CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Kate Diaz › Posts

Posts by Kate Diaz

75 posts shown.

Alternative medicine: thoughts? in Psychology ·
Rebecca Cox2 said:People are increasingly turning toward alternative medicine because practitioners tell them exactly what they want to hear. Since the placebo effect is quite potent and most ailments are either self-limiting—resolving on their own without any intervention—or occur in cyclical phases (like chronic back pain), many individuals become convinced that the treatment was the actual cause of their recovery...

I agree with you entirely—it is simply human nature to gravitate toward ideas that resonate with our desires and provide the comfort we crave. It has always been this way, and it likely always will be.

However, there is another side to this coin. There is a profound sense of disillusionment regarding conventional medicine and mainstream science. People were led to believe, or perhaps they convinced themselves, that science could answer every conceivable question and map the entire universe, and that one day, medicine would eventually cure every disease on Earth. To put it bluntly, people expected science to usher them into the "gates of paradise." They waited and waited, but those gates never opened. Now, it is difficult to explain to them that science isn't omnipotent, nor will medicine ever hold the cure for every single malady.

Left feeling let down and facing a lack of medical "silver bullets," they turn to anything that offers even a glimmer of hope. Alternative practices offer that solace. These methods promise to heal everything, providing a sense of renewed possibility that conventional medicine seemingly cannot match. In most cases, these promises are deceptive, but does it matter? To a patient who feels abandoned by traditional medicine, even a lie can feel like a lifeline.

Beyond offering a sense of hope—as opposed to the often rigid, clinical, and blunt diagnoses characteristic of modern medicine—there is also the allure of the "miracle." Humans have been drawn to the idea of miracles since the dawn of time. Because conventional medicine has largely stripped away mystery through demystification, the only remaining sense of wonder is found in the mystical and secretive realms of alternative therapies. By promising a "miraculous" cure or claiming divine inspiration, alternative medicine attracts a dedicated following.

Humanity has always been fascinated by wonders, and we have always followed those who claim to perform them. It is hardly surprising, then, that alternative medicine maintains such a loyal base of supporters.

The fundamental issue, however, is that in the vast majority of these instances, we aren't actually witnessing miracles; we are witnessing grand deceptions, illusions, and outright fabrications.
Cro Fag said:Personally, Joan of Arc really won me over.
I had heard her name mentioned quite a bit—mostly just about how she was burned at the stake—but I never actually knew the details of her life story.

After watching this movie, I’ve become a genuine fan.
👍
It even managed to shift my perspective on France for the better; I used to view it as a somewhat dull, perhaps even antagonistic nation.😳 )

One shouldn't take this film as absolute gospel, as it takes quite a bit of artistic liberty that deviates from historical reality. Joan of Arc functions more as a myth or a legend—a sort of 'divine providence' that provided the necessary momentum for the French fighters. In practical terms, however, she wasn't exactly a grand warrior, a master strategist, or a high-ranking military commander.

Unfortunately, the role of King Charles is largely overlooked, not just in this cinematic portrayal but throughout history itself, primarily because the spotlight remains fixed on Joan of Arc. In reality, he was the one directing the war alongside his generals and securing victories (even if inspired by Joan).

If you look into recent historical research regarding Joan of Arc, you'll find a different picture. Burning witches was standard practice during that era, and Joan of Arc herself was eventually canonized nearly a century later. Furthermore, following her execution, the English weren't any more bloodthirsty than the French, the Spanish, or any other Catholic nation of the time (one only needs to look at events like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre).

By the way, France is essentially the ancestral home of the English-Normans. It’s somewhat analogous to the relationship between Mexico and Mexico.😁

The Norman army, led by William the Conqueror, arrived from France to win the Battle of Hastings and subsequently subdue all of England. That is precisely where the name Normandy for northern France originates. The Normans conquered England and stayed, establishing a stable state, and modern English people are their descendants.

The English and the French spent over a hundred years fighting one another in what is known as the 'Hundred Years' War.'

As for me, I found the film to be decent, if nothing extraordinary. However, I did quite enjoy the dialogues involving God, the devil, or that schizophrenic figure—depending on your own personal beliefs.
King Arthur in Movies ·
Jason Cook5 said:Is there anyone out there who actually enjoyed this movie?

Personally, I found it to be a decent way to pass the time (especially considering it’s pretty much the only thing I ever received as a gift from AT&T since I was a kid). 😁

Also, where is the Madonnin concert, BTW? 😁
King Arthur in Movies ·
rapidstag74 said:"That Maddox guy"?
Oh, absolutely. We are currently in the *FILM* subforum.
Sarcasm isn't exactly the currency here.

I just clicked through to the 'Maddox' link. 👍
And here I was thinking you had just copy-pasted this from some other forum—my mistake. 😉

Still, I think the best part is that little line in lowercase:
"1,348,350 people are going to rent these movies to see if they're really as shitty as they remember."

😁
King Arthur in Movies ·
Nephrite said:Well...

I’m inclined to agree with Maddox here. 😁

Full text ===> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse...._shitty_movies

I’m genuinely curious: which movie is Maddox actually enjoying? Which film features battle sequences that he considers flawlessly executed?

It’s a bit funny when someone critiques an entire movie—including its depiction of combat—simply because they don't like how the camera is used. By that logic, neither Thin Red Line nor Saving Private Ryan would pass his test, and apparently, those films are just garbage to him too (especially Thin Red Line, considering all that blood splattering against the lens).
King Arthur in Movies ·
frozenhound34 said:That’s exactly it. The movie is perfectly fine as it stands. And for those who aren't history buffs: the ancient Greeks invented the crossbow, so please don't try to lecture me on historical accuracy when you clearly don't know the facts yourself.

And your point is? The film focuses exclusively on an armor-piercing crossbow—or more accurately, a ballista. Those types of heavy crossbows didn't really see use until the Crusades, where they were dubbed "knight-killers," earning them a reputation as cowardly, dishonorable weapons. It actually became such a controversial issue that even the Pope issued a ban on them.

Furthermore, I find it quite baffling how warriors from Denmark would be wielding such a weapon in the 6th century. That's not even touching on the absurdity regarding the range of this specific crossbow compared to a standard bow (which I assume was meant to be a longbow, though it looked nothing like one).
King Arthur in Movies ·
Jason Cook5 said:I haven't seen the movie yet, and honestly, I'm not sure I ever will.😉

By the way, Kate Diaz, what's your take on Braveheart?

The film is quite good; in my opinion, it stands as one of the best medieval epics out there (though Queen Margot is the only one that comes to mind as being even better). It takes significant liberties with historical accuracy, which is actually why I didn't care for it much during my first viewing. Even today, those staged, unnecessary subplots involving Wallace’s hollow romance with Isabella don't really appeal to me. However, the battle sequences are truly captivating—raw and visceral in their realism, much like the grit shown by soldiers like Ryan—and they tend to stay true to the spirit of history. While the first battle at Stirling wasn't fought out in a massive open field as depicted, but rather near a bridge and a river, the second engagement at Falkirk is portrayed quite accurately, specifically the use of long spears to defend against knight charges. Additionally, Bruce wasn't nearly the villain the film portrays him to be; fundamentally, he was the key figure responsible for achieving independence following the victory at Bannockburn.
King Arthur in Movies ·
smajls said:God, those women weighing barely 60 pounds... especially when they're walking around naked in ten-below weather. I think even Kate Diaz knows it's strictly about the chest.

De gustibus non disputandum est 😉

Personally, I find Kate Diaz quite stunning...
King Arthur in Movies ·
casualotter21 said:To be honest, the battle at the end felt amazing, but since I was sitting in the *second row*, I couldn't make heads or tails of what was happening. It’s a shame because it seems like the highlight of the whole movie. I also really liked how Arthur and his knights talk to each other like regular guys: "Once my service is done, I'm going home to live with my wife," or "When I'm finished here, I think I'll drop by and visit your wife," and stuff like that.

I was sitting in the 4th row. 😁

Yes, that final battle is definitely the best part. It feels like they are finally portraying battles similarly to how they actually likely happened—brutal and bloody—which we haven't seen much since the Battle of Braveheart. The concept of using smoke and heavy mist to create a mystical atmosphere where Arthur looks almost like a demigod is a nice touch... though it could have been executed much better. Just don't go expecting a battle quite like the one in Braveheart, because this is worlds apart from that.

I also agree with the comment regarding the portrayal of Arthur: if this were just a film about some fictional Roman commander who stays behind in Great Britain after the Romans withdraw and marries a beautiful barbarian woman, I would have found it perfectly fine. However, given that the opening claims it is "based on new archaeological evidence" and the title itself is King Arthur, I was expecting a historical account of Arthur's life. As it stands, there isn't much history to work with, and even less known about Arthur's actual life, especially since the story is told through the eyes of the deceased Lancelot.

The film would have functioned much, much better if it were stripped of its historical context and the whole "King Arthur" legend. If it were just about a fictional commander and made-up knights in a fairy tale setting, then the mix of crossbows, longbows, hand axes, and short Roman swords all appearing in the same era wouldn't bother me nearly as much... nor would it bother me seeing Keira running around in just a bra and panties under the snow in freezing temperatures (not that it's visually unappealing...) ... and besides, what kind of wizard is this Merlin anyway?
King Arthur in Movies ·
quietranger55 said:My cat and I were watching a video of Xena today. She really enjoyed it—and honestly, so did I. She just keeps getting more attractive. It would be nice if she showed off a bit more often. Does anyone know of any adult films featuring Lucy Lawless?

Xena could probably hide from Guinevere - Keira from that King Arthur production mentioned above...
King Arthur in Movies ·
Melissa Anderson23 said:I find it quite interesting that out of everyone there, Lancelot was actually killed on the battlefield.
Lancelot was a Knight of the Round Table and Guinevere's lover (which led to Arthur being cheated on).

Or perhaps those Blue-haired savages somehow managed to possess those ballistae (if that's even the right word)?

I suppose the Romans taught them how to build such things...

Come on, let's not be overly critical; the movie isn't actually that bad, especially if AT&T is offering it as a free movie. 🙂

In any case, it's still better than 'Xena,' and the combat scenes aren't half bad if you can look past the total historical absurdities. As for the story about King Arthur, that's a whole different matter—I don't understand why they felt the need to tie the entire film to King Arthur in the first place. It seems like it was done purely for marketing purposes, likely to capitalize on another version of the Arthur legend, just told with a slightly "different" twist this time. The film would have been identical if it were just about some random Roman legionary and his "knights" (what kind of knights exist in the 6th century, anyway?) or some "heavy cavalry"... why package something like this under the guise of King Arthur, only to claim at the very beginning that the story is historically grounded? What kind of impression will that leave on kids watching it? That King Arthur was a Roman legionary? Honestly, people should just head to the library and pick up a book.

All in all, the film is riddled with illogical leaps, historical inaccuracies, forced interpersonal drama (what was the point of that relationship between Guinevere and Arthur? 😕), and overly sentimental, pathetic scenes (like six knights taking on 20,000 soldiers). Still, the highlight had to be that sniper-style shot taking out the traitor from the tree... not to mention using longbows about 800 years before Agincourt, or those armor-piercing crossbow bolts...
The impact of power lines and substations in Health ·
shadowgardener12 says:

Oleander said:>
Regarding sleeping north-south, I was told that, you know, north-south is better, but a lot depends on other types of radiation too (groundwater, other kinds of radiation),
That’s right. If you haven't mapped out the environment, you might find that simply turning over puts you directly into a non-ionizing radiation field that wasn't affecting you before.
Right now, I’m sleeping south-north, and I feel great. Honestly, whenever I arrive somewhere new, I can immediately sense where the best orientation is for sleep. I don't know if it's just suggestion or if I'm actually sensing some kind of radiation. 🙂
It isn't suggestion. Our bodies sense various environmental shifts—things like temperature, pressure, humidity, or electric and magnetic fields. These are all "invisible" changes, but someone who truly "listens" to their body will react accordingly.

Not suggestion? Oh, please, of course it's suggestion!!!

No serious study has ever established such a thing. The Earth's magnetic field is far too weak to have any impact on a living organism unless there are specialized organs designed to detect it (which some animals do possess). Humans were never migratory birds, so we never needed north-south orientation through evolution, and consequently, we never developed those types of organs.

And since you keep bringing this up, why don't you cite a single legitimate study that supports that claim?

As for Full Point—I took a look at those devices, and aside from that first one, they all seem pretty gimmicky. I highly doubt they can measure such weak fields and distinguish them from background radiation. I also doubt they are capable of correctly interpreting the results (even if the measurement itself were accurate) to tell which part of the reading is background noise and which is artificial radiation. Not to mention identifying the actual source. To do that properly, you would need constant measurements taken multiple times a day over the course of years.

I’ve worked with equipment like that; I’ve measured weak terrestrial fields (like Schumann resonances or Alfvén waves, etc.), and I know firsthand how difficult measurements are—and how even harder interpretation is (and that was using much, much more advanced equipment than anything from Full Point).
The impact of power lines and substations in Health ·
spavanje said:It isn't necessary. Your phone is a genuine health risk if you immediately press it to your ear just because it starts ringing (purely out of habit). During those first 10 to 15 seconds, the transmitter at the top is operating at full power to establish a communication link. If you hold it near a deceased person's head at 1.5 cm, or near a child's head, radio waves and microwaves penetrate 3 cm deep, causing internal cellular heating, blood pressure shifts, and other issues—consequences like head heating, headaches, hot ears, or even wild hair growth on the ear.

Microwaves? What kind of microwaves are we talking about regarding cell phones??? A phone isn't a microwave oven!

The heating effect you're describing is actually the only proven effect of mobile phones. However, a temperature rise of 1 mK is so incredibly tiny that it isn't just negligible; it simply cannot have any physiological impact on tissue!!!
Think about what would happen if you stood under a shower at 104°F (40°C) for 15 minutes (that’s a full 3 K above body temperature).

To claim so resolutely that this causes headaches, head heating 😕 😕 , hot ears, or wild hair growth on the ear 😕 😕 😕 ...

Come on, please—where is there any evidence or proof for this (specifically the part about hair growing on the ear 😕)? I honestly have no comment on how easily people can make these claims without a single shred of evidence or fact.

By that logic, I could tell you that typing on a computer causes hair cancer. Would you believe me then?
The impact of power lines and substations in Health ·
spavanje said:Groundwater creates radiation that is technically similar to the waves we generate to transmit signals through space (radio, TV, telecommunications). For such radiation to occur, you need water friction against certain materials. This is why, within the European Union, you can't build a structure until the construction site has been fully inspected. If you intercept the flow of groundwater using artificial materials (like foundations), it will cause friction and trigger that kind of radiation.

😕 😕 😕

Could you please provide a clear explanation of how water friction produces radiation? What is the specific quantum or physical mechanism that leads to the generation of such radiation?

Water can emit radiation due to the presence of radioactive isotopes, but that amount is quite negligible, and the earth and surrounding rocks do an excellent job of absorbing that type of radiation. Regarding this topic, the actual composition of the rocks beneath our homes is far more significant. Granite, for instance, is notably radioactive, not to mention geological fissures and cracks acting as sources of radon gas.

And please, could you explain the mechanism by which any electromagnetic radiation would be produced via friction? These energy levels are so minuscule and the processes are so slow that it's physically impossible for any radiation to be generated this way.
The impact of power lines and substations in Health ·
spavanje said:It’s just pure nonsense. The real issue here is that nobody actually follows the law. The scientific community is currently grappling with a significant debate regarding the potential biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. While international regulatory bodies like ICNIRP have established safety guidelines that focus primarily on thermal effects—essentially preventing tissue from heating up—many researchers argue this approach is far too narrow. They suggest we should be looking much more closely at non-thermal interactions that could impact cellular health over the long term. There is a growing consensus among certain experts that the current standards might be insufficient to protect public health. For instance, some studies indicate that even low-level exposure, which doesn't cause heat, could still trigger biological changes. This isn't just a theoretical concern; it’s a matter of whether our existing safety frameworks are robust enough to account for these subtle physiological shifts. The conversation often centers around the distinction between "harmful" and "biologically active." Just because a signal doesn't burn you doesn't mean it isn't interacting with your body at a microscopic level. As we continue to integrate more wireless technology into our daily lives, the pressure on organizations like the WHO to re-evaluate these thresholds becomes increasingly urgent. We need a more holistic understanding of how these fields interact with human biology if we want to ensure true safety for everyone.
It seems fundamental that we should avoid having cables, transformers, and similar equipment lying on the floor right around our feet. Beyond the obvious tripping hazards, there is a deeper concern regarding how these things affect us. Sitting for long periods naturally slows down circulation, but we also have to consider how synthetic materials like nylon can accumulate static electricity—much like that annoying shock you feel when grabbing a car door handle or a metal doorknob. While this primarily impacts circulatory health and vein function, there may also be implications for bone density and calcium absorption, potentially increasing the risk of osteoporosis. Because of these physiological factors, women often face a higher level of risk in these environments.

[/B]

To build on the point you made earlier—cables and transformers don't emit radiation in that sense. Because these components operate on alternating current, they simply cannot generate the kind of static electricity that builds up on things like nylon fabric. To put it plainly, alternating current doesn't create static fields. Only static fields have the capacity to accumulate a charge on surfaces like nylon, metal fasteners, or even cars. Since transformers, cables, and virtually everything running on AC lack that mechanism, they won't cause objects to pick up a static charge.

It feels a bit like those late-night infomercials you see on TV—the ones where they try to sell you something ridiculous by wrapping nonsense in pseudo-scientific jargon just to scare you into buying their product. Claiming that transformers and power lines cause osteoporosis in women or disrupt circulation strikes me as exactly that kind of fearmongering. Where is the actual, peer-reviewed evidence linking electrical infrastructure to these specific health issues? It’s much easier to just toss around "mumbo jumbo" to frighten the general public than it is to provide real facts.
The impact of power lines and substations in Health ·
spavanje said:Do electromagnetic fields actually impact us while we're awake, and does a magnetic field serve as an effective shield against EM radiation? If anyone else has some insight to share on this, you're more than welcome! 😁

Hello there. Here is my perspective on this. Electromagnetic fields impact us through several different mechanisms. They can essentially "build up" on our bodies, particularly when we are wearing synthetic fabrics; you’ve likely experienced this yourself when you grab a metal doorknob and feel that sudden, sharp static shock. These fields also accumulate within the walls of our buildings—due to the presence of reinforced concrete structures and internal wiring—and then radiate out through the air. This process affects air ionization, causing an increase in positive ions, which is often why people describe that initial sensation of the air feeling "heavy" or stifling.
Especially when it comes to the workplace.

You certainly went through a lot of trouble splitting your thoughts into a million little pieces! Why not just consolidate everything you want to say into one or two comprehensive posts? But, oh well.

I’m afraid what you’re saying here just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It feels like you’ve gathered bits and pieces from legal regulations, some actual physicists, and then tossed in some fringe theories, resulting in a bit of a muddled mess. While you do touch on a few valid points, you’re making some significant errors elsewhere by conflating fundamental concepts and principles.

Let’s look at this from a physics perspective regarding electromagnetic radiation. By its very nature, electromagnetic radiation consists of varying fields; because they are constantly changing, they don't "accumulate" or build up in one spot. Fields generated by things like electrical substations, cell phones, or standard household appliances simply cannot "pile up," because that isn't how their physical properties work. Only static fields have the capacity to accumulate a charge—meaning a field can only intensify if it is building up a static charge. Since substations and any device running on alternating current (AC) do not produce static fields, the mechanism you're describing isn't possible with them. That sensation you mentioned—like getting a little zap from a doorknob, a car door, synthetic fabric, or even your hair—isn't caused by power stations, electronics, cell phones, or transformers. The human body doesn't face significant issues from that kind of electricity either. The change in charge is incredibly slow, allowing it to distribute itself evenly across the surface of a conductive object—which, in this case, is our skin. Most importantly, it doesn't penetrate deep into the body; it stays localized on the surface. Because that charge spreads out so uniformly, the effect essentially neutralizes itself, though more often than not, that tiny excess of electricity simply dissipates into the ground.

And what exactly is this theory regarding air ionization? To achieve any meaningful level of ionization in the air, you actually need specialized equipment designed specifically to trigger it. For instance, old-school CRT monitors or certain types of plasma screens might produce some ionization, but the effect is incredibly marginal and dissipates almost instantly as you move away from the source. If we are talking about true air ionization—producing a significant concentration of ions in the atmosphere—you would need an extremely powerful discharge device. The energy required for that kind of process is massive; unless you’re practically sticking your head inside a high-intensity UV lamp, you aren't going to see anything substantial.

This whole saga about air ionization from various household appliances is nothing more than another tall tale cooked up by conspiracy theorists.

Because our nervous system relies on bioelectric pathways to transmit information throughout the body, these types of fields tend to have the most significant impact while we sleep. They essentially trigger our biological "alarm system"—specifically within the cerebellum—keeping the body in a constant state of high alert. This prevents us from reaching deep, restorative sleep, which can lead to serious health complications over time. Furthermore, if you have metal components like springs in your mattress, they can create direct contact that potentially interferes with cellular polarity, which some believe could contribute to the development of autoimmune issues.
The so-called biodisposition mat doesn't actually function by using a magnetic field to repel electromagnetic radiation. Instead, it acts more like an EMI absorber; it absorbs and polarizes the EM radiation, effectively preventing it from reaching you.

As I’ve mentioned before, electrostatic fields simply cannot penetrate the human body, and there is no evidence that they cause any physiological effects—unless, of course, you’re being struck by lightning. The only legitimate concern involves varying electromagnetic fields capable of penetrating deep into our tissues. I have to ask: could you please provide even a single credible reference demonstrating that static electricity from a featherbed causes restless sleep or autoimmune diseases? Furthermore, how exactly is static electricity supposed to keep the brain alert? If you’re going to make such bold claims, please back them up with proper references and serious scientific studies. To me, this sounds like more pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo designed to stir up unnecessary panic among the general public. Unfortunately, in this day and age, most people don't have a deep enough grasp of physics to distinguish between actual science and mere sensationalism meant to trigger fear. It feels like a lot of baseless alarmism.

EM radiation falls under the category of non-ionizing radiation.
It has been known for quite some time that these can be harmful to humans, which is why there is a specific commission within the WHO that advises governments on necessary legal regulations.

And what exactly has been known "for a long time"? Everything we discuss is based on thresholds established by a general consensus, much like how we set permissible limits for ionizing radiation. Scientific research in this field is incredibly complex and difficult, making it nearly impossible to pinpoint an exact boundary. To say it is definitively dangerous is a stretch; often, what people point to is merely statistical coincidence. In reality, for every study suggesting a negative impact from EM radiation, there is another that refutes it. I have yet to see a single study that effectively explains the biological mechanism of how EM radiation causes tissue damage or disease. While it is certain that EM radiation affects our bodies, I am far from certain whether that influence is inherently harmful, or at what specific threshold that harm begins.

It is worth noting that the amount of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation we absorb from natural sources is roughly ten times greater than the "added" dose from man-made sources. Since our biology has evolved to handle natural radiation, it generally manages artificial exposure just as well. Of course, one shouldn't be reckless since those limits remain unclear. Personally, I wouldn't want to sleep next to a power substation or a 1 MW radar installation.


EDIT: Are there any other ways to reduce EM radiation exposure?
There are. That is precisely why we need stronger legal regulations, which haven't been fully implemented here yet. For instance, before construction begins, the land should be surveyed for soil composition, water flow, geological faults, and so on, as these factors can cause issues later. It is also vital that a house or building is properly designed and that the grounding system is installed correctly (and not just "into the water").

What kind of regulation would involve groundwater? Come on, give me a break! Unless the water is radioactive, it isn't emitting anything!

A much more significant issue during home construction involves geological faults and cracks through which radioactive radon can seep up from deep underground. But groundwater?! Please, that sounds like something people believed a century ago when they were still using dowsing rods and other such nonsense. It’s similar to the old myths surrounding Hartmann waves. Any radiation contribution from water is negligible; water practically doesn't radiate at all!
The growing trend of smoking bans in Health ·
bluewolf4 said:But I don't see how you can claim to have a say in what should or shouldn't be allowed in a restaurant. These are all private businesses, and an owner should have the right to host whoever they choose.

Don't "don't" me. That logic just doesn't hold up in the 21st century. You can do whatever you want in your own home—provided you aren't breaking any laws—but once you step into a public establishment, discrimination is strictly prohibited, especially when it comes to health issues. Try putting up a sign in America stating that your restaurant is exclusively for smokers; you'll find yourself shut down before you can even blink. It would be treated exactly the same as if you announced your venue was reserved only for white people, Black people, the mob, Chinese people, drug addicts, or KKK members...

The bottom line is that an owner does NOT have the right to discriminate on any grounds. If they try, they'll face a lawsuit, and the legal fees will hit them incredibly hard.

Someone who bans smoking puts up a "No Smoking" sign and everyone follows it, but even that isn't enough for some people. They act like little children, forcing their way into social circles and trying to coerce everyone else into behaving exactly like they do.

I use drugs. I want to use drugs in a club. Are you going to stop me? Don't try to force me to live by your standards.

The issue is that through your behavior, you are essentially forcing others to smoke. Your attitude is incredibly arrogant and condescending, and it’s honestly sad if you don't see that.


It's a shame what's happening in New York City, but it'll only get worse if Europe starts obsessing over the rights of "culturally vitaminized" kids.
All the owners from New York City are relocating to Ibiza or Cape Town, and the nightlife in New York City isn't worth going out for anymore.
I'll eventually get tired of going out and hitting clubs myself, but I'll feel bad for the new generation. They'll end up going to places where they wear suits and ties just to drink non-alcoholic beverages and play rummy all night long.🙂

Man, things were so much better back in the '60s. You could trip on LSD, smoke yourself silly, or snort cocaine; those clubs were incredible. Then new laws came along and banned everything. What a mess. And remember how great it was during the era of Caligula (back in the 4th century)? You could hack someone down with a sword and watch the blood spray everywhere while we all laughed our heads off. Or you could throw them to the lions. It's a tragedy they banned all that. This new generation will never know how good it was—the rush of driving a blade into fresh meat, or getting completely wasted. This new crowd will just dance, sip drinks, and chat. Man, where have the good old days gone?

(Don't get mad, I had to exaggerate a little for effect)
The growing trend of smoking bans in Health ·
Casey Palmer5 said:Around here, that’s often just a dead letter on paper. Unfortunately.
Well, if that's the case, why not introduce specific air quality standards for hospitality venues and require owners to comply? They could achieve this through a total ban on smoking, or by creating designated smoking areas where the air is properly filtered—that part is entirely up to them. It would be a win-win situation. Some might even invest enough to retain their smoking clientele, and I am convinced it is technically possible to ensure clean air even in spaces where smoking occurs.

But that is precisely the heart of the matter. I have absolutely nothing against smokers; it is their right to choose. However, that choice shouldn't jeopardize the health of others. As the saying goes, my freedom ends where yours begins. Our totally distorted perception of liberty—where one feels they can do whatever they want—leads to this kind of behavior from business owners, smokers, and arrogant types like bluewolf4 (no hard feelings).

A smoker has the right to smoke, and that is a right guaranteed by the state. Likewise, every resident of this country has the right to clean air and an unpolluted environment. It is up to the owner of a public establishment to facilitate the rights of both parties: the smokers and the non-smokers. On paper, the law regulates this perfectly, but in reality, nobody respects the law and nobody enforces it.

In truth, there are devices available that can purify the air in a smoking section so it doesn't bother those in the non-smoking area. Similarly, walls can be built to separate the rooms. It is obvious that if a single room contains both smoking and non-smoking areas, specialized HVAC systems are required. But unfortunately, our esteemed entrepreneurs aren't even thinking about spending money on expensive air conditioning units or new partitions. It's always, "Psh, so what? If the smoke bothers you, just walk away!"

Again, unfortunately, in America, the non-smokers are getting the short end of the stick because their rights aren't being respected. And that’s not even mentioning the arrogance of certain smokers who intentionally light up right in front of a "No Smoking" sign and then laugh about it. The waiter can't do a thing about it. In the last month, I've been to a restaurant three times—twice, guests at a neighboring table were smoking without question, and they didn't care at all that the adjacent table was loudly protesting or that a visitor angrily left the restaurant. That is the state of smoking in American restaurants.

If heavy fines were imposed on restaurateurs who allow smoking in inadequately equipped facilities, rather than implementing a total ban, you would see how quickly they would change their tune. And as for those arrogant smokers who light up on purpose—if the police or a 300-pound security guard tossed them out of a restaurant twice, they wouldn't think about doing it again.
The growing trend of smoking bans in Health ·
bluewolf4 said:A server should know exactly what they’re signing up for before they ever take the job. Let's be honest—most of them smoke. What kind of waiter are you even looking at if they don't smoke or grab a drink? 🙂

In certain cities throughout South Africa, there is a local understanding that you shouldn't walk along the sidewalk, but rather stay right in the middle of the street to avoid being swallowed by the darkness. If someone were to act that way here in America, what would you say to them? Wouldn't you suggest they stick to the edge of the road instead?

You would likely say the same thing to that young woman from Columbus, too—the one who was brutally attacked by a maniac in her own apartment building hallway last Saturday night. He killed her for no reason, only to claim, "Why were you out so late? You should have stayed home; you knew you were putting yourself at risk."

Good luck in the fight against Nepusac.👋

This isn't some crusade against "non-smokers." This is about defending my constitutional right—our collective right—to personal health, a clean environment, and privacy. I intend to apply this same level of scrutiny to other issues too: whether it’s fighting against nonexistent filtration systems at a local cement plant, protesting the continued use of outdated leaded fuels, or challenging the safety standards of nuclear power plants in neighboring countries that fail to meet even the most basic regulatory benchmarks.
The growing trend of smoking bans in Health ·
Casey Palmer5 said:I agree that staff in those types of establishments are exposed to secondhand smoke, but it isn’t any worse than people working in heavy industry with various toxic substances, or even my own situation where I'm exposed to intense non-ionizing radiation at work. At the end of the day, everyone chooses their own career path based on what they need.

Look, why compare secondhand smoke exposure to industrial labor? In every sector, without exception, there have to be baseline OSHA standards for workplace safety. That applies to manufacturing, and it should apply to the service industry just as much. No factory or plant can operate if they don't meet the minimum safety requirements necessary to protect their employees. Ignoring those basic standards carries heavy penalties and fines.

On the other hand, people working with hazardous materials often receive specific benefits—things like specialized pension credits, higher wages, hazard pay, and extra stipends. Does the staff working eight hours a day in a smoky room receive any of that? It isn't really a matter of choosing where to work; it's about maintaining a baseline level of health and safety standards for the work environment.