Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/23/04 04:57 PM, -poxpower- wrote: well its true. Moraly and socialy, we have no interest at all in smoking. That's a 100% sure and no one can argue with that.

By this logic we should have no interest at all in gambling, in pornography, in alcohol, or most types of recreational activities.

my logic:

1. as a society, we have to strive for a better future

I think Dr. answered similar to how I would.

2. If you leave it up to individuals, they will smoke if they are under no pressure to stop, as they are addicted and cannot stop without an exceptionnaly strong will or moral support

People do stop under no pressure from other people - perhaps once they begin to feel the effects of smoking, or blah blah blah.

3. We need to apply proper pressure so they do no longer smoke. We already started by taking out tobacco companies adds on tv, and by retricting the number of places people can smoke, like hospitals.

The reason cigarette ads are banned from television is because they were marketing to children, in the form of joe camel. Not having ads does nothing to stop people from smoking. It probably stops people from beginning, sure.

And the reason you can't smoke in a hospital is fairly obvious and has no bearing to this debate.

4. If we put in people's head ( might take 10-20 years) that its not ok to smoke in bars and restaurants, they will no longer do so.

Oh? How about we enforce a no-alcohol policy? How about gambling - it's quite destructive?

Wait? Wah? The government can't enforce this crap?

5. Once we have taken out smoking in bars, we can move on further from there and make smoking gradually socially less acceptable until most people quit.

The bulk of people smoking aren't going to quit. And making smoking less socially acceptable could perhaps even raise the cool factor among pubescent teenagers.

Lastly, banning smoking from bars is for the employee's health. It isn't part of some grand scheme to do with creating a fascist state.

so in conclusion, wether its provate property or not, we have, as a society, an interest in not smoking anymore.

We also have an interest in a variety of things that we aren't doing - investing in cleaner sources of power, driving our fucking cars less, excercising more fer chrissakes.

Once these steps are achieved, maybe in 20-30 years, smoking will be no more than a bad dream in our history and we will have benefitted completely.

Idealistic and foolish.

Thinking that smoking in bars should be allowed because they are a private place of business is short-sighted. No future vision at all.

I personally would rather avoid living in a state which imposes it's views of what I should and shouldn't do to relax, to pass the time, to act cool or whatever.

---

At 3/23/04 05:27 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

hum I'm pretty sure suicide is illegal. Which is funny.

Does that have anything to do with whether or not it should be illegal. Should and Is are two different concepts.

OK, so if we all lived happily and healthy, we'd lose our humanity? I don't see how. You're stuck in that gay "humans make mistakes blabla perfect world would be boring because no wars blabla".

I think that if we were forced to live healthy, we would lose our humanity.

And we're not talking about anything but smoking here. STOP TRYING TO AVOID THE SUBJECT WITH ANALOGIES OK!!!!! TALK ABOUT SMOKING AND ONLY ABOUT SMOKING.

I think you don't understand that political issues are not independent of eachother. They are all different manifestations of ideological differences. I am attacking the ideologies that you are using to support smoking because any other method of attack is merely a validation of your fundamental beliefs. The only way, in my experience, to change someones political views is to make them understand the flaws in their personal philosophy.

OK? Or else, I'll go suckup to the mods and admins to have your name permanently changed to Mister Evasion.

Err... I take back everything I said.

---

At 3/23/04 06:54 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: By this logic we should have no interest at all in gambling, in pornography, in alcohol, or most types of recreational activities.

porn and gambling aren't the same, so I won't talk about those.
Alcohool is interesting though. We did have a probabtion at some point, but seems like people insisted on by-passing it. The main difference is, I don't know anyone who "smokes once in a while, for fun" and who can simply stop smoking whenever they want. So that means that when you ban smoking, only the people who are getting harmed by the damn things are affected, but when you ban alcohol, everyone who is able to enjoy it responsibly is fucked. Now I don't know the stats, but I'd say that for every 100 smoker, there might be at most one who can enjoy the stuff responsibly, and even then he probably hangs around other smokers and fucks himself up even more, but for every 100 drinkers, maybe 5 can't restrain themselves and end up with severe liver damage, or cause a car accident.

so: if no one smokes, no one's loss, if no one drinks, lot of people's loss

People do stop under no pressure from other people - perhaps once they begin to feel the effects of smoking, or blah blah blah.

?

The reason cigarette ads are banned from television is because they were marketing to children, in the form of joe camel. Not having ads does nothing to stop people from smoking. It probably stops people from beginning, sure.

yeah. They can't stop because they're frickin hooked. Now what if we move a step further and make it so people who actually do begin smoking have a harder time doing it because there are less and less places for them to smoke. Wouldn't that help them quit? Is there a smoker who doesn't want to quit??? They don't "choose" to smoke a 100%, they have cravings for the stuff. So isn't it all benefit in the end? They get to stop smoking and they can enjoy a smoke-free bar with their friends and that won't tempt them all the time.

And the reason you can't smoke in a hospital is fairly obvious and has no bearing to this debate.

Well they use to smoke in classrooms in college. I'm sure they use to smoke in hospitals as well. Probably not in operation rooms, but maybe sometimes in patient's rooms and crap like that. We were a lot more tolerant 20 years ago towards smokers. Ever heard of those people dying of lung cancer and who DEMAND to have a cigarette anyways? And they let them ( sometimes). Ewwwww.

4. If we put in people's head ( might take 10-20 years) that its not ok to smoke in bars and restaurants, they will no longer do so.

Oh? How about we enforce a no-alcohol policy? How about gambling - it's quite destructive?

oops starting to go into the analogies again. Gambling isn't the same kind of problem as I explained before, and alcohool is probably much less addictive, and easier to enjoy moderatly. Plus it doesn't harm others around you. So I think we can definately say that smoking is worse than drinking, when you look at it.

The bulk of people smoking aren't going to quit. And making smoking less socially acceptable could perhaps even raise the cool factor among pubescent teenagers.

How do you know the bulk of people aren't going to quit? Maybe it will help a good deal of them quit, or reduce their smoking considerably. Now for the young people, we have to do more add campaigns aimed towards them. If you tell them that they are being maniulated by tobacco companies, they'll bite and will protest. It worked in Florida ( after a campaign started by teens, and financed by the tobaccos industries as a penalty ( lol), the number of teens who smoked in schools went down by 19% in a single year! imagine 20!), and if it worked there, it can surely work ANYWHERE.

Lastly, banning smoking from bars is for the employee's health. It isn't part of some grand scheme to do with creating a fascist state.

Why not? As I said, you can't really force people to stop from one day to another, but you can surely choke the life out of the tobacco companies and put it in people's head that smoking is fucking gay. You're just being pessimistic and denying the innerent good of having a smoke-free world. How can the world be a worst place if there are no more people dying and wasting money on those fucking things??

I see it as a first step towards improving the world.

We also have an interest in a variety of things that we aren't doing - investing in cleaner sources of power, driving our fucking cars less, excercising more fer chrissakes.

Yeah, and that we SHOULD be doing.

Idealistic and foolish.

worth a try

I personally would rather avoid living in a state which imposes it's views of what I should and shouldn't do to relax, to pass the time, to act cool or whatever.

you already do dimwit. You think all this advertising around you doesn't affect you? It does. It shapes every person who lives in the states and imposes the basic rules of what is wrong and what is right. In fact your parents also do, and schools as well. Even that notion, that "freedom before everything" crap has been passed onto you by society. Its a sort of soft totalitarism.
If you had been raised in a country in which smoking was banned, you'd think "lol I sure wouldn't want to live in a country in which people can smoke everywhere! Its disgusting".
THAT'S what you'd be thinking, not "omg i wish I could smoke, even though everyone knows its the equivalent of jamming money every day into my nostrils right up to my brain.

---

At 3/23/04 07:54 PM, -poxpower- wrote: porn and gambling aren't the same, so I won't talk about those.

But they are the same. People become addicted to them. Neither contributes anything redeemable to society. How are they not the same as smoking? They are social ills.

Alcohool is interesting though. We did have a probabtion at some point, but seems like people insisted on by-passing it.

You think people wouldn't bypass whatever fag-free world you envision?

The main difference is, I don't know anyone who "smokes once in a while, for fun" and who can simply stop smoking whenever they want.

I smoke perhaps a cigar ever other month, on average. Of course, I'm not an 'average smoker'. You are keeping the conversation to fags, but many people casually smoke cigars and pipe tobacco. Let's expand.

So that means that when you ban smoking, only the people who are getting harmed by the damn things are affected, but when you ban alcohol, everyone who is able to enjoy it responsibly is fucked. *made-up statistics.*

Naw, everyone would be effected by a smoking ban. Smoking-related illnesses are a tremendous drain, just in economical terms. Everyone would benefit.

so: if no one smokes, no one's loss, if no one drinks, lot of people's loss

They would just have to deal with it, like the smokers.

?

Some people already do quit without someone bitching at them too and without the gov't illegalising it.

yeah. They can't stop because they're frickin hooked. Now what if we move a step further and make it so people who actually do begin smoking have a harder time doing it because there are less and less places for them to smoke. Wouldn't that help them quit?

It would just make them more irritable. You have to face reality. Is this ban on smoking in bars stopping people from smoking? No, they go and stand out in the rain and smoke.

Is there a smoker who doesn't want to quit???

The cool ones.

They get to stop smoking and they can enjoy a smoke-free bar with their friends and that won't tempt them all the time.

Smoking is recreational in addition to being an addictive habit. It helps you enjoy a bar. It's something to do with your hands while drinking and socializing. It's just another vice like.. say, driving recklessly.

I'm sure they use to smoke in hospitals as well.

Yes, they used to. But then they realized that they were really just fucking up their patients more.

We were a lot more tolerant 20 years ago towards smokers.

20 years ago the companies still refused to acknowledge the risks. So?

Ever heard of those people dying of lung cancer and who DEMAND to have a cigarette anyways? And they let them ( sometimes). Ewwwww.

Why not? They're dying.

oops starting to go into the analogies again. Gambling isn't the same kind of problem as I explained before,

It's a social vice that destroys people's lives, wrecks households, etc. So what if it theoretically doesn't harm the person sitting next to you?

and alcohool is probably much less addictive, and easier to enjoy moderatly.

It is. So? Cocaine is less addictive than today's manufactured fags. Pharmecuticals(sp) are easier to enjoy moderately. And?

Plus it doesn't harm others around you. So I think we can definately say that smoking is worse than drinking, when you look at it.

Economically-speaking, we all pay for someone w/o insurance who ends up in the hospital with liver disease. It doesn't harm others around you physically unless the alcoholic does something while under the influence.

How can you define one vice as worse than another? It depends on the person....

How do you know the bulk of people aren't going to quit?

Historical evidence? Tobacco has been a custom of many civilizations for hundreds of years.

Now for the young people, we have to do more add campaigns aimed towards them. If you tell them that they are being maniulated by tobacco companies, they'll bite and will protest.

They won't see how they're being manipulated by the government instead? Damn, they're stupid.

It worked in Florida ( after a campaign started by teens, and financed by the tobaccos industries as a penalty ( lol), the number of teens who smoked in schools went down by 19%

Who smoked in the schools?

You're just being pessimistic and denying the innerent good of having a smoke-free world.

No, I'm denying the existence of a large, fascist conspiracy.

How can the world be a worst place if there are no more people dying and wasting money on those fucking things??

In the same vein, wouldn't the world be a better place if people stopped spending money on porn, designer clothes, and Mercedes SUVs?

Does this mean it's the government's responsibility to do this?

I see it as a first step towards improving the world.

I see it as another step towards a totalitarian form of government. So?

you already do dimwit. You think all this advertising around you doesn't affect you? It does.

What advertising? These hentai banners? I've actually never clicked on one - and I still think it's pretty lame.

Also the government [state] doesn't impose these hentai banners on me.

It shapes every person who lives in the states and imposes the basic rules of what is wrong and what is right. In fact your parents also do, and schools as well.

I said the state.

Even that notion, that "freedom before everything" crap has been passed onto you by society.

I am very far from being a libertarian. I find "freedom" as well as "democracy" to be way overrated. But this is all besides the point.

If you had been raised in a country in which smoking was banned, you'd think "lol I sure wouldn't want to live in a country in which people can smoke everywhere! Its disgusting".

I live in a country where homosexual marriages are thought of as disgusting.
I live in a country where marijuana use is thought of as extremely wrongful.
I live in a country where social programs that help people are labeled the more negative term 'welfare' while corporations enjoy 'subsidies'.

Guess what? My immediate family and friends had more of an impact than the state-level politics of the day.

THAT'S what you'd be thinking, not "omg i wish I could smoke, even though everyone knows its the equivalent of jamming money every day into my nostrils right up to my brain.

Actually, I think I would be railing against such a tyrannical system.

---

At 3/23/04 06:13 AM, -poxpower- wrote:
Yeah you're right. I now realise how stupid I have been. People should be allowed to do anything in america, because its freedom! I should have the right to give my children cancer by smoking in their faces dammit! I should have the right to open a bar in which I permit underage sex and drinking and where I sell drugs, its MY BAR, MY RULES. I mean why the hell would I ever drive on the the right side of the road? I enjoy the scenery more on the left side, and ITS FREEDOM, ok! No one has the right to tell me on which side of the road I should drive. I mean, why the hell did we illegalise hard drugs anyways? Its not like they kill you instantly, it takes a couple years to fuck you up real good, that's plenty of time to enjoy them at their fullest. And like, FREEDOM. I can do what I want. I should be able to shoot people I don't like because I have freedom, and they should have the right to hunt down my kids and family for revenge, because its freedom!

You are a fucking idiot and use horrible analogies that dont apply to the situation at all, i have done the same thing before but damn man thats just pathetic.

People should be able to do anything as long as it doesnt infringe on others, personal freedom is the most important thing, and that includes other peoples freedom, so you cant murder nor could you blow smoke in someones face in public. Permit underage sex huh? what do you mean by that...lets see
case 1 - 2 people consentually under the age of 18 and within a reasonable age of each other (lets make it something arbitrary like 3 years) i dont think that would be allowed to be openly viewed, but in private ok.
case 2 - 1 above 18 1 below, that depends on the sex laws, which i cant say would be the fairest and all, a good standard would be 16 - 22 are all legal with each other...but cant be in an exhibition or pornography setting, they are at a consentual age for sex but not adult entertainment, ok...
case 3 - for exhibition/porn well thats obviously going to run into problems concerning when you consider someone an adult but i find this analogy extremely irrelevant to freedom. Dipshit

Which side of the road...how about the on that would ensure the safety of other drives...

sell drugs...ok, but not to minors, unless laws concerning parential authority are changed.
Im fine with legal hard drugs, where do you develop these arbitrary and pointless statements anyway.

hmm murder...wouldnt that infringe on others rights...wait i think it does oh therefore it doesnt apply

You don't grasp the concept of freedom. You're a fucktard. You're like that moron in Bowling for Columbine who's all like "we have the right to bear arms!! right to bear arms!!!!!" and the Michael Moore asks him "so should you be able to have gray plutonim, nuclear weapons, stuff like that?" and then he goes "well that should be restricted!".
"oh, so you DO believe in some restriction!"
" YEAH! There are wackos out there!!!!"

i would own nukes if i could...but im fine with arms being reduced to small arms, given that large arms arent necessary for the true purpose of bearing arms, a revolution against illegitimate government.

you a moron. You can't draw lines logically. You can't debate this issue properly. You're like most everyone else in this thread who has just avoided every real point and come back to "freedom of private property" with no real arguments at all.

What the hell are you talking about now? Christ you're a moron just sit there like a dipshit and do what others tell you ok, think when ordered to, there must be a set program for these kids.

Its because of idiots like you that it took 10 years to enforce the wearing of seatbelts in cars, and its because of idiots like you that it took 15 years to make people stop smoking in classrooms and schools. You have no future vision.

i dont wear my seatbelt and i wouldnt care if people had smoking areas in high schools. What seatbelts are part of the grand plan for a perfect society? grow up and worry about something important like improving education and promoting literacy and critical thinking. Not making others choices that dont hurt non-consensual people illegal.

---

At 3/23/04 05:27 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

And we're not talking about anything but smoking here. STOP TRYING TO AVOID THE SUBJECT WITH ANALOGIES OK!!!!! TALK ABOUT SMOKING AND ONLY ABOUT SMOKING.

well if he could create an identical construct to your argument and end with a pointless or illogical conclusion then it can be assumed your argument is invalid...

---

Are you willing to make many of the poorest Americans criminals. If smoking is made illegal, you would create a new group of law breakers (smokers), and create a new form of high dollar smugglers. It would be just like the war on drugs, and achieve nothing.

---

At 3/24/04 02:44 AM, Vowl wrote: Are you willing to make many of the poorest Americans criminals. If smoking is made illegal, you would create a new group of law breakers (smokers), and create a new form of high dollar smugglers. It would be just like the war on drugs, and achieve nothing.

thats not the point, it is wrong because the government shouldn't make a lack of personal safety illegal

---

At 3/24/04 02:47 AM, miket311 wrote:

At 3/24/04 02:44 AM, Vowl wrote:

thats not the point, it is wrong because the government shouldn't make a lack of personal safety illegal

It is still a valid point. An alternative argument.

---

At 3/24/04 02:23 AM, miket311 wrote:

I have only one thing to say to you: Be more like Red_Skvnk

tard

---

At 3/23/04 08:54 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: But they are the same. People become addicted to them. Neither contributes anything redeemable to society. How are they not the same as smoking? They are social ills.

like I explained, they are l slightly different. I'm not saying that because something can have bad effects, its a social ill that should be taken away, I'm saying that in the case of cigarettes, they are way more bad than good and that for this particular social ill, we'd be better of without it, and it wouldn't really piss anyone off. We would look back and think "what the hell, smoking???". But not with alcohol like I explained.

You think people wouldn't bypass whatever fag-free world you envision?

I'm not that gay. But its way easier to weaken the tobacco industry if you manage to screw with their consumer base. I think that if 0,1% of people smoke illegaly or whatever ( if it EVER become illegal to smoke in most places and to sell smokes, which would be cool) its way better than if 15% smokes legally. Way better. Like if you legalise hard drugs. I don't think it would be a really great thing to do.
Thing is, with these steps taken, we have a shot at reducing significantly smokers, and I just don't see how that is bad.

I smoke perhaps a cigar ever other month, on average. Of course, I'm not an 'average smoker'. You are keeping the conversation to fags, but many people casually smoke cigars and pipe tobacco. Let's expand.

Cigars aren't the same apparently. Cigarettes are like the fast food of smoking. They're basically poisonous little shits. They're like stingin yourself with bees for fun. O.o
I think that if we make enough laws, we might get it in people's heads that smoking is a "from time to time" pleasurable thing, not a "smoke 2 packs a day because you're addicted" thing. And for that, I think we have to get rid of cigarettes, or make the reduce the amount of harfmul and addictive crap they put in them. I think its been proven enough times that they do EVERYTHING they can to ensure people will get hooked ASAP after they try it. They don't want people to enjoy their product, they want people to need their product.

I'm not trying to ban all forms of smoking forever, its just that usually when I talk about smoking, I'm talking about the people who smoke a lot of cigarettes every day. I think that 5+ per day qualifies you as " owned by the tobacco industry".

They would just have to deal with it, like the smokers.

Yeah. I don't know how hard it is to stop drinking though. But at least its not proven that beer compagnies delibaretly put harmful chemicals in their products to addict people. Drinking a beer per day is always pleasurable. As would be smoking a cigar I guess. But people seem to have a hard time not getting addicted to cigarettes.

Some people already do quit without someone bitching at them too and without the gov't illegalising it.

Yeah, like I said, you either need a strong will, and even then... or social and moral support. I don't think lots of people quit "just like that". They probably have people around them looking at them funny every time they light a smoke in public, or maybe they have children and don't want to set a bad example. Ya know.

It would just make them more irritable. You have to face reality. Is this ban on smoking in bars stopping people from smoking? No, they go and stand out in the rain and smoke.

Well first, like I said, you have to do this gradually, so that people start smoking less and less over the years. A good way to do this is to make it harder to find places to smoke, and to find places to FIND smokes. But its harder to restrict sales before you restrict comsunption. SO when people will be stuck either smoking outside or at home, then we can see what the numbers have to say, and then we can maybe take furter action to reduce the amount of places you can buy that crap. Of course people will always fret, because short-term, its not economically good, and its hard to do and yapyap.
But I think we seriously need to have more of a "long-term" kinds thinking in politics and in life in general, because we like long, and if we continue to live carelessly, we'll lose a lot. So we have to stop thinking in terms of days and weeks, we have to think in years.

The cool ones.

you can't be cool without people to tell you how cool you are. When they are the only ones to smoke, they'll ne a lot less cool, let me tell you that.

Smoking is recreational in addition to being an addictive habit. It helps you enjoy a bar. It's something to do with your hands while drinking and socializing.

Yes, that's where the problem lies. Its a little "plus". But its too hard to control and too detrimental. Maybe research can prove that I dunno, cigars are less damageable or something. If they made some regulations to ensure that people can only smoke the less dangerous and less addictive stuff, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

Yes, they used to. But then they realized that they were really just fucking up their patients more.

....
hahahaa "yeah, they use to smoke, but then they just realised that they where fucking themselves more".

20 years ago the companies still refused to acknowledge the risks.

yeah, and it was damn hard to make them admit their crap is well.. crap. And once that was done, it was hard as fuck to get people to change their habits. And its going to be hard as fuck to keep going with that, but some cities ( i.e. the one I live in) are planning to make the whole city "smoke-free" by banning smoking from many places. Once they are enough of these cities, it'll be easier. The first steps are always the hardest. It took like 80 years to prove their products is dangerous and to get it in people's head, maybe it will take 40 to make people quit smoking for the most part.

Why not? They're dying.

The saddest part is that sometimes, they are acutally recovering from a lung surgery and they smoke O.O
sad.

---

It's a social vice that destroys people's lives, wrecks households, etc. So what if it theoretically doesn't harm the person sitting next to you?

Ok
Gambling offers a chance of gain. So if you gamble, you can actually win something. Smoking, you only lose. Also, you can't gamble everywhere, there are places for that, so that helps people keep in check.
Saddly, gambling is addictive and economically harmful. A casino oppened in my city a few years ago, and the gambling problems and number of stories of sad fucks who lost everything were seen a lot more in papers. Now we could ban casinos, but, like alcohol, they can offer a fun evening if you can moderate yourself, so that would sort of piss lots of people off. But we can regualte state-owned casinos more, and that's what's happening.

So although similar, gambling and smoking are different. Gambling is closer to alcohol. I always try to view it from a "if there was no...." viewpoint.

It is. So?

and so, that's a reason we shouldn't be ban alcohol but we should ban smoking O.o

Economically-speaking, we all pay for someone w/o insurance who ends up in the hospital with liver disease. It doesn't harm others around you physically unless the alcoholic does something while under the influence.

I know. But its not a 100% thing. Smoking around people who don't smoke it just rude, but not drinking a martini in their faces. Now of course, I'm not saying alcohol doesn't cause serious social problems, so maybe there should be more rules, like raising the prices of the alcohol you buy in grocery stores, so people have to go to bars to enjoy a cheap drink. Its pretty hard to make people stop drinking alone and beat their wives.
But even with all this crap, its still better than cigarettes. And like I said, easier to enjoy in moderation, and that'd where the key difference lies.
And we can't do everythin at once and we can't jam ourselves by always making analogies like that. Fuck "ok we need to decide, what's worse: dying of lung cancer, or dying of liver cancer..hmmm ok we can't decide so we won't regulate either smokes or booze". We won't get far like that.
We need to make a list of things that should change and change them. I think that smoking is worse than drinking, not by a whole lot, but enough to warrant regulations RIGHT NOW.

How can you define one vice as worse than another? It depends on the person....

You can as a society. You can't work this problem on a person-to-person basis. I mean you can't say "ok man, you can't gamble anymore, we're taking your gambling liscence away".
Hey wait, that's not a bad idea. Lol

Historical evidence? Tobacco has been a custom of many civilizations for hundreds of years.

not cigarettes

They won't see how they're being manipulated by the government instead? Damn, they're stupid.

Not if the campaign is done by teens, like it was done in florida

Who smoked in the schools?

everyone. My teacher told me that when he started teaching ( we're talking about college here, not elemtary or high school, altough I'm sure teachers use to smoke in kids faces anyways) back in like 1985, the whole room was filled with smoke. He smoked and a lot of students did as well. O.O Can you imagine this today? See how our mentalities have change over 15 years?

In the same vein, wouldn't the world be a better place if people stopped spending money on porn, designer clothes, and Mercedes SUVs?

no more analogies. smoke is bad, period

Does this mean it's the government's responsibility to do this?

shoule be.
But not likely to happen. Unless we change out mentality. Now, its ok for a rich fuck to drive around in a 200k thousand car, but if we get it in people's head that its not, they wont accept it. Of course there's the problem of differenct income and social class etc etc but let's not get into this.
Let's just say that I'm for more intervention from the governement.

I see it as another step towards a totalitarian form of government. So?

Short term again. If ( so many ifs) people were more into politics, they wouldn't accept their REAL freedom taken away. "freedom to smoke" is like a perverted vision of freedom. Its odious. Smoking is bad mmmmkay, and if we take it away, well good fucking riddance. It doesn't mean its going to be easier to have people marked with bar codes and shit.

What advertising? These hentai banners? I've actually never clicked on one - and I still think it's pretty lame.

lol
but you now know what hentai is, its now part of your culture, like it or not. Same with "the perfect woman". 400 years ago, the perfect women wasn't the same. But companies have found an interest is constantly showing people what being "beautiful" is, so much that people have come to accept it! Now don't think I like fat ugly girls, I'm just saying that our definition of "perfect" has been mostly given to us by advertising. Showing people over and over and over what your should look like. I guarantee you that if companies decided that "short hair" was more beautiful than long hair, they could make it accepted within 20 years, maybe even less. Then everyone would like girls with short hair more, and girls wouldn't let their hair grow.

Guaranteed.

Also the government [state] doesn't impose these hentai banners on me.

hum... .....I don't get it.

I said the state.

.... I don't quite get your reasoning at this point. The state shouldn't tell us what to do, but tv should?

anyways we're straying.

---

At 3/24/04 05:27 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

I have only one thing to say to you: Be more like Red_Skvnk

tard

never!