Music Talk Board

Full Version: The Religion and Philosophy discussion thread!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
You can't ban something just because you don't like it and it annoys you. If you follow that philosophy then you have to ban coffee and tea for the caffeine intake.

Both smoking and coffee/tea has its advantages and disadvantages regarding health.
If we do manage to ban cigarettes just because they're annoying, we should also fine people for smelling bad.
(02-02-2014, 07:45 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]we should also fine people for smelling bad.

I'm okay with that.
(02-02-2014, 07:45 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]If we do manage to ban cigarettes just because they're annoying, we should also fine people for smelling bad.
Can we fine homeless people for not showering then?
No, we should fine them for being homeless

#1% #classwar
Only if the homeless people are actually just drunks who don't want to go back to their homes.

And actually I've never had to deal with homeless BO, because BO is usually more of a problem indoors, and homeless people are outside. But on a slightly more serious note, it would be more fair to offer free showers for homeless people or something.
Okay, I was going to post the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that, so you all should look it up for yourselves.
(02-02-2014, 05:26 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Just to highlight this: the only times that secondhand smoke is an issue is for those who around it all the time. For instance, it used to be that you could smoke inside Wisconsin bars. Eventually, the bartenders and owners got sick of feeling like they were smoking two packs a day. So, now, it's illegal to smoke inside bars here.
A lot of people can't avoid secondhand smoke. Fetuses and children of smoking parents, most notably.

It's not just secondhand smoke that's a "legal" problem, either. For example, a person who starts drinking (which is legal, and nowadays it seems people have forgotten that alcohol can be drunk for the unique and simple reason that it's a food item, and a healthy one at that, rather than merely a quicker way to get cirrhosis for the sake of getting an ephemeral, worthless buzz) because he was laid off from his job and falls into alcoholism is not only a drag, but a hemorrhoid for all the people around him, especially family members including his wife and their children. And that's not taking into account that some people become aggressive and violent with the combination of depression and drunkenness.

I understand why certain people behave in certain ways because of a mental illness they have little to no control over, but I feel very little compassion for healthy, sane people (or as far as healthy and sane go) who choose to dabble into drugs and screw themselves over. Even when you've hit rock bottom, you have common sense and, just like the "I was drunk" charade, it doesn't easily excuse behaving in certain ways. And I don't want to hear anybody say that I've never felt the way a depressed person does, because I've been to Hell and back and not once did I consider dealing with my problems through drug use, legal or otherwise.

I'll be altruistic and compassionate towards most people who need it, but I refuse to help anyone who has fallen into drug problems if they know I've always been an ardent anti-drug advocate.

(02-02-2014, 05:26 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]That all said, let's give a different scenario. Suppose a person (who is not allergic to smoke) walks by a smoker and happens to smell their cigarette. That person has ZERO reason to complain about secondhand smoke. They are not going to die or be harmed in any way, because the 1 second of exposure they had is of so little consequence. Assuming any minor damage occurred to their body, their body is capable of repairing it in about 30 seconds or less.

My point is, a lot of people paint any exposure to secondhand smoke as bad, when we should ONLY saying that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke is bad. And that is easily solved by things like asking smokers to smoke outside and providing ash trays outside, as most businesses and bars do.
It's a good point, but there's also the fact that secondhand smoke clings onto certain surfaces and will eventually find itself inside the lungs of people who happen to hang around said surfaces.

Also, if we live in a society of socialized healthcare (like I do), I'd be pissed that I have to pay taxes for people who actively destroy themselves, if not through drugs then through reckless behavior such as driving under the influence or speeding, actively picking fights with people or just generally behaving without any sort of foresight (i.e. anything that could potentially earn a Darwin award). I like the idea of socialized healthcare as I believe healthcare should be a universal right just like nourishment, but I can't help but reconsider my feelings about it when I know these sort of people exist.

(02-02-2014, 05:26 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]You gather more flies with honey than vinegar. It's stupid, but that's the way it is. Confusedhrug:
All the more so to feel cynical.

(02-02-2014, 05:26 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]No, cigarettes shouldn't be illegal; they just should be make of pure tobacco, not packed full of extra chemicals. And, yes, it is outrageous.
I'm still convinced pure tobacco is bad for your health. For example, tar isn't a chemical added to cigarettes but rather a byproduct of burning tobacco (and in the cases of paper cigarettes, the paper itself as well). This is combined with the fact that no form of smoke is good for the respiratory system.

On another, similar note, I'm just about fed up hearing people defend pot/THC as being some miraculous thing that isn't bad for your health (and I often also hear that it's actually good for you). I've never had a single THC defender show me any viable, significantly trustworthy source supporting their claims, and I've only read studies that pretty much prove the opposite conclusion.

(02-02-2014, 07:32 PM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ]You can't ban something just because you don't like it and it annoys you. If you follow that philosophy then you have to ban coffee and tea for the caffeine intake.
I don't understand what this means. Individual caffeine intake does not nearly affect other people nearly as much or as badly as tobacco or other drug intake.

But no, I don't think we should ban everything that bothers us, and I never said anything on that subject.

(02-02-2014, 07:32 PM)debbie Wrote: [ -> ]Both smoking and coffee/tea has its advantages and disadvantages regarding health.
Smoking has advantages regarding health?

I'd really like to hear more about this.

And literally everything can have advantages and disadvantages.




Again, my main gripe is that people seem more concerned with what they should be "allowed" to do and little to not at all with what they ought to do, as well as their willful ignorance about facts and knowledge in general (including critical thinking, apparently). And keeping on the drug discussion, it's depressingly silly how virtually everyone I know seems hooked on one illicit/dangerous substance or another.

On a final note, this is probably the arrogant I can get, and I am aware that I can be arrogant (cynical). I've just been having a really difficult time not being so lately, as much as I'd like to. I just thought it was necessary to put out there that I am aware of this. Hopefully it'll make me seem somewhat humble.

(02-05-2014, 03:57 AM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, I was going to post the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that, so you all should look it up for yourselves.
Is this another silly religion vs. science "debate" again?

I love absolutely detest how people think they're mutually incompatible. One example of the opposite fact is that the Catholic church has always held that the Bible not be read literally, and that if ever science were to effectively and certainly "disprove" any literal interpretations of certain passages, that people put faith into scientific discovery over literalism for the passages in question (including, and most notably, Genesis; the Catholic church has always supported Darwinian evolution since the promulgation of the theory).
It tried to be a little more educated, but that really is what it boiled down to. They both made interesting points though.

Yeah, I definitely agree. As a christian and a Math/Physics major I really wish people would just realize that religion isn't a science and science isn't a religion. If we could all just learn to not be dicks then everything will be fine.
Yup. Sigh...