[ SECRET POST #3349 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3349 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[X/1999]










Notes:

Early today, places to go!

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - random memes with no secrets in them ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

I know you are a troll, and I realize I ought not be biting, but you are free to not wear a seatbelt and smoke to your heart's content on private land. When you go into public areas where engaging in those activities impinges on others freedom that is when they are restricted. Not wearing a seatbelt on the public highways and smoking in public areas hurts others, so that is why there is a restriction. You are free to hurl yourself through the windshield of your coal rollin' truck as much as you want, choking on your cuban, and keepin' tight hold on your can of coors too no doubt, if you want in private.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not a troll and I don't even smoke. But smoking in public in the open air is no worse to anyone than cars, combustion heaters or campfires. Less so, actually. And can you please tell me how not wearing a seat belt endangers others? Especially when I'm not the driver?
Maybe stop and consider for a second before you write an answer to an imagined American stereotype.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, you are a troll and you are reading from the junior libertarian bingo sheet. You already know the answers so go fuck yourself (in private).

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

No fuck you. I was being completely sincere here and you can be proud of yourself now because you really pissed me off. I'm neither an American nor a libertarian (will be voting green and left wing tomorrow, as always), but, like I said, I believe in a reasonable balance of security and freedom. One prerequisite of reason is scepticism. Meaning that I am also open to agreeing with you if my opinion is actually based on misinformation.
Now, shouting down other opinions because of prejudice is kinda being an unreasonable asshole and not any legit political position. I was trying to be polive. Man.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, just so you know, person who is acting like a twat, aka calling troll, I am a different anon who shares balance of safety and freedom anon's values. Except I would be okay living in a frontier environment.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

Except I would be okay living in a frontier environment.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Enjoy your Alaskan cabin, you little frontierdude.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. I guess. (Unless you're one of those libertarians the vagina-acting-person has accused me of being. :-P )
For me the thing about frontier environments is that the lack of complicated living conditions (i.e. the fact that there are only the "simple problems") seems very compelling, but actually you do not want to have the simple problems. Because not solving them means you die...

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

I have been very, very broke at various points in my life where looking backwards to eras where pre common modcons like running water and electricity was extremely instructive. It's hard work, living that way, but it's also incredibly satisfying.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[feotakahari]

I'm biased on this one, because I used to be a big fan of Jenny Blanchard. She's lethally allergic to cigarette smoke and has taken more than one trip to the emergency room because of folks smoking in a "smoke-free zone." If you've got a tomato allergy or a wheat allergy, you can simply watch what you eat, but you can't really watch what you breathe unless you wear a gas mask.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know who that is but wouldn't any old smoke trigger the same reaction? Not saying that it'should not true but it sounds a little off to me. My father had severe asthma and problems with smoke but usually a few meters of distance would do the trick. And his attacks would also be triggered by proximity to dogs or cats, like if someone stood next to him and hairs from their clothes would end up on his... I wouldn't want to ban cats or dogs for that...
I believe that you should protect people from situations in which they are forced to inhale 2nd hand smoke regularly but seriously, there are some regulations that simply cross a line because the gravity of the restriction is in no relation to the actual risk. Like Europe banning menthol cigarettes. That's just... I don't even know. It's like "we can't ban cigarettes outright so we're just gonna ban the most niche cigarette kind ever" Aparrently it's "for teh kidz!" But kids don't even smoke menthol. At least no one did back at my high school.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

"wouldn't any old smoke trigger the same reaction?"

Not if it is a nicotine allergy. Cigarette smoke gives me headaches and other smoke doesn't.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

DA
did you have that diagnosed? could be just your head reacting to some olfactory trigger. also better not eat too much eggplant, then.

Re: Safety for Freedom

[(Anonymous)]

You seem weirdly invested in the idea of subjecting people to unwanted cigarette smoke