Something I was thinking about...

[-TiM C-]

I smoked a big ass blunt to the head after work yesterday and got to pondering. Here's what started it out: I was watchin the news, and apparently the city of Belmont is trying to ban smoking (maybe in just the downtown area, all public areas, i'm not sure). So I get to thinking.... who are they to ban smoking? its already been banned indoors, as long as smokers are outside where the smoke isn't going to damage anything or force anyone to come in contact with it, whats the big deal?

Then another thought popped into my head. Who are they NOT to ban smoking? You can't go around smoking weed wherever you want, as long as your outside, so why ciggarettes? what makes smokers feel they have the right of way to light up as soon as they are outdoors?

Bottom line is, both sides of the argument have valid points. It's almost a stalemate. I wonder, are all arguments like this? Is there ever an issue in which one side is absolutely right? Or one side is absolutely wrong? Take the war for example. One side says its wrong, civilians are being killed, we need the military to focus on domestic issues, etc. The other side says we need the war to strengthen democracy, protect our nation, etc. Is either side definitley wrong? Is either side definitley right? No. Since everything is so subjective and everyone's opinion is so skewed from the next man's, why do we argue? Why do we try to change rules/ways of thinking which are already in place? Either way you look at it, one person has their side of the story and the next man has his. We waste so much time, thought, energy, and resources exploring issues which need to be changed according to popular opinion, well, most of these issues have an opposite popular opinion pushing for the issue to remain as is.

And I'm sure someone will pop in and say, well what if someone rapes a little girl? He is definatly wrong. (Before I get flamed, let me say I would absolutely agree with you, according to YOU AND ME, he's dead wrong)

But why? because you and so many people said he's wrong? What if there was a Rapists Society of America, and their numbers were equal to those against rape. Who would be right? Is there even such thing as being right?


Maybe I've just been getting too high lately.

 

[ColdBlooded]

This is what happens when you smoke weed and try to think.

Pick one and stop the other completely.

 

[nhojsmith]

smoke on, you are on the right path

drinking is what stops you from thinking and turns you back to the more primitive parts of your brain. go ask carl sagan about smokin weed and using it as a thinking tool.

smoking in my experience has a way of making mans work look ugly while showing how awesome nature is. it sounds to me like you are catching on to this. society has twisted truths and pretends to know what is right or wrong, further, it is the one perpetuating the idea of right and wrong. i think its a good question to ask, and personally i have a hard time accepting "morality" etc when nature defies most of our attempts to ordain one set code. i dont advise you to go on a rape spree or anything, but you should start looking at the reasons behind all actions. you will find a lot of selfishness, a lot of devotion to tradition , a lot of manipulation to control groups of people, a lot of lies, a lot of half truths, and the reasons behind these tend to come back to selfishness, greed, power.

“The more people smoke herb, the more Babylon (system, society) fall.” -Bob Marley

 

[2-0-Sixx]

But why? because you and so many people said he's wrong? What if there was a Rapists Society of America, and their numbers were equal to those against rape. Who would be right? Is there even such thing as being right?

Well there is NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). The name pretty much explains what they stand for.

As for the smoking issue....who's to say? I dunno, I guess if the people of Belmont came together and voted in democratic fashion to get this law passed then the entire city is to say.

Seattle recently passed a similar rule - no smoking in public places period. No smoking sections at bars, clubs, etc. We have a 25 foot rule - smokers have to be 25 feet away from all exits and windows, outside of course. I'm a smoker myself (ya I know horrible habit) so it sucks at times. I'm pretty sure there was a vote for the smoking ban.

Personally I think it should be up to the businesses. Also, in areas outside of Seattle, some bars are close to Indian Reservations where they have their own bars and casino's. The smoking ban obviously doesn't apply to them, so there have been lots of reports of bars going out of business because lots of these places the majority of their customers smoke and since the ban they simply choose to drive 5-10 minutes down the road to the Indian reservation where they can smoke all they want.

 

[V]

kinda off-topic but in the same sense of thinking...

what you are questioning is the same reason I can't take "Experts" or "Analysts" of any field seriously for thier word. Its like if two experts from the same field can completely disagree with each other then most likely neither one of them is right or they are both taking shots in the dark just arguing a point of view for the sake of the argument.

 

[BaSICCally]

This is what happens when you smoke weed and try to think.

Pick one and stop the other completely.

exactly what I was thinking.

 

[-TiM C-]

"Is there ever an issue in which one side is absolutely right? Or one side is absolutely wrong?"

@CB and BaSICC - This may be too much to ask, since you've already demonstrated profound intellect with your responses, but how about trying to answer the original question instead of trying to make me look like an idiot? I don't come around this board too often, but if everyone is on their high horse like you guys I can see why I don't.

 

[ColdBlooded]

I’m not even on a high horse. Mine is an elephant. And my previous statement still stands.

But since you asked i'll give you something to toke over.

I don’t believe there are absolute rights and wrongs or goods and evils that exist universally between all people. For them to exist requires the absolute belief in them as two equally opposite absolutes.

Perceptions of good and evil or right and wrong (become known as morality) have evolved and are currently evolving based on constantly evolving cultures, religions, histories. For example slavery in other times was thought of as acceptable or even good and natural, while today it is viewed as a great evil. Moral judgments are aesthetic considerations and are not based on rational analysis. Morality is entirely subjective and personal and is beyond the judgment of others. Standards of morality are societal or personal and not universal (the way 1+1=2 is a universal truth).

 

[-TiM C-]

I agree with what your saying, and i didn't mean to come at you like that I just thought i had a legitamate question and didn't think your response was necessary.

Anyways,

"Standards of morality are societal or personal and not universal..."

Exactly my point. Since laws and rules are so subjective and there will always be someone on the opposite end of whats morally "right" according to society, why do we waste so much time arguing on this forum and in public forums for what we believe in? There will always be a polar opposite out there with an argument justified by points which he thinks are relevant, and progress will never be made. People put their whole lives into fighting for what they believe in, why?

 

[ColdBlooded]

Because people develop goals and priorities that influence the direction of their life because of or guided by morality which gives people a frame work for attaining these goals and priorities. Societies are set up with specific goals in mind; the heart of which is the preservation of that society and the populace within it. To preserve that society a common set of morals is one of the easiest ways to preserve or strengthen the society and insure its survivability. Anything that is a challenge to morality from an individual or another society is a direct challenge to their survivability.

The easiest control placed upon a society was the development of the definitive polars of good and evil. Doing good rewards the individual or the group or both, doing evil does the opposite. Ingraining these into individuals beyond simple laws, but into an internal code takes time, but is aided by religion.

If someone challenges your religion or your morality it strikes at the heart of your belief system that has guided you to this point in your life – that can be hard to take and is often seen as a threat. Yet, converting someone from their former belief system to your-own is an ultimate high.

 

[REdRUM]

I just got done eating an order of fries, and I got to thinking:

Who are you to question what someone can or cannot do, or if they should or should not do it?

Who are you to voice your opinion? This is America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the terrain where you can't express your freedom of speech at a time and place of your choice, despite what ''they'' tell you.

Oh...and in Nevada, there's a new law that bans smoking in places where food is served, including casinos. You can smoke in the casino, but not in the restaurant. No more smoking/non smoking sections...also, bars that serve food aren't allowing smoking, either.

I don't smoke, so it doesn't affect me...but, like you stated, I can see both sides of the arguement. I don't really care one way or the other...

 

[B-San]

According to my boy who stays just south of Dago, the city of El Cajon will have a ban on smoking effective 1-1-08

 

[NovaFire]

like coldblooded was saying everthing is subjective. the reason people argue is to get things to go their way. of course both sides may have legitamate arguments for their point of view, but only one side can win. that side is always the one who can get 51% or more of the people to their side, or from those who are in power.

in a perfect world, the one with the most valid point would always win but as we have seen time and time again this is not always the case. why? because we are emotional creatures who judge most things by how they make us feel. something that feels good to me might not run with you or vice versa. so in the end whether someone is right or wrong doesnt matter. what matters is who can persuade others to their side. and to do that best you aim at a persons emotions, not logic. thats life.