AOWYN
New member
Re: Like "THIS"
Sorry if I sounded shirty,
B
<hr width=100% size=1>
Sorry if I sounded shirty,
B
<hr width=100% size=1>
A Pleasing Sight This Regulation?
- Thread starter TheBoatman
- Start date
MainlySteam
New member
Think it is a wonderful idea as my boat is comfortably over 7m in length and I just love vicariously controlling others by supporting the government make them do things I don't have to do myself.
Similarly with smoking, I don't smoke but I am addicted to the concept of my controlling the ability of others to do so through my supporting government legislation preventing their freedom to do so.
Next move is that I don't think anyone under 50 years of age should have access to alcoholic drinks as they are obviously not sensible enough. Then I will have the double pleasure of being able to drink myself and scoffing at those who cannot - rather like flying a blue ensign I suppose.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Similarly with smoking, I don't smoke but I am addicted to the concept of my controlling the ability of others to do so through my supporting government legislation preventing their freedom to do so.
Next move is that I don't think anyone under 50 years of age should have access to alcoholic drinks as they are obviously not sensible enough. Then I will have the double pleasure of being able to drink myself and scoffing at those who cannot - rather like flying a blue ensign I suppose.
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
TheBoatman
New member
John
I've just gone off you! Me being an over 50 drinking / smoker <s>
BTW
why is my post wrapped round the back of me 'puter? Is it something I did when posting?
<hr width=100% size=1>
I've just gone off you! Me being an over 50 drinking / smoker <s>
BTW
why is my post wrapped round the back of me 'puter? Is it something I did when posting?
<hr width=100% size=1>
peterb
New member
It wasn't you, it was cruisingsam. Unknowingly, he posted a link which seemed to go on for ever without any breaks (like dots or slashes). The system put it all on one line, then extended every post to the same width.
Incidentally, I can't understand your logic. The chance of a smoker being killed by smoking is vastly higher than the chance of a non-wearer of a PFD being killed by drowning, yet you welcome legislation on the lower risk and (presumably) don't like legislation on the higher risk. Why?
<hr width=100% size=1>
Incidentally, I can't understand your logic. The chance of a smoker being killed by smoking is vastly higher than the chance of a non-wearer of a PFD being killed by drowning, yet you welcome legislation on the lower risk and (presumably) don't like legislation on the higher risk. Why?
<hr width=100% size=1>
MainlySteam
New member
Well you will be ok with the drinking bit, I am on your side with that one /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. Maybe we can get to share one sometime before we are so old that have to take it intravenously.
Regards
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
Regards
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
TheBoatman
New member
Peter
As a life long smoker I have acepted the fact that it will probably do for me in the fulness of time, I do find the current rules regarding smoking difficult but I acept them as inevitable.
However, despite the reletivly low loss of life from drownings I don't think anyone could argue that in most cases had the person been wearing a PFD they may well have survived. Certainly their chances would have greatly increased if they had.
In my original post I cited seat belts, I'm old enough to remember the debate that went on over their compulsory use, now I don't think anyone would argue that it was not a good move?
Let me reverse the arguement for a minute and say this, what if you watched an advert showing [say] 10 people, kids and all that drowned because they were not wearing a PDF and this was due to the fact that other people didn't want their civil liberties touched?
I'd feel bad, what about you?
<hr width=100% size=1>
As a life long smoker I have acepted the fact that it will probably do for me in the fulness of time, I do find the current rules regarding smoking difficult but I acept them as inevitable.
However, despite the reletivly low loss of life from drownings I don't think anyone could argue that in most cases had the person been wearing a PFD they may well have survived. Certainly their chances would have greatly increased if they had.
In my original post I cited seat belts, I'm old enough to remember the debate that went on over their compulsory use, now I don't think anyone would argue that it was not a good move?
Let me reverse the arguement for a minute and say this, what if you watched an advert showing [say] 10 people, kids and all that drowned because they were not wearing a PDF and this was due to the fact that other people didn't want their civil liberties touched?
I'd feel bad, what about you?
<hr width=100% size=1>
peterb
New member
But wouldn't it be more logical to put more priority on preventing deaths from smoking than on to preventing deaths from drowning? Have you any idea of comparative numbers? I seem to remember that one in every nine smokers will die from a smoking-related illness (or was it one in four?). Even if there were no such things as lifejackets, I doubt whether one in nine yachtsmen would drown.
My question really is about priorities. I have to admit that my main reason for wearing a lifejacket is its integral harness (except in a dinghy, when I do wear an LJ). But I don't smoke. Which makes more sense: wearing a lifejacket and smoking, or doing neither?
<hr width=100% size=1>
My question really is about priorities. I have to admit that my main reason for wearing a lifejacket is its integral harness (except in a dinghy, when I do wear an LJ). But I don't smoke. Which makes more sense: wearing a lifejacket and smoking, or doing neither?
<hr width=100% size=1>
charles_reed
Active member
Far, far better
than flying a blue ensign - after all you're supporting compulsion of others. Flying a blue ensign is purely passive, indignation being in the eye of the beholder.
<hr width=100% size=1>
than flying a blue ensign - after all you're supporting compulsion of others. Flying a blue ensign is purely passive, indignation being in the eye of the beholder.
<hr width=100% size=1>
MainlySteam
New member
Re: Far, far better
A very good point Charles which I see clearly now. I must be more aggressive /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
Regards
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
A very good point Charles which I see clearly now. I must be more aggressive /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
Regards
John
<hr width=100% size=1>
milltech
Active member
Yes I wear a lifejacket crossing the main channel in the inflatable going out to the boat mooring, I do not always wear a lifejacket going from the boat to the beach in swimming trunks. The problem with all legislation of a dictatorial nature is that it does not allow for the normalness of ordinary activities.
If I'm with a party on a 6m open boat and I go for a swim and, having boarded again, am accosted by some local hitler as I'm toweling myself down, or even after when eating a sandwich, what is my position in Irish law?
<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
If I'm with a party on a 6m open boat and I go for a swim and, having boarded again, am accosted by some local hitler as I'm toweling myself down, or even after when eating a sandwich, what is my position in Irish law?
<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
milltech
Active member
It still doesn't make sense in all circumastances, see my post above.
<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com
