Stormig

OK, let me see how to get started. This might come across as a lame question, btw. I have a friend due to undergo a knee surgery. This will require that he lie in bed for the next month and a half or so during recovery. So, I was wondering what would constitute a meaningful present. I assume that a grand majority of the people who visit him will be taking chocolates and all sorts of fattening stuff, at a time when he should be avoiding putting on weight. Then there are likely going to be many guy-friends who will bring him games and such, something I don’t understand much about. I thought that something that would aid his recovery would be cool. I heard that glucosamine+chondroitin supplements are good for such recovery periods and good for the joints in general, but I haven’t been able to confirm this. (Maybe I should just ask a doctor. ) I suspect he isn’t allergic to shelled animals, and he can consult with his physician at any time about this supplement, which is harmless anyway. I’ll also have to make sure that his doctor wouldn’t have recommended it already. It won’t be something long-lasting for him to remember me by, but at least he might remember me everyday for a while as he took his daily intake. So – anyone had good experience with similar, got a story to tell?

If the readers care to recall, I previously mentioned breast-feeding and how that can be accommodated for - have them seated at the seat in the back of the plane, turn your head away and keep walking or read your book, to a certain extent everyone can put in to take care of that problem. Moreover, be reminded that "offences" are about cultural norms - they differ from country to country and from person to person (like I can't stand the site of pregnant bellies). And a lot of people will overlook the fact that you shouldn't be smoking near someone any more than you should be constantly farting next to them in terms of manners even if they don't have health problems. Just because it is "cool" doesn't give you a carte-blanche to set tobacco leaves on fire next to someone. It has nothing to do with teaching courtesy but is a measure to make sure I don't "beat" to a pulp there and then in the bus-stop the next checkered-shirted, bulge-eyed scrawny disrespectful dork who answers back. However, the crux of the matter here is that health problems are universal - I repeat - U-NI-VER-SAL. That is why they can and should be regulated. And that, Azat, has nothing to do with "establishments" coming up with alternatives - I don't see a smoke-free road-side bus-stop coming anytime soon, and at any rate the feasibility is irrelevant. And enough with the "cars' exhaust gases" already. Removal of cars from the road cannot be a precondition to banning of smoking on the street or wherever you like. It's like "arguing" that you should be getting away with murder because Al Capone was framed only for tax evasion and nobody raised a finger against his murder rampages. If you're so adamant about banning fossil-fuel-dependent cars, go ahead and buy yourself an electric car or a bicycle. It's fair. I think that being able to ask your family or friend not to smoke around you is something altogether different. However, yes, it is a reminder of how people behave around everyone else as well. Re: police powers... Indeed, practice can change a lot from entity to entity. Consider prostitution and gambling in Nevada. In sum, regardless of the motivation or political streak of the persons who drafted the decree in question, I support it, and it is unconnected to my hope for the decriminalisation of certain drugs which are readily available but "illegal," and I hope this ban will be an example for other governments to follow.

Geez, I must be really messed up and likely don't know my elbow from my arse.

He sounds like the typical Turkish denialist who says he has a lot of Armenian friends.

I have to admit I don't know what kind of sentiment goes around there, but I couldn't help but notice how brutal you made it sound, as if Quebec were Karabagh and Canada, Azerbaijan.

The Azeri "discovery" of the century. Hope they'll get a Nobel prize for that, too. "Oh nooooooooooo, more Armenians! Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

That's what I call bringing things back into context. So far as the flow of "ideas" is concerned, hospitality and table manners are to be considered side by side with the Geneva Convention.

Let's revive this thread after nearly two years. On the way back from vacation (on my first day back at work), intoxicated with fun and adventure, I greeted a superior with the same cheerful "Wassup???" I did everyone else at work up until that moment. Noticing the look on his face and feeling the bristling of goose-bumps of everyone else present, I realised what I had done, backtracked, said, "Oops, sorry, I had meant to say, 'How are you?'"... People still talk about it today.

But, Azat, smoking is not being criminalised - its use on the street is being banned. Nobody says you can't smoke it in your home - and they can't tell you not to smoke in your home, either. My point of view is that this should apply to all smokables, too. In the case of Anoushik's female associate, she should have been able to stand up to her kith and kin and tell them that she didn't want smoke to harm her would-be-born. That and discussing this with your neighbours is an altogether different matter. When it comes to complete strangers, I don't see why Anoushik's friend or my boyfriend would have to distance themselves from the bus-stop, where they have to be present (the pregnant woman even sit) to take the bus, because some a-holes see nothing in smoking right next to others. Anoushik's friend can ask her family to understand, but you can't always deal with strangers in that way. You can ask one stranger their understanding, a second one, a third one maybe, but a hundred, a thousand? And strangers may not always "take it" nicely even if you ask nicely in all your patience, some even get pretty nasty. So a blanket solution is the answer.

http://www.clarion-call.org/yeshua/whirl/dance.gif

I still don't see where the law is "stupid," other than by majority of opinion... Moreover, loitering is not about health - it is about public security in some areas of the world and it is redundant in most, maybe not in some, I don't know. It is possible to rule against such a law at any time. That's an altogether different matter. The fact that there are and that there will be people distressed because of smoking even in an open-air space is universal, even if they are such a minority of the population.

How about if the two are practiced side by side, which is what I would advocate? Would the former then be "stupid"? I disagree. If recycling were not legislated, goodness knows how long it would take parents', schools', and institutions' teaching to catch up with the needs, already long-overdue themselves. I see nothing robotic in the "compulse" to recycle. Germany is one of the most heavily regulated countries in the world. Nothing robotic about them, either. The Netherlands has its fair share of leggies, too, yet drug use is also provided for. Legislation is not just about "telling people to do something" as if it were directed at an army of non-thinkers - it provides guidance, standards, as to the "how" and "when"... That, too, is efficiency. Moreover I think that the discussed issues should not be within the mandate of city counsels only.

Well, I care about myself and my health first and foremost, no doubt about it. And then I also have had "problems" adapting myself to and putting up with people with certain "sensitivities" and I think I see some things better than I did in the past. For example, my boyfriend has an upper respiratory system issue whereby he is averse to cigarette smoke and "bad air" of all sorts. The bus-stop scenario is taken from real life - he has to distance himself from smokers. It is a royal pain in the arse to go anywhere with him. I don't have problems with most places, but he does with nearly the whole lot. Thus we end up spending nearly all of our time together outdoors. It's good, but only up to a certain point. And I find it unfair that he is deprived of a lot of things because he has a health problem which is not his fault. This is the basis of my arguments. As for the snob who complains about the breastfeeding woman, that's his problem, and he should be stood up against. He should just turn his face away and/or airlines should provide the necessary privacy for such passengers. In all honesty, I, too, have knee-jerk reactions where pregnant ladies are concerned, I can't stand the sight of their swollen bellies, but you don't hear me complaining about it and demanding that they be shunned by the public, do you? That, after all, is my problem and a breast-feeding woman does not physically harm me. The psychological part is mine to overcome.

"Stormtrooper, Stormtrooper!" http://www.clarion-call.org/yeshua/whirl/dance.gif

Indeed it is ironic that the U.S. does not sign and enforce the Kyoto Protocol, indeed it is ironic that people still use and will continue to use fossil fuels, unfortunately an indispensable necessity in today's circumstances... In fact, if you look at it, it is also ironic that the U.S. can walk into anyone's country and kill with bullets for the same fossil fuel which causes all that pollution, quite a heavy price to pay, don't you think, but that isn't an argument against banning smoking in buses and restaurants, is it? How is any of that related to banning smoking in a park while sitting on a bench with an asthmatic or a breast-feeding lady right next to you, the same lady who wanted to get away from the smog of the heavy-traffic street? Indeed there are people dense enough not to figure out what's wrong with smoking in an "open space" in such a situation, not to mention some who will indulge in the profanity of actually blowing smoke in others' faces. It is one thing to decide what's right and what's wrong for one's health and another to decide what's right and what's wrong for another's.

Control-freak-bent-what-do, sputter sputter sputter. Cornered mouse. You're just incapable of taking an issue head-on, aren't you? All this "Why do I have to respect you," as if anyone here has the time or the desire to help some mouse rediscover the Americas all over again, because you're incapable of engaging in any actual discourse - it's more comfortable to sit in a corner and whine and complain and expect to have your non-rights brought to you. Some things just are not breakfast in bed.

Eh, my quote tags are fine - what gives?

Indeed, I do believe in defining lowest common denominators and sorting out the rest from there. That is how people started out with, say, designing facilities for the handicapped. I do not however think in terms of clear-cut groups - it is all transitory and changes with time. That simply isn't fair. I have rights and grievances, and it is also my right to defend myself. I know myself well enough to know what's good for myself better than most people know for me and I speak on my own behalf and draw parallels with those of others who share similar experiences to support my stance. I never spoke about "you" - I don't care if you stick that stub or a stick of dynamite up where it don't shine. I speak for myself and for people like myself. There are those who spend their lives campaigning for this group or that cause - these ones concern my very own self. That is so laughable. I feel compelled to avoid the company of women who nag, so much so that - yes, this I publicly admit for the first time - I wonder why anyone would want to be a lesbian or a bisexual female with the odds that you'll come across one that nags. And I hate to brag, but I am one of the most conforming ladies that I know. Even if I were "domineering" by any stretch of imagination, I would be considered very "empowering" for my man. So I'll leave it at that and you to your rodent fantasies. Orderly boring routine? Well, then, I wish you to New Delhi or Calcutta or some such place for the rest of your life. Highest achievement? Whose? We are animals, only to have taken up the habit of formulating our rights and what-not so that everyone has equal rights and no-one has their kid kidnapped and killed like orangutans do among themselves. Then join the discourse and give your case, try to convince others that littering is in everyone's interest or does not and should not bother them. I on my part am not interested in it and don't expect much success for you, not that it should deter you, of course. Let's see the action. It is one thing to whine and complain and another to get going. As we speak I am in the process of gathering information as to what can be done to do away with a discriminating clause in the civil code or how to cut it down and who is working on it - or would be. So walk the walk. By "respect," I of course don't mean that you should kiss my arse. Anonymouse says "If I believe you are not even worth a fingernail to me" I'm crushed. I don't care what you believe or feel. Let me put it this way - if, because I don't believe you're worth a fingernail to me, I don't respect you, then that puts me in a position to disrespect you by mowing you with a car or stalking you? You may not be bothered by stalking, but there are people who are, no amount of "too bad for them" is going to cut it. It has nothing to do with what either side "thinks is best for you" or whatever other BS degenerate mantra. I don't see how deals going faster is necessarily such a "good" thing. Long permit processes, which come to mind, are what ensures that we don't die from a packet of crisps. We vote and they decide, boo hoo... Forget the domineering types - what about the sensibilities of the unhealthy? quotes fixed

Sounds like you are about to lose it. My love of government? All along I have been talking about the reasons as to why I think things should be a certain way. My supporting statements are not to be discredited by your warped understanding of who or what I am. When it comes to myself, I believe in respect between individuals and their right to the best basic quality of life. There is nothing more natural or important than this in life, for it exists among other animals in one form or other, be this territory or what-not. Disputes are settled with "might is right" in that realm. With humans it is by discourse and concensus, much more humane, if it matters. It is the human-vermin, of which you set the perfect example, with its foul brain and mouth that messes things up for everyone, including it-mouse-self. If a rule against littering is considered "coercive" and some "liberal's self-serving need," then so be it. Hopefully someday "we" will indeed become as despotic enough as you claim to exile "your" lot to a planet where you can just devour each other at your pleasure. Why don't you just do us a favour and pick up a machine gun, abolish "coercive" traffic rules, and luckily come to your senses after a brief experience with what it would be like out there in the cold world to not have rules? Moreover, I don't rely on the government for ideas and rules. It comes all the way down to the neighbourhood movement to experiment and implement - government is merely a wheel in that mechanism. If people stopped to think and show respect, it wouldn't even have to involve most formalities.

Ooooooooooooo, think again. Belgium has a terrible past in the Congo, one that has not actually been put to rest. So, yes, that's irony.

I do have hobbies, but they do not involve self-serving antagonism-at-all-costs (wink wink, nudge nudge), though I'd love to fart in your face as you would like to blow smoke in others'. As Nairi so eloquently pointed out, it is more of a right-wing decision than anything else. And I support it. Just because you don't like it, it has to be "liberal"? Sorry, that's way more BS than I can handle. All my liberal spirit goes into conceding that there should be designated places otherwise. Besides, I'll get my pierced nose in this issue if I please, for it concerns my space, too, if your mouse brain can remotely comprehend that after learning to walk through the maze. Maybe someday when you - finally - grow up and can care for people other than yourself or come down with something, you'll appreciate what respect for others' space and health means.

Yay, Zareh.

You are likening the banning of "smoking completely" - which is not what it is, it is about banning it on the street - to the criminalisation of drugs, which has adverse repercussions which you do not observe in a place like the Netherlands. If youngsters can't watch people smoking in movies or if they can't smoke in restaurants, they're going to abuse it more? Hardly a deterrent against the bans all the same. It's like claiming that the ban on DUI won't work because people will drink more, so just let people rampage all over the place. Doesn't hold water. I'll sum up my view so it is clear - I am for decriminalisation of drugs. This issue needs to be taken as seriously as the Kimberley Process, if not more so. However, I am for allowing smoking of tobacco and other products in designated places ("cafes") which consist of the minority and are almost exclusively for that purpose (so that if I have to hang out with people, it doesn't necessarily/statistically have to be in smoke-curtains) and in private residences in any way or form (individually or during parties). Examples have come a long way - from smoke-clouded establishments where non-smoking sections were available in minorities to such where smoking is banned all the way on the street. I have to admit that I had never thought of such a ban, on the street, but I support it. IMO it makes sense, irrespective of whether the U.S. signs the Kyoto Protocol or what-not. Same for alcohol, excluding bars and out-door cafes - beer-guzzlers need to limit themselves in private establishments. Whether they can continue their hooliganism after they leave their bottles at home or not is a different story, this off-limits thing on the street and alleys is nasty enough as it is.

Utter speculation.

I have an especially hard time when I think of Israel and the treatment pacifists receive (remember Netanyahu's nephew?). I respect pacifists as much as I respect others. You overlook the fact that countries are not blocks, not like a school of anchovies all swimming in one direction, and they shouldn't be. You're forgetting who is there for whom - the regime for the people or the people for the regime? Why do I get a "might is right" feeling there? And remember that Saudi Arabia's regime has gone retrogressive - it is one thing for your mother to go there covered up than to have to wake up one morning having to cover up when yesterday she didn't have to. Got the perspective? Or how about if tomorrow Christians are forbidden their worship? Do Christian Arabs and others simply have to "respect" that and leave to avoid persecution? If that "respect" is all holy and what-not, then what exactly were the grievances of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman sultan?