Sheikah

A physical characteristic can be changed, yes, but the thought processes of a male and female are very different. I still see gender as a scientific term. I'm actually a student from Manchester Uni... what about you?

Most are, but the guy you were replying to didn't seem to care about it even being banned on aeroplanes. Rokhead, I admit, I am extremely sorry. I'm sorry that I think the banning of fags to save smokers from illness and death is a good idea. I'll go meditate in a mountain for my extremely selfish thoughts about people not dying.

It's not ignorant, it's a scientific fact that your gender is determined by your DNA, without sounding offensive anyone could have surgery done to them, but it wouldn't necessarily mean they were, say, a dolphin if they had dolphin parts attached to them (think that South Park episode).

Fair enough, I still believe gender is determined as having XX or XY chromosomes, what with being a budding scientist and all. Nothing against people who are transgender though. Although a lot of transexuals I've ever seen I wouldn't have classified as women.. >_>

Are you some hippy?

If you had your penis cut off, surgery and breast implants but in, I'd still say you'd be male, since that was what you were born as and a gender is really something determined by your DNA. I never contested the fact that statistically men get in more accidents, my point is that there should be laws in place meaning that you can't base it on the gender of someone. Yes, it would mean more payouts for men, but laws exist throughout life costing people millions. Like I'll say again, if people could get away with paying one gender less for manual work or something, companies would make a killing. Failing this, there should be some additional test for getting insurance, and you should get charged appropriately based on that, not over gender. Why should I have to pay if chavs try simulate burnout in their supermarket car park to upload a video to youtube?

I wouldn't bother, some smokers are frankly ignorant and selfish beyond belief. As long as they get their fix of nicotine they couldn't give a ****.

Read my post again, I said that age was obviously something fair to judge since a young fresh driver would have no experience. To judge on the grounds of having a penis though is frankly offensive.

But statistics would show that a man is capable of lifting more, possibly allowing him to be more efficient at a job, yet the law states either gender must be paid the same. Don't get me wrong, women might well be better at something else yet men would be paid the same. So why can't there be laws charging genders the same too? I'm not talking about age, since obviously a younger driver has less experience, and an old one might be senile. But gender is specifically taking into account the 'lads like going fast' concept, which is stereotypical.

I don't know what pubs you go in, sounds like a shit night out. The airline thing is a choice the companies made, so it's not like we should be grateful to smokers when they were allowed to smoke. Also, even if I'm breathing recycled air I'd rather do that than breathe in cigarette smoke. Such foul stuff.

Yeh, a job of a skydiver is a personal choice, and one that you would know the risks of before taking it up. But your gender is set in stone - and I don't consider surgery to say otherwise. :p It might also be better financially to pay, say, a female builder less than a male builder than have to pay a woman the same amount, yet laws stop this from happening. The same laws should exist within car insurance IMO.

Yes it is stereotyping, as they are offering a better deal to women just because they are women. You can't help being born how you are, and you shouldn't be charged more because of it.

Chavs do that on the Metrolink. A woman confronted a smoking chav once because she had a child and the chav started swearing at her and mocked her. Frankly atrocious. Chavs are such disgusting specimens, they should all be eradicated.

The point is that if it's not a god-given right to smoke, you don't need god given rights to stop it. Because smokers won't stop killing themselves. Right, you didn't understand what I was pointing out. The comparisons to heroin for instance, highlighted the example of a banned substance that does not cause people to exclaim that the government is fascist or feel that they have no rights. No, it's nothing to do with my opinion- things are banned that are dangerous to health, this has happened in the past (asbestos, anyone) so it has absolutely nothing to do with whether I think it should be banned. If the government geared towards that path eventually, they wouldn't be doing so because a guy named Daniel from N-Europe forums personally believed it was a good idea. What do some people come out with. As for your theory that something with a checklist is watching over you...could this be an argument for the 'against' side of smoking? Just kidding. :p

You're told to do lots of things and don't bat an eyelid! Don't take heroin, don't drive without a license, don't drink and drive! These are dangerous things - yes, more so than cigarettes, but still banned and people don't feel like their rights are being taken away. Cigarettes are merely a drug that aren't a god given right for people to have; people lived without them before they came into existence, and really people are being done a favour if they were ever completely banned. Cannabis is banned and reportedly isn't that much more dangerous, yet people aren't as bothered. I am not suggesting a complete halt on cigarettes, obviously I would be talking about some massive scheme where gradually you would reduce the numbers and eventually outright ban them. I realise to a smoker this seems like an infringement of their rights, but I honestly think it would be a good way to go.

The thing I was talking about, the partial ban, was the smoking in pubs etc, which has already happened (which I support). That was definitely needed because it was making people like me breathe people's smoke. The reason I think it should eventually be banned is simply because they are harmful. I know, for some this is mind boggling stuff that someone actually cares about what happens to other people. But honestly, I know deep down that there are so many good reasons for it to be gone, and a government ban of it would only lead to better health. You can say it's fascist or whatever, but if it saved lives then I'm for it.

I loved 'em, added depth to your characters. In BG at least.... It seemed quite clever how your party would disagree because of their general disposition and even attack each other or part their ways. You had to pick your party carefully...

It was a very simple and clear comparison, if you did not get it I suggest you try again. :p This again brings me back to exactly what my last post summed up. Even if one substance causes a lot of death and isn't banned, if another substance that causes illness and death is banned we shouldn't start slamming the fact it is banned (partially). I would rather at least one be partially banned than none at all. A blanket public ban was required to stop people forcing - people who forced others, even though not deliberately, to breathe their smoke. In the canteen at Tesco during break, I was forced to breathe the smoke of others even when sitting as far away as possible, since so many smoked. There is no law against smoking on the street or in your house, but smoking in a public place where other people work is actually preventing the forcing of smoke onto other people. That somewhat quells any fascist thing you have going on there. The government tells us to do lots of things, but I don't recall them being labeled fascist for each thing.

That's quite funny, it's like you just took the last part of my post and ignored it completely. :p What I said is to not try justify the banning down of cigarettes by saying we should ban everything else deemed unhealthy. It's like saying "Men, we're currently being shot at by 3 groups of troops. Now we can negotiate with one group of troops and they'll probably stop firing, resulting in less casualties amongst our men." "But sir, that's not fair, the other troops still get to fire at us!" "Well in that case, we'll not call off that one group! If all 3 cannot be stopped at once, in the interest of fairness, let all 3 carry on!" It seems as if smokers try to justify carrying on with a bad habit by highlighting that other bad habbits are allowed. If life-endangering habbits can go, let them. I realise other things like McDonalds still are allowed, and I believe food like that will change in time too. But at the moment change is directed at cigarettes. And why should people concern theirselves with other people's health? Ok, if you don't believe people care about others, at least realise that smoking affects loved ones (if you don't smoke around them, it could well affect them still if you get an illness).

Very, very unlikely, he may appear healthy but smoking damages the lungs progressively in every smoker, there's no way he would be as healthy as another version of himself who never smoked. He is much more likely to encounter problems as he gets older too. At the end of the day you can go "nanny state", but whatever the motivation, the ban has been shown to increase the number quitting which means better health for them. Sod the reasoning behind people agreeing with the ban, if it results in people stopping it's no bad thing. The problem with obesity is that it is much harder to control; you can't ban people from buying lots of food, then eating it. You could possibly ban cigarettes, or at least partially like they have done, and also increase the age (which they've done again). But what annoys me the most is when people try to justify a bad thing as OK by relating to something else like obesity or alcohol. Yes alcohol can damage you too, but that doesn't mean in the interest of fairness we should either ban all of it or ban none of it at all. I think it's common sense to limit smoking - like I say, it all works out for the best in the end.

Trust me any ban is doing you a favour. The less chance you get to inhale toxic fumes the better for your own life. Laws aren't just passed to protect other people, they care about you too you know!

I really dislike smoking, and I actually feel quite sorry for smokers. I work part time in Tesco bakery and the guy who works with me nips out every hour or so to smoke, and he has a young daughter. He's a nice bloke and his child must be under 10, and he smokes that much. I think smoking will probably cap his life, there's no doubt smoking makes you unhealthy as well as posing risks like increased cancer susceptibility. The best way to stop smokers is to stop people starting, as then there is no addiction to tackle, just idiot schoolchildren pressurising others into smoking. I have no doubt in the future cigarettes will be banned completely...but that is a far cry from where we are now.

I woke up at 7:20AM, got dressed for work at Tesco, had breakfast, went to Tesco and finished at 5PM. Came home, rang up Papa John's pizza because they owed me a free pizza (since they delivered the last one 2 and a half hours late). The guy on the phone said there was no note saying I was owed one, and that he was doing a favour giving me the last one free (which was free because it was 2 and a half hours later) and this one free. He then said something about how it couldn't be any bigger than a medium, so yeh. Papa John's; what a load of crap. And for the past few hours I've been doing Uni work and posting. Yoish!

Some of you Baldur's Gate players may know already what I'm talking about, but which alignment would you fit into? By this I mean your general personality or actions, or it could be what you truly feel deep down (most of us are lawful and do not go around smashing people up, but you might well wish you could!). A rough breakdown on the alignments- Good Lawful Good: You believe in rightfully upholding the law, detest criminals and have a high sense of honour. You believe in the fair treatment of all individuals. Neutral Good: You more or less follow your own conscience even if not always on the right side the law, but always act in good faith. An example would be a doctor healing both allies and enemies due to their sense of right and wrong. Chaotic Good: You don't play by the rules, but you believe in the greater good. You could eradicate all chavs to ultimately benefit humankind. Neutral Lawful Neutral: You follow the rules set by law without question, but not really primarily due to your own sense of justice. You strictly follow a set of established laws due to reasons other than your conscience. True Neutral: You like gray. You definitely might or might not care about things. Your fence outside has your name engraved on it and bares the shape of your buttocks. You might befriend a crab on a desert island to encourage it to build your raft, only to eat it afterwards. Chaotic Neutral: You're pretty much an individual who doesn't care much for the law, or evil, and go to any measures to carry out what you believe in. Evil Lawful Evil: You'd like to be a tyrant- upholding the law, but being a right bastard. You might even be someone lawfully killing but getting a buzz out of it. Maybe like annihilating a chav with a particle cannon? Neutral Evil: You don't really care about other people, and pretty much make your mind up on the spot. If a side's not winning, you'd switch sides. If you killed someone because they were in your way, you wouldn't care much afterwards. You'll obey the law if it means less trouble for you. Chaotic Evil: Death to the infidels! Kill all that do not co-operate! You don't care about the law, other people, and are full of malice. People are only good for use as tools.

They are in water, they would survive. Or be steam cooked.