[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The problem is that Jen (or anyone else) doesn't question Brian's opinions or his motives for publishing this shit.[/QUOTE]
... and why should she, pray?
From his point of view, the soapbox is exactly the place where Brian Harold May, an aged British gentleman (forget BSc. (Hons), ARCS, Hon DSc., CBE; forget professional musician, forget world-wide guitar legend etc.), can freely say what he can not say anywhere else, in a form he can not use anywhere else.
As it his his right.
To him, it's not a place for publicly discussing his opinions.
It's his own problem, not ours, if half the times he makes a fool of himself, and half the world's gonna get it wrong anyway.
We have to keep that in mind, if we want to read what he writes the way he meant it.
IMHO and FWIW, as always.
Peace
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Zaiga, re:
>You can still smoke if you want, just not in >public places. Smoking is different from, say, >drinking alcohol, because when you are drinking >alcohol, it does not affect others directly, >but when you are smoking others may unwantingly >inhale smoke, which is toxic.
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. It's only different because of the way the drug is ingested. You drink enough alcohol my friend and you will soon see that it has in fact MORE affect on "others" than smoking does - I'm sure you've been apalled at someone's drunken behavious at some stage or know of someone that has died at the hands of a drunk-driver........
I am not a smoker and, actually, hate the smell of it, but, what gives anyone the right to take away the choice of people that DO smoke?
>You can still smoke if you want, just not in >public places. Smoking is different from, say, >drinking alcohol, because when you are drinking >alcohol, it does not affect others directly, >but when you are smoking others may unwantingly >inhale smoke, which is toxic.
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. It's only different because of the way the drug is ingested. You drink enough alcohol my friend and you will soon see that it has in fact MORE affect on "others" than smoking does - I'm sure you've been apalled at someone's drunken behavious at some stage or know of someone that has died at the hands of a drunk-driver........
I am not a smoker and, actually, hate the smell of it, but, what gives anyone the right to take away the choice of people that DO smoke?
Zebonka, re:
>To be realistic, alcohol and tobacco shouldn't >be advertised at all (positively or negatively) >because they're both so harmful.
So, by extension then, they should stop advertising that bloody terrible McDonalds stuff (which is unbelieveably unhealthy for you to eat) and also ANYTHING which has the remotest chance of doing you any harm, like cars (you could get hit by one), cleaning products (could blind you if you get it in your eyes) etc.
>The idea that the government will happily tax >something that kills people by the truckload is >ridiculous.
Why ridiculous? They make a bloody fortune out of it every day. The reason smoking will never be benned is because the manufacturing of cigarettes brings in a huge amount of corporation tax and VAT (certainly in the UK) and gives thousands of people jobs. Doing anything against the BUSINESS of smoking is just not a viable option for any government - targetting the people that do smoke under the guise of "health" is the easy way to make non-smokers believe that the government is trying to protect THEM against thenasty smoke.
Brian May is gullible enough to have been sucked in to it.
>To be realistic, alcohol and tobacco shouldn't >be advertised at all (positively or negatively) >because they're both so harmful.
So, by extension then, they should stop advertising that bloody terrible McDonalds stuff (which is unbelieveably unhealthy for you to eat) and also ANYTHING which has the remotest chance of doing you any harm, like cars (you could get hit by one), cleaning products (could blind you if you get it in your eyes) etc.
>The idea that the government will happily tax >something that kills people by the truckload is >ridiculous.
Why ridiculous? They make a bloody fortune out of it every day. The reason smoking will never be benned is because the manufacturing of cigarettes brings in a huge amount of corporation tax and VAT (certainly in the UK) and gives thousands of people jobs. Doing anything against the BUSINESS of smoking is just not a viable option for any government - targetting the people that do smoke under the guise of "health" is the easy way to make non-smokers believe that the government is trying to protect THEM against thenasty smoke.
Brian May is gullible enough to have been sucked in to it.
Gnomo, re:
>... and why should she, pray?
Let's see......
>From his point of view, the soapbox is exactly >the place where Brian Harold May, an aged >British gentleman (forget BSc. (Hons), ARCS, >Hon DSc., CBE; forget professional musician, >forget world-wide guitar legend etc.), can >freely say what he can not say anywhere else, >in a form he can not use anywhere else.
Why does Brian May, being all of these things you state above, have any more freedom of expression (through his website) than someone who smokes? Just because Brian is able to run a wensite through an "employee", doesn't give him carte blanche to tell everyone that reads his musings that he is ABSOLUTELY right, does it? And, just because he has been given an "honourary" Doctorate (and remember, that's what it is, an honourary award as opposed to something that he earned through university studies) and an MBE for his services to music, DOES NOT make him any more of an authority on the subject of the war on terror or smoking than you or I who are just ordinary old joes.
>As it his his right.
As it is our right to expect him to listen and respond to OTHER opinions, which, in the years he's been committing his thought to the web, he has consistently failed to do.
>To him, it's not a place for publicly >discussing his opinions.
At what cost?
Brian's a good guitarist and songwriter, but as an artist in the face of criticism, he's fucking awful.
>... and why should she, pray?
Let's see......
>From his point of view, the soapbox is exactly >the place where Brian Harold May, an aged >British gentleman (forget BSc. (Hons), ARCS, >Hon DSc., CBE; forget professional musician, >forget world-wide guitar legend etc.), can >freely say what he can not say anywhere else, >in a form he can not use anywhere else.
Why does Brian May, being all of these things you state above, have any more freedom of expression (through his website) than someone who smokes? Just because Brian is able to run a wensite through an "employee", doesn't give him carte blanche to tell everyone that reads his musings that he is ABSOLUTELY right, does it? And, just because he has been given an "honourary" Doctorate (and remember, that's what it is, an honourary award as opposed to something that he earned through university studies) and an MBE for his services to music, DOES NOT make him any more of an authority on the subject of the war on terror or smoking than you or I who are just ordinary old joes.
>As it his his right.
As it is our right to expect him to listen and respond to OTHER opinions, which, in the years he's been committing his thought to the web, he has consistently failed to do.
>To him, it's not a place for publicly >discussing his opinions.
At what cost?
Brian's a good guitarist and songwriter, but as an artist in the face of criticism, he's fucking awful.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]>Brian Harold May, an aged
>British gentleman (forget BSc. (Hons), ARCS,
>Hon DSc., CBE; forget professional musician,
>forget world-wide guitar legend etc.)
Why does Brian May, being all of these things you state above, have any more freedom of expression (...)?[/QUOTE]
I wrote "forget" meaning "IGNORE" all those things.
But English is not my native language, and your reply makes me suspect that "forget" might actually be perceived as "to say nothing of" in such a context.
If so, my mistake and another lesson learned: I actually meant "ignore all that, as it is irrelevant". Let me explain in plainer words.
He is a man named Brian. Just like you are a man named Benn (I suppose). Just like I am not a man named Gnomo.
On your own web page you can publish whatever you want and vent your own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is your own right.
On my own web page I can publish whatever I want and vent my own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is my own right.
On his own web page he can publish whatever he wants and vent his own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is his own right.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME](that) DOES NOT make him any more of an authority on the subject of the war on terror or smoking than you or I who are just ordinary old joes.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point: he is just like you and me, no more and no less of an authority on politics or society or anything outside his profession or hobbies.
But, just like you and me, he still has got AS MUCH right to publicly say his opinion about any other subject, AS those who are authorities about such subjects have. That's called freedom of speech.
It is his problem if he makes a fool of himself, like virtually anyone who steps onto a soapbox in any street or rants over a pint in a pub. Like I think he is doing lately.
Honestly, Benn: I'm not being deliberately thick and I'm not willing to argue at all. It's just that I don't see the scandal.
Peace.
>British gentleman (forget BSc. (Hons), ARCS,
>Hon DSc., CBE; forget professional musician,
>forget world-wide guitar legend etc.)
Why does Brian May, being all of these things you state above, have any more freedom of expression (...)?[/QUOTE]
I wrote "forget" meaning "IGNORE" all those things.
But English is not my native language, and your reply makes me suspect that "forget" might actually be perceived as "to say nothing of" in such a context.
If so, my mistake and another lesson learned: I actually meant "ignore all that, as it is irrelevant". Let me explain in plainer words.
He is a man named Brian. Just like you are a man named Benn (I suppose). Just like I am not a man named Gnomo.
On your own web page you can publish whatever you want and vent your own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is your own right.
On my own web page I can publish whatever I want and vent my own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is my own right.
On his own web page he can publish whatever he wants and vent his own opinions, no matter how well-informed or ill-informed or mis-informed, on anything, and choose not to take criticism into account. As it is his own right.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME](that) DOES NOT make him any more of an authority on the subject of the war on terror or smoking than you or I who are just ordinary old joes.[/QUOTE]
Exactly my point: he is just like you and me, no more and no less of an authority on politics or society or anything outside his profession or hobbies.
But, just like you and me, he still has got AS MUCH right to publicly say his opinion about any other subject, AS those who are authorities about such subjects have. That's called freedom of speech.
It is his problem if he makes a fool of himself, like virtually anyone who steps onto a soapbox in any street or rants over a pint in a pub. Like I think he is doing lately.
Honestly, Benn: I'm not being deliberately thick and I'm not willing to argue at all. It's just that I don't see the scandal.
Peace.
Benn, as I'm a non-smoker, I find your position admirable, but mistaken. As Zaiga said, drinking alcohol does not affect others directly, but smoking does. To say "that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read", means you mustn't read much. Witnessing stupid drunken behaviour, which I've seen many times, is not going to affect my long-term health. Of course people can get drunk and drive and injure people. Irresponsible drinking isn't the same as being in the presence of second-hand smoke, which leaves a terrible stench on clothes, and if not hazardous to your health, certainly is of no benefit to your health if you inhale it second-hand.
So what that your own opinion isn't the same as Brians? What are we talking about??? When you don't wanne hear it, don't read it...
I think it is a very kind gesture of a famous rock star like Brian to share his thoughts with his fans...
By the way 90% of all the opinions on here are stupid anyway...(but that's of course my own opinion)
I think it is a very kind gesture of a famous rock star like Brian to share his thoughts with his fans...
By the way 90% of all the opinions on here are stupid anyway...(but that's of course my own opinion)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zaiga, re:
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. It's only different because of the way the drug is ingested. You drink enough alcohol my friend and you will soon see that it has in fact MORE affect on "others" than smoking does - I'm sure you've been apalled at someone's drunken behavious at some stage or know of someone that has died at the hands of a drunk-driver........[/QUOTE]
I said that when someone else drinks it does not affect me *directly*. I can certainly see how someone else drinking alcohol does affect me *indirectly*. When someone next to me smokes, it affects me *directly*.
It's also forbidden to be drunk in public, by the way, at least here it is.
[QUOTE]I am not a smoker and, actually, hate the smell of it, but, what gives anyone the right to take away the choice of people that DO smoke?[/QUOTE]
People can still smoke all they want, just not in public places.
Think of it whis way: what gives smokers the right to blow toxic fumes into my lungs?
That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read. It's only different because of the way the drug is ingested. You drink enough alcohol my friend and you will soon see that it has in fact MORE affect on "others" than smoking does - I'm sure you've been apalled at someone's drunken behavious at some stage or know of someone that has died at the hands of a drunk-driver........[/QUOTE]
I said that when someone else drinks it does not affect me *directly*. I can certainly see how someone else drinking alcohol does affect me *indirectly*. When someone next to me smokes, it affects me *directly*.
It's also forbidden to be drunk in public, by the way, at least here it is.
[QUOTE]I am not a smoker and, actually, hate the smell of it, but, what gives anyone the right to take away the choice of people that DO smoke?[/QUOTE]
People can still smoke all they want, just not in public places.
Think of it whis way: what gives smokers the right to blow toxic fumes into my lungs?
I guess I'm weird then. One of the things I admire the most in a person is if he sticks to his principles, no matter what. It takes a strong person to know what he believes in, and I admire Brian for being so passionate about it. I know if I believed in something, I'd say so, with all the indignation I can muster.
In a world where drugs and crime run rampant, where a lot of our 'rock and roll icons' spend more and more time getting high and drunk, Brian chooses to post his opinion on politics and smoking. And you complain?
Chill. It's an OPINION. An opinion is defined as what YOU think should be done/is the right thing to do. Brian thinks that's what should be done. That doesn't mean Parliament takes him up on it. I never realized expressing your own opinion on your own website makes him a bad person. Because if it does, then everyone with blogs should be deemed the same way.
In a world where drugs and crime run rampant, where a lot of our 'rock and roll icons' spend more and more time getting high and drunk, Brian chooses to post his opinion on politics and smoking. And you complain?
Chill. It's an OPINION. An opinion is defined as what YOU think should be done/is the right thing to do. Brian thinks that's what should be done. That doesn't mean Parliament takes him up on it. I never realized expressing your own opinion on your own website makes him a bad person. Because if it does, then everyone with blogs should be deemed the same way.
Sadly this whole topic just points to how we as humans are being reduced to communicating in text speak instead of learning how to write, spell and read.
To not wish to understand more about the world around you by reading is very sad, fortunately there are enough bright kids out there still that can debate and do understand how to communicate.
Pity there aren't more in here...
To not wish to understand more about the world around you by reading is very sad, fortunately there are enough bright kids out there still that can debate and do understand how to communicate.
Pity there aren't more in here...
"So, by extension then, they should stop advertising that bloody terrible McDonalds stuff (which is unbelieveably unhealthy for you to eat) and also ANYTHING which has the remotest chance of doing you any harm, like cars (you could get hit by one), cleaning products (could blind you if you get it in your eyes) etc."
Well if you get down to it, sure! Advertising is inherently stupid and only exists to give people like *you* jobs.
You know damned right your reasoning is flawed. It takes one freakin' pack of cigarettes to (if you're incredibly unlucky) do some pretty bad damage. Cars, and cleaning products, are both quite managable in the hands of sensible folk (ie. not you).
"Why ridiculous? They make a bloody fortune out of it every day."
It's ridiculous for moral reasons; ignore the fact that it's blood money and of COURSE it's not ridiculous, I wish *I'd* thought of it first. They must be raking it in.
:The reason smoking will never be banned is because the manufacturing of cigarettes brings in a huge amount of corporation tax and VAT (certainly in the UK) and gives thousands of people jobs."
Oh whoopee. In discussions of whats good for humanity, leave the economy out of it. Murder is good for the economy (keeps funeral parlours in business). Don't bother bringing it up.
"Doing anything against the BUSINESS of smoking is just not a viable option for any government - targeting the people that do smoke under the guise of "health" is the easy way to make non-smokers believe that the government is trying to protect THEM against thenasty smoke."
Aye but anyone with brains sees through that crap. I know damned well the government doesn't actually care in this matter. If they did, they'd withdraw cigarettes immediately.
"Brian May is gullible enough to have been sucked in to it."
I don't actually see what you mean here... he never said that the government was looking out for anyone, so how was he sucked in?
Well if you get down to it, sure! Advertising is inherently stupid and only exists to give people like *you* jobs.
You know damned right your reasoning is flawed. It takes one freakin' pack of cigarettes to (if you're incredibly unlucky) do some pretty bad damage. Cars, and cleaning products, are both quite managable in the hands of sensible folk (ie. not you).
"Why ridiculous? They make a bloody fortune out of it every day."
It's ridiculous for moral reasons; ignore the fact that it's blood money and of COURSE it's not ridiculous, I wish *I'd* thought of it first. They must be raking it in.
:The reason smoking will never be banned is because the manufacturing of cigarettes brings in a huge amount of corporation tax and VAT (certainly in the UK) and gives thousands of people jobs."
Oh whoopee. In discussions of whats good for humanity, leave the economy out of it. Murder is good for the economy (keeps funeral parlours in business). Don't bother bringing it up.
"Doing anything against the BUSINESS of smoking is just not a viable option for any government - targeting the people that do smoke under the guise of "health" is the easy way to make non-smokers believe that the government is trying to protect THEM against thenasty smoke."
Aye but anyone with brains sees through that crap. I know damned well the government doesn't actually care in this matter. If they did, they'd withdraw cigarettes immediately.
"Brian May is gullible enough to have been sucked in to it."
I don't actually see what you mean here... he never said that the government was looking out for anyone, so how was he sucked in?
The government takes in a ton of cash from the sale of cigarettes. It is not is their best interest to do a complete ban.
I am an ex-smoker, and I have no problem with a ban of smoking in Restaurants, Public Places, etc.
That said, there should be something done in the pubs and bars where no food is served to have a place for smokers to do their thing.
I am an ex-smoker, and I have no problem with a ban of smoking in Restaurants, Public Places, etc.
That said, there should be something done in the pubs and bars where no food is served to have a place for smokers to do their thing.
Gnomo, re:
>>But, just like you and me, he still has got AS MUCH right to publicly say his opinion about any other subject, AS those who are authorities about such subjects have. That's called freedom of speech.
And that freedom of speech (choice in this case) is exactly what Brian is saying should be taken away from people in terms of the smoking ban.......
>>It is his problem if he makes a fool of himself, like virtually anyone who steps onto a soapbox in any street or rants over a pint in a pub. Like I think he is doing lately.
And, to anyone that even has the remotest amount of respect for him as "an artist", what he's doing and writing is a COMPLETE embarassment.
>>Honestly, Benn: I'm not being deliberately thick and I'm not willing to argue at all. It's just that I don't see the scandal.
I know and understand that - you articulate yourself extremely well - were that I could converse in another language!!!!!! But all of this COULD be undertaken by Brian if he entered intot he spirit of what he's doing, by publishing responses to his opinions and showing that he might just be open to having his opinion changed through constructive argument. As it is, he appears as bullish and self-opinionated, which isn't the best image I'd have thought he would be after.......
>>Peace.
Rock on!
>>But, just like you and me, he still has got AS MUCH right to publicly say his opinion about any other subject, AS those who are authorities about such subjects have. That's called freedom of speech.
And that freedom of speech (choice in this case) is exactly what Brian is saying should be taken away from people in terms of the smoking ban.......
>>It is his problem if he makes a fool of himself, like virtually anyone who steps onto a soapbox in any street or rants over a pint in a pub. Like I think he is doing lately.
And, to anyone that even has the remotest amount of respect for him as "an artist", what he's doing and writing is a COMPLETE embarassment.
>>Honestly, Benn: I'm not being deliberately thick and I'm not willing to argue at all. It's just that I don't see the scandal.
I know and understand that - you articulate yourself extremely well - were that I could converse in another language!!!!!! But all of this COULD be undertaken by Brian if he entered intot he spirit of what he's doing, by publishing responses to his opinions and showing that he might just be open to having his opinion changed through constructive argument. As it is, he appears as bullish and self-opinionated, which isn't the best image I'd have thought he would be after.......
>>Peace.
Rock on!
BHM, re:
>>Of course people can get drunk and drive and injure people. Irresponsible drinking isn't the same as being in the presence of second-hand smoke, which leaves a terrible stench on clothes, and if not hazardous to your health, certainly is of no benefit to your health if you inhale it second-hand.
I read ever such a lot actually.
The action isn't the same, but the end result is. You CAN die at the hands of someone that smokes (through passive smoking) just as you CAN die at the hands of someone that drinks (driving whilst drunk).
>>Of course people can get drunk and drive and injure people. Irresponsible drinking isn't the same as being in the presence of second-hand smoke, which leaves a terrible stench on clothes, and if not hazardous to your health, certainly is of no benefit to your health if you inhale it second-hand.
I read ever such a lot actually.
The action isn't the same, but the end result is. You CAN die at the hands of someone that smokes (through passive smoking) just as you CAN die at the hands of someone that drinks (driving whilst drunk).
Haystacks (thank you for this!), re:
>>That said, there should be something done in the pubs and bars where no food is served to have a place for smokers to do their thing.
Now, THIS is the whole crux of the issue.
Why should there not be some scope for someone that owns a licenced premises to MAKE THE CHOICE as to whether he / she will allow smoking on their premises?
That way, people that don't want to go to a place that allows it can stay well clear and be happy that they have the freedom to make that choice. Those that do, can.
Same thing with private members clubs - shouldn't the membership be allowed to decide what happens in a place that they pay to be in?
The whole thing revolves around taking away the freedom to choose, which, I believe is inherantly wrong, but which Brian seems to think is inherantly right.
>>That said, there should be something done in the pubs and bars where no food is served to have a place for smokers to do their thing.
Now, THIS is the whole crux of the issue.
Why should there not be some scope for someone that owns a licenced premises to MAKE THE CHOICE as to whether he / she will allow smoking on their premises?
That way, people that don't want to go to a place that allows it can stay well clear and be happy that they have the freedom to make that choice. Those that do, can.
Same thing with private members clubs - shouldn't the membership be allowed to decide what happens in a place that they pay to be in?
The whole thing revolves around taking away the freedom to choose, which, I believe is inherantly wrong, but which Brian seems to think is inherantly right.