Around the Dome v3.0 - Flames news & notes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
Winning answer AS last thread.

As a non-smoker I rejoice. Nothing ruins a game like the person sitting next to a heavy smoker. The stink is awful.

I can also see this being something they are implementing now before legal weed. Smell is even worse lol.
Oh Gawd. I can just imagine what it will be like sitting beside someone for 2-1/2 hours who smells like a pot farm because they smoked up before entering the Dome… clothes just reeking of it..... Let alone being stuck beside that person who goes outside every 60 minutes to smoke another joint.
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
Just more rules for the sake of rules. This bubble wrapped society can't get enough of them, won't be happy until there's nothing left to possibly offend or make someone else uncomfortable. The thought police are coming for every last shred of individuality until total indoctrination is achieved. Then and only then will their utopia of conformity be complete.
 

Flames Fanatic

Mediocre
Aug 14, 2008
13,329
2,888
Cochrane
Just more rules for the sake of rules. This bubble wrapped society can't get enough of them, won't be happy until there's nothing left to possibly offend or make someone else uncomfortable. The thought police are coming for every last shred of individuality until total indoctrination is achieved. Then and only then will their utopia of conformity be complete.

Keep telling yourself that. You'll keep the price of tinfoil up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InfinityIggy

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
Just more rules for the sake of rules. This bubble wrapped society can't get enough of them, won't be happy until there's nothing left to possibly offend or make someone else uncomfortable. The thought police are coming for every last shred of individuality until total indoctrination is achieved. Then and only then will their utopia of conformity be complete.
Yeah... I know. Rules... Next thing you know they'll want to prohibit me from walking around with my Colt 44 strapped to my hip. Is this the West, home of the cowboy, land of the free, where the Antelope play... or not? Sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InfinityIggy

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
Amusing when the domesticated sheep of this world think they have some imagined moral high ground every time their beloved authority reaffirms their worldview. Believing that you're inherently better than someone who smokes cigarettes or pot and that they must have some failing within them to live that way is no different than believing that someone else is worse or is wrong for believing in a different God than you do, or that someone is inferior because of their skin tone or sexual preference. Easily the single most destructive attitude throughout the history of the Human race.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
Amusing when the domesticated sheep of this world think they have some imagined moral high ground every time their beloved authority reaffirms their worldview. Believing that you're inherently better than someone who smokes cigarettes or pot and that they must have some failing within them to live that way is no different than believing that someone else is worse or is wrong for believing in a different God than you do, or that someone is inferior because of their skin tone or sexual preference. Easily the single most destructive attitude throughout the history of the Human race.
>Talks about assuming moral high ground
>Refers to others as sheep

It's hard to convey a coherent point with that much contradiction.
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
31194F7800000578-3442542-image-a-130_1455212393780.jpg
When there were no rules...
playgrounds_in_1900_1.jpg
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
I really don't mind smokers, they should be able to leave a game during an intermission and smoke if they want.
As long as they don't have to do that shit around me, I'm okay.

Hell, I'd much rather deal with a smoker who leaves during the intermission, rather than some dude getting pounded beside me being a belligerent asshole.
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
I really don't mind smokers, they should be able to leave a game during an intermission and smoke if they want.
As long as they don't have to do that **** around me, I'm okay.

Hell, I'd much rather deal with a smoker who leaves during the intermission, rather than some dude getting pounded beside me being a belligerent *******.
Or the drunk behind you that keeps sloshing his drink on you and is totally ignorant about it.
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
>Talks about assuming moral high ground
>Refers to others as sheep

It's hard to convey a coherent point with that much contradiction.

In the argument of critical thinking versus discrimination, then yes that's a high ground I'm willing to stand on. But if you'd rather focus on the semantics of the language rather than the actual reasoning then I guess that's your prerogative.
 

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,185
8,337
Padded Room
I prefer the good old days where you could shoot someone for infringing in your personal space with a cloud of smoke.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,718
Victoria
In the argument of critical thinking versus discrimination, then yes that's a high ground I'm willing to stand on. But if you'd rather focus on the semantics of the language rather than the actual reasoning then I guess that's your prerogative.
Saying "critical thinking vs. discrimination" is itself an act of assuming moral high ground. It's like you can't stop yourself! :laugh:

And statements like that couple with clear logical errors and posts filled with edgy buzz-words are just the height of cringiness.

But no, the issue that ends up coming up over and over again is a pretty simple one: freedom does not include freedom to infringe on others' freedom. If certain people had to smoke, it would be discrimination to not allow them to do so in your building, and thereby not allow them in your building because of circumstances outside of their control. But smoking is a choice, and it is a choice that affects others in a negative way. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to allow businesses the freedom to not allow that within their private property. No one is being discriminated against, because there is no group of people who are point blank being disallowed from entering the premises because of who they are. It is only choices that are being restricted.

Time and time again, people try to distort the topic of discrimination and the topic of freedom to attempt to apply it to things that are, at the end of the day, choices. But addiction is a hell of a thing, I'm sure. I understand the desperation to a certain extent, and why people are motivated to attempt appeals like this. But desperation doesn't make the logic right. This is an issue of freedom on exactly one level: businesses have the freedom to make rules for behaviour on their premises. Take that away and we have anarchy.
 
Last edited:

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,602
6,639
I really don't mind smokers, they should be able to leave a game during an intermission and smoke if they want.
As long as they don't have to do that **** around me, I'm okay.

Hell, I'd much rather deal with a smoker who leaves during the intermission, rather than some dude getting pounded beside me being a belligerent *******.

Yeah this is so true. But ownership can make money off alcohol so why would they take the moral high ground...
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
Yeah this is so true. But ownership can make money off alcohol so why would they take the moral high ground...
I wouldn't be opposed stopping alcohol sales in the Dome... except perhaps in the restaurant with a meal.
I have no problem whatsoever going 3 hours without drinking alcohol.
Of course it would never happen as the Flames make way too much money off of booze sales... but just saying if it did I wouldn't raise a stink.
 

Corpus X

Wearing Stanley's cup.
May 24, 2014
3,777
3,102
Calgary
I wouldn't be opposed stopping alcohol sales in the Dome... except perhaps in the restaurant with a meal.
I have no problem whatsoever going 3 hours without drinking alcohol.
Of course it would never happen as the Flames make way too much money off of booze sales... but just saying if it did I wouldn't raise a stink.

That's because you wouldn't have beer farts.
 

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,185
8,337
Padded Room
I wouldn't be opposed stopping alcohol sales in the Dome... except perhaps in the restaurant with a meal.
I have no problem whatsoever going 3 hours without drinking alcohol.
Of course it would never happen as the Flames make way too much money off of booze sales... but just saying if it did I wouldn't raise a stink.
I feel the same way, as mentioned in this thread the last time people complained about the no re-entry, I would be fine with alcohol being banned too.
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,504
52,717
Weegartown
Saying "critical thinking vs. discrimination" is itself an act of assuming moral high ground. It's like you can't stop yourself! :laugh:

And statements like that couple with clear logical errors and posts filled with edgy buzz-words are just the height of cringiness.

I mean.. of course it is. Wouldn't really make sense to take a stance presuming a moral low ground would it :laugh:? That doesn't make what I said contradictory as in the post you originally quoted the statement I made also includes the notion that these people are coming to that imagined high ground because an established authority has reaffirmed their beliefs for them.

But sure, allude to some apparent clear logical errors and those dreaded edgy buzz words as a reason my argument is invalid. You'd think if they were so clear you would of addressed them directly instead of arguing against something I never presented in the first place.

But no, the issue that ends up coming up over and over again is a pretty simple one: freedom does not include freedom to infringe on others' freedom. If certain people had to smoke, it would be discrimination to not allow them to do so in your building, and thereby not allow them in your building because of circumstances outside of their control. But smoking is a choice, and it is a choice that affects others in a negative way. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to allow businesses the freedom to not allow that within their private property. No one is being discriminated against, because there is no group of people who are point blank being disallowed from entering the premises because of who they are. It is only choices that are being restricted.

Well that's a very loose definition of what infringing on others' freedoms is and an incredibly narrow and frankly incorrect view of what discrimination is. Don't remember seeing the right to a totally pollution free existence in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but if it is in there this country has been failing bad at it for a long time. So should airlines outlaw the obese as they spill into their fellow passengers seats and infringe on their freedoms? Did discrimination stop in America when segregation was adopted? Were those African Americans forced to sit at the back of the bus and use a special bathroom not facing discrimination anymore because they had gained admittance?

Don't be ridiculous. This is a segment of the population being told they can't live how they like because of a special rule made explicitly for them. I'm not saying we should abhor these things on the same level, or even abhor them at all necessarily, just that this is textbook discrimination.

Time and time again, people try to distort the topic of discrimination and the topic of freedom to attempt to apply it to things that are, at the end of the day, choices. But addiction is a hell of a thing, I'm sure. I understand the desperation to a certain extent, and why people are motivated to attempt appeals like this. But desperation doesn't make the logic right. This is an issue of freedom on exactly one level: businesses have the freedom to make rules for behaviour on their premises. Take that away and we have anarchy.

Time and time again people try to hand wave away the topics of discrimination and personal freedom, postulating that those can't be real issues anymore because we're better than we were and they don't see it in their personal lives. Those people are wrong. Discrimination and persecution persist in all manner of forms. Private business can do as it likes, as it has for 100's of years. Never assumed they couldn't. Personally don't subscribe to the notion that private business has the public's best interests in mind; and considering the numerous examples of capitalism run rampant to the detriment of the populace, probably never will. It's more than that issue of freedom because the rule was specifically enacted to infringe on an individual's experience. What about "No longer allowed to exit and re-enter" isn't lessening what a person can do?

Listen, I'm at best an occasional smoker, usually only when I drink more than I should. I understand people don't like it and I understand why they don't like it. It's gross, it's bad for you, it's a drain on our society(having said that you wonder who's paying the lion's share of your universal healthcare), and it stinks. That's why for over a decade they've penned up smokers in their own area, away from the rest of the public. In taking away that area by citing such obvious misnomers like "Security Concerns", the establishment is alienating 15% of the population for one reason and one reason only. Greed. They don't want you outside participating in something they don't make money off of, they want you inside drinking more of their overpriced swill and buying more of their lukewarm food. You can applaud it all you want if you don't like smoking, you're well within your rights to do so, just don't presume it to be some long awaited righteous judgement on those awful smokers. It's corporate greed, nothing else, they think they can improve their bottom line and that's really the only reason these organizations do anything. If they want to take away from my experience of how I enjoy the night out I'm likely paying several hundred dollars for to do so, I say f*** em and I doubt I'm the only one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->