOU demand

But you should try to understand them. I was searching for the rule, which is the standard way to understand a person.

Vic wrote:BUT, what of those who, for good reason wish to die, current "morality" forces these people to endure an unendurable existance, and this is considered good.......

what next in your destruction of individualism

Everyone has idiosyncrasies. My rule is general, but simple: all people wish to survive. Applying my rule to the subject of smoking: the best answer is, any way to stop people from dying has got to be good.

then by any standard of a lawful good society your rule is "evil"...not very but sufficiently to be noticed, as you are fond of saying you cannot generalise from specifics, but equally you cannot draw specific conclusions from generalities, especially where people are concerned...this is precisely the point about individualism....some individuals are "off the clock" as far as what thy wish for themselves.....whilst in some cases I would agree this is due to mental aberation and hence the individual concerned lacks capacity, there are sufficient examples of those who rightly wish to terminate an unenduarble existance from which there is no hope of recovery or relief....YOUR rule is evil in denying that chance.

That applies most of all to, and for the individual. But we live in a society where rules must prevail. Hence, laws that limit or prevent the opportunity for destructive moments for the individual, are the most good for the most people.

and if you apply THAT kind of thinking we would be still living in the trees.....since industry is a killer, fast food is a killer, vehicles even horses are killers, you would have to live in a wholey numb society with no acts beyond the approved "safe" ones no drinking no smoking, no drugs no adventure sports in fact nothing in the least bit risky...and for what...an interminably numb existance with no "fizz" to it.... dont know what floats your boat quill, but I bet it would be banned in your utopia

by Victorismyhero Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So you don't believe in the substance of morality, which is the very essence of right and wrong.

morality is no more an absolute than good and evil, since, for example a lawful evil society may consider, say, alturuism to be immoral. Morality is merely a form of expressing and formalising what you consider "good". few would consider parts of the morality of the middle ages to be "good" today. Morality said that homosexuals were evil not very long ago.

Well, I guess there is an existential premise to metaphysics, and it's a legitimate position. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote Beyond Good and Evil, expressing the same sentiment.

But what we are talking about here is a very practical good and evil. Do you want to live or die? Let's assume you want to live...well, that defines good for us.

you should not make assumptions for other people....the point may be yes I want to live.....how I want to live...but not how YOU demand

BUT, what of those who, for good reason wish to die, current "morality" forces these people to endure an unendurable existance, and this is considered good.......

what next in your destruction of individualism

It's a statistical reality that you will die sooner, which is to say, enjoy less good, if you smoke. If you have some other, more elusive philosophical definition of good, go play with it. I can't be bothered.

the reality is I dont have an all encompassing philosophical definition of good, since "my" good may well be different to "your" good in some aspects, however the first rule is GTFO of my life unless and until you can show proof positive that what I am doing is negatively impacting you on a significant enough level to be of concern.

Excellent post and he still has not grasped the main point you are making

He moves onto rules and how many rules are based on emotional thinking?

He is trying to dodge your points and badly so

Misdirecting about rules

He neglected your point that rules have come and gone in history

Like for example how you say and rightly so, there was a rule, that homosexuality was wrong. This has now rightly changed.

I dont think quill is misdirecting or ignoring points Didge......this is a hell of a subject.....it is difficult indeed to understand the concept of lawful evil being socially as workable as lawful good, remember we had quite some correspondance on here about it in times past....what matters (soley as far as any given society is concerened) is that it is LAWFUL...i.e it does have rules within that society which are expected to be followed, what kills any society beyond a certain point is chaos.

interestingl;y enough I did mention one point that feeds into this....a lawfull evil society considering altruism as "evil", that was perhaps a poor example..IF you define altruism as "the willingness to help at no gain to yourself" however of course NOT helping fellow members of your society, even if they were only fellow members of your regiment/guild/village etc could and would lead to chaos, hence one supposes that such a society would have rules about cooperation at some level and in some form(perhaps a bit like the french law that you HAVE to give aid to the best of your ability to an accident victim)(i have always had supicions about the nature of french society........ Smile

) however the point stands......

having been involved in game theory and gane design, envisioning "alternative societies and characters" I have found this concept facinating, and it does make one ponder the nature of good and evil.....

in one scenario......

a paldin (the champion of lawful good)
a hunter (lawful neutral)
and a necromancer (the champion of lawful evil)

forced together by circumstance come across a plague village, if not checked the plague will infect the continent....and it is impossible to know who is and isnt infected (some may be symptomless carriers)

the necromancer says burn the village and kill ALL the inhabitants (since killing a few villagers is ok by evil standards and it WILL stop the spread)
the hunter says I dont like it BUT.....I agree (he finds the idea of killing possible innocents distasteful but recognises the sense)
the paladin cannot do anything...becasue as a champion of lawful good he cannot countenance the killing of possibly uninfected villagers, NOR can he allow the others to do so, such is his addiction to his "morals" BUT nor can he allow the plague village to stand...as a result he suffers a mental breakdown.........

A lot of leftys find themselves in the position of the hapless paladin when one set of "rights" clash with another.

now that scenario is played from "our" lawful good POV

how would someone in a lawful evil society see it?

by Guest Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:40 pm

That is a very interesting hypothetical situation

Though there is a possible fourth solution which was actually used in the 18th century on some Island off Italy called Poveglia. It was used as a confinement station for people with the plague. Basically placing them in Qurantine.

So I would have to question why the Paladine, would not put forward the idea to qurantine the village, to stop the spread of the plague.

Granted, this would be extremely difficult to do.

Does that fit into your scenarior, or am I changing the goal posts?

Excellent post though mate.

Sending you a PM, with a vid, as I think this might go into what you are saying, on an evil lawful society

by JulesV Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:58 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
SMOKERS will be asked to butt out of Sydney’s second-largest CBD . . . .

Blow THAT up yer ass, fkkers. Ditch the demon weed. geek

by Victorismyhero Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:56 pm

funny old life innit.....

a FEW dog owners are careless/dont give a monkeys and the cry goes up...ban ALL dogs from this area, thus spoiling the quality of life of the GOOD owners
A FEW cats shit in someone elses garden and the cry goes up, ban ALL cats thus spoiling the quality of life of the GOOD owners
a VERY(few) LEGITIMATE LICENCED gun owners cause a problem and the cry goes up ban ALL guns thus spoiling the quality of life of the GOOD owners
A FEW smokers are careless and anti social and the cry goes up, ban all smoking....thus spoiling the quality of life of the GOOD smokers.

90% of which comes from the controlling howling immature left.....

BUT when faced with a dealy enemy and the cry goes up BAN Islam, oh thats a differnt story, we mustnt offend anyone , it a 'uman right dontcha know, we will have a tantrum and cry in a safe space if you do that.......And anyone calling for that is villified and crucified as a racist/bigot/nazi/islamophobe etc.......

I might remind you "ban everything leftys"..........1) you cant have your cake and eat it, and 2) perhaps you should reevaluate WHY the right is on the rise.......by looking at your own multi faced politics, which like a certain mayor of myth has more faces than the town hall clock.

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:55 pm

tum te tum......

North Sydney : No Smoking 2794048296

by Original Quill Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:16 pm

Sounds like a Tu quoque fallacy.

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:51 pm

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.

thus my argument cannot be a "tu quoque" fallacy since no statement of truth or fallacy has been made, merely a pointing out of the inconsistant nature of the leftists argumentative processes....

person A has made several demands to ban certain things
Person B asserts that person A's reasonings are inconsistant when refusing person B's demands to ban another thing that person A holds sacrosanct.

thus while the tu quoque fallacy is called the appeal to hypocrisy, what I am doing is outlining the overt and obvious hypocrisy in the leftist " ban everything we dont approve of" stance. (little grey ~~men~~ persons...sorry snowflakes........... in little grey boxes living little grey lives doing little grey things)

by Original Quill Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:11 pm

Vic wrote:Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore, X is false.

You have neglected to mention that Person B is raising an unrelated claim to the issue.

The Tu quoque fallacy is sometimes called "whataboutism". It’s purpose is to discredit an opponent's position by charging him/them with hypocrisy, without directly refuting or disproving their original argument.

You have raised the issue of dogs, which has nothing to do with smoking, You are accusing those on the left of hypocrisy because of the issue of dogs. You have never refuted, nor even stated objections to their position on smoking. All you are doing is changing the subject, saying, what about dogs? A better example is as follows:

Wilma: You cheated on your income tax. Don't you realize that's wrong?

Walter: Hey, wait a minute. You cheated on your income tax last year. Or have you forgotten about that?

You have changed the subject and only counter-accused. It is clear that a tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. In essence it says: you did the same thing!

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:17 pm

the issue ISNT "smoking" or dogs or....whatever

these do not form the substance of my point, which is the tiresome and continual tendancy of the left to ban things the central hive administration, advised by the lunatic fringe of immature students and snowflakes, consider unnecessary or frivolous or simply dissaproved of.

you are engaging in sophistry Quill and it aint going to work.....

by Original Quill Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:26 pm

Sophistry? Wasn't the point of the thread Smoking? Damn...now you're criticized for sticking to the rules??

Rolling Eyes

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:33 pm

whats the fancy latin lawyer term for "the poor little me" argument quill?

North Sydney : No Smoking 3489511464

by Sponsored content