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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 9:02:55 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Default possition of freedom, bans outright are a power grab to make folks feel good and make the choices for others based on your values.

Agreed.




quote:

Want to make guns like cars liscenced insured and registered just like cars? I'll buy that, but exactly like cars.
If I keep the car on my property and never put it on a public road I don't have to register it insure it or have a liscence.
If however I do liscence register and insure it I can drive it everywhere in the US. So If I liscence insure and register a gun I can take it out in public anywhere in the US as well. If I put the car in/on another form of transport, (towed on a wrecker or truck) I can move it freely so long as I don't actually drive it on public property. So In a case I can transport the gun to the range without need for a liscence and home again. I'd take treating guns like cars in a flat second.


I think that is a perfectly sound argument and a reasonable measure if you overlook but one distinction...

The ability to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right whereas the privilege to drive on public property is not.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 9:05:33 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
The argument is half ment to kill the idea that many liberals have that guns should be regulated just like cars. LOL
Heck if they were treated like cars we'd have more rights with our guns than we have now. LOL



(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 9:18:21 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
Excellent post.
 
I've never smoked myself, not even once, but really don't understand why we hassle those that want to. If I go someplace that is too smokey ... I just leave and go somewhere else. If it's too smokey, that probably means that lots of people want to smoke ... maybe even a democratic majority.
 
I think your gun policy is what the majority of people already do. In our family, we register what we carry, but not all we have on our property. Then again, the big guy here restores old military vehicles. We currently have a working M8 armored car, and a working Civil War cannon. This would be the wrong house to rob.  

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 4/24/2007 9:31:50 PM >

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 9:27:30 PM   
Sinergy


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

ORIGINAL: Archer


Don't like the smoke fine don't go to that bar, the market will open a bar that will cater to non smokers and it should be allowed to work the other way as well. Cigar Bar's cigarette bars, etc employees would know the atmosphere when they applied for the job. Hire only smokers, LOL if companies can hire only non smokers then the reverse logic should apply as well.



The way the law is written, Archer, is that an employee has a right to a smoke free work place.

The onus is on the employer to provide them with a smoke free work place.  Failure to do so is breaking the law.  If you as the employer feel that your business will suffer if you ban cigarettes from your establishment, maybe owning a bar is a poor career choice for you.

As I pointed out, if you dont like the law, then work to get it changed.  If you are unwilling to be active in your country's political process to change it, I suggest you suck it up and take what people who are involved legislate for you.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"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 Archer)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 9:35:22 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The argument is half ment to kill the idea that many liberals have that guns should be regulated just like cars. LOL
Heck if they were treated like cars we'd have more rights with our guns than we have now. LOL



Again, I think you are absolutely correct. The problem is what we barter away by "seeming" reasonable to pacify the emotionally-charged sheep. This is why I don't leap to hunting as a first move of such arguments. While it is useful pastime and trade that most people have little problem with, this activity is NOT constitutionally protected. Hunting, like driving, is privilege that whether right or wrong, may be banned by the state. We already have these idiot politicians dividing firearms into "sporting" arms and non-sporting ones, and guess where that leads. Granted, standing here obstinately asserting that these are rights doesn't curry favor with popular opinion like catering to the ignorance with hunting analogies. The problem arises however, when hunting becomes less and less viable (as it invariably will) and the state exercises it's rightfully vested power to ban it, you will no longer have a leg to stand on with this kind of argument used to pacify these people. It's better to turn off 3 and gain one of them now with stubborn adherence to the right argument than gaining 2 today through the wrong one and losing them tomorrow when that wrong argument becomes moot. It is a long shot, (at least in our lifetimes) but the growing unpopularity with fossil fuel and the rapid population surges may one day make personal motor vehicle use on public property a banned activity.

Your argument still remains useful, however. Instead of "compromising" and being at peace with the automotive regulations, I would reframe your points (as I do) and dissent with outrage that a constitutionally protected activity suffers more scrutiny and regulation than a simple albeit utilitarian privilege.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 4/24/2007 9:48:36 PM >

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:31:48 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No.

You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health.

You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health.

See the difference?

Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.




Limitations should be set on the whole banning of smoking, first of all they used to have seperate sections but there was no division -- then they changed it to the restaurant/bar/club/whatever had to have a seperate room to limit smoking to.. seperate room = not in your face, yet and still non-smokers/reformed smokers still whined which resulted in the complete ban which is just plain stupid.  People aren't happy unless they got something to complain about and frankly, cigarettes are legal thus banning smoking in the first place is unconstitutional, everyone has the right to live their lives how they choose.  Besides, secondary smoke is supposedly more dangerous than actually smoking.. so why not just shut up, stop whining, and light up a cigarette already.   By golly if I'm going to die which I will eventually die just like every other person on this planet at least I'm going to die doing something I like rather than have to listen to the incessant cry babies of the world.


You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to kitbaloo)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:36:04 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


The way the law is written, Archer, is that an employee has a right to a smoke free work place.



This is very selective because there are many jobs where employees have to endure worse atmospheres than smokey bars. If that wasn't so, I would accept such laws in good faith rather than being prejudiced against one particular vice.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:38:36 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.



I don't like breathing in traffic fumes, most of which are unnecessary and part of car addiction. It is more harmful than passive smoke and car drivers freedom involves damaging the health of pedestrians and cyclists.

When can we expect a ban?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:45:20 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Guns are designed to kill and killing is their sole raison d'etre.

That and making inadequates feel powerful.


Inadequates? That's an... interesting perspective. What puts homo sapiensat the top of the food chain is our ability to use tools. i would argue that those who fear weapons, and would prefer that all conflict take place on the caveman level, are the inferiors.

There's an old saying in the U.S.- God made men. Sam Colt made men equal.

i'm pretty consistently anti-ban, in that i have no problem with "hate speech", weapons, mind-altering chemicals, or sex toys- i'm pretty much an anarchist-fringe libertarian.



I guess that is why US society is noticeably paranoid to foreign visitors and on crossing the boarder to Canada one gets the sense of a much more relaxed society. Though looking at US society, there is far more inequality than in other western countries. So much for being equal.

It is amazing how pre-occupied the average American is with things violent and their rights to fear toys. I guess that says something about the paranoia one encounters there.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:51:51 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.



I don't like breathing in traffic fumes, most of which are unnecessary and part of car addiction. It is more harmful than passive smoke and car drivers freedom involves damaging the health of pedestrians and cyclists.

When can we expect a ban?



How do I know, write to your MP or something.

While you're on, ask him/her to explain the difference between a ban and an activity being limited to certain establishments/property.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 4/25/2007 12:25:32 AM >


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/24/2007 11:54:19 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

How do I know, write to your MP or something.

While your on, ask him/her to explain the difference between a ban and an activity being limited to certain establishments/property.


I'm surprised your concern for good health only seems to apply to one activity you are prejudiced against.

Oh well. I guess that is PC for you.

I guess it is because of all the PC nonsense I don't choose to live in Britain, you remind me what a suffucating place it is.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 4/24/2007 11:57:39 PM >


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 12:13:27 AM   
understeer


Posts: 35
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline
Interesting point on the other hazardous jobs in comparison to a "smoke-free workplace."  I've spent years working on airport flight lines inhaling exhaust and fuel fumes, steering clear of whirling meat cleaver propellors, and scalding jet blast, but thankfully I didn't have to be concerned with second hand smoke!  I could easily have gotten a job elsewhere, but I was willing to undergo the hazard. 

Aside, I've never EVER heard any airline passengers concerned about my health and the dangers of an accident caused by speeding up my job when their flight is delayed. 

Weather delay? 
"These airplanes can fly in bad weather!"
Of course, that same smoking ban supporter finds no harm in getting outraged that I'm not fueling an airplane in a lightning storm.

My point is that people jump on the ban bandwagon for selfish, ego-driven reasons.  It's easy to spout the safety and health concerns associated with such bans, however every time it's inconvenient to them, they shut their mouth.



In addition, I suspect that most politicians involved in these bans do NOT have a full grasp on the scientific facts surrounding a ban, but instead they operate on political pressures from the (sometimes) overly vocal minority so they can save their jobs.

Pulpsmack, you've had some great replies, I wish I had such eloquent arguments in these matters.  Heh.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 12:44:58 AM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No.

You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health.

You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health.

See the difference?

Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.



quote:

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.



NG - I have seen you take the issue of smoking to this example (above) often, and I have to say I am getting a bit frustrated.  As a smoker, and as to all the other smokers who have given opinions on this issue, I have to say that you seem to lose sight of the fact that we state over and over that we have no desire to smoke in your face.  We will observe the proprieties, and now the law.  Yet you continue to take it to an entirely different argument. I don't know why you seem to think that smokers want the privilege of smoking anywhere they please and the hell with anyone else who might be offended or in fear of their health.
That said, I wish to clarify something here.  In My state (Arizona) we are now following the suit of many other states.  The propostiions went onto the ballot in the last election and won.  I will, very shortly, not have the luxury of even choosing to patronize any establishment (bar, restaurant, bowling alley) wherein the establishment permits smoking, even in a designated area.  Now, if I go out to eat,  I do not even have the option of sitting on a patio.  If I decide to spend an evening with friends at a karaoke bar, we must exit the establishment and smoke in the parking lot.  I cannot rent a hotel room in the state that has a smoking room, or a smoking floor. 
There is no smoking in any business or entertainment establishment.   There will no longer be such a thing as a "smoking establishment" in Arizona, and that is just one more state that has jumped onto the bandwagon.  
I am not only distressed at the idea that the business owners have been told they no longer have a choice as to what they may provide in the way of an amenity to certain of their patrons, but I have to wonder why there was a need to take this to the ultimate.  This is, in effect, a ban, and it has been imposed not only upon the people who choose to smoke, but it has also been imposed upon those who should have the right to say "this is a private business (albeit open to any of the public who may choose to patronize this business) and if I want to permit smoking, I should be able to do so."  This was the anti-smoking faction who stirred all this up and now have effectively taken away one of My personal pleasures, because they don't approve and they are going to make sure that I have as little opportunity to smoke as possible.     
And I also have the privilege of paying an additional (on top of all the other tax already in place)  80cents per pack in tax for early childhood education (and no, it is not specified that this is for "no smoking" health education) and another tax which is desginated to go for the expense of enforcing the regulation.  Three props all designed to ban smoking without making the actual cigarettes illegal,and all passed. 
I hate to think of where Arizona is going to get all this extra tax money they have been bleeding out of the smokers, if and when they finally just make the damn things illegal.  And I shudder think of the day when the next bastion of "sin" and "that unhealthy habit" comes to the forefront.  Enjoy your pub while you can...  We never know what is next on the list!





_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 1:09:47 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

What puts homo sapiensat the top of the food chain is our ability to use tools. i would argue that those who fear weapons, and would prefer that all conflict take place on the caveman level, are the inferiors.

There's an old saying in the U.S.- God made men. Sam Colt made men equal.

i'm pretty consistently anti-ban, in that i have no problem with "hate speech", weapons, mind-altering chemicals, or sex toys- i'm pretty much an anarchist-fringe libertarian.

  

quote:

I guess that is why US society is noticeably paranoid to foreign visitors and on crossing the boarder to Canada one gets the sense of a much more relaxed society. Though looking at US society, there is far more inequality than in other western countries. So much for being equal.


Well, for better or worse that is what happens when you don't live in a restrictive socialistic society (although we seem like we are descending the downward spiral into the stale/complacent European way of life). You see, the founding fathers had believed that all men were created equal (granted, all white males of property holding status, but their message still translates well). Ahem... All men are created equal... what they make of themselves is up to them. This is a stunning departure from the social controls in Europe that recognizes all mean may/may not be created equal, but we will stunt those who excel and prop those who don't with social controls. Thus, Western Europe may be a nice place for everybody to live, whereas America may be a nice, great, or piss poor place to live, depending on your potential. Personally, I would prefer the freedom to make something of  myself over the security of being as bland and uniform as my neighbor, and his and his, and hers, and his...

quote:


It is amazing how pre-occupied the average American is with things violent and their rights to fear toys. I guess that says something about the paranoia one encounters there.


Perhaps... Of course, I noticed directors like Guy Ritchie don't hail from America. And while we Americans invented violence and inflicted it on the world in policy and entertainment, I can't help but notice how well our invention has caught on in Europe and other places. As thoroughly as I enjoy the BBC's "Young Ones" and "Bottom", our censors would never have allowed that kind of violence on primetime network television. Maybe if you were able to view that subject with a less-myopic lens,  you would understand  there are only two stories that sell: sex and violence, and your world celebrates it just as ours does... only not nearly as properly or as glamorously.

Of course, that might be the issue at hand. While criticism over an American issue/topic is inevitable in a germane discussion, I find it quite interesting how "pre-occupied" certain Europeans are with America with every thread in which they post. I mean, I can think of quite a few things to criticize certain countries in the Middle East or Asia, for example. The fundamental difference is that I think about the nation in question, make my value judgment and dismiss the third world shithole for what it is (perhaps adjusting my ideas and attitude as information presents itself) and I leave it at that. What I don't do is look for a pretext to bash the nation in question in every thread possible, like a schoolboy who tries to conceal his schoolyard crush to all the other little boys by teasing her relentlessly. I have to wonder if all this undue attention is from personality (defect), or if it is from resentment and/or closet admiration by a foreign national who resides in a second-world footnote of history. Whatever the reason, this unhealthy preoccupation with our "terrible country" certainly says a great deal about the obsession that goes on in the meatcleaver living room. Perhaps you can use another night out in your wonderful country and celebrate those "freedoms" so you can have a clearer perspective on things.

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 4/25/2007 1:17:51 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 5:27:58 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Well, for better or worse that is what happens when you don't live in a restrictive socialistic society (although we seem like we are descending the downward spiral into the stale/complacent European way of life). You see, the founding fathers had believed that all men were created equal (granted, all white males of property holding status, but their message still translates well). Ahem... All men are created equal... what they make of themselves is up to them. This is a stunning departure from the social controls in Europe that recognizes all mean may/may not be created equal, but we will stunt those who excel and prop those who don't with social controls. Thus, Western Europe may be a nice place for everybody to live, whereas America may be a nice, great, or piss poor place to live, depending on your potential. Personally, I would prefer the freedom to make something of  myself over the security of being as bland and uniform as my neighbor, and his and his, and hers, and his...



The founding fathers were the mirror image of their conservative counterparts in Parliament in London and when the colonists were demanding their rights it was as free born Englishmen, not as free born Americans. Where do you think the ideas came from? Americans appear to have bought into the myth that these wealthy 18th century capitalists really did believe in what they spouted, though their personal lives showed they were just good old fashioned corrupt politicians who talked the talk but couldn't or more likely, had no intention of walking the walk. They never gave the average colonist any more rights than they had under the British and less rights than the average Englishman had at the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Perhaps... Of course, I noticed directors like Guy Ritchie don't hail from America. And while we Americans invented violence and inflicted it on the world in policy and entertainment, I can't help but notice how well our invention has caught on in Europe and other places. As thoroughly as I enjoy the BBC's "Young Ones" and "Bottom", our censors would never have allowed that kind of violence on primetime network television. Maybe if you were able to view that subject with a less-myopic lens,  you would understand  there are only two stories that sell: sex and violence, and your world celebrates it just as ours does... only not nearly as properly or as glamorously.



I have to admit scum rises to the surfaces and it certainly does with culture. I guess most people prefer to take the line of least resistance, it takes less effort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Of course, that might be the issue at hand. While criticism over an American issue/topic is inevitable in a germane discussion, I find it quite interesting how "pre-occupied" certain Europeans are with America with every thread in which they post. I mean, I can think of quite a few things to criticize certain countries in the Middle East or Asia, for example. The fundamental difference is that I think about the nation in question, make my value judgment and dismiss the third world shithole for what it is (perhaps adjusting my ideas and attitude as information presents itself) and I leave it at that. What I don't do is look for a pretext to bash the nation in question in every thread possible, like a schoolboy who tries to conceal his schoolyard crush to all the other little boys by teasing her relentlessly. I have to wonder if all this undue attention is from personality (defect), or if it is from resentment and/or closet admiration by a foreign national who resides in a second-world footnote of history. Whatever the reason, this unhealthy preoccupation with our "terrible country" certainly says a great deal about the obsession that goes on in the meatcleaver living room. Perhaps you can use another night out in your wonderful country and celebrate those "freedoms" so you can have a clearer perspective on things.


I'm not interested in your country per se, I am interested in the politics because it does affect the rest of the world and I guess the gun issue a window into the psychology of the US, the belief that violence solves problems.

Oh. Feel free to criticize any country you like, I'm not a nationalist of any sort and don't live in my own country because I've always prefered to live somewhere else.  Flags are for morons.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 4/25/2007 5:34:27 AM >


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 5:46:42 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
Keep in mind Pulpsmack, that meatcleaver has only been to California and New England.
 
This is not a slam on him at all ... but being originally from California myself, and having been to New England many times, I might also come to the exact same faulty conclusions concerning American culture.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 5:55:17 AM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack
It is a long shot, (at least in our lifetimes) but the growing unpopularity with fossil fuel and the rapid population surges may one day make personal motor vehicle use on public property a banned activity.


Actually, California (of course!) is already leading the way there... they do require "non-operable" vehicles to be registered. They apparently have an additional scam going where a vehicle that has been unregistered for several years cannot be registered without paying accrued the fees... leading to lots of older vehicles in running condition being stripped for parts.

Nicely stated discussion on Constitutional rights vs. privileges, btw... saved me the time





(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 6:30:23 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Whether smoking will damage your health is subject to the interaction between your genetics and harmful substances in exhaust smoke.

The harmful substances have been proven.

Anything else seems rather myopic.


I changed one word of your post. I prefer being universally myopic as opposed to selectively. Anything else becomes is rationalization which is a path to hypocrisy.

Regarding this topic any "ban" is selective, decided by political correctness whose results are measured by "good intent" versus quantitative measurement. Apply the same standards, potentially dangerous or unhealthy as a function or byproduct, to everything or nothing. Apply it to transportation, food, entertainment, leisure activities; and everything can be subject to ban. I see the trend already beginning. The willingness or in some cases direct support by some to eliminate freedom to choose has empowered the government to look for more ways where they can control our lives.

It's a simple difference. I believe a person should possess the decision making power. Supporting bans to protect people from themselves and making the government  possess the power is the other approach.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 2:16:45 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No.

You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health.

You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health.

See the difference?

Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.



quote:

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.



NG - I have seen you take the issue of smoking to this example (above) often, and I have to say I am getting a bit frustrated.  As a smoker, and as to all the other smokers who have given opinions on this issue, I have to say that you seem to lose sight of the fact that we state over and over that we have no desire to smoke in your face.  We will observe the proprieties, and now the law.  Yet you continue to take it to an entirely different argument.



Bollocks. Copy and paste, or point to a thread, where I've taken "an entirely different argument".

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to GoddessDustyGold)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 4/25/2007 3:52:10 PM   
GoddessDustyGold


Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No.

You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health.

You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health.

See the difference?

Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.



quote:

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.



NG - I have seen you take the issue of smoking to this example (above) often, and I have to say I am getting a bit frustrated.  As a smoker, and as to all the other smokers who have given opinions on this issue, I have to say that you seem to lose sight of the fact that we state over and over that we have no desire to smoke in your face.  We will observe the proprieties, and now the law.  Yet you continue to take it to an entirely different argument.



Bollocks. Copy and paste, or point to a thread, where I've taken "an entirely different argument".


I would have to point you to the recent "Smoking Ban - When is it too much?"  thread
 
http://www.collarchat.com/m_776649/mpage_1/key_smoking%2Cban%2Ctoo%2Cmuch/tm.htm 
 
I am not specifically taking your arguments out of the thread, but referring you to the entire thing in context. 
 
You stood out like a sore thumb to Me in that thread.   Note the original question and see how quickly it was able to get off track.  You jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry! 
You seem to take any discussion regarding a choice to smoke to an argument that if this is allowed people will take advantage and kill you with their second hand smoke.  When you proffer that type of argument then the other side will come back and state that if you are that upset about second hand cigarette smoke, to the extent that you are all for creating smoke free environments for yourself, without regard to the access to smoking environments for others, then you do leave yourself open to the additional argument that this mass hysteria about second hand smoke is almost laughable when we are all breathing in so many toxic fumes from cars and trucks that it makes the second hand smoke issue seem like a paper cut we have to bandage while ignoring the  bloody amputation that is occuring at the same time.   
My point, NorthernGent, is that you immediately jump to people being rude and ignoring any social propriety unless there is a law that protects you.   Although you can say that people can smoke their brains out in their own homes, you failed to see that this was the exact point of the original discussion.  Taht was all that needed to be said.  Not, "I'm okay with that...but..."  Always the big "but".  By arguing as you did, it would appear that this is not going to necessarily affect you in a negative manner, therefore you are all for more and more restrictions for a ban on smoking in all public areas.  Pick a pleasure and then imagine it being taken away from you in all manner and then tell Me that you will go along with the status quo because other people are affected by your pleasure.  Even when you can say, they would not be. You seem to be pretty big on your pub time. It is a reasonable pastime and harmless, is it not?  You state that  you will not drive drunk, you will not puke on the other non-consensual person's shoes, and you will not fall down in the pub and sue the owner because his bar stools were too high.  I guarantee you that there are people out there who could start a wave of hysteria and state that you  and your ilk are dangerous and causing more problems and that we need to ban drinking in public places.  Yes, it is a bit of an extreme example...or is it?  
Now, I did not see you address any other point of My post.  Where is the rest of My post?  Is it so unimportant to you?  It did address, with example, the lack of balance regarding what is okay to be banned and what is not.  Are you concerned at all that I will no longer have any smoking establishment to choose?  Or do you not care because you don't smoke, therefore it does not affect you on a personal level?  Why is it okay, NG, to remove all ability to smoke in any public place, even if I am patronizing a private business?  Why is it okay to tell that private buisness owner that s/he will now be in violation of a law if s/he does not maintain a completely smoke-free establishment?  Are your rights to what you perceive as "clean air" more important than My rights to have a place to indulge in My pleasure or the rights of the private business to determine if there is a "this is a non-smoking establishment"  or this is a "smoking establishment" sign in the window? 
 
Remember, this is a thread about being selective in your stance on bans.  It is not a thread about the ills of smoking or second hand smoke. 

_____________________________

Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom


(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094