Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Life (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-life/)
-   -   Not smoking should be my choice . . . right? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-life/131033-not-smoking-should-my-choice-right.html)

dc_dux 04-28-2008 11:14 AM

The only thing I would add to filtherton's well-stated analysis is that smoking bans do not discriminate against a class of people....they regulate an action.

Smokers are welcome in any establishment if they keep their cigarettes in their pocket.

FoolThemAll 05-02-2008 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
It is difficult to refute a personal belief that business owners should be given absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoor; such a thing is not so far from a belief in Jesus in the sense that ideological stances don't need to be anchored by reason (though they often are to a limited extent).

That's a bit one-sided, don't you think? The stance that a guest on someone else's property should have the power to change the owner's health concern to match his own is also a bit like belief in Jesus. ALL ideologies are ultimately based in something other than reason. Yours is hardly an exception.

Quote:

To the smoker who complains of tyranny of the majority, I would like to point to Darfur while I take a break from playing a dirge for them on the worlds smallest violin.
Do you really think this is something other than a terrible argument? Great injustices exist, so there's no point in ever addressing small injustices?

Quote:

I think that the anti ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending an expensive, disgusting and toxic habit on purely ideological grounds, which is rarely a winning proposition.
Strike three. The idea that smoking is a good habit has NEVER been instrumental to the argument against bans. I, for one, argue no such thing.

I think that the pro ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending the legal requirement to accept guests with no sense of etiquette or respect. People who give you good reason for dislike and have no rational semblance of a 'right' to be there in the first place. Tough position, I almost feel for you.

filtherton 05-02-2008 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
That's a bit one-sided, don't you think? The stance that a guest on someone else's property should have the power to change the owner's health concern to match his own is also a bit like belief in Jesus. ALL ideologies are ultimately based in something other than reason. Yours is hardly an exception.

Well, to be clear, it isn't the guest who is changing the owner's health concern. It is the local government. Also, there are many reasons why one might choose to regulate smoking indoors. There are also reasons why one might oppose smoking bans. Try to make an argument supporting the notion that private business owners should have absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoors without resorting to broad, axiomatic notions of the unalienable rights of private business people.


Quote:

Do you really think this is something other than a terrible argument? Great injustices exist, so there's no point in ever addressing small injustices?
Well, to hear some people talk about it, smoking bans are not small injustice. Smoking bans are, in fact, no less then the first step down a treacherous and slippery slope towards the complete suspension of the bill of rights. You know, tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is getting hacked to bits because you happen to belong the minority. Being forced to go outside to feed a bad habit? Eh. Cry me a river. The majority could do a lot worse. I have a difficult time finding sympathy for people who rely on FUD where reason would be a lot more useful.

This isn't to say that you can't address things you don't like. It just seems to me to frame it as some sort of matter of "justice" shows a lack of perspective.

Quote:

Strike three. The idea that smoking is a good habit has NEVER been instrumental to the argument against bans. I, for one, argue no such thing.
No, but you are arguing a position that is essentially pro-smoking by proxy. It's like when the ACLU defends the KKK. I mean sure, first amendment, blah blah blah, you're still putting yourself in the tough position of defending quasi-pariahs as a matter of principle. I'm not saying it isn't noble, just that it isn't enviable from a public relations or probability of success standpoint, especially given that the KKK's rights are protected by the constitution (when it comes to speech), whereas the 11th amendment in the original bill of rights, which was supposed to guarantee the right to smoke in private businesses, was scrapped when New Hampshire balked about ratification.

Quote:

I think that the pro ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending the legal requirement to accept guests with no sense of etiquette or respect. People who give you good reason for dislike and have no rational semblance of a 'right' to be there in the first place. Tough position, I almost feel for you.
I won't argue with your right to frame an issue as you want, it isn't like I wasn't doing the same thing. Reality is often what we decide it to be. In any case, the interface between private property and the general public with respect to matters of public health isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think they are.

FoolThemAll 05-03-2008 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, to be clear, it isn't the guest who is changing the owner's health concern. It is the local government.

Acting on orders from those obnoxious guests.

Quote:

Try to make an argument supporting the notion that private business owners should have absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoors without resorting to broad, axiomatic notions of the unalienable rights of private business people.
Why should I? Those broad, axiomatic notions are perfectly sufficient. It's not different in any significant way from banning smoking in private homes. Require all the skull-and-bones door warnings you want, make it perfectly clear that a bar may carry health risks (you don't say!), but recognize your completely unfettered ability to leave buildings you don't like.

Quote:

Being forced to go outside to feed a bad habit? Eh. Cry me a river. The majority could do a lot worse.
And they could do a lot better. Let's not settle for 'mediocre'.

Quote:

I have a difficult time finding sympathy for people who rely on FUD where reason would be a lot more useful.
FUD?

I disagree that such arguments aren't using reason.

Quote:

This isn't to say that you can't address things you don't like. It just seems to me to frame it as some sort of matter of "justice" shows a lack of perspective.
Not in the slightest. Framing it as a matter of "the gravest, most serious injustice since Hitler had a bad day" would show a lack of perspective. But framing it as a matter of justice is just plain accurate.

Quote:

No, but you are arguing a position that is essentially pro-smoking by proxy. It's like when the ACLU defends the KKK.
The ACLU wasn't defending racism and I'm not defending smoking. If you're just saying that it can look otherwise to some lazy thinkers, well sure, but I couldn't care less about them. They'll be lazy thinkers no matter what I do.

Quote:

In any case, the interface between private property and the general public with respect to matters of public health isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think they are.
With the passage of these "matters of public health" concerning private property, I'm aware that it's not very simple. I'm arguing that it should be.

filtherton 05-03-2008 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Acting on orders from those obnoxious guests.

What's your point?

Quote:

Why should I? Those broad, axiomatic notions are perfectly sufficient. It's not different in any significant way from banning smoking in private homes. Require all the skull-and-bones door warnings you want, make it perfectly clear that a bar may carry health risks (you don't say!), but recognize your completely unfettered ability to leave buildings you don't like.
I never said you shouldn't. All I said was that any attempts to convince you otherwise would be as effective as trying to convince Mike Huckabee that god isn't real and so it is a useless thing to argue about.

Quote:

And they could do a lot better. Let's not settle for 'mediocre'.
In this instance, I happen to think that "mediocre" is just fine.

Quote:

FUD?

I disagree that such arguments aren't using reason.
Yes, they use reason, but they rely on FUD.

Quote:

Not in the slightest. Framing it as a matter of "the gravest, most serious injustice since Hitler had a bad day" would show a lack of perspective. But framing it as a matter of justice is just plain accurate.
If you want to dilute the word "justice" then by all means.

Quote:

The ACLU wasn't defending racism and I'm not defending smoking. If you're just saying that it can look otherwise to some lazy thinkers, well sure, but I couldn't care less about them. They'll be lazy thinkers no matter what I do.
I'm not saying that you're defending smoking, or that the ACLU is defending racism. What I said was that you are essentially taking a de facto pro-smoking position on a matter of principle. Your personal opinion of smoking is irrelevant-- any success you have will mean success for smokers. You and the ACLU happen to be in the position of defending the right of people to be obnoxious and destructive. I'm not hating, I'm not saying it isn't noble, or net admirable to a limited extent, it's just a tough position to be in.

Quote:

With the passage of these "matters of public health" concerning private property, I'm aware that it's not very simple. I'm arguing that it should be.
Nothing is ever simple when people are involved.

Derwood 05-04-2008 05:40 AM

Smokers need to realize that there are no laws on the books protecting their right to smoke. So, with that said, they have absolutely NO leg to stand on as far as demanding a dry, safe, warm place to smoke.


Additionally, there are a lot of things that are legal but regulated in this country. It's legal for me to own and fire a hand gun, but I can't walk down the street to do it. I have to go to an authorized firing range.

Lubeboy 05-04-2008 02:02 PM

I get so turned off when I meet cute girls and they suddenly whip out a cigarette and start smoking then hacking. Major turn-off.

FoolThemAll 05-04-2008 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
What's your point?

That your distinction is immaterial. The government is the people.

Quote:

I never said you shouldn't. All I said was that any attempts to convince you otherwise would be as effective as trying to convince Mike Huckabee that god isn't real and so it is a useless thing to argue about.
Beliefs which don't require bad logic may be harder to change, but it's presumptive to rule out the possibility of change. You don't know me that well. Hell, I don't know me that well. And for all I know, you're just as dogmatic. Are you just arguing that arguing with me is pointless? Or is there something less ironic?

Quote:

In this instance, I happen to think that "mediocre" is just fine.
Noted. My standing point being that injustices don't have to be Darfur to be worthy of attention.

Quote:

Yes, they use reason, but they rely on FUD.
Again, FUD? Spell out that acronym for me and why anti-ban types must rely on it. (Bonus points for how you avoid this terrible reliance.)

Quote:

If you want to dilute the word "justice" then by all means.
I'm doing no such thing.

Quote:

I'm not saying that you're defending smoking, or that the ACLU is defending racism. What I said was that you are essentially taking a de facto pro-smoking position on a matter of principle. Your personal opinion of smoking is irrelevant-- any success you have will mean success for smokers.
Huckabee forbid.

Quote:

You and the ACLU happen to be in the position of defending the right of people to be obnoxious and destructive.
Sure, I'll cop to that. I wonder if you'd cop to being in the same position. And with the added benefit of being the liberal counterpart to let's-regulate-the-bedroom busybodies like Dr. James Dobson.

Quote:

I'm not hating, I'm not saying it isn't noble, or net admirable to a limited extent, it's just a tough position to be in.
I haven't found it tough yet. I sleep very well.

Quote:

Nothing is ever simple when people are involved.
I'll butcher Clerks: Humanity would be great if it weren't for the fucking humanity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
Smokers need to realize that there are no laws on the books protecting their right to smoke.

Yes, the Constitution enumerates every single specific right we have, one by one. Anything left out must not be a right.

Goodbye Titty Board.

Quote:

So, with that said, they have absolutely NO leg to stand on as far as demanding a dry, safe, warm place to smoke.
Unless that dry, safe, warm place is owned by them or someone friendly to their desires. Then you're the one with the peg leg.

Quote:

Additionally, there are a lot of things that are legal but regulated in this country. It's legal for me to own and fire a hand gun, but I can't walk down the street to do it. I have to go to an authorized firing range.
That's a good analogy. Do you know why?

(Hint: what do a restaurant and a firing range have in common?)

filtherton 05-04-2008 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
That your distinction is immaterial. The government is the people.

This whole tangent is immaterial.


Quote:

Beliefs which don't require bad logic may be harder to change, but it's presumptive to rule out the possibility of change. You don't know me that well. Hell, I don't know me that well. And for all I know, you're just as dogmatic. Are you just arguing that arguing with me is pointless? Or is there something less ironic?
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just repeating what I said using different words. You're the one who seems intent on arguing.

Quote:

Noted. My standing point being that injustices don't have to be Darfur to be worthy of attention.
I never said they did. I just said that the antiban crowd tends to be a bit dramatic.

Quote:

Again, FUD? Spell out that acronym for me and why anti-ban types must rely on it. (Bonus points for how you avoid this terrible reliance.)
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. And I never said antiban types must use it, I said many of them do use it. You should reread the things I've said. I think you're arguing with what you think I'm saying, and not necessarily with what I'm saying.

Quote:

I'm doing no such thing.
If you think injustice is requiring private business owners to submit to the public health requirements of local governments, local governments who are acting on the behalf of the majority of their citizens to limit the use of carcinogens indoors, then you are completely diluting the word justice.

Quote:

Sure, I'll cop to that. I wonder if you'd cop to being in the same position. And with the added benefit of being the liberal counterpart to let's-regulate-the-bedroom busybodies like Dr. James Dobson.
I won't cop to the same position, though I see how you would think that our positions were the same. James Dobson wants to regulate healthy expressions of sexuality. I am indifferent to the complaints of people concerning the possibly overreaching regulation of known carcinogens. If you don't see a difference, then I won't press the matter.

Quote:

I haven't found it tough yet. I sleep very well.
I'm sure you do sleep very well. Have you overturned any bans yet?

Quote:

I'll butcher Clerks: Humanity would be great if it weren't for the fucking humanity.
We're our own biggest problem.

FoolThemAll 05-04-2008 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
This whole tangent is immaterial.

You started it! Nyah.

Quote:

I never said they did. I just said that the antiban crowd tends to be a bit dramatic.
Heh. Okay, sure. The proban crowd tends to be a bit irritating, though!

Quote:

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. And I never said antiban types must use it, I said many of them do use it. You should reread the things I've said. I think you're arguing with what you think I'm saying, and not necessarily with what I'm saying.
If your aim is simply to make a bunch of generalized, one-sided statements implicitly demeaning the anti-ban side, statements juuust general enough to be true without being useful, statements that just. as. easily. apply to your side, well, you should've said so. It looked like you were commenting on the issue, rather than the unobjectively observed appearances of the issue.

Quote:

If you think injustice is requiring private business owners to submit to the public health requirements of local governments, local governments who are acting on the behalf of the majority of their citizens to limit the use of carcinogens indoors, then you are completely diluting the word justice.
Nope. I'm not. It's apt.

Quote:

I won't cop to the same position, though I see how you would think that our positions were the same. James Dobson wants to regulate healthy expressions of sexuality. I am indifferent to the complaints of people concerning the possibly overreaching regulation of known carcinogens. If you don't see a difference, then I won't press the matter.
I see plenty of differences, none of which defeat my point on their similarity: people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

And that's in addition to your defense of people who are obnoxious (you won't smoke on your property while I'M here!) and destructive (I don't care if your sales tank!). We're not so different, you and I.

Quote:

I'm sure you do sleep very well. Have you overturned any bans yet?
Hell no, I'm too busy sleeping.

filtherton 05-04-2008 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Heh. Okay, sure. The proban crowd tends to be a bit irritating, though!

Maybe you should step outside for some "fresh air". ;)


Quote:

If your aim is simply to make a bunch of generalized, one-sided statements implicitly demeaning the anti-ban side, statements juuust general enough to be true without being useful, statements that just. as. easily. apply to your side, well, you should've said so. It looked like you were commenting on the issue, rather than the unobjectively observed appearances of the issue.
I was just describing the situation as I saw it. It wasn't meant to be useful. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any statements on this subject of any use. And yes, my statements are general, they are summaries of my experiences. I am sorry if you assumed that I was talking about you when I wasn't. Do you want me to name names or something? Let me tell you, my friend Joeyjoejoe Junior Shabadoo is practically a socialist, except when it comes to smoking bans.

Quote:

Nope. I'm not. It's apt.
If you say so.

Quote:

I see plenty of differences, none of which defeat my point on their similarity: people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.
Okay, so I'm like James Dobson in some relatively insignificant way. That's fine. As long as he doesn't try to suck my dick (he's one of those secretly gay antigay conservatives, right?), I mean, I probably wouldn't stop him, because, whatever, but my girlfriend would be probably get upset. I don't have a problem with worker safety regulations or child labor laws either, despite the fact that they are the result of people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally. I guess I just don't care all that much about the rights of private business people.

Quote:

And that's in addition to your defense of people who are obnoxious (you won't smoke on your property while I'M here!) and destructive (I don't care if your sales tank!). We're not so different, you and I.
I'll agree with you that there are plenty of nonsmokers who are obnoxious, I appreciate the fact that they're obnoxious in a generally non-carcinogenic way. As for tanking sales, that sucks-- though you'd think sales would suffer continuously, given that smoking kills people. I guess it's just a reminder of why it's a bad idea to rely on addicts for loyalty. Oddly enough, there are plenty of restaurants in my city, one of the colder ones, that are doing great despite a county-wide ban. There's a lesson in here somewhere about the irrepressible spirit and ingenuity of the American entrepreneur.

FoolThemAll 05-05-2008 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Okay, so I'm like James Dobson in some relatively insignificant way. That's fine.

Pretty much the opposite of insignificant. Different issues, same nosy authoritarianism.

Quote:

I don't have a problem with worker safety regulations or child labor laws either, despite the fact that they are the result of people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.
With worker safety regulations... it really depends on which ones you mean. Some jobs are just more dangerous by nature. As long as dangers are made perfectly clear - now see, THAT'S where the government comes in - a lot of these regulations ARE overreaching.

Child labor laws kinda actually, y'know, do affect people personally, people who don't necessarily have the power necessary for avoiding or escaping such a situation. Not a good comparison.

Secondhand smoke was avoidable before the bans by sticking to public property, your own property, and private property owned by like minds. That really, really, really sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. But people in favor of smoking bans - wait for this neat trick, wait for the channeling of Ann Coulter in a way that's actually 100% valid - demonstrate that they aren't reasonable people. At least when it comes to dining out.

Quote:

I guess I just don't care all that much about the rights of private business people.
Yes, we've already established this.

Quote:

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of nonsmokers who are obnoxious, I appreciate the fact that they're obnoxious in a generally non-carcinogenic way.
And I'll agree with you that there are plenty of obnoxious smokers, but I appreciate the fact that I'll never have to leave my own property to avoid them.

Quote:

As for tanking sales, that sucks-- though you'd think sales would suffer continuously, given that smoking kills people.
It kills people verrry verrry slowly. If something else doesn't get them first. Like nonsmoker-induced aneurysms.

filtherton 05-05-2008 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Pretty much the opposite of insignificant. Different issues, same nosy authoritarianism.

Well, it's significant to you, but you're an idealist. I see lots of shades of gray, and I don't have a problem with any of the things that you think I have in common with Dobson. It's not a particularly compelling or intimidating thing for me, so if you're expecting to play "gotcha" here you're going to be disappointed.


Quote:

With worker safety regulations... it really depends on which ones you mean. Some jobs are just more dangerous by nature. As long as dangers are made perfectly clear - now see, THAT'S where the government comes in - a lot of these regulations ARE overreaching.
Why should the business person be forced to tell his workers about possible danger? As rational actors in a market economy the workers should be able to make the decision on their own. Why are you such a nosy authoritarian?

Quote:

Child labor laws kinda actually, y'know, do affect people personally, people who don't necessarily have the power necessary for avoiding or escaping such a situation. Not a good comparison.
Why not? What's wrong with allowing market forces to do their thing. Clearly, if there is something wrong with child labor the consumers will vote with their dollars. In any case, nobody forces children to work in sweatshops, and for them to complain about employment opportunities just shows what obnoxious guests children can be.

Quote:

Secondhand smoke was avoidable before the bans by sticking to public property, your own property, and private property owned by like minds. That really, really, really sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. But people in favor of smoking bans - wait for this neat trick, wait for the channeling of Ann Coulter in a way that's actually 100% valid - demonstrate that they aren't reasonable people. At least when it comes to dining out.
No, they are reasonable people, they just have different values than you. What are you, a neoatheist? Reasonable people can disagree. A reasonable person would be able to understand this distinction.

Quote:

It kills people verrry verrry slowly. If something else doesn't get them first. Like nonsmoker-induced aneurysms.
What is it, like 400,000 a year or something?

FoolThemAll 05-06-2008 09:28 AM

It goes without saying that I'll be disappointed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Why should the business person be forced to tell his workers about possible danger? As rational actors in a market economy the workers should be able to make the decision on their own. Why are you such a nosy authoritarian?

People should be forthright about offers they extend, lest they commit fraud by omission. Workers often won't have that inside information unless it is given to them. The very large difference here: restaurants advertising secondhand smoke aren't being deceitful. The information is already there for the taking.

Quote:

Why not? What's wrong with allowing market forces to do their thing. Clearly, if there is something wrong with child labor the consumers will vote with their dollars.
Yes, when I approve of the market directing voluntary choices, I was clearly referring also to choices not so voluntary. Consent to secondhand is rightnextto child slavery on the slippery slope.

Quote:

In any case, nobody forces children to work in sweatshops, and for them to complain about employment opportunities just shows what obnoxious guests children can be.
Children generally hold the weight of doing what adults tell them to do. It's not the same. It's not the voluntary situation that it would be if it involved consenting adults.

So much for those shades of gray of yours.

Quote:

No, they are reasonable people, they just have different values than you. What are you, a neoatheist? Reasonable people can disagree. A reasonable person would be able to understand this distinction.
Reasonable people would not go onto someone else's property and order them to stop smoking. That's not something that reasonable people would do.

Quote:

What is it, like 400,000 a year or something?
I hear sunlight verry verry slowly gives you cancer, too. Funny that people still walk outdoors, you'd think that would decline over decades.

filtherton 05-06-2008 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
People should be forthright about offers they extend, lest they commit fraud by omission. Workers often won't have that inside information unless it is given to them. The very large difference here: restaurants advertising secondhand smoke aren't being deceitful. The information is already there for the taking.

We weren't talking specifically about smoking, though. We were talking about people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

Quote:

Yes, when I approve of the market directing voluntary choices, I was clearly referring also to choices not so voluntary. Consent to secondhand is rightnextto child slavery on the slippery slope.
You can't have it both ways. Either you support the free market or you are apparently a nosy authoritarian. Which are you?

Quote:

Children generally hold the weight of doing what adults tell them to do. It's not the same. It's not the voluntary situation that it would be if it involved consenting adults.

So much for those shades of gray of yours.
No, I still see the shades of gray. Apparently you do too. Unfortunately, the ability of children to effectively make decisions is completely irrelevant when it comes to people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally. So what if children can't make decisions? Why does that have anything to do with telling a private business person who they can and can't employ? Do you think we should limit advertising directed at children too? I thought you were against nosy authoritarianism.

Quote:

Reasonable people would not go onto someone else's property and order them to stop smoking. That's not something that reasonable people would do.
I'd link to the definition of the word "reason" but I'm pretty sure you know how to use google. Reason is not defined with respect to a certain ideological position, it is defined with respect to the structure of ideas. Just because you don't find something to be reasonable doesn't actually make it unreasonable. What if you're being unreasonable?

Quote:

I hear sunlight verry verry slowly gives you cancer, too. Funny that people still walk outdoors, you'd think that would decline over decades.
It is pretty funny.

Derwood 05-06-2008 10:49 AM

banning smoking in restaurants is as much about protecting the people working there as it is about protecting the patrons

Willravel 05-06-2008 10:54 AM

FTA and filth, it's interesting to see these conversations from the outside.

allaboutmusic 05-06-2008 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
banning smoking in restaurants is as much about protecting the people working there as it is about protecting the patrons

Amen. When I was a regular on the London pub and club circuit, it was the thing I hated most about doing gigs.

filtherton 05-06-2008 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
FTA and filth

I bet.

Quote:

it's interesting to see these conversations
it

Quote:

from the outside.
is.

Notice how much is being accomplished.

dd3953 05-07-2008 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I hear sunlight verry verry slowly gives you cancer, too. Funny that people still walk outdoors, you'd think that would decline over decades.

This is because you can't "stop" sunlight. It's out of people's control. But get rid of all the smokers? That's something "they" think they can do. And if not, we'll just make their lives unhappy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
We weren't talking specifically about smoking, though. We were talking about people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

I might be wrong, but isn't that what's been happening since the start of our government? I mean with "separate but equal," "over weightiness," and now with smoking. I'm sure there are other examples, but those were the first that came to mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Reasonable people would not go onto someone else's property and order them to stop smoking. That's not something that reasonable people would do.

I have to agree with this. I didn't take the time to look up "reasonable" but I feel like it is a bit controlling and unneeded. Children may not be "smart" enough to make the "right" choices, but then again, neither are some adults. But being an adult means having the freedom to what you want (inside the laws of the land). But when laws are an interfere with people's everyday life, they get ignored, even if they are "reasonable." Laws that come to mind are jaywalking and talking on cell phones in cars. And while people are willing to put up with non-smoking laws indoors, I think any laws put on outside places are going to have a good number of people ignoring them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
banning smoking in restaurants is as much about protecting the people working there as it is about protecting the patrons

I think that is all well and fine. But because there are people who don't care about being "protected" - aka smokers - there should be room for places that allows smoking. And those who want to "protected" can have their dinner, drink, ice cream else where. The only problem I have is that the government is forcing everyone to "protect" the lungs of non-smokers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Notice how much is being accomplished.

And while this may not have any effect (or is it affect?) on the conversation, I can't help but wonder how many people in the discussion are smokers, non-smokers, or ex-smokers. . . . Is it too late to add a poll to this?

Derwood 05-07-2008 06:14 AM

I think that is all well and fine. But because there are people who don't care about being "protected" - aka smokers - there should be room for places that allows smoking. And those who want to "protected" can have their dinner, drink, ice cream else where. The only problem I have is that the government is forcing everyone to "protect" the lungs of non-smokers.

how about an island somewhere in the Arctic Circle?

filtherton 05-07-2008 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd3953
I might be wrong, but isn't that what's been happening since the start of our government? I mean with "separate but equal," "over weightiness," and now with smoking. I'm sure there are other examples, but those were the first that came to mind.

Well, yeah, I'm sure the average anarchist would argue that any decision made through non-collective means is essentially authoritarian. What I generally object to are arguments against authoritarianism (as it is defined in this thread) that are made by people whose problem isn't really with authoritarianism, but with authoritarianism crossing some certain arbitrary threshold. Notice FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to smoking bans vs FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to child labor laws. Clearly it isn't authoritarianism he rejects, but the extent to which it is employed. There's nothing invalid with this way of looking at things, it just isn't the kind of perspective that can be defended with arguments that would seem to reject authoritarianism altogether.


Quote:

I have to agree with this. I didn't take the time to look up "reasonable" but I feel like it is a bit controlling and unneeded. Children may not be "smart" enough to make the "right" choices, but then again, neither are some adults. But being an adult means having the freedom to what you want (inside the laws of the land).
Controlling and unneeded work for me. I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but at least we've gotten beyond the idea that the only reasonable position is the one that we agree with.

Quote:

But when laws are an interfere with people's everyday life, they get ignored, even if they are "reasonable." Laws that come to mind are jaywalking and talking on cell phones in cars. And while people are willing to put up with non-smoking laws indoors, I think any laws put on outside places are going to have a good number of people ignoring them.
I agree. The smoking ban in my city also says that smokers need to smoke at least 25 feet away from entrances. They don't, and unless some cop is having a bad day nobody cares.

Quote:

And while this may not have any effect (or is it affect?) on the conversation, I can't help but wonder how many people in the discussion are smokers, non-smokers, or ex-smokers. . . . Is it too late to add a poll to this?
I used to smoke. Now I'm just taking a break from smoking until I don't have anything to live for. Hopefully I die first.

PlanG 05-07-2008 10:49 AM

I don't really have a large problem with smoking outside, although it is pretty savage when you get a mouthful of smoke downwind when you're enjoying the sun. Most of my friends smoke, so I'm used to it.

What I will add is that for the inside of clubs and bars, the difference the smoking ban here has made is amazing. I used to come home smelling like I'd been set on fire, but now I just smell normal.

One "problem" was that the smoke apparently cloaked the smell of body odour on the dance floors, although I haven't encountered this yet!


The only main problem I've found with the ban, is that if your friends are all smokers, you often get dragged outside whilst they smoke, so that you aren't sitting on your own in the pub/bar/club/etc.


On the whole I love it though! I used to have lots of coughs after going to a gig in a small venue with lots of smokers around, but I'm much better since. :)

FoolThemAll 05-08-2008 09:04 PM

Quote:

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the free market or you are apparently a nosy authoritarian. Which are you?
I hope this was just a silly strawman.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the ability of children to effectively make decisions is completely irrelevant when it comes to people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally. So what if children can't make decisions? Why does that have anything to do with telling a private business person who they can and can't employ? Do you think we should limit advertising directed at children too? I thought you were against nosy authoritarianism.
My hope fulfilled.

In case you missed it, I'm against fraud, too. I think that the government should act to prevent and to punish fraud. And forging a contract with someone incapable of understanding the contract and its costs? That's unavoidably fraud by omission.

Now that I've spelled out the nuance a little more, maybe you won't ignore it.

Quote:

I'd link to the definition of the word "reason" but I'm pretty sure you know how to use google. Reason is not defined with respect to a certain ideological position, it is defined with respect to the structure of ideas.
You aren't a very good word lawyer. 'Reasonable' also means 'sound judgment'. The meaning isn't nearly as narrow as you suggest.

The idea that you are entitled to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner due to your mere presence - which was a privilege in the first place - there's no way to explain that idea as anything other than poor judgment. Try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
how about an island somewhere in the Arctic Circle?

How considerate of you! I don't know where in the world I got this misconception of anti-smoking zealots as unreasonable. Bless you, sir!

It just keeps getting easier and easier to sympathise with these cancer spewers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Notice FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to smoking bans vs FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to child labor laws. Clearly it isn't authoritarianism he rejects, but the extent to which it is employed.

I never said otherwise. You chose to indulge in oversimplification, you shades of gray lover you.

Quote:

There's nothing invalid with this way of looking at things, it just isn't the kind of perspective that can be defended with arguments that would seem to reject authoritarianism altogether.
It's a good thing I had no such argument!

Quote:

at least we've gotten beyond the idea that the only reasonable position is the one that we agree with.
It's too bad that we haven't gotten past the idea that posts can say what we want them to say, regardless of what was actually typed.

Derwood 05-09-2008 05:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
how about an island somewhere in the Arctic Circle?

How considerate of you! I don't know where in the world I got this misconception of anti-smoking zealots as unreasonable. Bless you, sir!

It just keeps getting easier and easier to sympathise with these cancer spewers.


Give me a reasonable, legitimate reason for anyone to smoke ever, and i'll give you a reasonable solution to people's need for a special place to smoke

filtherton 05-09-2008 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I hope this was just a silly strawman.

What, like James Dobson?

Quote:

My hope fulfilled.
Quote:

In case you missed it, I'm against fraud, too. I think that the government should act to prevent and to punish fraud. And forging a contract with someone incapable of understanding the contract and its costs? That's unavoidably fraud by omission.

Now that I've spelled out the nuance a little more, maybe you won't ignore it.
We have these things called permission slips, whereby a parent makes a decision on behalf of a child. It's pretty standard, and it has nothing to do with fraud. So assuming permission slips could be applied to employment, I presume you'd have no problem with child labor. Are there any other reasons you wouldn't want children working, or is fraud the only one?

Quote:

You aren't a very good word lawyer. 'Reasonable' also means 'sound judgment'. The meaning isn't nearly as narrow as you suggest.

The idea that you are entitled to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner due to your mere presence - which was a privilege in the first place - there's no way to explain that idea as anything other than poor judgment. Try.
Obviously it isn't very effective to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner, but that doesn't mean the idea is borne of a lack of sound judgment. I would remind you that you aren't the sole arbiter of the definition of "sound judgment". You only think it's poor judgment because it bothers you from an ideological perspective; it's something you'd never do. So it's only natural that you'd question the judgment of someone who walked onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner. All I'm saying is that the fact that you think it is unreasonable doesn't actually make it unreasonable.

Quote:

I never said otherwise. You chose to indulge in oversimplification, you shades of gray lover you.
You did. You hide behind accusations of authoritarianism, yet can't acknowledge the little authoritarian inside of you. Or is your only problem with child labor really the fact that you don't think kids aren't mature enough to sign contracts? There are a lot of good reasons to be against child labor...

Quote:

It's a good thing I had no such argument!
Here's the thing, when you were trying to tell me that I was James Dobson's secret lover you defined authoritarianism as
Quote:

people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally
Based on that definition, you are absolutely a proponent of authoritarianism, no matter how much you hem and haw over the details of worker safety regulations or child labor laws. If you want to change your definition of authoritarianism, then by all means. Something a little less inclusive might suit the consistency of your perspective more.

Quote:

It's too bad that we haven't gotten past the idea that posts can say what we want them to say, regardless of what was actually typed.
What's that you say? I'm right any you're going to send me a check for $50,000,000,000,000 dollars?

FoolThemAll 05-09-2008 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
Give me a reasonable, legitimate reason for anyone to smoke ever

It's pleasurable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
What, like James Dobson?

I didn't identify your position as being Dobson's, I noted a significant similarity. And it's still there.

Quote:

We have these things called permission slips, whereby a parent makes a decision on behalf of a child. It's pretty standard, and it has nothing to do with fraud. So assuming permission slips could be applied to employment, I presume you'd have no problem with child labor. Are there any other reasons you wouldn't want children working, or is fraud the only one?
With a permission slip? Presuming that the parents aren't glaringly callous to the well-being of the child, this could be okay. Is there a 'gotcha' situation you'd like to hit me with?

Quote:

Obviously it isn't very effective to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner, but that doesn't mean the idea is borne of a lack of sound judgment.
As the smoking bans have shown, it actually can be very effective to do just that.

And yeah, it does mean that. Taking a gift and insisting that it be modified to your liking is unreasonable.

Quote:

I would remind you that you aren't the sole arbiter of the definition of "sound judgment".
I'm starting to wonder exactly what your point here is. Is it that I'm fallible, that I can have mistaken ideas? I'm well aware. But it doesn't - and nor should it - prevent me from taking stances that appeal to my reason and empathy.

If you're only saying that I could be wrong, well, duh.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that the fact that you think it is unreasonable doesn't actually make it unreasonable.
I don't decree it unreasonable, I recognize it as unreasonable.

Quote:

You did. You hide behind accusations of authoritarianism
No, I didn't, and no, I didn't. Read the posts again, more carefully this time.

Quote:

yet can't acknowledge the little authoritarian inside of you.
Yeah, I can. Go back. More carefully this time.

Quote:

Based on that definition, you are absolutely a proponent of authoritarianism,
That wasn't a definition of authoritarianism. More carefully this time.

And I explained in the very next post that child labor does, y'know, actually effect people personally. People who might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful. Unlike with adults and restaurant smoking.

But it's so much easier to pretend this nuance doesn't exist, that I must hate ALL authoritarianism or NONE of it! Or, when you tire of that pretension, to pretend that I didn't define the supposedly arbitrary line. The strawman or the deafman.

Quote:

If you want to change your definition of authoritarianism, then by all means.
Right after you stop beating your wife.

Quote:

What's that you say? I'm right any you're going to send me a check for $50,000,000,000,000 dollars?
Yeah, exactly, that sort of stuff. Only you were a little more subtle before.

Derwood 05-10-2008 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
It's pleasurable.

so is jerking off, but no one is crying that there isn't a maturbation section at the family restaurant

dc_dux 05-10-2008 07:01 AM

FTA.....my advice is to move to Paulville:
Quote:

...a gated community containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

Ustwo 05-10-2008 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
FTA.....my advice is to move to Paulville:

Since thing like smoking bans are often state wide, a town can't opt out.

dc_dux 05-10-2008 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
Since thing like smoking bans are often state wide, a town can't opt out.

True, but I would assume the good citizens of Paulville, including the local constabulary, won enforce state laws that abridge their freedoms.

Here's another solution.

http://www.ingestandimbibe.com/Images/cigarGlass.jpg

FTA could ask his current bar of choice to mix him a nicotini
Quote:

...a martini infused with nicotine-rich tobacco. (Sound delicious? How can it not be?) The Nicotini, as it is known, comes in various forms -- among them a Quick Puff (a single shot) and, more enticingly, a Black Lung (mixed with Kahlúa).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9659C8B63

FoolThemAll 05-10-2008 08:45 AM

I'm strictly a secondhand smoker, guys. Way too cheap for the real thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
so is jerking off, but no one is crying that there isn't a maturbation section at the family restaurant

There IS, presumably (cough), a masturbation section at places like The Lusty Lady in downtown Seattle (Where Every Miss is a Hit, Veni Vidi Veni, and so forth), and there'd probably be a number of tears if enough soccer moms marched in and demanded a place that was suitable for the whole family.

Not all restaurants are suited to your tastes. The mature response to this is to seek out those restaurants that are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
FTA could ask his current bar of choice to mix him a nicotini

Stop trying to tempt me into nicotine addiction! If I want to taste an ashtray in my drink, I'll use Johnny Walker Red.

filtherton 05-10-2008 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I didn't identify your position as being Dobson's, I noted a significant similarity. And it's still there.

Yep, the whole "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" thing. You know you have a certain similarity there, too.

Quote:

With a permission slip? Presuming that the parents aren't glaringly callous to the well-being of the child, this could be okay. Is there a 'gotcha' situation you'd like to hit me with?
No gotcha situation. Do you propose some sort of "callousness test" for parents before they are allowed to give their child permission to work?

Quote:

As the smoking bans have shown, it actually can be very effective to do just that.

And yeah, it does mean that. Taking a gift and insisting that it be modified to your liking is unreasonable.
Okay, how about this, private businesses take the "gift" of having their business subsidized through the various protections and infrastructure provided by the government. It is unreasonable for them to insist that the the terms of their relationship to the government should be modified to their liking. In other words, no one forces them to do business in areas where smoking bans exist. Right? I mean, let's be reasonable here.

Quote:

I'm starting to wonder exactly what your point here is. Is it that I'm fallible, that I can have mistaken ideas? I'm well aware. But it doesn't - and nor should it - prevent me from taking stances that appeal to my reason and empathy.

If you're only saying that I could be wrong, well, duh.

I don't decree it unreasonable, I recognize it as unreasonable.
I'm just saying that "you're being unreasonable." is a poor argument.

Quote:

No, I didn't, and no, I didn't. Read the posts again, more carefully this time.

Yeah, I can. Go back. More carefully this time.

That wasn't a definition of authoritarianism. More carefully this time.
Here's what you said with respect to Dobson and I:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I see plenty of differences, none of which defeat my point on their similarity: people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

And then I was all like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Okay, so I'm like James Dobson in some relatively insignificant way. That's fine.

And then you were all like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Pretty much the opposite of insignificant. Different issues, same nosy authoritarianism.

So I am similar to James Dobson, in that we are both "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" which is just another way of saying that we share the same affinity for "nosy authoritarianism."

I don't get it, how am I mistaken? If you are against "nosy authoritarianism" and "nosy authoritarianism" is the same thing as "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" how are you also not a nosy authoritarian?

Quote:

And I explained in the very next post that child labor does, y'know, actually effect people personally. People who might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful. Unlike with adults and restaurant smoking.
You know kids are allowed in smoke filled restaurants, right? And these kids might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful?

Quote:

But it's so much easier to pretend this nuance doesn't exist, that I must hate ALL authoritarianism or NONE of it! Or, when you tire of that pretension, to pretend that I didn't define the supposedly arbitrary line. The strawman or the deafman.
No, I know that the nuance exists, I just don't think your position is entirely consistent, and I know you disagree.

Quote:

Right after you stop beating your wife.
She chose to marry me, live in my house and can leave at any time. Any attempts by her to stop me from beating her are unreasonable.

Tully Mars 05-10-2008 07:08 PM

I smoked for 12 years. Haven't smoke in something like 15.

You want to smoke fine, please do it outside or at home.

As for restaurants- I won't eat at a restaurant that allows smoking. I don't have a problem if private business owners want to allow smoking, it's their business, they own it. Just don't expect me to eat there.

FoolThemAll 05-12-2008 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Yep, the whole "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" thing. You know you have a certain similarity there, too.

Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.

Quote:

Do you propose some sort of "callousness test" for parents before they are allowed to give their child permission to work?
Observations of working conditions should do it.

Quote:

Okay, how about this, private businesses take the "gift" of having their business subsidized through the various protections and infrastructure provided by the government.
Almost clever. But you're right to put 'gift' in quotes. It's not a gift. They pay for it. (And they aren't exactly given the option not to.)

Quote:

I'm just saying that "you're being unreasonable." is a poor argument.
Well, that's not the full extent of what I said, is it?

Quote:

So I am similar to James Dobson, in that we are both "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" which is just another way of saying that we share the same affinity for "nosy authoritarianism."
Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.

At least you're now implicitly noting that I never condemned all authoritarianism. Baby steps, I guess.

Quote:

You know kids are allowed in smoke filled restaurants, right? And these kids might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful?
Pass a law that bans those under 18 from entering smoke-allowed areas. I wouldn't oppose it.

Quote:

No, I know that the nuance exists, I just don't think your position is entirely consistent, and I know you disagree.
It still doesn't seem like you're talking about my argument. It seems like you're talking about a somewhat similar argument.

Quote:

She chose to marry me, live in my house and can leave at any time. Any attempts by her to stop me from beating her are unreasonable.
You should've been upfront about the beating aspect of the marriage before it happened. I could've sworn I said something about deceit before...

Also, it's just not very nice to beat your wife.

filtherton 05-12-2008 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.

The part about defending obnoxious people? Are you serious?

Quote:

Observations of working conditions should do it.
Sounds like a regulatory can of worms.

Quote:

Almost clever. But you're right to put 'gift' in quotes. It's not a gift. They pay for it. (And they aren't exactly given the option not to.)
So the "gift" that private business give their customers is free?

Quote:

Well, that's not the full extent of what I said, is it?
I never said it was.

Quote:

Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.
The second part is silly. If that was really your point in comparing me to Dobson, then why even make the comparison? It's not like you're not doing the exact same thing.

Quote:

At least you're now implicitly noting that I never condemned all authoritarianism. Baby steps, I guess.
No, you just condemned the kind of authoritarianism that you happen to be a proponent of.

Quote:

Pass a law that bans those under 18 from entering smoke-allowed areas. I wouldn't oppose it.
So you prefer limiting individual freedom over the freedoms of private business? That's where we differ.

Quote:

It still doesn't seem like you're talking about my argument. It seems like you're talking about a somewhat similar argument.
I'm just not sure why you brought up James Dobson.


Quote:

You should've been upfront about the beating aspect of the marriage before it happened. I could've sworn I said something about deceit before...
Why? She can leave at any time. It's not like the beating is exactly a secret at this point.

Quote:

Also, it's just not very nice to beat your wife.
Well, it's not very nice to expose your employees to carcinogens.

FoolThemAll 05-12-2008 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
The part about defending obnoxious people? Are you serious?

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.

Quote:

Sounds like a regulatory can of worms.
Like anti-smoking legislation?

Quote:

So the "gift" that private business give their customers is free?
The part where they come in and take up space? Yeah, that tends to be free.

Quote:

I never said it was.
Just commenting on another unmade argument, then?

Quote:

No, you just condemned the kind of authoritarianism that you happen to be a proponent of.
Incorrect.

Quote:

So you prefer limiting individual freedom over the freedoms of private business? That's where we differ.
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.

Quote:

I'm just not sure why you brought up James Dobson.
I think you're both overly nosy in a way that violates rights rather than defending them. Something really insignificant like that.

Also, I hear he's on craigslist under the name 'topdob66'. Just passing that along.

Quote:

Why? She can leave at any time. It's not like the beating is exactly a secret at this point.
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"?

Quote:

Well, it's not very nice to expose your employees to carcinogens.
It's nicer than exposing your employer to your excessive sense of entitlement.

filtherton 05-12-2008 07:54 PM

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.

FoolThemAll 05-12-2008 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
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.

Okay, I guess this part is kind of vague. Let's replace 'them' with 'people'. Restaurant smoke need not ever affect people personally. Because avoidance is always possible.

Quote:

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.
They're pretty cut and dry, until you get to the issue of when a business is allowed to get the exception in the form of a smoking licence, when a bar can qualify as a smoking lounge, ect. Then the law either gets convoluted or becomes neutered, pointless bureaucracy.

Of course, you can keep it cut and dry by banning smoking lounges as well, but then it gets reaaaaaaly hard to deny that you're just being nosy out of some strange spite.

Quote:

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.
Uh, then reality is ridiculous. They might get you for loitering after a long while of no purchases, but many places even let you use the bathroom without so much as a pretzel purchase. And they're not going to kick out the one person in a party of three or four who settles for tap water. The food may cost you, but the space frequently doesn't.

It's certainly not an altruistic gift, but it is a gift.

But this is kinda beside the point, anyway. If owner and customer both decide they're willing to make a deal that involves secondhand smoke - and yes, a customer who walks into a restaurant with smokers IS making that deal - then the government should probably slip out of the mommy role and let both parties take the risks they want to take.

And if the customer accepts the smoke but really doesn't want it, the customer is conflicted in a needless and stupid way. Decide which is more important - restaurant food or secondhand avoidance - and choose accordingly. Don't use the gun of government to coerce someone into your idealized choice. Avoid that self-centered childishness.

Quote:

Is that what you were doing?
IknowyouarebutwhatamI.

Quote:

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.
I'm also against convicted murderers and illegal aliens frequenting the local indie rock venue. Contradictions ahoy!

If you're looking for symmetry, I think private businesses should also not be allowed to serve secondhand smoke to minors. Penalties all around. I also think that underage children shouldn't be allowed to own smoke-filled bars. And there should be a moratorium on the use of the word 'hypocrite' until you're at least 35. (That's a view with personal sacrifice. I've 11 years to go!)

If that doesn't cover it, you'll need to clarify what exactly the inconsistency here is. It's looking too much like

"A can do B, but X can't do Y? Don't you see the problem with that?"

No, no I don't.

Quote:

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.
Well, sure, I could agree with that. But if I wanted to eat out in a non-public place, I'd still need the owner's permission, right? Or can I crash your house at 2am unannounced? And I'd probably have to agree to the owner's term's, no? If I barged in and insisted that your godawful techno/smoothjazz/nucountry/MindofMencia was causing long-term health risks and must be shut off immediately, you probably wouldn't invite me back. Even with my totally awesome sense of humor!

Show me where in the constitution it says that you can make coma-inducing sounds. It's not there. Our Founding Fathers made allowances for the possibility of Kenny G.

Quote:

That's actually Sean Hannity. He's a top, I need a bottom.
Pfft. Hannity isn't smart enough to use the internet.

Quote:

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.
It's a saying, jerk. How was I supposed to know that you actually beat your wife? You screwed up my cliche.

Quote:

That's the price of doing business in places where most people don't respect the rights of the lazily suicidal.
It's a really poor way of committing suicide, don't know think? They might try a way that doesn't often allow for a long and happy life.

Quote:

Notice how nothing is being accomplished here at all... I'm kind of having fun though.
Same.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360