Control freak's in america make me sick.

Originally posted by TheAmused
Yet they come to ATS acting like a concerned citizen..
Saying..NO..Spewing hatred and Discontent toward HUMAN BEING'S..
LIKE...
smoker's should be tried for unfit parent's.
fat people should loose the right to healthcare
drunk's are not people but a shell and not worth pity.

I understand where you're coming from and agree completely. Just wanna touch up on this. Healthcare isn't a right.
But my aunt did fine in raising a child, as did plenty of my friends' parents. The only one I've seen is the Smoker's thread, didn't read it. I think it's OK for people to post things like this, but yes, it is weird that at a site like this people still want to put others down for their lifestyles. When people state absolutes that in now way describes the general populace, it's easy to spot and ignore. You make a good point, so I'll give you a blue star for today.

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
reply to post by hadriana

 

To each their own. You can be a vampire, atheist, liberal, conservative, Muslim, Christian, Satanist, witch, smoker, overweight, smoke any herb you want to, eat any food you want to - I don't care, just leave me alone.

Just leave me alone eh? Well guess what smart guy, each one of those groups want to control what you do and what they are allowed to do. Do you not realize the rules of psychology when it concerns the human mind? Each one of these groups thinks that they are right and that others are wrong. Each one of these groups is diametrically opposed to the other groups.

Let’s all just get along eh? Does history state this as the norm? Of course not. Each one of these minorities changes the laws in their favor when they reach the majority. Should you be forced to be a satanic living in a satanic state? Should you be forced to live under Shari law? In history, each of these groups has always sought to control all other opposing religions and ideologies.

Only fools think that there has ever been, or will ever be, a state of peace between disunities. The Muslims attack the Christians. In response, the Christians embark on the crusades against the Muslims. Human nature has not changed since the dawn of man. Cain killed Able and lied to God about it. It is only the fools who falsely hope that opposed groups will choose peace instead of war. Each country, and each group of people of vastly differing groups, lives in a semi-permanent state of ceasefire so long as angers do not flair and the injustices performed against one another remain hidden from view and disguised by clever planning. Then, when evil deeds are discovered on either side, angers enflame the truths of their opposing differences and war and or civil unrest ensues. Rioters loot, pillage, rape, and murder their chosen enemies with unrivaled veracity, showing the world how insane, sociopathic, and evil many groups within any given society have become.

Only fools tolerate others within their midst’s who voice and demonstrate that anyone who thinks differently than they do is the enemy. Is Iran loving friends with Isreal? Of course not. And so, any given nation on earth at this moment is a volcano bulging forth its sides, waiting for a dramatic enough catalyst to come along and trigger the explosions of the differing groups rage against those who foolishly thought that the smoldering volcano in their midst’s was benign and harmless. And so, history repeats itself, and the lessons once learned long ago are relearned again by the wounded and shattered if they should survive the onslaught of their enemies.

All societies are in a struggle for dominance of ideologies. To ignore this fact, is the ideology of the foolish. The strong majority will lord it over the weaker minority. It has been and will always be this way. To ignore the pervasive and degenerative actions and beliefs of others who are opposed to your beliefs is the mark of the weak and foolish who enentually become the slaves of other wills.

edit on 22-2-2011 by Hot_Wings because: grammer

After reading this post, I must say, there is no hope in any hope of anything anywhere.
Lets just get rid of all types of overseas travel, everybody go back to whatever country to where their roots takes
them and stay there.
Then everyone would be able to get along with themselves, who am I kidding, they would just end up fighting with each other and there own kind. And we're right back to square one.

Originally posted by PlanterZ

Originally posted by TheAmused

smoker's should be tried for unfit parent's.
fat people should loose the right to healthcare
drunk's are not people but a shell and not worth pity.

I'm sorry, I know this if off topic, but allow me to rant. Since when is everyone using apostrophes to make things plural? That really doesn't belong there. Smoker - Smokers, not "Smoker is", which is what smoker's is.

I don't understand how so much of the internet can follow this trend so quickly. Guys, to make a noun plural, just add an s. No need for an apostrophe.


BTW, I agree with you. S&F

edit on 21-2-2011 by PlanterZ because: (no reason given)

Actually, you're wrong, Einstein. The apostrophe shows possession. If it is a singular possession, like the collar of the dog, it would be "the dog's collar". If it were a plural posession, the apostrophe goes on the end, like the collars of the dogs would be "the dogs' collars".

So, I suggest the next time you decide to flog and flaunt, you get your s*it in one sock before hand, or I'll have to sick the dogs on you.

Thank you!
That smoking thread got me all worked up. What ever happened to threads that weren't just random ranting and opinions? If it doesn't have any validity or reasoning why even post it?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I think that simile is unfair because the punch will instantly damage someone, whereas a single blast of smoke is not likely to cause any damage.

The principle behind the simile is true.

Inhaling the smoke from cigarettes is potentially harmful, and while one-off exposure to the fumes would probably only very negligibly raise your statistical chances of getting certain cancers, the fact still remains that not inhaling the smoke would be beneficial to those who don't have a choice in the selfish and anti-social behaviour of public smokers.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Walking along a main road you will be exposed to more damaging fumes.

You may be damaged by exhaust fumes from vehicles, but this regular line of argument from pro-smokers is faulty for two reasons:

Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. Citing an example of one thing that is potentially hazardous to a person's health is not a justification for allowing a different activity that has similar negative effects on people.

Secondly, cars have a practical benefit. They may let off some noxious fumes, but they also offer many benefits to society. Maybe if you had an accident, you would be happy for a horse and carriage ambulance to pick you up !

Smoking is entirely about self-gratification, and consequently, people should confine this activity to a time and place where it can not effect others.

I indulge in the odd smoke of a cigarette or cigar from time to time, but only when I'm alone and on my own property.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
However this is the reason it was banned in places like pubs and restruants because the stuff accumulates.

However i think the laws are draconian, it should have been left to the landlords to decide if their pub was a smoking or non smoking establishment.

I agree with you on this point.

I believe that pubs and restaurants should not be banned from permitting smoking on their premises.

As private companies, it should be up to the owners to decide on this, and up to their potential employees and clientele to decide whether they are willing to work for/patronise the particular establishment.

As long as they make it clear whether they are a smoking or non-smoking business, then I don't see a problem with this.

reply to post by hawaii50th


It was not my intention to destroy your hope. There is definitely hope for relative peace and tranquility, as we have seen in America for many years now. But this relative peace and tranquility comes not from the flawed logic of “Let’s all get along”. Our relative peace and tranquility comes through unity and strength. It is that we understand and accept fundamentally the truths that I previously described and do something about it.

Our way of life was granted to us by three things, freedom, Christian morality and laws, and military strength. These are where we have come from and where we must remain in order to avoid conflict and enjoy a relative peace. It is not that we ignore the truths of life, it is that we remain united against our aggressors and not lose focus upon these truths of life. This is why I have repeated them here, because many are choosing to state that they do not exist and are splitting into the factions of disunity that will enable our unified enemies to destroy us
.
It is not that you stand upon the side and say, “Just don’t bother me.” That is the fool’s way that always leads to utter doom. It is that you stand for what you believe and unite with others of your beliefs and not lose sight of responsibilities of our nation and its freedoms and relative tranquility. You must stand up for what is right.

If you smoke, stop. Do not justify your wrongs and claim to be good parents and stewards of home and country by being excusive and belligerent. If you are Christian than stand for Christianity and do not say it is not my problem to confront other ideologies and those who want to promote them. Your belief that nothing matters so long as it does not affect you is precisely the philosophy that will enable everyone else to seize control of the position of policy that you have vacated and the results of which will affect you down the hundredth generation.

reply to post by TheAmused


I completely agree. That thread about smokers made me sick as well as the others like it. I would like freedom, and I'm hoping that every other human being wants freedom as well. However, I'm beginning to think that we as a race are being brainwashed to worship control.

That is one of the worse things possible. It is simply not natural for people to cry out to be enslaved. It is much less worry-some when people are enslaved and are complaining about it, wanting freedom.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I think that simile is unfair because the punch will instantly damage someone, whereas a single blast of smoke is not likely to cause any damage.

The principle behind the simile is true.

Inhaling the smoke from cigarettes is potentially harmful, and while one-off exposure to the fumes would probably only very negligibly raise your statistical chances of getting certain cancers, the fact still remains that not inhaling the smoke would be beneficial to those who don't have a choice in the selfish and anti-social behaviour of public smokers.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Walking along a main road you will be exposed to more damaging fumes.

You may be damaged by exhaust fumes from vehicles, but this regular line of argument from pro-smokers is faulty for two reasons:

Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. Citing an example of one thing that is potentially hazardous to a person's health is not a justification for allowing a different activity that has similar negative effects on people.

Secondly, cars have a practical benefit. They may let off some noxious fumes, but they also offer many benefits to society. Maybe if you had an accident, you would be happy for a horse and carriage ambulance to pick you up !

Smoking is entirely about self-gratification, and consequently, people should confine this activity to a time and place where it can not effect others.

I indulge in the odd smoke of a cigarette or cigar from time to time, but only when I'm alone and on my own property.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
However this is the reason it was banned in places like pubs and restruants because the stuff accumulates.

However i think the laws are draconian, it should have been left to the landlords to decide if their pub was a smoking or non smoking establishment.

I agree with you on this point.

I believe that pubs and restaurants should not be banned from permitting smoking on their premises.

As private companies, it should be up to the owners to decide on this, and up to their potential employees and clientele to decide whether they are willing to work for/patronise the particular establishment.

As long as they make it clear whether they are a smoking or non-smoking business, then I don't see a problem with this.

are u frikkin #tin me? 2 wrongs don't make a right?

walking along a road with mucho cars is better?

my marlboro is worse that the freakin desiel busses lined up? lolololol!!

i've been to many countries and find it odd that they have whacked out smoking laws opposed to human rights laws.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You may be damaged by exhaust fumes from vehicles, but this regular line of argument from pro-smokers is faulty for two reasons:

I'm not a pro smoker, i don't smoke, have never smoked and i don't think people should.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Firstly, two wrongs do not make a right. Citing an example of one thing that is potentially hazardous to a person's health is not a justification for allowing a different activity that has similar negative effects on people.

No but it is merely one example, i can give you a number of others which eventually lead to harm to other people. Consider obesity, the amount of money spent on people who are obese cuts money from other essential health services and impacts everyone in society. Does this mean we should tax fat people?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Secondly, cars have a practical benefit. They may let off some noxious fumes, but they also offer many benefits to society. Maybe if you had an accident, you would be happy for a horse and carriage ambulance to pick you up !

I would argue cigarrettes have a practical benefit. Firstly they raise taxes which can be spent in other areas, smokers will often pay double the healthcare costs they use. Secondly it does appear smokers are people who need something to relax them, they are basically self medicating, just like alcoholics.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Smoking is entirely about self-gratification, and consequently, people should confine this activity to a time and place where it can not effect others.

And generally they do keep it to themselves, you are correct it is about self gratification but it's also self medication. Some people meditate (like me) others smoke.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I indulge in the odd smoke of a cigarette or cigar from time to time, but only when I'm alone and on my own property.

That is generally how it goes in the UK as well. Occasionally you walk past someone in the street but it's maybe twice a day for me, i somehow doubt it's impacting my health.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I agree with you on this point.

I believe that pubs and restaurants should not be banned from permitting smoking on their premises.

I knew we could agree on something somewhere

You have my Vote.
I just skip't those post.
my mother and father smoket and my health is ok.

it is just a step in to controle us all.
like not leting low IQ have babys.
will it end us as only those with IQ's over 100 can have babys?

adolf hitler is alive and well.

reply to post by TheAmused

Control freak's in america make me sick

Control freaks in America make you sick, eh?

But you're OK with control freaks in Europe or Asia or Africa or.....???

Those places must not have any control freaks, eh?
I see.

Well, freaks that single out America for their petty peeves make me sick.

reply to post by PlanterZ


Please allow me to rant...... but I cant stand people typing I SEEN its I saw.

reply to post by TheAmused

Let's not forget to pay hommage to the Religious zealot's who have inflitrated ATS, spewing hate against...well, just about everything.

I still and have always felt they are desperatly grasping at straws because they are running out of steam. More and more people are starting to pay attention to what's going on and are beginning to do their own research.

Great point OP.

reply to post by TheAmused


Yea , I just left another thread about smoking , and one of the members had a closing argument that said :

"I see smoking as a slow form of suicide , and suicide is against the law ."

I didn't comment on it , as I didn't want to get into a debate about how absurd that statement came across to me . But , am I the only one who can see how absurd and ludicrous that statement is ?

Talk about control-freak types of mindset ...

Can anyone explain to me what punishment the government would dole out to someone who has committed suicide ?

And yes , you're right , this same member is well-established when it comes to pointing out all the ill-conceived machinations of TPTB .

All I could do was shake my head and move along ...

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by TheAmused

 

Control freak's in america make me sick

Control freaks in America make you sick, eh?

But you're OK with control freaks in Europe or Asia or Africa or.....???

Those places must not have any control freaks, eh?
I see.

Well, freaks that single out America for their petty peeves make me sick.

I live in America..
Therefore i can not speak for other countries i do not live in or have never lived in.
Makes sense doesn't it?

I can't claim to know a thing about those people or how control freakish they are.
I can only speak for the American freaks

reply to post by ReRun

maybe a death sentence to suicide victims ?

yeah made no sense lol

Yeah you can abort a baby fetus that had no choice.
Because it's the woman's body to do with as she choice's..

But suicide is illegal WTF LOL

Originally posted by TheAmused
Even if smoking is nasty to you..it is there right to smoke.
just like if fat people make you sick ...it's there right to eat all they want as they can afford.
and same goes for the drunk.
and so on and so on.

Except that here in Canada, with public funded health care these DO become my problem, even if indirectly.

Your fat? You have over 3 times the health problems as a normal, fit person. This means much greater risks of high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, to name a few. Why does this concern me? Because i pay our of my tax dollars to fix their problems. I pay for their hospital says, medicine, doctors visits, operations and more.

You smoke around your children? You can pass on second hand smoke issues to them. I was a smoker, but the day i found out my wife was pregnant with our daughter i quit. I did not want to be a bad influence or a health hazard to my child. People who do smoke around their children should be criminally responsible for any health hazards incured upon them.

The alcoholics medical issues are mine too, as again i pay to have their livers replaced and so much more.

Its not as black and white as you see it.

reply to post by nightbringr


right! and you're as healthy as a frikkin horse.

good for you. i can loose weight but you can't get smarter.

i never predict when people die anymore but you should get another prostate exam.

reply to post by fooks


Wow, that was very hostile! Can i assume then from your post since you are insulting me directly you are an overweight, out of shape smoker and alcoholic who has no problem smoking around his or her children?

And id assume from the lack of proper use of case in your post YOUR the one with the lack of intelligence.

You sir should pay an idiot tax.

And yes, i am as healthy as a friggin horse. I go to the gym 5 times a week for over 5 years now. I snowboard in the winter and bike weekly in the summer and pride myself on my physical fitness.

Originally posted by General.Lee

Originally posted by PlanterZ

Originally posted by TheAmused

smoker's should be tried for unfit parent's.
fat people should loose the right to healthcare
drunk's are not people but a shell and not worth pity.

I'm sorry, I know this if off topic, but allow me to rant. Since when is everyone using apostrophes to make things plural? That really doesn't belong there. Smoker - Smokers, not "Smoker is", which is what smoker's is.

I don't understand how so much of the internet can follow this trend so quickly. Guys, to make a noun plural, just add an s. No need for an apostrophe.


BTW, I agree with you. S&F

edit on 21-2-2011 by PlanterZ because: (no reason given)

Actually, you're wrong, Einstein. The apostrophe shows possession. If it is a singular possession, like the collar of the dog, it would be "the dog's collar". If it were a plural posession, the apostrophe goes on the end, like the collars of the dogs would be "the dogs' collars".

So, I suggest the next time you decide to flog and flaunt, you get your s*it in one sock before hand, or I'll have to sick the dogs on you.

I don't want this to turn into an English lesson away from the topic, but since you're being the way you are, I have to say this. It's almost duty.
Go back to school General. He's using smokers and parents as plurals, not possessives. PlanterZ is right. You're wrong.
If you still think he's using a possessive, just what does the smoker and the parent and the drunk possess in this case?