What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?Originally Posted by vidcc
Use Logic Or STFU!
What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?
there is no god
If they take up two seats I think it's fair. I also don't think they should be allowed to insist on only paying for one seat And only having one seat if they are going to "spill over" onto the space of the person sat next to them.What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?
To be fair to the airlines very few would charge for two seats if there was an empty seat on the flight. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it all depends on the check in agent and the attitude of the passenger.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Poster
BT Rep: +1
That is what like about you youngsters. You give in too easily.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
.
Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions.
In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.
Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?
The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
there is no god
Who suggested that? please quote.
Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close
Last edited by vidcc; 04-09-2007 at 11:59 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
.
If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?Who suggested that? please quote.
If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.
Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
there is no god
Your statement was some people think they can go anywhere they want with no restrictions, you still haven't quoted where anyone said that. Public access means just that........public. You can be refused entry for any number of reasons such as behavior or inappropriate attire but public access still is public access. So unless one breaks those rules then they can enter public access areas. Nobody has suggested they can enter private areas.
You think that crap is a "logical extension"?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Darth Monk Like.
Quite the reverse, I think there should be restrictions. Smoking for example, that should be restricted, particularly in instances where it is being imposed on other people. You want to smoke in your own home, fill yer lungs, you are harming no-one but yourself. Obviously they would also be harming their own children, however that's really down to their conscience.
As to me being able to go wherever I want, nope I don't think that at all. That's just plain silly, even the hardest of thinking can see that there are loads of places where free access would be inappropriate.
However anywhere I can go, the person in charge of that place is responsible for making it safe. If it is my home, then I am responsible. If it is walking down the street, then the local authorities, Police etc. If it is in a shop, then the shopkeep. If it is in a restaurant, then the restaurateur etc. They are responsible for my health and safety while I am on their premises.
As to the rest, no comment, you're just talking pish.
You do not need to see my I.D.
Use Logic Or STFU!
hJeez man. A public enclosed place shouldn't be a free for all where the owner makes up rules willy nilly.If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?
If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.
Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close
The government's job is to protect the public.
Now I don't agree with GayPaul's stance on trying to apply the no smoking policy to private clubs but your stance (or the way you convey it) is just as daft.
Now if the gubment really wanted to protect the public and not fanny about they would outlaw smoking altogether allowing only addicts a fix.
Last edited by Busyman™; 04-10-2007 at 04:10 PM.
Fat Secret Agent
I don't have a stance on trying to apply it to private clubs. It already does apply to them.
My stance is that to allow private clubs an exemption is a non-starter. As every establishment would simply become a "private club", thus negating the law. There may be another way to allow smoking in certain places, other than those already allowed. However an exemption for "private clubs" isn't it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks