Anyone else "dislike" the brave new world and want to get off?

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Ok so I did some research on the subject and it appears that you are correct. 

" Anyone born after 2008 (14 year old now)will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime,  under a law expected to be enacted next year."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

  A good thing IMO . It should eliminate or at the very least drastically reduce this very nasty addiction. 

"The proposed legislation, which is expected to become law next year, would leave current smokers free to continue buying cigarettes. "

Why not include alcohol as well?

Why not close all fast food places?

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Why not include alcohol as well?

Why not close all fast food places?

because alcohol and fast food have some redeeming value, where cigarettes' have none.

[RocketDog]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:53 AM, CharlieH said:

Is it the world around you or your attititude toward it .

 

In some cases we say " take off the rose colored glasses" when people see only positive, in your case I think, "get off the ledge" seems more fitting.????

 

 

Or, "please put on the rose colored glasses"

????

[swissie]

9 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Thai immigration is a lot easier without all the tourists clogging up the place.

 

I have a bigger TV, faster internet, free movies/TV shows/music than ever before.

Home automation, cheaper electricity, nice home, warm weather.

 

The only thing wrong about today, is my age, which I can't change.

IMHO today is the best time to be 65 years old, than at any other time in the history of man.

Quote: "The only thing wrong about today, is my age, which I can't change.
IMHO today is the best time to be 65 years old, than at any other time in the history of man".
________
Confirmed. I am a history buff and I am very happy to tell anyone that wants to hear it: Us pensioners have truly lived in a "Golden Age".
- So, every time I feel that I have good reson to complain about something, I visualise how the life of prior generations was. By doing so, I realise that what I consider as a "major personal problem" is (in comparison) just a minor "disturbance" in my life.

Unfortunately, some developpements/long-term trends indicate that this "Golden Age" is approaching it's final stage.

A quote of a well respected member of this forum comes to mind: "Enjoy each miserable day", as every miserable day of today would have been considered a good day 2 to 3 generations ago.

[Tippaporn]

On 12/22/2021 at 8:43 AM, BritManToo said:

The Fall of Rome.

1. Allowing women to be more than property.

2. Allowing foreigners to be citizens, and do all the work.

3. Large numbers of native citizens unemployed.

 

Pray my sister in the U.S. never finds out where you live . . . LOL

[Thujone]

Every day I'm extremely happy that I was young years ago.

[swissie]

22 minutes ago, swissie said:

Quote: "The only thing wrong about today, is my age, which I can't change.
IMHO today is the best time to be 65 years old, than at any other time in the history of man".
________
Confirmed. I am a history buff and I am very happy to tell anyone that wants to hear it: Us pensioners have truly lived in a "Golden Age".
- So, every time I feel that I have good reson to complain about something, I visualise how the life of prior generations was. By doing so, I realise that what I consider as a "major personal problem" is (in comparison) just a minor "disturbance" in my life.

Unfortunately, some developpements/long-term trends indicate that this "Golden Age" is approaching it's final stage.

A quote of a well respected member of this forum comes to mind: "Enjoy each miserable day", as every miserable day of today would have been considered a good day 2 to 3 generations ago.

Must add a few words: Inspite of what I have written above. Yes, there are a lot of things that I don't like about "the brave new world". I try to stay "analog" as much as possible.

 

For example: I don't know what "woke" is. I could Google it, but I am afraid it would be some part of "the brave new world" that I don't like. Instead I will now open a can of beer. Without the assistance of any algorisms, just using my 2 hands and 10 fingers. Completely analog and fancy free.

[freedomnow]

Aye, captain !

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Ok so I did some research on the subject and it appears that you are correct. 

" Anyone born after 2008 (14 year old now)will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime,  under a law expected to be enacted next year."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

  A good thing IMO . It should eliminate or at the very least drastically reduce this very nasty addiction. 

"The proposed legislation, which is expected to become law next year, would leave current smokers free to continue buying cigarettes. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/world/asia/new-zealand-smoking-ban.html#:~:text=New Zealand unveiled a plan,free to continue buying cigarettes.

so the current crop of smokers will be eliminated thru attrition. 

   They got me early , when I did not know any better , and it was not easy getting out of them, but I have not smocked a cigarette for about 35 years (65 now) . I wish they had done something like that when I was a kid.  

I am impressed , Way to go New Zeeland !!

I don't blame anyone for wanting to eradicate what they deem to be a damaging vice.  And on it's surface it sure seems to be a great idea to do so via legislation.  But once you start thinking about it much more deeply you find out that not only is it a not-so-good idea but one that is, practically speaking, unworkable and may bring unexpected outcomes which themselves are quite damaging.

 

Considering just a single aspect of what you would be asking for would be the opening of a Pandora's Box.  For first it will be cigarettes.  Then it will be alcohol and fast food, as BritManToo suggested.  After that it will be 16 oz. or greater soft drinks, as proposed by then Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City in 2013.

For one the list will never end.  And who are those who will come lobbying with shrieking voices for their own personal pet peeves to be added to the list, for reasons which may be connected to hidden or sinister agendas (profit)?  For another, in a world where one man's good is another's evil and vice versa, who is going to be anointed to the lofty position of final judge and arbitrator to declare what's best for all where there is no best for all?

 

That, my friend, is only the first of the difficulties to be encountered by traveling down that path.

Not everything is possible in this world.  And one of those things is the idea that you can protect people from themselves.  No one has that power.  And for good reason which you may or may not understand, nor should they.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Tippaporn

[swissie]

On 12/22/2021 at 3:56 AM, Berkshire said:

That's one thing you and I have in common....the aches and pain of aging.  Every morning.  It'll only get worse, but hey, all we can do is make the best of it.

As I gather, OP suffered some "personal blows" in connection with a beautiful Thai-Lady. This, in combination with "health problems" is a mixture that can not make for a "happy camper". Hence, his rather somber outlook on life overall. I can relate.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't blame anyone for wanting to eradicate what they deem to be a damaging vice.  And on it's surface it sure seems to be a great idea to do so via legislation.  But once you start thinking about it much more deeply you find out that not only is it a not-so-good idea but one that is practically unworkable and may bring unexpected outcomes which themselves are quite damaging.

 

Considering just a single aspect of what you would be asking for would be the opening of a Pandora's Box.  For first it will be cigarettes.  Then it will be alcohol and fast food, as BritManToo suggested.  After that it will be 16 oz. or greater soft drinks, as proposed by then Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City in 2013.

For one the list will never end.  And who are those who will be lobbying with shrieking voices for their own personal pet peeves to be added to the list, for reasons which may be connected to hidden or sinister agendas (profit)?  For another, in a world where one man's good is another's evil and vice versa who is going to be anointed to the lofty position of final judge and arbitrator to declare what's best for all where there is no best for all?

 

That, my friend, is only the first of the difficulties to be encountered by traveling down that path.

Not everything is possible in this world.  And one of those things is the idea that you can protect people from themselves.  No one has that power.  And for good reason which you may or may not understand, nor should they.

 

It's a good point but I think in a healthy democracy like New Zealand the people can speak and if enough people are against it it will be overturned. Smoking doesn't seem like a habit where people look back and say 'gee those years of smoking were fun. Hate to have missed out on that.' I could be wrong. I have close family members who likely died from the habit. It actually takes guts to fight big tobacco. Australia had to fight hard to get the clear packaging and then other's followed. 

There tends to be a move to, and then away, from limits based on health issues. Sugar taxes don't seem to be popular. There was a push to add taxes to wine as Australians can buy half  decent wine cheaply.  People can and do have a good time with Australian wine and don't want to pay tax because a few people can't control themselves. It's a bit subjective but a healthy ballot box hopefully keeps the politician's a little bit honest and careful. 

[zzaa09]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

because alcohol and fast food have some redeeming value, where cigarettes' have none.

Very indoctrinated American, so it appears. 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Very indoctrinated American, so it appears. 

Why do you disagree with my assessment ? and if so how? 

Or will you just make snide remarks? 

[sirineou]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

  And who are those who will come lobbying with shrieking voices for their own personal pet peeves to be added to the list, for reasons which may be connected to hidden or sinister agendas (profit)?

Don't you  think the tobaccos industry has a " hidden or sinister agendas (profit)? "

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It's a good point but I think in a healthy democracy like New Zealand the people can speak and if enough people are against it it will be overturned. Smoking doesn't seem like a habit where people look back and say 'gee those years of smoking were fun. Hate to have missed out on that.' I could be wrong. I have close family members who likely died from the habit. It actually takes guts to fight big tobacco. Australia had to fight hard to get the clear packaging and then other's followed. 

There tends to be a move to, and then away, from limits based on health issues. Sugar taxes don't seem to be popular. There was a push to add taxes to wine as Australians can buy half  decent wine cheaply.  People can and do have a good time with Australian wine and don't want to pay tax because a few people can't control themselves. It's a bit subjective but a healthy ballot box hopefully keeps the politician's a little bit honest and careful. 

From the Knickerbocker magazine of Sept. 1842 (can't determine the author):

 

"You can neither legislate a man into virtue nor vice. You cannot legislate a class up or down. Their salvation must come from themselves. It is an inward revolution that is needed, not an outward."

 

The author of the above quote from 179 years ago understood perfectly well what I wrote, as I understand what he wrote.  Attempting to legislate behaviour, with a design to protect ones self from ones self, appears to be a good idea on the surface.  One needs to think much more deeply about it to gain the understanding of an immutable truth;  you cannot protect people from themselves.

Those who do not understand this are free to make democratic policy choices which would attempt to defy this truth.  They will then deal with the resultant problems and once the problems become too large to ignore the questions will then be asked which will lead to the truth being exposed.  At which point the policy will be reversed or rescinded.

This last statement can be summed up by Any Rand:

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

The reality is that no one has the power to protect people from themselves.  One can ignore this fact or reality, go against it, and implement, via legislation, all sorts of laws to protect people from themselves in literally endless ways.  Going against reality is certain to produce one effect . . . problems.  Problems are the telltale of all policies that avoid. or attempt to counter reality.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Don't you  think the tobaccos industry has a " hidden or sinister agendas (profit)? "

By current standards, absolutely.  Would you agree that the fact that they do does not bear on my point that it would be a bad idea to attempt to legislate individual behaviour towards the impossible end of trying to protect ones self from ones self?  And do you agree with that point at all?

[BritManToo]

25 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Don't you  think the tobaccos industry has a " hidden or sinister agendas (profit)? "

It doesn't matter, legislating against tobacco sales will just give organised crime another way to make money.

How did the USA do legislating against alcohol sales?

How did the USA do legislating against Cuban cigars?

How did everyone do legislating against cannabis and meth?

 

PS.

I think big pharma has a 'hidden or sinister agenda (profit)? re vaccination.

It's what big corporations do.

Edited December 23, 2021 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I think big pharma has a 'hidden or sinister agenda (profit)? re vaccination. It's what big corporations do.

It's not hidden, it's what big companies do. The pharmas are certainly making money by selling vaccinations but there is NO evidence that they are promoting conspiracy theories to exaggerate the dangers of the virus to sell more vaccines. There are plenty of independent researchers and medical professionals making the case for them. Nothing to see here unless you care to prove otherwise.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's not hidden, it's what big companies do. The pharmas are certainly making money by selling vaccinations but there is NO evidence that they are promoting conspiracy theories to exaggerate the dangers of the virus to sell more vaccines. There are plenty of independent researchers and medical professionals making the case for them. Nothing to see here unless you care to prove otherwise.

Someone's hackles just got raised.  I'd love to bite but too often you end up with someone who really doesn't want to have a discussion on differing ideas or facts because most are immovably set in their convictions.  Which makes any exchange pointless and fruitless.  And, you get called a bunch of names and have insults hurled at you, which really, really hurt.

Besides that, it's off-topic.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Tippaporn

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Someone's hackles just got raised.  I'd love to bite but too often you end up with someone who really doesn't want to have a discussion on differing ideas or facts because most are absolutely set in their convictions.  Which makes any exchange pointless and fruitless.

Besides that, it's off-topic.

If you're referring to me I'm very willing to have a discussion provided that it includes substantiation for any claims made in the discussion.  As far as off topic is concerned the title is so vague that it invokes Orwell and probably encompasses unspoken agendas and propaganda but I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If you're referring to me I'm very willing to have a discussion provided that it includes substantiation for any claims made in the discussion.  As far as off topic is concerned the title is so vague that it invokes Orwell and probably encompasses unspoken agendas and propaganda but I'm happy to leave it at that.

Nah.  Not here.  Via PM?  Gladly.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Nah.  Not here.  Via PM?  Gladly.

No. I prefer the public forum format. I spend too much time on here as it is without also arguing with one person. No offense intended.

[Tippaporn]

Just now, ozimoron said:

No. I prefer the public forum format. I spend too much time on here as it is without also arguing with one person. No offense intended.

If time is the issue for you then there would be no more time spent one on one vs. debating in public.  Actually, it would involve less time as neither of us would have to respond to however many other posters chiming in.

 

As far as 'spending too much time on here' I grant it wouldn't be a waste of time.  It may be very educational on a highly important topic which affects us all almost daily.  In which case it would be time well spent.

And, I have no intention of arguing with you.  Arguing implies two or more people with set viewpoints bickering back and forth.  Now that's a waste of time.  This would be a true debate.  No ad hominem.  Gentlemanly.  Respectfully.  The first to bow out admits defeat.

 

If you feel the challenge would be too time consuming (research would be implied, naturally) then no offense taken.

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If time is the issue for you then there would be no more time spent one on one vs. debating in public.  Actually, it would involve less time as neither of us would have to respond to however many other posters chiming in.

 

As far as 'spending too much time on here' I grant it wouldn't be a waste of time.  It may be very educational on a highly important topic which affects us all almost daily.  In which case it would be time well spent.

And, I have no intention of arguing with you.  Arguing implies two or more people with set viewpoints bickering back and forth.  Now that's a waste of time.  This would be a true debate.  No ad hominem.  Gentlemanly.  Respectfully.  The first to bow out admits defeat.

 

If you feel the challenge would be too time consuming (research would be implied, naturally) then no offense taken.

I see no reason not to debate in public other than that I smell an excuse to want to cite data from disreputable sources. It's not so much the site that's the problem but if I can't find the data in a mainstream source then it's probably fake.

Edited December 23, 2021 by ozimoron

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I see no reason not to debate in public other than that I smell an excuse to want to cite data from disreputable sources.

Well, I believe you just showed your cards.  You've just announced yourself to be the judge of what information is admissible and what is not.  That's not a debate.  That's a one-sided censored joke that's not even funny.

Go ahead and start posting away here off-topic about COVID specific topics and see how long it lasts.  You don't need me to start up a "debate," LOL.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, I believe you just showed your cards.  You've just announced yourself to be the judge of what information is admissible and what is not.  That's not a debate.  That's a one-sided censored joke that's not even funny.

Go ahead and start posting away here off-topic about COVID specific topics and see how long it lasts.  You don't need me to start up a "debate," LOL.

ALL the information on the planet that's true is available on reputable sources. Why should I consider data that's not? There is a reason that such sites are banned here, the same reason I won't read them, they are toxic.

Edited December 23, 2021 by ozimoron

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

ALL the information on the planet that's true is available on reputable sources. Why should I consider data that's not?

That's a bold statement for which you have no proof.  Proof which, it appears per an earlier post, you require as necessary in determining truth.  And of course you get to decide what's reputable, too.  Lovely.

 

You're offering a tie-both-hands-behind-your-back debate where you get to not only play the censor of sources but completely control the information, too.  How can you seriously consider that to be fair play.  LOL  Playing with half a deck, your half, whilst you're hiding the other half, my half.  No thanks.

No more replies to this sad exchange.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Tippaporn

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

From the Knickerbocker magazine of Sept. 1842 (can't determine the author):

 

"You can neither legislate a man into virtue nor vice. You cannot legislate a class up or down. Their salvation must come from themselves. It is an inward revolution that is needed, not an outward."

 

The author of the above quote from 179 years ago understood perfectly well what I wrote, as I understand what he wrote.  Attempting to legislate behaviour, with a design to protect ones self from ones self, appears to be a good idea on the surface.  One needs to think much more deeply about it to gain the understanding of an immutable truth;  you cannot protect people from themselves.

Those who do not understand this are free to make democratic policy choices which would attempt to defy this truth.  They will then deal with the resultant problems and once the problems become too large to ignore the questions will then be asked which will lead to the truth being exposed.  At which point the policy will be reversed or rescinded.

This last statement can be summed up by Any Rand:

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

The reality is that no one has the power to protect people from themselves.  One can ignore this fact or reality, go against it, and implement, via legislation, all sorts of laws to protect people from themselves in literally endless ways.  Going against reality is certain to produce one effect . . . problems.  Problems are the telltale of all policies that avoid. or attempt to counter reality.

 

In my opinion philosophy can get in the way of reality and do gooders can do good.

Ayn Rand had good things to say but in her free market world  there is no equality between a large corporation selling an addictive product and a 15 year old kid.

You might hark back to 1970 when movie and sports stars were free to advertise smoking, where governments didn't force companies to tell the truth on smoking, or provide a counter argument to the health effects or help people quit.  

That changed. The do gooders then went further by hiding cigarettes on shop counters and had clear packaging with horrible images, taking away the power of Marlboro red or Benson and Hedges gold. Taxes were increased. All a bit controversial but the outcome was a huge decrease in smoking. 

Banning may be a step to far but I have a theory that smoking is simply not that appealing like other drugs, and ongoing use is more about addiction than pleasure, and it is a poison that won't be missed. Could be wrong. 

You might say next will be fatty food etc  but I think there is still some common sense and the freedom of the ballot box will do the trick. 

These arguments can apply to covid too but I won't go there. 

[Kinnock]

Thai 'lakorn' serials are rabidly anti-woke.  The heroine ('Nang Ek') is always very pretty, the bad girl (Nang Lie) is very hot, the hero (Paa Ek) is half Thai/Half European, and the bad guy (Paa Lie) forces the pretty Nang Ek to have sex before he gets beaten up by Paa Ek.

 

There's also a comedy gay guy to really upset the Wokes.  And everyone has really white skin ..... and a Merc.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/22/2021 at 1:43 PM, Peterw42 said:

OP, I think your opening line sums up everything.

Nobody even owns a radio anymore, its from another century (literally). Surprised you don't call it the wireless.

Have you heard of podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, literally a whole world of media, information, entertainment at your fingertips. You get to choose what you listen to.

One of my fears , as I grow older, is becoming that old guy at the pub moaning about "back in my day".

Thanks for the timely reminder not to be that guy.

 

Here you go from the very same forum. Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify etc all gone if the internet goes away, but the radio will carry on regardless.

LOL.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1243548-internet-slowdown/