Lilachamster

Shes an excellent example of an anti. This isnt even so much about just her, its about all antis. But shes like the mould from which theyre all made.

Lilachamster, if youre reading this, dont let this get in the way of the constructive discussion that we were (and will maybe continue, thats up to you) having. Its just a few thoughts. Ill try to keep it as polite as i can.

Typical anti. She posts wherever she wants on this forum, knowing that there are threads where shes not allowed to post on. Yes, yes, i know, ive done it myself, and not just me. But the difference with her is that she is the only one here who goes squealing to the admin, making a big song and dance.

Whenever the question of freedom comes up, she fails to see that freedom, as a word, as a concept, has a specific meaning. Just like all antis, in one swoop she ignores other peoples freedoms, and begins to go on about hers. Its the typical "freedom is all good, but....." When its "good" and then theres a "but", you know that whatever follows the "but" is anything but a true understanding of freedom. If anyone asked her to justify the use of "its all good" in conjuction with the "but", she would fall flat on her face.

Do non smokers have the right to breathe air which doesnt have smoke in it? Well, they certainly have the right and responsibility to seek it out, and avoid air that does have smoke in it. In other words they have the freedom to create circumstances in which they are comfortable. If she puts herself in a situation where shes not comfortable, she must live with the consequences of her actions.

Do pub landlords have a moral obligation to provide that for her? Absolutely not. Why? Because she already has the responsibility to create her own reality. Its no one elses job. Also, because landlords have their own moral freedom to create theirs. When it comes to responsibility, that comes with consequences, and making the right choices. Responsibility is something that you take, YOU take. YOU. Its YOURS. When it comes to rights, everyone has rights.

All, all, all, all, all rights must be respected. Every single one of them.

Lilachamster respects only her own rights. She twists every argument in order to paint the picture that her rights are SO important compared to those of people who have different wishes to her, that their rights must be diminished. Ill say that again. She thinks that her rights are more important than that of people who choose to moke indoors.

Theyre different, but they carry equal weight.

She also forgets that rights are not connected to what you want. If i want to smoke, then i have the right to smoke. If she doesnt want to smoke, she has the right to not smoke. But if we swap wishes, we both still have the right to smoke or not smoke. This means that a right is a right, and whether you choose to exercise that right, that depends on what you want to do.

Everyone has the exact same rights. Its up to us to choose our lifestyle, and then take responsibility in creating our circumstances. Demanding that others change theirs for you shows a lack of understanding of rights. You dont suddenly have a right beause of your opinion, you have it whatever your opinion.

THE (not hers, or mine) right to breathe air in a pub that doesnt have smoke in it has been imposed on everyone. The right to smoke in a pub has been taken away, even though many many people dont want that. This means that a right has been violated.

But lilachamster doesnt care about that. To her, freedom means her freedom. She calls it her freedom, but its everyones freedom. I too have the right to not smoke or breathe smokey air. But i also have the right to smoke in a pub. She has that right too, and she should be able to smoke in a pub.

But she cant. But thats alright, because it doesnt bother her. Her right has been taken away and the only reason she doesnt care is because it suits her. But it doesnt suit others. But they must now give up their right.

Lilachamster will for the rest of her life refuse with all her energy the obvious fact that when says "freedom" she doesnt really mean freedom.

"Free of" and "free to..." are not the same thing. We are all now "free of" but we are not "free to...". She and i have lost the right to smoke in a pub.

I would challenge her to define freedom, choice, compromise, and responsibility in a debate that doesnt involve the smoking ban or any of her smoking related issues. Every time she changes the subject and gives false definitions that are twisted to suit her tastes i would point this out and challenge her to justify her definitions. She would find it intolerable. She would say "yeah but when health is involved, its different". No my dear. Freedom is freedom. You dont like it, take responsibility. Its not my job to nanny you, and it certainly isnt yours to nanny me.

Lilachamster is the definition of anti. Anti means anti choice, anti freedom, anti compromise, anti responsibility. She is too weak to exercise any of those things, which is why the world must bend over backwards for her.


Also, she is extremely and very carefully selective about which parts of peoples posts she responds to. All antis do it. They pick a particular area, rather than addressing the overall message that is being conveyed. She knows that she does it.

And that is the deal with all antis. Wow, im really good at this, i should become a writer. And even she cant argue with that.