Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Uh, no. The "need not ever affect them personally" part. Perhaps you're imagining 'them' to be a much more narrow group than I am.
|
Well, it is kind of vague. Depending on how much of a badass you are, the only person who can allow something to affect you personally is you. So if you go by that definition, there should be no laws.
Quote:
|
Like anti-smoking legislation?
|
Smoking bans are pretty cut and dry. Coming up with criteria for the kinds of jobs which are acceptable for children to do with their parent's permission is probably a bit more complicated.
Quote:
|
The part where they come in and take up space? Yeah, that tends to be free.
|
I don't know how things are where you're from, but where I'm from, private businesses exist at least in part to make money. The idea that one could just walk into a restaurant and smoke without buying any food is ridiculous. Of course private businesses charge their customers money. If that's your idea of a gift, I'd hate to be your kids come birthday-time.
Quote:
|
Just commenting on another unmade argument, then?
|
Is that what you were doing?
Quote:
Private business tends to be made up of individuals.
And I said nothing about the property rights of these secondhand-loving children anyway, so I'm not sure where you discovered my secret preference for freedom of business over freedom of kids. You're still relying on oversimplifications to discover these oh-so-numerous inconsistencies of mine.
|
There's more to freedom than property. You said you'd prefer to eliminate the right of underage children to frequent smoky private businesses before you'd limit the right of private businesses to make their buildings smoky. Freedom of business trumps freedom of the individual. This says nothing about the right of individuals to control the smokiness of their nonbusiness property.
Quote:
|
I think you're both overly nosy in a way that violates rights rather than defending them. Something really insignificant like that.
|
Well, its arguable whether prohibiting smoking in a restaurant is a violation of rights, given that smoking isn't necessarily protected in the constitution. It's just as much of a right as the right of the average person to eat out without smelling cigarette smoke while they eat.
Quote:
|
Also, I hear he's on craigslist under the name 'topdob66'. Just passing that along.
|
That's actually Sean Hannity. He's a top, I need a bottom.
Quote:
|
I'm tired of this tangent. Is it your position that employees/customers who suffer from (or enjoy) secondhand smoke are akin to battered wives in some significant way? Is there a point to this line of joke? Or did you just feel like missing the message of "not until you stop beating your wife"?
|
You brought it up. I'm not saying they're the same, just that the words you use to describe your position are a tad overly inclusive.
Quote:
|
It's nicer than exposing your employer to your excessive sense of entitlement.
|
That's the price of doing business in places where most people don't respect the rights of the lazily suicidal.
Notice how nothing is being accomplished here at all... I'm kind of having fun though.