Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well there's an example of insanity

>

> By your logic Louisa we should also ban the

> following......

>

> Flowers or any pollen bearing plant

>

> Animals

>

> The wearing and/or use of any kind of deoderant,

> makeup, perfume or chemical based beaty product.

>

> Nylon, rubber and parafin based products

>

> I could go on.

>

> But as someone else posted, there's no point using

> reasoned debate with someone who has no conception

> of it.


I think up until this point this discussion was starting to become a bit polarised, but now you've brought all these other potentially life threatening acts of public indecency to my attention lets address them one by one, because DJKQ, just as WM has this fascination with breast feeding, you now seem to be able to go over and above medical opinion and conclude that makeup and moisturiser are perfectly safe for everyone and you have no evidence to back it up! Astonishing! You not only thoroughly legitimise unsavoury public acts in confined spaces, you now justify them by claiming to know that everyone who talks about any known allergies within 2/3 metres to be completely wrong! Allelujah, we have a scientist within our midst!


I would ban leather jackets and rubber/PVC from buses and trains but that's just because I wouldn't want anyone to have a flare up of an ongoing allergy. Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space at the same time. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm genuinely confused.


This thread has now taken on a whole new dimension. It isn't just a discussion amongst lay men and women, we have experts here too.


Louisa.

lameduck - bus groping happens a lot and its a very unpleasant experience for anyone at the receiving end of it. I drive my car because I like my own space and my own rules. I personally wouldn't want grubby hands all over me, nor wold I want to risk siting next to a peanut muncher or a loud handheld device user.


Louisa.

Louisa that's not what I have said and you know it. Nowhere have I denied that people have allergies (to anything). What I dispute is your argument that because one person has an allergy to makeup, another should be banned from using it in a public place. Thankfully science doesn't agree with you, otherwise use of such things would be banned in the interests of the public health altogher (just as many chemicals are).


See a comment like this is an example of your lunacy....


"Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space"


Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts.


You can patronise all you like Louisa, but nowhere have you presented a well reasoned and logical debate, whereas others have.

DJKQ, by your argument, smoking would be allowed on a bus because its a personal experience and just because it might contribute to a serious illness in another person, doesn't mean it should be banned? Well, it was banned, and for the very reasons you claim other antisocial forms of behaviour shouldn't be. Eating peanuts is fine, even though it might set off a life threatening reaction in another person? Why not just ban eating altogether and the problem is removed. Saves dirty interior of public transport seating too. I don't need to back up my argument with any facts, because you've failed to back up yours and yet you believe I am the patronising one in this debate? Is that because you are losing the argument by any chance? And who are these "others" who have presented a "well reasoned and logical debate"? As far as I can see we have two sides to a very clear cut argument. This isn't about MY personal tastes, it's about public thoughtfulness and decency for everyone. You either support my argument, which is that manners cost nothing and certain forms of behaviour should be prohibited in a confused public space - because in many people's view (including posters on this thread) they are selfish and annoying, and my further point that they can let off a strong odour and potentially cause people with allergies to react is just an additional reason as to why certain activities should be refrained from. Not to mention this isolated and hideous bubble created around the individual preventing social cohesion and a community spirit. Or we support your argument - which is basically saying we can't ban everything which is antisocial because we can't police or enact it properly, and it's a matter of personal taste so if you don't like it then that's your problem. I know which side I support.


Louisa.

Louisa, the majority of people don't have extreme nut allergy, adverse reactions to Max Factor mascara type 297Q-HL101 or suffer epileptic fits at the slightest smell of a soya milk latte, which is why these items are allowed on a bus.

You seem to be trying to turn the public arena into a minorities-led care home.

KK I've heard of instances of groping on all forms of public transport. I think trains are more likely than buses, especially if the incidence of standing passengers.


*Bob* fortunately for me I've not been at the receiving end of a grope to date, but the thought of having grubby hands on me makes me feel violently ill. Makeup wearing may even be temporarily acceptable in replacement for grubby handed groping.


Louisa.

No it wouldn't Louisa..because smoke is easily inhaled by EVERYONE in the room and is a KNOWN carcinogenic. I make a clear distinction between clearly harmful to everyone substances, and allergies that are easily managed by those who suffer from them. Now science and the law also make the same distinction so why can't you? You will have to do better than that.....The only person losing this debate is you.


You are right about one thing though.....Your view is about you own personal tastes and has nothing to do with public health, science or immorality even for that matter. On that I think just about everyone can agree.

Science and the law make the same distinction NOW - but go back fifty years or less and neither believed smoking to be a bad thing. I refer back to an earlier argument about changing times and opinions - perhaps if we came back in fifty years from now we would have a different opinion. It takes pioneers such as myself to stand up and explain to people where we are going wrong in society and law and science eventually adapts.


And as I stated before, these aren't just my personal views. A lot of people back them. I think your losing this argument DJKQ and you are clutching at straws.


Louisa.

And 50 years ago we didn't have the advanced bio/medical research techniques that we have now.


Louisa you are like a dog with a rotten bone. Cosmetics are one of the most heavily tested substabces out there....they do not kill people...they do not affect a whole room of people in the way a carcinogenic gas does...WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?


Now you still haven't answered this question...


"Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space"


Tell me how many people have died because people apply makeup in a public space, or wear a leather jacket. Go on, back up your ridiculous claim with hard facts.



That's how debate works Louisa....people pick holes in your comments and if you don't fill them...you lose the debate.

Actually I can align to Louisa's angle to a small extent, not even 10 years ago I was at the end of my tether over smoking in public places - I'd be having a meal and a couple on the next table would light-up, ruining the evening out, for me and partner. I felt extremely hard done by, not being able to eat a basic meal without choking on the arsenic/lead/ammonia combo. Every pub, club, gig. It seemed obvious to me that this smoke was shit (and so did the science). But not only that, the clever bastards who could mix a couple of hundred chemicals to the ever-decreasing proportion of tobacco to reduce burn rate and protect the bronchial tract from the damage that inhaling smoke should do, could not even make it smell half-decent. Always stank like shit.

I felt like the only sane person, constantly bothered by the stench.

Then I lucked-out and the Govt decided those kinds of places had to be non-smoking zones.

I still after several years cannot believe that it actually happened.

The moral is don't give up, always maintain hope, you know what's best, hopefully one day the rest of society will one day catch-up with you.

Jeez, I should of titled this annoying women Instead of gross women, but I do find it gross to watch. all I'm saying is personal grooming is just that and should be done in private. It's not always so easy to look away if someone is sat opposite or next to you in the rush hour hour will a full carrier back of makeup and there is nowhere to move to. Louisa makes perfect sense to me, I'm not talking about a bit of lipstick. It's the full base, powder, eye liners lip liner mascara and big blusher brush that annoys me. And eating food! Most other countries I've been to ban eating on bus and trains and its so much nicer, I saw a women on the 12 eating KFC on the 12 bus. Drop the bones on the floor and discretely wipe her hands on the seat. Nice! Can't wait to find a way to get back into my car to get to work.

Dropping litter (or chicken bones) is an offence punishable by fine, so laws do exist to curb the anti-social aspects of certain behaviour but where are the personel to enforce it? It's all very well demanding to outlaw every little annoyance but we aren't very good at enforcing the laws that do already exist. Perhaps if they were enforced better you might see the more considerate society you seem to think doesn't exist.


What also irks me is when people use an anti-social aspect of an action (like dropping litter) to call for an outright ban on something (eating). It's an over-reaction which has little to do with the root irritant.


And if women with handbags are annoying then equally annoying are men sitting with their legs splayed. Women wear makeup...men sit with legs splayed.....it's life and neither really harm anyone.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who, by moving to your position on the right, are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...