Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Ronstar, Jan 1, 2018.
If it were a matter of good manners he wouldn't need to move.
They should have already politely instructed him to move?
If offence you are caused by people is as easily rectified as you picking your arse up and moving, then do it.
In which sense?
Imagine I'm sitting in the gardens in front of Louvre Museum at Paris. A guy seats near to me and he begins to smoke some "good stuff". Why should I move? He is doing something which annoys me, I'm not annoying him ... he should move to smoke his good stuff.
In other words, there is a mundane basic principle [also in right and law]: it's the annoying behavior to be stopped, if it "invades" the private sphere of an other.
Let's think to the other way round.
Our GSS [Good Stuff Smoker] is sitting in the gardens before of Louvre and I'm walking. He's smoking a very good stuff ... if I sit near to him and I ask him to stop smoking ... in that case I would be wrong. I can stay far ...
Why shouldn't you move?
You are the one who is annoyed and you have the easy capability to remove yourself from a scenario in which you are being annoyed quite without inconveniencing others. Without being rude to them.
He has the good manners not to be annoyed by you, pay him the same mutual respect.
You finding other people annoying, is not reason to be rude to them.
If you choose to take offence to people, you are the problem. Not they.
There is no moral high ground in being a snowflake. It's anti social behaviour. Plain and simple.
Yeah that's why there are so many atheletes and soldiers who smoke pot. Neither need be in shape.
You are climbing the glass here. The ratio of common law is that the active behavior which is annoying is wrong. A person taking a rest shouldn't be annoyed by a smoker or, to add an other example, by a guy with a radio issuing music at very high volume. If you have been educated to invade the existence of the others, It's a problem of yours ...
An interesting sideline to the discussion..... My son has been a wildland fire fighter for years. He has been applying for full time employment as an urban firefighter full time in Southern Kalifornia. For one position, he was told he was in the top tier of candidates. On the final application he was asked if he had smoked marijuana in the last two years. Being completely honest he told them while on a break from a fire in Oregon, he purchased a doobie from a legal store just to try it because he was bored. Of course the state of Oregon got it's share of tax out of the doobie as will Kalifornia now that it is legal there.....but Kalifornia told my son to reapply in two years!
Point is.....those in the know understand that pot reduces mental facilities. Of course in Kalifornia, those facilities are already obviously reduced!
I think that is the argument smokers used when smoking got banned in most public places.
Ban snowflakes from public places.
That would be a real vote winner.
Separate names with a comma.