Sheikah

They might even make you less likely to get cancer, canceling the 2 possibilities out. You probably can't help a fart, even then it's gone after a few seconds. Smoking is a deliberate several minute thing, you know you're breathing in toxic stuff unlike with a fart. I really dislike when people light up a cigarette in a situation where you have to be standing still and fairly near them. This is definitely something you should admit fault to. Do you honestly think anyone is thick enough to think you could down 50 pints of beer and walk out alive? The fact is that you know what I was saying, I know what I was saying, but you didn't have a valid comeback so simply picked on the wording of the sentence. Also it's blatantly obvious I am not stupid, I am displaying more scientific evidence and understanding than anyone else here. Please do not pretend to be ignorant, I know exactly that you understood what I was saying. Pedantic means finding small trivial details to pick on instead of addressing the issue. I've very much been talking about the effects of smoking, not trying to say your sentences mean something else because of the way they're worded, even if I knew what you were basically saying. It's never ok, but if people binge out of competition/fun/for the sake of it when with friends then they can at least stop being such a tool. Smoking seems to get people addicted far more easily, that's why there's usually stop smoking ads everywhere unlike stop drinking. Some people just drink stupidly, and they should change the amount they drink. Oh well. Maybe if you're ever on a ventilation unit you'll wish you did. You said smokers could simply say they didn't want it, but they sure as hell did that regarding public ban and it still happened. In the future, what's to say it couldn't happen again? The number of people smoking has decreased over the years massively, what's to say in the future people won't care about smoking enough? What the bloody hell are you talking about? You didn't learn anything useful, in fact you didn't even learn to roll up since cigarettes are already packaged. I'm talking about boxed cigarettes. You didn't even learn about tax because you must have researched on your own to do that. Smoking a cigarette does not teach you about taxes. Like hell I was agreeing with you, pay attention to what I'm saying! If he knew the things that I was saying he wouldn't have pretty much said 'I know better', the jist of what he was implying when he said he had experience. It was impossible to think right about something that he didn't attribute. The most obvious thing to respond to was about cigarettes since - DUN DUN DUN! It's a smoking topic and most of the discussion has been about cigarettes. Christ, how can you interpret this from what I just said? It's blatantly obvious what I was saying. A smoker's view of smoking, if they do not have cancer or any serious illness because of it, may be that smoking is not that bad because they haven't had anything too bad happen to them yet. In fact, I have encountered people just like this. I know a friend's grandmother and a friend of my own grandmother who have said things along the lines of "I've been smoking 50 years and nothing's ever happened to me, all the stuff they say happens is rubbish". In fact, there is no advantage smokers hold in a discussion like this about cigarettes. We both know why people smoke, and that is as much info as someone gets from smoking.

Boxes from my unpackaged stuff, and old games.

Here is the same one, but it's scaled down:

Yep, it is quite watchable. I like how it focuses on real life for a change, as most animes seem rather unrealistic.

Of course I can admit that there is a reason why people smoke. People don't smoke out of want to make themselves ill. Compared to the positives of smoking, though, the downsides are far greater; nothing can compare to the illnesses or grief of loss of another person dying, for the sake of a bit of a closer interaction with other smokers. Cigarettes may give pleasure but so do many other things. It would be better for people to pick up an activity or something to take their mind off cigarettes. It may seem harsh that I think eventually they will be banned, but people would still retain a great deal of freedom in their life, just they wouldn't be able to smoke something which is frankly making them ill. You're not taking a risk because there's no evidence to say you are. With cigarettes we are talking about nasty carcinogens that are the number one cause of cancer in the UK. That is why I didn't think the examples were entirely relevant. Maybe, but equally I don't think people should smoke in stationary situations. It just creates an unpleasant zone for non-smokers. If you honestly thought that I did not think alcohol can ever be harmful in any quantity, I would have to reiterate that you do not have common sense. You're just being pedantic in interpreting the sentence. I think you have summed this up very nicely, as this is basically at the crux of the matter. There are many things in life that could turn dangerous if not used properly - alcohol is one of them. Common sense or self-control is required to make sure you don't jump over a train line to get to the other side quicker, or that you don't buy a kitchen knife to kill someone with. My point really lies with the fact that cigarettes can never be said to be safe under any circumstance, which is why I believe they differ greatly from alcohol. Also their highly addictive quality means that many smokers smoke regularly, more regularly than they would drink. I also think that a lot of people who binge drink are actually doing so not really through addiction, but out of fun. You were allowed to not want the public smoking ban, but it happened. Is learning how to roll a joint a good thing? I don't think it's a great key skill to take home. It may have triggered interest in taxation, but you didn't learn that from the cigarette. If I use facts he rejects it, while if he knew the facts he wouldn't reject them. Pretty simple logic behind why I don't think he knows much about the subject. The sentence was vague in the subject; I thought he was referring to cigarettes. In which case, he wouldn't really know much about the possible diseases/implications, at risk groups, etc. And life experience with cigarettes may just let you think they aren't much of a harm, seeing as they haven't done much harm yet.

Here's a pic of me:

It's not that, it's that a lot of what people say is stuff that's either untrue or still not really justified for the effects of smoking. Someone discarded my reply as irrelevant before when I said the benefits of alcohol in reasonable quantities when they said there were none, so it's definitely not just me doing it. No, look at your list again. The last one, the sun, in hot countries is proven to cause cancer. That is why I said pretty much all. In fairness, most people apply suncream when going abroad to hot countries, and there's really nothing else you can do about a big fiery ball in the sky. There is a mountain of difference between a mobile phone mast, which has no proof to cause cancer, and cigarettes - cause of the #1 most common cancer in the UK. The fact they were both standing still suggests some form of waiting for something, in which case smoking in any situation like that I find very rude. It basically marks out an area of no-go if you don't like smoke, which most people probably don't. Except that cigarettes are smaller (so here goes ) so that example is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately you forgot to take into account common sense. That alone would have immediately told you that the sentence was referring to both small quantities being no danger as well as beneficial. Obviously I was not suggesting that drinking large amounts of alcohol can never be a danger, that is ridiculous to even think of. Like I've said, 2 or 3 bottles of beer. There are guidelines, but really I think it's quite obvious if people drink too much. Then this is a problem that people alone must address. The situation is this- you can buy alcohol to drink sensibly, but like with anything - a kitchen knife, a sledgehammer, a machete; they can be used incorrectly. With cigarettes, you are harming yourself no matter what. In more ways than one, too. You provided your opinion - that is boosts social interaction, I provided my opinion that it can also alienate you. A lot of social interaction goes down in pubs, and since most people don't smoke you'll probably be outside talking to less people than you could if you were inside. In fact, if I saw someone smoking I wouldn't want to be close enough to talk to them. Not in a nasty way, just I dislike cigarette smoke. I've said it many times, it's simple. It's a substance that was banned for causing cancer, despite having a use, and no one exclaimed that the government was fascist or removing our rights. Sure people didn't get actual pleasure from it, but the point still stands - that is, the government has in the past banned harmful things (which someone said, far back, they would only ban to the extent so people could just not harm others). Rokhead had already posted previously how his life experience with drugs/cigarettes meant he knew more. I was obviously referring to that life experience, since he mentioned once again how his life experience was better than a broader knowledge. What can you learn from smoking? I honestly have no idea. It's like saying I learned something from eating a KitKat chunky. Ok then, he knows what smoking feels like, but from his posts he doesn't seem like someone who knows anything about the global stats, the diseases and implications they cause, etc. So not really that much, if a bit more than nothing. 1. Cigarettes are drugs 2. Your sentence was too vague for anyone to really know what you were directly referring too 3. It makes no difference, your own experience with drugs isn't the same as researching the effects of drugs on thousands of people.

There really needs to be a Pikachu appreciation thread. Even though I prefer to play as Link, I love Pikachu. PikachooouwwWWW!! (final smash)

Which makes no sense, unless you justify how I am 'thinking' hypcroticially then you are wrong. Microwaves - you shut the door Oral Sex - check your partner isn't a hobo off the street first Mobile Phones - absolutely no conclusive proof Red Meat - proof not certain Exposure to the sun in hot countries - you can't exactly ban the sun, that's why clever people use sun cream. So yeh, pretty much all of your examples don't apply. But you can bet your last pound on the fact that if something unecessary to survive that could easily be controlled was proven to greatly increase the risk of cancer, it would either be banned or have campaigns against it like smoking. I dread to think who taught you that... Who would listen to anything Heather Mills has to say? They do not cause you physical harm, if they are applied properly. If you are infected, that's the fault of the tattooist for not having clean equipment. That is not comparable to something which endangers your health without fail. Actually no, you can drink a couple/few beers a day and be fine. Then you are laughing at your own stupidity, for I never said that. I said in reasonable quantities it is beneficial, which is fact. Do not twist my words again. In reasonable quantities there is no proven danger to health, but a proven advantage. In normal quantities it is broken down and removed from the body with little consequence, just like toxic ammonia produced by the body is converted to urea and excreted as urine. By standing outside in the pissing rain? Real social interaction, that. Maybe I am mentioning lots of times because people keep bringing up the same situations, which are easily solved by mentioning asbestos. Now relate that to what he was talking about. Life experience regarding cigarettes does not make you more knowledgeable about their effects on everyone, statistics and treatment etc. Yes, people tell you learn from experiences, but that quote does not apply here. I know a fair bit of smoking related diseases, statistics and risk groups from lectures, he probably knows nothing. He is just playing the fact he has/does smoked. Again, you have taken that out of context. I am obviously talking about in this debate about cigarettes, where actual knowledge of the effects of cigarettes beats a single experience. Given that a single experience may lead a person to base their thoughts on that alone, it is very biased.

I would be dubious about eBay, this kind of media can be cheaply made and made to look real.

Yes...my boring little life at University doing well and having fun? What's your life like? Probably not half as interesting. Debating whether to watch Trisha or Jeremy Kyle...

Life experience doesn't teach you jack. If you smoke cigarettes all your life you might well think there is nothing wrong with them; if you educate yourself on their effects on the global population you have a much greater understanding.

Ha ha, the irony. You bluntly speak about everything as if you're always right; it's a waste of time even talking to you.

Ha ha oxigen waste true neutral, what bollocks. He's the most argumentative neutral person I've ever met.

I'll ask you to look up the term hypocrite, I've done nothing hypocritical. If I smoked myself then told people it's bad to smoke, that would be hypocritical. Fact is, I don't. Passive smoking results increases the likeliness of getting cancer, this is scientific fact. So now you are making me out to be anti-piercing, sexist or whatever? No, clearly I have not said anything bad about the other stuff, there's no problem to health with those anyway. The only reason I disagree with smoking is just because it is such a waste of life and health. But as has already been mentioned, alcohol is actually beneficial in reasonable quantities and certainly not a problem to health. Smoking on the other hand has no evidence to say the same, plus the nicotine in cigarettes make them addictive. Sure some people are alcoholics, but the vast majority of people are not addicted to alcohol. There are clear differences, which is why it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be when comparing alcohol and cigarettes. Asbestos is harmful, they banned that. You do realise when I say I think in the future it will be banned that I am just reasonably guessing something which I believe may happen? I am not saying I am personally going to force a smoking ban on the entire world.

Don't worry you pay through Amazon. Didn't know about your youtube channel, don't know that much about members here to be honest.

I very much doubt it, I think it's an instant critical if it does hit. But it's not that hard to roll. One thing I will say, Wario is actually really good, I can see him becoming very popular. His FS must be one of the best too, if not the most fun to control.

One thing I will say, work as much as you like in the first year! First year requires something meager like 40% to pass, or 30% with compensation from higher grades. I look back on it and lol...

20+ hours? lol that's nuts. People aren't working at the right place if they need to work that much. Surely my kind of wage plus a student loan would be enough for most people.

Try some Marketplace sellers on Amazon, here for instance. Maybe try e-mailing them. Edit: Mokong did you appear in some youtube video? I remember googling N-Europe one time and you were in a video quoting something or other. :p

Where are you from? I too am from Cheshire but travel into Manchester every day to go to the main university, studying Cell Biology. I get the Metro from Altrincham, overall it's pretty conveniant and saves a fortune. Manchester is a great place, I really recommend it to you. I disagree, I think a small amount of work promotes activity and stops you from simply molding into a void of nothingness with time passing at the blink of an eye. :p I work on Sunday only at Tesco - one day doesn't do much, but I earn £72 quid (time and a half on Sunday, so are a fair few places) just for going in at 8AM-5PM on a Sunday. That's £288 a month. It really does help. So much so I don't even have student loans. :p

Thanks for that, you've basically confirmed I don't need to waste any more time talking to you. If you'll discard animal testing so easily and say it's for the deluded, I have no reason to continue talking to you about moral issues. You are one nasty piece of work.

I think it's wrong, monopolising on something intended for remembrance.

What does this have to do anything? But in answer to your question, not nearly as many people as animals.

Having played a fair bit with Marth/against Marth (friend), my opinion of it has gone down a bit. It's surprisingly quite easy to dodge his final smash. You can roll out the way as he goes past to avoid all damage, and a fair few times he's gone right off the edge. Also, as long as you jump you can try hit Marth on the way down to know his FS ball off him. But if you do get a hit, it is ridiculously good.