smoking ban

[Optium]

you want a longer post? fine. the one line post was there because it was an actual question. it was not a part of the deabte i was confused by what she had said that is all.

The problem is, nearly every one of your posts has been a line or two
and they've mostly ignored the posts coming before it. You say you
don't like to restate something that's already been said, this means
that you must read the other posts in the thread or you are a liar. Now
if you do read the other posts in the thread, why is it that you have
not addressed the posts which have been directed at you? Either you
have not read them--and thus are a liar. The other option is that you
have read them and ignored them either because you do not feel they
matter enough to spend your time replying--in which case you're simply
egotistical, or you do not have a response and you are hoping that
people won't notice that you could not argue your point.

people here will testify that i am capable of posting some extremely long posts when the need is there. now it is not. there is no reason to post more than is required.

The problem here is that to form a decent argument, you're going to
need more than a couple of fragment sentences.

as for not being able to debate. i think since i came back onto this forum and have ignited alot of debates some on very controversial issues i have always fought my corner well. most people would agree with that and i am very capable whe it comes to debating.

Unfortunately I have yet to see this. Also remember that starting an
argument is different from debating.

on this topic i have became slightly lazy for a few reasons. most of what i would normally debate is being done for me and i don't belive in repeating what someone else has said. and really i've already won. come march i'll be drinking in smoke free pubs so i don't have much to argue for.

I think the people in Uzbekistan should be killed daily for political crimes.
I don't have to argue this point because it already happens. I win.

and coming to my only real point of deabte here. the role of government is to prevent death. to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century. to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

Once again, the government's job is not to prevent death. If that were
the government's job, society would be much different. The
government's job is to protect its citizens. Death is only a fraction of
the problems which people will face in their lifetimes. If the government's
sole function is to prevent death, there is no need, and indeed no
room for personal freedom. Yet we do have personal freedom.

the idea that the government's sole duty was to control and fund the army is an idea dead for a hundred years. and rightly so.

Where have you come up with this? Nobody said anything about funding
an army. You've now started to debate a point which no one has even
considered. Either you cannot debate anything else, or you have gone
on a tangent and brought something into the argument which does
not belong, a sure sign that you are not very skilled in debating.

.opt