Shadowrun
Off-topic => Off-off-topic => Topic started by: FuelDrop on <12-23-12/1833:48>
-
This is a PSA: last night an unwisely stubbed cigarette almost lead to the destruction of my local gaming store in a ball of flames. Fortunately a crisis was averted by almost pure luck, and no people or important property were damaged as the fire was contained in a bin full of cardboard boxes. However the lesson remains: DO NOT STUB OUT YOUR CIGARETTES IN BINS FULL OF CARDBOARD!!!
Thank you for viewing this FuelDrop Public Service Announcement.
-
Go outside to smoke.
-
People still smoke?
-
People still smoke?
Depends on how long you douse them with the flamethrower.
-
(http://www.eventsupplies.co.uk/uploads/images/supersize/Foil-Ashtray-Round.jpg)
It's called an ashtray.
Our best scientists and engineers put all of their wits and years of hard work into creating this fine masterpiece of complex fire preventing safety technology. Behold the artistry of it's design and production. Admire the way it simplifies waste removal. Witness it's tested and proven efficiency.
Closely observe and learn about this amazing top notch technology, just waiting to be employed in the home of every smoker and any other places where smoking is officially allowed.
Use it's amazing power to have a decent chance of not making any of those places resemble Dresden back in 1945.
It's light weight, easy to move around, easy to clean.
You can use it for cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, joints, incense, joss sticks, pictures of people you hate.
It comes in many shapes, sizes, colors and materials, have your pick.
Order now and get "not burned to death" for free!
Call 555-COMMONSENSE to place your Order.
-
People still smoke?
People are still allowed to smoke inside public places?
-
People still smoke?
People are still allowed to smoke inside public places?
Not as many places as should be, but there are some left. Smokers have just as much right to smoke inside a place as a non-smoker has not to, and honestly, IMO, if someone is that "offended" by smoking then they shouldn't be going to public places--because in public places one should have to deal with the entire public and not just those who happen to agree with whatever bias they have.
-
People still smoke?
People are still allowed to smoke inside public places?
Not as many places as should be, but there are some left. Smokers have just as much right to smoke inside a place as a non-smoker has not to, and honestly, IMO, if someone is that "offended" by smoking then they shouldn't be going to public places--because in public places one should have to deal with the entire public and not just those who happen to agree with whatever bias they have.
If you want to smoke in public...smoke outside, 25 feet from a building entrance as required by law....at least in Florida.
Personally, I hope the OPs FLGS got the guy on their video feeds, so they can press charges for Attempted Arson.
-
Again, smokers have just as much right to smoke as non-smokers have not to, and again, if they're that "offended" by someone smoking then they can take their sorry little rear-ends to their own homes (the only place where they honestly have the right to say anything about it).
-
Again, smokers have just as much right to smoke as non-smokers have not to, and again, if they're that "offended" by someone smoking then they can take their sorry little rear-ends to their own homes (the only place where they honestly have the right to say anything about it).
As someone who actually has a non-smoking related lung disease, when I am inside a place with smoke it causes me trouble breathing for quite some time after the visit. So smokers that get their pants in a knot can take their fat 'Murika butts home where they can smoke without silly people that care about their health asking them to not foul the air they have to breathe.
Forum lock? Sure sounds great.
-
Again, smokers have just as much right to smoke as non-smokers have not to, and again, if they're that "offended" by someone smoking then they can take their sorry little rear-ends to their own homes (the only place where they honestly have the right to say anything about it).
And I should have just as much right to spray you with something like, say, DDT or Agent Orange every time you take a puff. Sound like a fair trade? After all, they're both proven carcinogens.
Cigarette smoke is disgusting. It seeps into your clothes and everything else around you. If you're around it enough, it will stain things a yellowish color. It smells awful. And, hey, causes cancer.
I have zero sympathy for smokers who are "forced" to not smoke in public places. If you want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, where you're not ruining my clothes, my books, and my lungs? Feel free. Do it all you want. But when you're inflicting that crap on other people? Yeah.
Like I said. You bring your cigarettes, and I'll bringa super soaker full of DDT. Sounds like a fair trade.
Bull
-
People still smoke?
Depends on how long you douse them with the flamethrower.
;D Nice one FuelDrop
-
Again, smokers have just as much right to smoke as non-smokers have not to, and again, if they're that "offended" by someone smoking then they can take their sorry little rear-ends to their own homes (the only place where they honestly have the right to say anything about it).
Actually, they're impacting other people's health and well-being, and therefore do not. It's not a matter of being offended - a severe asthmatic isn't "offended" by people smoking around them, they are directly physiologically affected by it. A person who gets cancer from second-hand smoke isn't "offended" by it, their life is threatened by it.
But I guess in your world, smoking is a more important right than free speech?
Also, can I just say that I find it hilarious that a thread about almost burning down a gaming store was started by someone named FuelDrop?
-
Again, smokers have just as much right to smoke as non-smokers have not to, and again, if they're that "offended" by someone smoking then they can take their sorry little rear-ends to their own homes (the only place where they honestly have the right to say anything about it).
Actually, they're impacting other people's health and well-being, and therefore do not. It's not a matter of being offended - a severe asthmatic isn't "offended" by people smoking around them, they are directly physiologically affected by it. A person who gets cancer from second-hand smoke isn't "offended" by it, their life is threatened by it.
But I guess in your world, smoking is a more important right than free speech?
Also, can I just say that I find it hilarious that a thread about almost burning down a gaming store was started by someone named FuelDrop?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwEIhbF2FC9bEd9V4e2MFqId8av9Qou7AWfQm2oNxZwOJRnx8_Rw)
I know, I know...
-
It's just yet another sign of modern society pretty much becoming a "society of victims".
Just because you choose not to smoke, doesn't mean I should have to kow-tow to you and have to stand in the heat or cold (depending on season) to have a cigarette.
-
Actually its the rights of society vs the rights of the individual. When smoking was acceptable, the non-smokers had to suck it up. But things have moved on. Now the smokers are the minority, and the rights, often translated into funky little things called laws, dominate. Now smokers have the accept the rules of society. Such is life and we just need to accept it... Or change the views of the majority. But given that whole cancer thing... My money is not on cigiretes making a comeback any time soon. (But stranger things have occured...)
-
Actually its the rights of society vs the rights of the individual. When smoking was acceptable, the non-smokers had to suck it up. But things have moved on. Now the smokers are the minority, and the rights, often translated into funky little things called laws, dominate. Now smokers have the accept the rules of society. Such is life and we just need to accept it... Or change the views of the majority. But given that whole cancer thing... My money is not on cigiretes making a comeback any time soon. (But stranger things have occured...)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaactually, if we're being technical, it's that the rights of the individual do not extend past the individual (society is, after all, a collection of individuals and the rights of individuals are not changed in their strength by the size of the group wishing to exercise them in the same way, and thus the 'rights of society' don't really have some grand distinction from that of the individual) - by smoking around other people, you're making a choice for them, imposing upon their rights (especially given the health effects). You can choose to smoke, but that doesn't mean that you can impose your smoking upon other people. Effectively, the only was to not do that is to smoke in areas that aren't regular traffic, and where people can be forewarned that there is a likelihood of smoking and thus are able to choose to avoid it. You walk into the smoking area? Your own bloody fault, you don't get to make everyone there not smoke because you choose to go through there for the same reason that they don't get to make you inhale their cigarette smoke elsewhere.
-
It should be "you go in public, you suck it up and not be a whiny little ***** complaining about someone doing something you don't like". As I said, go in public and deal with the entire public. If you just want to deal with those who agree with your narrow-minded views, go join a private club.
Dude, your ridiculous "that's just your opinion" trolling isn't working. Just give up. It's a stupid enough thing to say as it is, and in this context it's not remotely believable as an argument someone would seriously be making.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
-
I haven't laughed this much in weeks.
-
Honestly, I'm just sick and dang tired of people being so paranoid about everything that can be considered a "health risk" that they think they have the right to force others to kow-tow to them. News flash, ANYTHING taken to too much extreme carries "health risk". Hell, even too much oxygen or water does bad, bad things to the human body.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it. (this 'second-hand' crap is just that. Crap. Completely unproven to actually have any real affect unless in an area of concentration like hundreds of people in one small room all chain smoking a pack in an hour).
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
Also, I noticed you've removed your 'second-hand smoke isn't proven' nitwittery; good for you.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
Also, I noticed you've removed your 'second-hand smoke isn't proven' nitwittery; good for you.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTuz-J6_twzQtWmjPue7LZwYmJiEohddmzbLPrC3b7h-A06rW_Ng)
-
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
If you're close enough to the person that it isn't diluted to the point of no appreciable affect by the time it gets to you, then yeah because you're close enough to be in their 'personal space'.
-
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
If you're close enough to the person that it isn't diluted to the point of no appreciable affect by the time it gets to you, then yeah because you're close enough to be in their 'personal space'.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD)
Yeah, I know tl;dr.
-
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
If you're close enough to the person that it isn't diluted to the point of no appreciable affect by the time it gets to you, then yeah because you're close enough to be in their 'personal space'.
What about bars, restruants... workplaces? Indoors, enclosed spaces, smoke can get pretty thick...
Besides, this is pointless. The rules of the land is that smokers must smoke outside etc. Laws are made to reflect the will of the majority of people in society (at least in free democratic societies). So the majority of people support smokers not smoking inside etc. In this scenario, its the smokers who are complaining that its unfair etc. But why should the majority sacrifice their comfort and health (lets not forget health) so that a small few can continue to pursue their optional, self-harming hobby?
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
-
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD)
Key phrase: "Poorly Ventilated"
Very few places these days actually fit that description with how most public places' air conditioning/heating systems are set up.
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
If you're close enough to the person that it isn't diluted to the point of no appreciable affect by the time it gets to you, then yeah because you're close enough to be in their 'personal space'.
Besides, this is pointless. The rules of the land is that smokers must smoke outside etc. Laws are made to reflect the will of the majority of people in society (at least in free democratic societies). So the majority of people support smokers not smoking inside etc. In this scenario, its the smokers who are complaining that its unfair etc. But why should the majority sacrifice their comfort and health (lets not forget health) so that a small few can continue to pursue their optional, self-harming hobby?
So instead people should have to kow-tow to paranoia? That's exactly what it boils down to.
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
Whats Nascar?
-
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD (http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-143136-Even-non-smokers-in-poorly-ventilated-spaces-are-at-risk-of-COPD)
Key phrase: "Poorly Ventilated"
Very few places these days actually fit that description with how most public places' air conditioning/heating systems are set up.
Oh. So your smoke drifting into my lungs is my fault.
If you're close enough to the person that it isn't diluted to the point of no appreciable affect by the time it gets to you, then yeah because you're close enough to be in their 'personal space'.
Besides, this is pointless. The rules of the land is that smokers must smoke outside etc. Laws are made to reflect the will of the majority of people in society (at least in free democratic societies). So the majority of people support smokers not smoking inside etc. In this scenario, its the smokers who are complaining that its unfair etc. But why should the majority sacrifice their comfort and health (lets not forget health) so that a small few can continue to pursue their optional, self-harming hobby?
So instead people should have to kow-tow to paranoia? That's exactly what it boils down to.
So basically you read the actual url. Good on you.
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
Whats Nascar?
Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
Whats Nascar?
Oh its just thing where people race cars around in circles. Just like one big loop really. Goes on for hours. I mean HOURS.
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
Whats Nascar?
Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.
Could be fun... wait, is that from Nicole Kidman's early movie... Days of Thunder? Cool... very old school.
-
Let's discuss something we can all agree is silly.
Nascar anyone?
Whats Nascar?
Something that isn't my cup of tea, but some people enjoy watching cars driving in circles at extreme speeds.
Could be fun... wait, is that from Nicole Kidman's early movie... Days of Thunder? Cool... very old school.
I haven't seen that film.
Have you seen Cockney's Vs Zombies? Now that's a funny flick.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke. You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.
-
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
Hi, you're new here, aren't you?
-
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
Hi, you're new here, aren't you?
I'm trying to be nice, is all. It's the way we do things north of the 49th - even if we have to kick major ass, we do it politely.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke. You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.
Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others. Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke. You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.
Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others. Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.
Actually, no. You impose the secondary effects of your smoking upon them. But good job continuing to act like you have to be lead by the hand to every conclusion!
-
Honestly, you proved my point when you said that the rights of the individual don't extend past the individual. This means that the non-smokers should in fact 'suck it up' because they're just being arse-bags trying to force their non-smoking on everyone else. Smokers don't walk up to non-smokers, shove a cigarette in their mouth and light it.
I'll give you credit for a new angle, at least. And new depths of ridiculousness.
But "forcing non-smoking on everyone else" would mean attacking people for smoking, or at the policy level making them flat-out illegal and imprisoning people who smoke. You're allowed to smoke - but you're not allowed to impose it upon others, which is what you do if you smoke around others in public areas.
Imposing it on others would be doing the "shoving a cigarette in their mouth and lighting it" not smoking in the same building as others. Rather, it's the non-smokers imposing their paranoia induced views on others.
Actually, no. You impose the secondary effects of your smoking upon them. But good job continuing to act like you have to be lead by the hand to every conclusion!
Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?
-
Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?
Extreme outlier of an example. It doesn't happen often enough to even bear serious consideration.
edit mine.
-
Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.
The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.
Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.
-
Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.
The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.
Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.
*shudders* That's just ridiculous in my opinion, but then again I was raised that only women and homosexuals wear earrings and that other piercings are sick, disgusting and wrong.
-
Actually, it does bear consideration because it can have the exact same effect.
The fact of the matter is, non-smoker paranoia is stripping rights from other citizens. Let's see how you react to having rights stripped from you.
Also, if you're so keen on limiting people because of their choice, then lobby to remove religion and sexual orientation from their 'protected status' when it comes to being hired. Both of those are choices.
Except, you know, none of that's actually the case.
And I'm just going to tell you right now: I've gone back and forth with some of the most frustrating, immune-to-logic-and-evidence people that exist. You do not have the capacity to overrun my patience.
-
Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?
You have not paid attention to set backs of business entrances from parking lots lately, have you? This is for two
reasons: to have a space 25 feet from the building for people to smoke and to put the businesses away from
the higher emissions of automobiles. Most new businesses have to be off set a good bit from the roads, as well.
Of course, to the OP's original post, something to think about is that: It does not matter whether the guy was
smoking inside or out, whoever it was is guilty of, at the very least, criminal negligence, if not attempted arson.
Hence why I asked if the store video cameras(something I am assuming most FLGS have based on the fact that
they are prone to being vandalized by the "Religious Right" and broken into over recent years) caught the guy
so they could press charges. Regardless, the store would have to, now, even if not in a state that prohibits
public smoking(which is what surprised me: that there WERE still any that allowed it), prohibit smoking inside
just because of this one person's stupidity/malice.
-
8) Pretty sure it was just stupidity...I mean really..
-
Of course, to the OP's original post, something to think about is that: It does not matter whether the guy was
smoking inside or out, whoever it was is guilty of, at the very least, criminal negligence, if not attempted arson.
Hence why I asked if the store video cameras(something I am assuming most FLGS have based on the fact that
they are prone to being vandalized by the "Religious Right" and broken into over recent years) caught the guy
so they could press charges. Regardless, the store would have to, now, even if not in a state that prohibits
public smoking(which is what surprised me: that there WERE still any that allowed it), prohibit smoking inside
just because of this one person's stupidity/malice.
It would more than likely be up to the store owner whether or not to go that far just like it would be up to said owner whether or not to push any "criminal negligence" charge or anything of the sort. (Though if the store owner rents, the building owner could as well.)
-
Depends on the laws. For example where I live even if its consensual, if a spouse shows up for a hospital exam and the doctor notices say...rope burns...it gets reported to the police and even without the person requesting it, charges are filed.
-
Depends on the laws. For example where I live even if its consensual, if a spouse shows up for a hospital exam and the doctor notices say...rope burns...it gets reported to the police and even without the person requesting it, charges are filed.
Yeah, but that's because in cases of abuse the victim won't generally be honest about where the injuries came from - so laws are often written that require doctors to report possible signs. Once it's been reported, overzealous officers or just those who've seen one too many cases where that WAS what was going on wind up pushing the paperwork through farther than it necessarily should have gotten.
-
Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?
You have not paid attention to set backs of business entrances from parking lots lately, have you? This is for two
reasons: to have a space 25 feet from the building for people to smoke and to put the businesses away from
the higher emissions of automobiles. Most new businesses have to be off set a good bit from the roads, as well.
Doesn't America have laws about car emissions? Australia does and I would have thought america did as well.
Anyway... will have to see that movie...
-
Automobile emissions (even modern ones) are far worse. Do you want to start limiting where people can drive now?
You have not paid attention to set backs of business entrances from parking lots lately, have you? This is for two
reasons: to have a space 25 feet from the building for people to smoke and to put the businesses away from
the higher emissions of automobiles. Most new businesses have to be off set a good bit from the roads, as well.
Yeah, we do. Some states and counties also put further laws into effect, like set backs from roads more then just
the shoulder and utility easement.
Doesn't America have laws about car emissions? Australia does and I would have thought america did as well.
Anyway... will have to see that movie...
-
Of course, to the OP's original post, something to think about is that: It does not matter whether the guy was
smoking inside or out, whoever it was is guilty of, at the very least, criminal negligence, if not attempted arson.
Hence why I asked if the store video cameras(something I am assuming most FLGS have based on the fact that
they are prone to being vandalized by the "Religious Right" and broken into over recent years) caught the guy
so they could press charges. Regardless, the store would have to, now, even if not in a state that prohibits
public smoking(which is what surprised me: that there WERE still any that allowed it), prohibit smoking inside
just because of this one person's stupidity/malice.
This is more or less the point, with the secondary point that we need to take care of our gaming dens lest they cease to exist. Which would be sad. And I believe the rule was (may be changing now) that if you're going to smoke you have to do it near the open garage door, preferably outside. (Our local hangout is a converted psudo-industrial unit. The 'office' is where the products are sold, while the 'workshop/garage' has been converted into a massive gaming area. suffice to say it rocks, and it would have sucked big-time to lose it. We're just lucky that concrete doesn't burn very well...)
EDIT: A picture of the burning bin in question. It would appear to be the one just outside the shop, which would explain why there was no further damage. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342141922559400&set=a.311120525661540.73734.100002907869025&type=3&theater)
-
It would more than likely be up to the store owner whether or not to go that far just like it would be up to said owner whether or not to push any "criminal negligence" charge or anything of the sort. (Though if the store owner rents, the building owner could as well.)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Funnily enough, this could probably be applied both to the guy who caused the fire and to pretty much everyone who's taking the same stance that you appear to be taking on 'smoker's rights'.
-
It would more than likely be up to the store owner whether or not to go that far just like it would be up to said owner whether or not to push any "criminal negligence" charge or anything of the sort. (Though if the store owner rents, the building owner could as well.)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
At least not the first time. If it keeps happening then malice becomes a solid explanation. Also, the term 'Malicious Stupidity' exists for a reason.
-
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL WARNING: Stay off the topic of smokers/non-smokers rights or the thread will get locked and people will get warnings
-
EDIT: A picture of the burning bin in question. It would appear to be the one just outside the shop, which would explain why there was no further damage. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342141922559400&set=a.311120525661540.73734.100002907869025&type=3&theater)
Cardboard sure burns purdy. Corrugated moreso, those ridges create channels for air to move through very well. I remember years ago in Scouts we managed to get fire shooting about twenty feet out of a fifteen foot chimney purely with corrugated cardboard.
-
I remember years ago in Scouts we managed to get fire shooting about twenty feet out of a fifteen foot chimney purely with corrugated cardboard.
*hysterical laughter*
-
A friend of mine bragged how she smoked once.
She is a severe burn victim.
-
A friend of mine bragged how she smoked once.
She is a severe burn victim.
That's hot.
-
Not trying to bring the previous battle back up, but in the spirit of the heavy handed anti smoking laws, New York City has gone above and beyond and banned restaurants from selling sugary drinks larger that 16oz, in an effort to combat obesity. Never underestimate some peoples resolve to try to run your life for you....
-
Not trying to bring the previous battle back up, but in the spirit of the heavy handed anti smoking laws, New York City has gone above and beyond and banned restaurants from selling sugary drinks larger that 16oz, in an effort to combat obesity. Never underestimate some peoples resolve to try to run your life for you....
And people say the stuff Shadowrun suggests is unrealistic. :P
-
Not trying to bring the previous battle back up, but in the spirit of the heavy handed anti smoking laws, New York City has gone above and beyond and banned restaurants from selling sugary drinks larger that 16oz, in an effort to combat obesity. Never underestimate some peoples resolve to try to run your life for you....
And people say the stuff Shadowrun suggests is unrealistic. :P
They say it is unrealistic because they don't want to believe that is the way the world is going - which is very much where it seems to be headed in some ways.
There are all kinds of people that are asking, near to the point of begging, for others to run their life for them - everything from telling restaurants they have to provide the nutritional information on their offerings directly on the menu to strict gun control...
Its all just one giant refusal to accept any personal responsibility - "Oh, me? No, I'm not fat because I refuse to eat right and don't exercise at all. I'm fat because McDonald's is evil and didn't tell me how bad it is for me to eat a double quarter-pounder with extra cheese and a large fry and milkshake for every meal and finish off with a pair of hot apple pies."
...and the whole thing makes me crotchety.
-
And folks wonder why "Sheeple" comes up so often in Cyberpunk Media... ::)
-
on a fun side note, NYC has had a "stop and frisk" policy on the books since the 90's or so. Once the new mayor, who pushed the soda ban, got in office he also had the police doing these "stop and frisks" far more than they had been done in the past. Basically what happens is the cops go into a bad neighborhood and start stopping random people and the street and giving them pat downs. They even had a federal judge say it's not breaking the 4th amendment. That if they aren't doing anything wrong they they shouldn't mind being patted down by the police every once in a while...
"and now it is 1984, a knock knock at your front door... it's the suede denim secret police... they have come for your uncool niece...."
-
"and now it is 1984, a knock knock at your front door... it's the suede denim secret police... they have come for your uncool niece...."
That's California.
(http://michaelazerrad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8347993c469e2015435dd41aa970c-500wi)
On that note I feel really old right now.
-
They say it is unrealistic because they don't want to believe that is the way the world is going - which is very much where it seems to be headed in some ways.
Actually, they say it is unrealistic because the dystopian nature of classic cyberpunk rests on certain assumptions that simply have not borne out - it all comes straight off of the cynic's paradigm, which is about as inaccurate as but far more persistent than the idealist's paradigm. Post-Cyberpunk (which personally I greatly prefer) relaxes from this a bit towards a more realistic standpoint that some things will get better, some things will get worse. Some people will have good intentions and others malicious; ether sort of person can wind up creating either sort of change. That isn't to say that all the dystopian elements should go, but they start to shift toward the absurd if they're the only elements - even the classic dystopian novels are meant to provide a greatly exaggerated idea of where society could hypothetically go in order to frame a particular argument.
Also, requiring food providers to list nutritional information isn't asking someone to run your life for you - it's providing people with the tools needed to make informed decisions; it is on their own head whether or not they make use of those tools.
As for stop and frisk, well, someone's gonna have to appeal that higher. That sort of argument has a pretty heavy precedent of failing, as I recall, so it's really just a case of one judge screwing up/imposing his beliefs and biases upon the system. That's why there are things like en banc reviews.
-
Also, requiring food providers to list nutritional information isn't asking someone to run your life for you - it's providing people with the tools needed to make informed decisions; it is on their own head whether or not they make use of those tools.
I agree with you totally on that sir... packaged food in stores has all that information on it, and it makes life easier to live healthy, but what they have done is decided that sugary drinks (sodas, iced teas and what not) are at fault for making people fat, so they make them illegal. What they are doing is taking away with that is taking away personal responsibility, its not the overweight persons fault for eating to much, it is the sodas fault.
That sort of thinking has been going on for far to long in our country, note all the retarded lawsuits people have won such as suing a fast food joint because they burnt themselves on hot coffee, "oh i didn't know it was hot because the cup didn't say it was hot." Apparently the bulk of people don't know how to be responsible for themselves and these laws and politicians that produce these laws are just enablers.
It hurts my soul knowing that freedom of choice that America's forefathers fought for is being restricted because some people are cant take care of themselves, and law makers are more than happy to jump in a restrict everyone's freedom for the "good" of some people who can't/won't take responsibility for themselves.
As for stop and frisk, well, someone's gonna have to appeal that higher. That sort of argument has a pretty heavy precedent of failing, as I recall, so it's really just a case of one judge screwing up/imposing his beliefs and biases upon the system. That's why there are things like en banc reviews.
the sad thing is this kind of thing has been on their books for nearly 2 decades now, and while there are plenty of lawyers who fight individual cases of it, not very many people seem interested in getting rid of the policy overall because it mainly targets "bad" neighborhoods and "bad" (read youths and minorities) people. Its a slippery slope these fellows are playing on. I may seem like I make more out of it that it should be but once you start giving a little bit, they will start taking as much as they want... all you have to do to see that is look at history..
-
Also, requiring food providers to list nutritional information isn't asking someone to run your life for you - it's providing people with the tools needed to make informed decisions; it is on their own head whether or not they make use of those tools.
I agree with you totally on that sir... packaged food in stores has all that information on it, and it makes life easier to live healthy, but what they have done is decided that sugary drinks (sodas, iced teas and what not) are at fault for making people fat, so they make them illegal. What they are doing is taking away with that is taking away personal responsibility, its not the overweight persons fault for eating to much, it is the sodas fault.
That sort of thinking has been going on for far to long in our country, note all the retarded lawsuits people have won such as suing a fast food joint because they burnt themselves on hot coffee, "oh i didn't know it was hot because the cup didn't say it was hot." Apparently the bulk of people don't know how to be responsible for themselves and these laws and politicians that produce these laws are just enablers.
It hurts my soul knowing that freedom of choice that America's forefathers fought for is being restricted because some people are cant take care of themselves, and law makers are more than happy to jump in a restrict everyone's freedom for the "good" of some people who can't/won't take responsibility for themselves.
As for stop and frisk, well, someone's gonna have to appeal that higher. That sort of argument has a pretty heavy precedent of failing, as I recall, so it's really just a case of one judge screwing up/imposing his beliefs and biases upon the system. That's why there are things like en banc reviews.
the sad thing is this kind of thing has been on their books for nearly 2 decades now, and while there are plenty of lawyers who fight individual cases of it, not very many people seem interested in getting rid of the policy overall because it mainly targets "bad" neighborhoods and "bad" (read youths and minorities) people. Its a slippery slope these fellows are playing on. I may seem like I make more out of it that it should be but once you start giving a little bit, they will start taking as much as they want... all you have to do to see that is look at history..
Totally agree on the first point. However, on the second point... well, frankly, there are bad neighborhoods, and demographic profiling is a real and legitimate tool when used correctly.
Young people are more likely to do something stupid in general, just because they lack the common sense to know better, and (setting aside the socioeconomic complexities of how it came about) there is also a predominance of certain ethnicities among those most likely to be in violation of contraband laws.
To put that in perspective, the same statistical gathering methods say that shoplifting is most commonly done by middle-aged white women who can afford to buy what they're stealing.
-
That sort of thinking has been going on for far to long in our country, note all the retarded lawsuits people have won such as suing a fast food joint because they burnt themselves on hot coffee, "oh i didn't know it was hot because the cup didn't say it was hot." Apparently the bulk of people don't know how to be responsible for themselves and these laws and politicians that produce these laws are just enablers.
It hurts my soul knowing that freedom of choice that America's forefathers fought for is being restricted because some people are cant take care of themselves, and law makers are more than happy to jump in a restrict everyone's freedom for the "good" of some people who can't/won't take responsibility for themselves.
In my not-so-humble opinion we should consider a bunch of these things (Coffee is hot, do not use power drill to pick nose, ect) to be nature's way of killing off idiots. Call it natural selection, thinning the herd, or god's will, if you manage to earn yourself a darwin award by doing something that you really should know better about then it is no-one's fault but your own. Pampering to the terminally stupid WHO ARE NOT RETARDED OR OTHERWISE DISADVANTAGED and letting them live in spite of their efforts at self-termination is no good for anyone, as these idiots will just go out and do something else stupid that may endanger others.
-
Okay, now this is so far off-topic, it's no longer even relevant to the original post. And, we're getting close to politics again in the discussion. So, I'm going to lock this down before tempers flare again. If you feel like starting a new thread, discussing the political situation in the Sixth World, be my guess. Let's leave our political landscape off the forums, though.