Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Master_Shake · 01-01-2005, 07:46 AM

In each of these analogies, I was trying to point out how weak each argument was for the banning of smoking, not trying to make out smokers to be a protected class. Each of the arguments for banning smoking can be reduced to absurdity if the policy for banning smoking was instituted. In each case, the rationale for banning smoking would be the equivalent policy for a negative policy against black people or any other minority group. I use black people as an example because I hope everyone recognizes how uncool it would be to do these same things to black people.

#13: So when is your city going to get around to outlawing black men, the number one cause of death of other black men ages 15-34?

The suggestion being that if the government is really concerned with outlawing all causes of death then why not outlaw the # 1 cause of death of black men 15-34. This statstic is from US figures.

#81: Yeah, lets keep the smokers out of the bars. They make the place unpleasant. And you know what, lets keep the black people out too, they really make the place unpleasant.

Here, again, I was trying to be sarcastic. If the government should act when people are annoyed, well, some racist people are annoyed that black people go into bars. If annoyance is the only consideration, then why wouldn't they be banned from bars too?

#107: That's true. And black people won't die if they have to use a separate water fountain and sit at the back of the bus. But not dying is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

I think that's pretty clear, a policy not killing someone is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

#115: OK, so the new rule is every activity for which I cannot find 10 reasons it benefits my life should be outlawed? Well, look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried and tried and I can't find 10 reasons black people benefit my life. So maybe they should be outlawed too?

Ok, I was trying to be very sarcastic here. I'm sure there are 10 ways black people have benefited my life. But someone asked me to name 10 ways cigs benefited my life. I can't imagine why having 10 reasons something benefitted my life would be enough to prevent a policy of banning something. But if that were the policy, then certainly some redneck bastard could come forward and say that there aren't 10 ways black people benefitted his life and thus black people could be outlawed.

I hope that makes my reasons clear, but again, I am not very smart so if this isn't the way you would do things I hope you understand.

01-01-2005, 07:46 AM	#172 (permalink)
Master_Shake Addict Location: Pennsylvania, USA	In each of these analogies, I was trying to point out how weak each argument was for the banning of smoking, not trying to make out smokers to be a protected class. Each of the arguments for banning smoking can be reduced to absurdity if the policy for banning smoking was instituted. In each case, the rationale for banning smoking would be the equivalent policy for a negative policy against black people or any other minority group. I use black people as an example because I hope everyone recognizes how uncool it would be to do these same things to black people. #13: So when is your city going to get around to outlawing black men, the number one cause of death of other black men ages 15-34? The suggestion being that if the government is really concerned with outlawing all causes of death then why not outlaw the # 1 cause of death of black men 15-34. This statstic is from US figures. #81: Yeah, lets keep the smokers out of the bars. They make the place unpleasant. And you know what, lets keep the black people out too, they really make the place unpleasant. Here, again, I was trying to be sarcastic. If the government should act when people are annoyed, well, some racist people are annoyed that black people go into bars. If annoyance is the only consideration, then why wouldn't they be banned from bars too? #107: That's true. And black people won't die if they have to use a separate water fountain and sit at the back of the bus. But not dying is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity. I think that's pretty clear, a policy not killing someone is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity. #115: OK, so the new rule is every activity for which I cannot find 10 reasons it benefits my life should be outlawed? Well, look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried and tried and I can't find 10 reasons black people benefit my life. So maybe they should be outlawed too? Ok, I was trying to be very sarcastic here. I'm sure there are 10 ways black people have benefited my life. But someone asked me to name 10 ways cigs benefited my life. I can't imagine why having 10 reasons something benefitted my life would be enough to prevent a policy of banning something. But if that were the policy, then certainly some redneck bastard could come forward and say that there aren't 10 ways black people benefitted his life and thus black people could be outlawed. I hope that makes my reasons clear, but again, I am not very smart so if this isn't the way you would do things I hope you understand. __________________ ------------- You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.