The French find yet ANOTHER low .........

[Megatron]

Also, kissing smokers is quite horrible.

Aww, there goes my chance

hey baby, you lick the roof on my mouth and it has the taste of the finest cuban cigar.

i never really minded second hand smoke, my parents were always smokers, there parents were smokers. only bad thing about it is when you stub it out in an ashtray and it stinks a bit. or eating while smoking? other thing i dont like about smoking is it costs £4.30 a pack. mabye $9? its pretty much draining all my money, 30 quid a week. golly

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

while megatron is right that smoking is a healthy habit that patriots can take part in and enjoy (though it is ruined by dependence, so it must be done in moderation), it is the case with all forms of drug reform that, ideally, the role of government should be to guarantee individuals as much autonomy they want in partaking, or not partaking.

I don't want to offend you, but that's rather naive even "ideally speaking". Paedophiles could use the same argument and almost the same phrasing but it just won't happen. I quite agree with you regarding the "practical" psychosniper arguments though.

Megatron: £4.30 for one pack? I don't smoke myself but some friends do and they pay what makes £1.46. Or it might have been the double, I can't remember. Perhaps the packs are larger in the UK, like hamburgers.

Ontopic I formally pledge to have taken up smoking before 18.

Why isn't smoking completely outlawed, in the same was as murder, and raping babies? I couldn't respect the opinion of a chemical addict any more than I could the opinion of a murderous paedophile. They're both doing something illogical and harmful for no reason they can intelligently support

What Kantian nonsense. Illogical? It might have been "illogical" to smoke if and only if one shared your opinions regarding it and the urge not to smoke therefore was higher than the urge to do so, and then one wouldn't smoke in the first place. If logics are to be of any significance then they must be derived from reality and not vice versa. And how is it illogical for a paedophile to rape babes when it is clearly what he would like to do? I believe the word you want is "immoral". Lastly: How many harmful habits do you have that you can't intelligently support without comparing yourself to paedophiles?

[Megatron]

Pack of 20 mayfair is 4.33. for ten its about half that, buh. starting smoking is easy, you should try it at least once

you used the pedophile argument double. guns, cigs, booze, cars, loud music, fatty foods. all these are 'BAD FOR YOU', but eh...i dont need a bunch of dudes i dont even know to make my choices for me.

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

Did you know that Kant was a paedophile?

[Megatron]

its silly to argue stuff and either bring in pedophiles or hitler. it makes me cry. the bottom line is i am, therefore i smoke.

[Thor Kaufman]

All that surprises me still is that governments still take addicts seriously.

How can a nicotine addict be taken seriously? The primary argument in favour of smoking is that, essentially, people want to smoke.

But people only want to smoke because the addiction compels them to continue smoking to hold back the negative effects of stress o.O

... Why isn't smoking completely outlawed, in the same was as murder, and raping babies? I couldn't respect the opinion of a chemical addict any more than I could the opinion of a murderous paedophile. They're both doing something illogical and harmful for no reason they can intelligently support

Be fair, there are also good drugs around, like psychedelics. As said, as long as no one (else) gets harmed, it's all fine and dandy.

while megatron is right that smoking is a healthy habit that patriots can take part in and enjoy (though it is ruined by dependence, so it must be done in moderation), it is the case with all forms of drug reform that, ideally, the role of government should be to guarantee individuals as much autonomy they want in partaking, or not partaking.

I don't want to offend you, but that's rather naive even "ideally speaking". Paedophiles could use the same argument (...)

What?

Why isn't smoking completely outlawed, in the same was as murder, and raping babies? I couldn't respect the opinion of a chemical addict any more than I could the opinion of a murderous paedophile. They're both doing something illogical and harmful for no reason they can intelligently support

What Kantian nonsense. Illogical? It might have been "illogical" to smoke if and only if one shared your opinions regarding it and the urge not to smoke therefore was higher than the urge to do so, and then one wouldn't smoke in the first place. If logics are to be of any significance then they must be derived from reality and not vice versa. And how is it illogical for a paedophile to rape babes when it is clearly what he would like to do? I believe the word you want is "immoral". Lastly: How many harmful habits do you have that you can't intelligently support without comparing yourself to paedophiles?

What's with your obsession with pedophiles, mang.
Also, there are more logical schools than just the pragmatic ones.

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

What?

A WAR? I BET IT WAS THE CRIMEAN WAR!

Now you must have heard it, if not else at Wikipedia. Paedophilia shouldn't be banned because it should be the role of the state to guarantee the autonomity of individuals (it is presumed that children are individuals) and so they should be left to choose for themselves.... a very liberal stance indeed but the majority would never agree with it because they are thankfully not liberal enough. What keeps even the most extreme liberals from agreeing is that they see moral problems with it, and then many otherwise liberally minded have the same idea about smoking in public places too.

Also, there are more logical schools than just the pragmatic ones.

If they are as stupid as T-900's argument then they may all go to hell as far as I am concerned.

[Thor Kaufman]

I understand, yet I don't see a connection between pedophilia and cigarettes apart from a freudian connection.
That's probably also the reason why children shouldn't be allowed to smoke. :phallic cigarette:

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

you don't understand le french mentalité

[Thor Kaufman]

Maybe that's why the french are supposed to be ze germanz hereditary enemies, because we don't understand them. They must be invaded. :blitz:

[PsychoSniper]

Na, the french are just a good national morale builder.


They conquer easily, and provide pussy for your invading/liberating soldiers, and raise morale back home.

[johnnygothisgun]

Na, the french are just a good national morale builder.


They conquer easily, and provide pussy for your invading/liberating soldiers, and raise morale back home.

i was in the army lolololol

[Thor Kaufman]

I still don't understand, does that mean having sex with children and smoking in pubic places is allowed in France or only if your member is the size of the Wehrmacht?

[VasikkA]

I only smoke when I'm raping babies so all your arguments are valid.

[atoga]

I don't want to offend you, but that's rather naive even "ideally speaking". Paedophiles could use the same argument and almost the same phrasing but it just won't happen.

rather naive of you to extrapolate that notion to all aspects of personal life, rather than just drug reform laws? arguments which equate drug use with sex abuse, murder etc. are completely silly, i don't see why a reasonably minded young fascist like yourself would bother entertaining them. be less of a sensationalist cocksucker please

[Thor Kaufman]

I only smoke when I'm raping babies so all your arguments are valid.

good for you

[Fa11lloutfan_15]

Sorry for late response etc.

rather naive of you to extrapolate that notion to all aspects of personal life, rather than just drug reform laws? arguments which equate drug use with sex abuse, murder etc. are completely silly, i don't see why a reasonably minded young fascist like yourself would bother entertaining them. be less of a sensationalist cocksucker please

No, sensationalistic cocksuckery is to entertain that kind of normative cant when everyone here are equally liberally minded when it comes to the state, but all of those whose opinions do matter do not agree other than principally. It serves no other use than possibly inspiring the already like-minded. They (the French) would agree on the state if not else to not come off like fascists in public but simply do not like cigarettes and therefore would draw the line (this is where all arguments based on principles tend to fail) of state intervention at passive smoking where you probably would at murder.

So if an anarchist or whatever came to you and told you the state should not stop him from murdering you because it is entirely an affair of yours, then your defence would either have to be made from the existing notion of durable state building or your morality, both of which he would ignore because he isn't interested in order nor your morals, just like you aren't interested in the order where passive smoking is forbidden and any such arguments therefore are wasted on you - or that his opinion is absurd, which is exactly what those who want to prohibit would say about being as liberal as you are, no? The anarchist would be able to use the same argument with as much success as you.

Thus as the reasonably minded young fascist I am my advice to you and all other idealists is to end all ridiculous cocksuckery and "act on instinct" 1933 style if you want to see real results. :cheers mate:

Edit: Also, I didn't "equate" anything with anything, I'm not concerned with such tired concepts like "ethics". I simply meant that an argument which bases itself in that it may be theoretically applied to your cause would have to bear with that it might be to other causes as well.

[atoga]

I simply meant that an argument which bases itself in that it may be theoretically applied to your cause would have to bear with that it might be to other causes as well.

so your point is...? i really followed very little of that

also, stop biting my vernacular, faget

[Subhuman]

I simply meant that an argument which bases itself in that it may be theoretically applied to your cause would have to bear with that it might be to other causes as well.

Not with any authority, it couldn't. There is no comparison to smoking and pedophilia - smoking only damages the individual partaking, while pedophilia leaves lasting damage to a person who isn't legally or mentally able to give consent. The "it's my body so I'll do with it what I want to" argument fails by design when applied to pedophilia.

Also, stop writing novels. Your post could be whittled down to about four sentences.

[Kashluk]

smoking only damages the individual partaking

Like 10 000 or something passive smokers die each year, though