Jump to content

rohirwine

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.853

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rohirwine

    Banning Smoking In Public Places

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Hmmm, the problem with prohibiting something like alchool, marjuhana, cigarettes is that you won't stop the (ab)use of them: you're only going to put more money in the world mafias. People smoke for different reasons, usually social ones, and continue to do that because they usually get hooked (btw: it's more difficult to quit with cigarettes than with marijuhana). Besides that, all them three are dangerous: alchohol destroys your liver, cigarettes your lungs and circulatory system, marijuhana (the weed not the principle) burns your mouth and lungs to cancer (every burned vegetal does that). In general: every inspired smoke (i.e. burned substance) damage your brain cells out of lack of oxygen and increase in carbon monoxide in your blood (Curu, please, confirm me this).

    So it's perfectly clear that everyone who smokes (myself included, even if very mildly) brings himself a damage. But i should say that car and industry exhausts do much worse. My university's department of biology conducted a study over industrial air pollution and lung cancer. Guess the outcome: regardless smokers and non smokers, the cases concentrated where the pollution was heavier...

    So, we should ban cars too (we can freely choose to use the subway, use the bike, our legs or public transport, rather than drive for hours in the traffic).

    As a personal opinion: i'm against allowing smoke in public places, workplaces (for safety reasons as well) and so on (as istance: i do not smoke @home). But the 25 feets limit is a bit absurd, imho.

    Banning smoke at all should be equally avoided (as i said before: it finaciates crime, like in the protectionism period).

    And we should keep in mind that smoke is only one factor in health damages...

    TLA In-game Taunts

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    To FoD player: "You got Mordor? Hmm, do you mean you have the miniature?"

    Gwahir (foolish one): "I scream, you scream, we scream for an ice-cream" (Roberto Benigni )

    Iron hills dwarves going to mine (put the Whitesnow theme here): "De dum, de dum, de dum de dum de duum"

    Dragon approaching the enemy: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

    Citadel guard upon Nazgul approaching: "Iiiincomiiing!" *ducks*

    Replying to FoD player: "Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things: Jack and s**t... and Jack just left town." (The Army of Darkness, 1993).

    FoD player "Good, Bad... ...bah! I'm the Guy with dragons..."

    And that's all folks...

    Electoral Systems.

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Yes, we have them, but only inside enterprises. No "national social election". We have simply the oportunity to vote for our union representatives in our workplace. Then they elect someone to the regional and then national level. Representativity is figured out by the members number, not by votes. This is a much controversial point, since people not affiliated to any TU, are not represented at the national level (they get a poll for delegates outside the TUs, but only at workplace level, not beyond). Some TUs lately begun to have the deals be approved (or rejected) by referendums among all workers, but this is not enough, imho.

    :wine:

    (Americans) Presidential Election

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well, actually, imho C/S separation is a good thing. It both grants freedom to belivers and non believers. The point is that the laws regulating everyday life must be defending everyone freedom (believers included): of worship, association and lifestyle (abortion included), since this is, as Klaas stated, a matter of personal freedom.

    Here in Italy we are officially 90% catholics. This is not a voluntarily adhesion. this number is taken out from the christening data given to the state by the Catholic Church, and they are counted in any case, no matter if later the person decides he'll consider himself out of the catholic community (this is my case, for istance).

    Alas, statistics let themselves to be interpreted, sorted out and written at the please of everyone...

    Electoral Systems.

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Italian electoral system, part two (the administrative ones)

    Well, to say it true, this is the big chaos of italian political system.

    We have different kind of electoral systems variing from the regions (majoritarian, with a bonus for the winner, and a direct election of the Governor), to a totally proportional method (very small towns) and different grades between these two. I won't list them because it's too boring.

    In this elections it's typical to see a spread of the number of parties (local ones are so much, that almost every town has three or four of them, in addition to the traditional ones). Votes dispersion is very high. More so where the majoritarian system is working.

    One particular form of election is the "District chambers" elections.

    It's proportional, and they are held in every district of a town in cohincidence with the administrative elections. These organisms should be a kind of link between the citizen and the Town Administration.

    There is a last poll, wich is the Referendum.

    Whe have two types of them.

    1)Abrogative: it is used to reject a law. There must be 50% plus one electors to have voted for it to be valid. It is simply put with a yes/no poll card. The vote that gets 50%+1 votes wins.

    2)Consultive: it works like the former. It's purpose is to point out wich issues are needed to be regularized by politicians, but there is no enforcement to follow this directions. The only difference with the former referendum is that there is no "quorum" (minimum number of partecipants) and that the option that gets the greater number of wvotes is the outcome (pure proportional).

    Uff, sorry if my english isn't somewhat serviceable, but i'm not used to describe electoral issues... :wine:

    (Americans) Presidential Election

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    but with many religions in the US, it seems wrong to just have one control all moral issues.

    Well by one I'm assuming you mean Christian, or more specifically Catholic... actually I'm not sure, but definately you mean one of the two. Aren't over 70 percent of Americans self proclaimed Christians? WEll I think the number may be lower, and of course many "Christians" don't follow the basic laws of Christianity so are they even techinically Christians? OK, to cut to the chase, if there is one religion that has the strongest influence in American law, it had might as well be Christianity.

    The problem is, why religion should influence laws?

    In America i suppose that everyone is free to choose his religion.

    Laws are made to regulate everybody's life: catholics, muslims, hebrews, atheists and the rest...

    So, why should one particular religion have precedence in front of the law?

    Laws should provide that everybody is free to follow their lifestyle according to their religious believes and feelings, and provide that no one could force you to do something in wich you don't believe. Law should allow christians not to abort (if they wish) and not to practice abortion (if they are doctors and do not wish to do it). If law denyed an abort to someone who thinks that abortion is ok, just because this is not moral in the eyes of one (or more) religion, wouldn't this be the case of a preverication of a religion against those who don't follow that beliefs?

×
×
  • Create New...