Did he? Alright.
But then again, I really don't see how anyone would be able to tell that I was doing that...?
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:25 pm
by Gun Manufacturers » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:56 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Gun Manufacturers wrote:
As a non smoker, I'd do it. Of course, I wouldn't ACTIVELY smoke the cigarette, but just let it burn as I hold the cigarette in my mouth. When I'd need to take a breath, I'd pull the cigarette from my mouth and turn my head.
Unless in the latest of your wierd hypotheticals, you'd implant a carbon monoxide detector into my lungs.
then you haven't "smoked" the cigarette in the common sense every day meaning of the word
that's simply "lighting" a cigarette
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by Ifreann » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:00 pm
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:05 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:then you haven't "smoked" the cigarette in the common sense every day meaning of the word
that's simply "lighting" a cigarette
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:37 pm
Diopolis wrote:I'd do it and try to quit afterwards.
by NeuPolska » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:38 pm
Kar-Esseria wrote:Who is that and are they female because if not then they can go make love to their hand.
Impaled Nazarene wrote:Go home Polska wins NS.
United Mongol Hordes wrote:Polska isn't exactly the nicest guy in the world
Impaled Nazarene wrote:Hurd you miss the point more than Polska misses Poland.
Rhodesialund wrote:when you have Charlie ten feet away or something operating operationally.
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Gayla is living in 1985 but these guys are already in 1916
by Diopolis » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:44 pm
by Adad Civilization » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:47 pm
by Thermodolia » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:49 pm
Adad Civilization wrote:You call this a challenge OP? 1 Cigarette a day for a measly month? Hah, pathetic. I'll give you a real challenge. For 4 million dollars, you must wear shoes filled with legos for a week.
by NeuPolska » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:51 pm
Adad Civilization wrote:You call this a challenge OP? 1 Cigarette a day for a measly month? Hah, pathetic. I'll give you a real challenge. For 4 million dollars, you must wear shoes filled with legos for a week.
Kar-Esseria wrote:Who is that and are they female because if not then they can go make love to their hand.
Impaled Nazarene wrote:Go home Polska wins NS.
United Mongol Hordes wrote:Polska isn't exactly the nicest guy in the world
Impaled Nazarene wrote:Hurd you miss the point more than Polska misses Poland.
Rhodesialund wrote:when you have Charlie ten feet away or something operating operationally.
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Gayla is living in 1985 but these guys are already in 1916
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:02 pm
Diopolis wrote:The New California Republic wrote:The chances of addiction if you don't inhale are negligible; especially if it is only 1 cigarette a day.
Oh yes, but still there. And although I'm a semi-regular cigar smoker, I would very much like to avoid cigarettes. Just not 2-million-dollars-very-much-like-to-avoid.
by The Two Jerseys » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:02 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:then you haven't "smoked" the cigarette in the common sense every day meaning of the word
that's simply "lighting" a cigarette
You can hold the smoke in your mouth without inhaling it, as is done when smoking cigars. And that is exactly what I would do in this scenario. For someone to cry foul and say that "you are not actually smoking it!!!!!1111" would be categorically wrong.
by The Rich Port » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:09 pm
by The Blaatschapen » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:30 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:What surprisingly is to me is how many people are using the word "moral", to describe smoking or not smoking.
There are plenty of excellent reasons not to smoke, Good vs. Evil is not one of them. That some would consider smoking a moral issue I find pretty fucked up.
by The New California Republic » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:48 pm
The blAAtschApen wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:What surprisingly is to me is how many people are using the word "moral", to describe smoking or not smoking.
There are plenty of excellent reasons not to smoke, Good vs. Evil is not one of them. That some would consider smoking a moral issue I find pretty fucked up.
It can be one, if one considers their usage of natural resources a moral issue (ie. don't wast resources on a frivolous thing that brings no joy, and is generally harmful). However, 30 cigarettes is negligible. From the 2 million euro, one can easily fund an ecological organization to offset the frivolous use there.
by Esternial » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:41 pm
by The Republic of Fore » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:49 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:16 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
then you haven't "smoked" the cigarette in the common sense every day meaning of the word
that's simply "lighting" a cigarette
Again, unless there's a carbon monoxide detector implanted into my lungs, the person offering the money wouldn't be any the wiser.
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:21 pm
The Republic of Fore wrote:As many others have said, I'd simply just hold the smoke in my mouth. I'd take the two million, and after buying a few luxury items invest it. Turn it into 4. Then 8. And so on.
by Scomagia » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:23 pm
Infected Mushroom wrote:Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Again, unless there's a carbon monoxide detector implanted into my lungs, the person offering the money wouldn't be any the wiser.
that's not really the point of the scenario; the premise is that the person only gives you the money if the terms are met, they'll have some way of knowing for sure, the OP doesn't have to write it out specifically
again, if you're out to cheat you'll always find "some way" but that's not the point
for instance:
"you said smoke, the cigarette... not inhale the cigarette; technically maybe I can only put it in mouth"
change to inhale*
"you said inhale, so I'll just inhale once"
change to inhale in good faith*/often*
"so then I can do it three times a day, 1 lit cigarette 3 inhales its not so bad-"
...
I'm not here to play some kind of lawyers game, the OP shouldn't have to be worded like a business contract with a shady partner and no courtroom precedents (presumably, you all have some idea what the purposes of these hypotheticals are and how they're supposed to work); I don't want to have to Edit the OP a thousand times or keep adding words to it to close every single loophole until its longer than a merger document
I'm trying to assume some Good Faith on the part of the posters
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:24 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Des-Bal wrote:
That is insane to me. Long term smoking would put you at a higher risk, one pack just won't do it in the same way you're not going to develop skin cancer from having once been exposed to sunlight. That's an absurdly tiny additional assumption of risk. Do you refuse X-Rays? Do you refuse to get in cars?
The problem is I doubt the average persons willpower to only smoke one a day
by Infected Mushroom » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:27 pm
Scomagia wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote:
that's not really the point of the scenario; the premise is that the person only gives you the money if the terms are met, they'll have some way of knowing for sure, the OP doesn't have to write it out specifically
again, if you're out to cheat you'll always find "some way" but that's not the point
for instance:
"you said smoke, the cigarette... not inhale the cigarette; technically maybe I can only put it in mouth"
change to inhale*
"you said inhale, so I'll just inhale once"
change to inhale in good faith*/often*
"so then I can do it three times a day, 1 lit cigarette 3 inhales its not so bad-"
...
I'm not here to play some kind of lawyers game, the OP shouldn't have to be worded like a business contract with a shady partner and no courtroom precedents (presumably, you all have some idea what the purposes of these hypotheticals are and how they're supposed to work); I don't want to have to Edit the OP a thousand times or keep adding words to it to close every single loophole until its longer than a merger document
I'm trying to assume some Good Faith on the part of the posters
That's the nature of hypotheticals, dude, and really part of the fun.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement