{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Winters Darkseid:
10/6/2013 2:33:31 PM
5
I kind of agree. If you're going to kill yourself through smoking, don't bring other people down with you.
English
-
Yup, my point exactly.
-
So we ban drinking in public, bars, clubs, we ban religion, we ban any person that has ever had acar accident from driving again, we ban public stupidity....
-
No, drinking is as controlled as it can be. You can only do it in places that are licensed to do so, you can't openly drink in public or while driving. You can't drink in any private establishment that doesn't allow it. People are fine with it. So what exactly would be the problem with making smoking that way?
-
1. Someone believing in a religion has never hurt anyone else. A persons acts that they associated with a religion have, but not the religion itself. 2. If you're sitting next to someone drinking alcohol, you don't get the effects of drinking it.
-
Edited by Capiton Render: 10/8/2013 8:12:49 PM1- Yes it has, the fact that someones belief in religion instill the ideology that women are inferior, is a direct effect. Even if that wasn't the intent of the religion, its all up to interpretation, and their belief that the religion dictates it, directly affects the people they aim to oppress. 2. Prime example, im at the bar, drunk guy stands up, leans on table umbrella and due to drunkenness, falls into me, hitting my face with his elbow, breaking my nose. Id like to note, like second hand smoke, these are secondary results. IE the act of drinking in public didnt break the nose, but him getting drunk in public and loosing balance did.
