RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 7:11:05 AM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied
Common sense took leave of this thread a long time ago.

Well yes it really did....but that is kinda what I was hoping would happen in this thread....in an odd kind of way. I wanted to see if people who would normally be opposed to bans would find that their stance could be swayed if what was proposed to be banned was something they felt passionately about. I would say that the results have shown that people would be more likely to be in support of banning something they are personally strongly opposed to.

I actually disagree with your findings....I think we can find a way to help out the general population with "restrictions' not bans....So you can't smoke in a restaurant or bar but you can go outside you can smoke at your or any residence that allows it...You can't park in front of a fire hydrant.

It's been brought up, not on this thread, about restrictions on free speech...I can't yell "fire" in a theater...But you can yell fire at the top of your lungs outside...People might think you are crazy...But it is rather fun. It's more of a common sense policy than anything else.

I actually might be able to be convinced that abortion should be banned if we lived in a nation where someone is not ridiculed for pregnancy out of wedlock and where every American child (not just those little cute pink/white babies) would be assured a home that would take care, love and nurture them....Since that day will never arrive...I'm pro choice.

< Message edited by domiguy -- 4/30/2007 7:12:17 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 181

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 8:00:09 AM

kitbaloo

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline

kids that are in foster homes are severe majority children not babies, why? those who can't have children hold preference to adopting a baby for the full experience of parenting. it is unfortunate that the older kids get overlooked and the older kids were already damaged in the first place from being removed from neglectful and abused homes. babies never have issues being adopted and are actually on shortage due to the high demand for infant adoptions.

_____________________________

A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.

~ Pope John Paul II ~

(in reply to domiguy)

Profile

Post #: 182

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 8:10:01 AM

kitbaloo

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

I actually disagree with your findings....I think we can find a way to help out the general population with "restrictions' not bans....So you can't smoke in a restaurant or bar but you can go outside you can smoke at your or any residence that allows it...You can't park in front of a fire hydrant.

problem being, the business choice was taken away from them when they banned smoking from all restaurants/bars/etc, so business owners don't have the option to provide a smoking environment at all for their business, as smokers choice of where to eat/drink with a choice of a smoking or non smoking establishment. going outside to smoke isn't exactly a solution for everyone, some areas maybe, but there are those that live in areas where temperatures drop below 0 degrees. solution would be simple if business owners were given the rights to choose for their business whether or not they wish their establishment to be a smoking or a non smoking establishment, with certain limitations depending on size/population of city have the business owners apply for a permit to allow their business to be designated a smoking establishment, however, set a limit percentage of how many of these permits allowed that way there's still going to be a certain percentage of non smoking establishments available to non smokers to choose from.

i.e.

McDonald's on ### Main St - Holds Permit For Said Address - Smoking Establishment
McDonald's on ### Willow St - Doesn't Hold Permit For Said Address - Non Smoking Establishment

Thus smokers and non smokers alike both have the choice of where to go and be comfortable with the fact they can either smoke a cigarette after eating (smokers establishment) or eat smoke free (non smoker establishment).

Point being, each side of the argument still given their freedom to choose where they want to eat and whether or not they want to smoke.

_____________________________

A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.

~ Pope John Paul II ~

(in reply to kitbaloo)

Profile

Post #: 183

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 10:04:23 AM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

I understand this point about choice but then I can also understand that even though an employee might feel obligated to work at such an establishment in the end it is their choice....But you are allowng someone to work in somewhat of a hazardous environment...Which is not at all necessary.

< Message edited by domiguy -- 4/30/2007 10:45:01 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kitbaloo)

Profile

Post #: 184

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 10:43:16 AM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

Here are a couple of articles of interest...That might shed some light on this matter...

http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3990

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

.Whenever I hear people discuss the nedd to outlaw abortions I always feel they better have a plan in place to take care of all the unwanted, unhealthy and neglected kids that are going to be born....Who is going to pay for all of the medical bills of these children that are born terribly ill to parents or a mother that could care less about their existance?

Read these articles....It won't take much time ...But I didn't even bother searching for the costs of caring for infants affected by the drug and alcohol affects of their mothers while pregnant...Look I don't mean to justify whether someone deserves life based solely on dollars and cents.....But we are having a serious problem with unwanted pregnancies and that matter would be compounded tremendously with the removal of abortion as an option.

To suggest birth control or abstinence is a solution ...In that you would be correct...However we have a President in office who does not feel that it is in the best interests of America to explain as well as provide sex education and birth control to the people who need it the most.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html
You can bitch about abortion all you want...But I consider such voices to be uneducated about the facts when it actually comes down how are we going to deal with all of these unwanted and many sick children? Unfortunately these children will now be forced upon a Country as well as families who have not the ability nor the desire to take the time to care for them.

_____________________________

(in reply to domiguy)

Profile

Post #: 185

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 11:08:17 AM

kitbaloo

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I understand this point about choice but then I can also understand that even though an employee might feel obligated to work at such an establishment in the end it is their choice....But you are allowng someone to work in somewhat of a hazardous environment...Which is not at all necessary.

With my previously solution to the problem at hand, just as much as the patrons would have the choice on which establishment to frequent (smoking or non smoking) employees would have equally as much choice as to which establishment to apply for a job at (smoking or non smoking).

My solution is a 50/50 split compromise giving everyone their choices rather than the biased non-smokers solutions of just cutting off smokers rights altogether.

_____________________________

A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.

~ Pope John Paul II ~

(in reply to domiguy)

Profile

Post #: 186

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 11:12:19 AM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

You don't get it....Why should an employee have to make the choice between their health and employment?

_____________________________

(in reply to kitbaloo)

Profile

Post #: 187

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 4:12:10 PM

kitbaloo

Posts: 59
Joined: 3/19/2007
Status: offline

You completely missed the point. Two different jobs. They want to work in a non smoking establishment.. apply at the non smoking establishment. They don't mind working or want to work at a smoking establishment.. apply at the smoking establishment. Point is they have the choice of where to work just as patrons have the choice to choose where they frequent. They don't want to work at a smoking establishment, fine, don't apply there, apply at the non smoking establishment instead. Something that simple shouldn't be that hard to understand.

_____________________________

A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying.

~ Pope John Paul II ~

(in reply to domiguy)

Profile

Post #: 188

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 8:47:23 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Gonna respond to my comment on rape, kitbaloo?

Please answer the question without 3 paragraphs of unrelated twaddle. If you are held down and raped by 3 guys and end up pregnant. Gonna have the child? Gonna tell it who it's father is?

Sinergy

p.s. I tend to think that it is really easy to sit in an ivory tower, uninvolved in reality, and make decisions about how other people should live their lives.

Have you walked a mile in that person's shoes?

Or are you simply another ignorant person who wraps a towel around their head knowing that since you cannot see the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall, it cannot see you.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to kitbaloo)

Profile

Post #: 189

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/30/2007 10:04:59 PM

deadbluebird