Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, see? You would choose not to go if a place allowed smoking. That's the whole point here. So, if people can choose not to go, why the need for smoking bans at all?
It isn't a choice because it for it to be a choice, one has to consider that an OPTION. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Who said anything about censorship? Where did you get that idea?
Weren't you the one to say this as a response to banning of saying things?
Quote:
See, the "collectivist" approach to preventing someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be to put a muzzle on everyone before they entered said theater.
A muzzle is a form of censorship according to Merriam-Webster.
Quote:
something (as censorship) that restrains normal expression
So if you said that, you brought up censorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
collectivism
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
Just as the definition suggests, Collectivism is the philosophy that the good of the group is more important than protecting the individual rights of a single person. The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example you gave has nothing to do with Collectivism, and banning the act of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not Collectivism. As far as that goes, there IS no ban on yelling fire in a theater. If you're in a theater alone, you can yell fire all you want, it's not against the law. Also, the other exception would be if there actually were a fire. You can yell fire all you want, you just can't knowingly incite a panic with malice intent. That's nota Collectivist idea so, that was a bad example on your part.
It is the collective good that one doesn't yell fire in a crowded theater despite one having the right to free speech. You can think otherwise but it is. Many individuals get hurt causing issues to the group, not just the individual. The Who concert where people got trampled at the door because of a delayed soundcheck is a case of this. Ohio actually banned general admission tickets because of several deaths from the concert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Funny how when someone makes a point that the other person can't deny or just doesn't like, it's "rhetoric".....
Yeah, I'm sure you've said that about my responses too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
What you really mean to say is that there isn't always a choice that you like....... If your friends go somewhere that allows smoking, you DO have a choice. You can go with them, or not go.... No one is forcing you to go. That is a choice.....
Refer to my earlier comment, it isn't an option for me so it's not really a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Didn't you make this comment?
So what if I did. You made the comment about a muzzle and claimed to not mention censorship too...
It isn't a choice because it for it to be a choice, one
has to consider that an OPTION. I don't.
You don't have to consider it an option. What you consider an option is irrelevant. Your "option" is to put up with the smoke, find somewhere else to go, or stay home. A business who wants to serve smokers has no obligation to accommodate you just so you have somewhere to go. Don't like it? Stay home. That's the way it should be. Just like a business that wants to play loud music has no obligation to accommodate me.
Quote:
It is the collective good that one doesn't yell fire in a crowded theater
despite one having the right to free speech. You can think otherwise but it is.
Again, if someone yells fire and causes a panic, they won't be prosecuted because they "yelled fire" they will be prosecuted because they incited a panic. Each individual retains their speech rights right up until the point they use them to harm someone else.
Quote:
Refer to my earlier comment, it isn't an option for me so it's not really a
choice.
Again, sure it's a choice, it's just not a choice that you like
You don't have to have an option, you don't have to have a choice, business owners are not required to give you one. No one has a right to tell others what they can or cannot do on their own property, they do not have to accommodate you just so you have a choice that you like.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-22-2015 at 02:48 AM..
MK, a thought regarding your discussion of options and choices and the denial thereof.
I don't drive. I ride a bicycle. My brother lives about 25 miles north of me. It would be a hefty bike ride, but quite doable if I took advantage of the pleasant state highway system provided.
Unfortunately, not only is that option LEGALLY denied to me and my bicycle, but it would also, under your feelings about what constitutes options and choice, be denied to me because of the extreme danger caused by all those people in cars driving at 60 or 70 miles per hour on those roads.
I'm not asking for them to be banned altogether, no more than you are asking for smoking to be banned altogether. They should be perfectly free to drive, in their own lane away from the healthy, normal, non-polluting bicyclists and walkers, as long as they observed a sane maximum speed of about ten miles per hour. Heck, since they're in a separate lane, maybe even bump that to fifteen miles per hour as long as there were no walkers or cyclists within visual distance!
See? I can be just as "reasonable" in offering "compromises" and "options" as Antismokers!
WallSt, you wrote to Whipper, "Of course you don't smoke, nobody who spends their entire lives on message boards defending smokers like their life depends on it smokes....in fact, they're all fighting for liberty just like you."
Actually Wall, you'd be surprised. While there aren't that many who are strongly active, there are indeed a number of nonsmokers out there who've supported the Free Choice side pretty strongly in this fight. There are even a number of ex-smokers who have moved over to Vaping who have retained their opposition to smoking bans, although unfortunately some of the more near-sighted ones throw the smokers to the antismoking wolves hoping to sate their appetite -- it doesn't usually work: Once the wolves smell blood they don't usually stop until the sheep AND the goats are slaughtered.
Also: I'd like to revisit something form two days ago. You'd said, "This is a debate about smoke on sidewalks, not when you enter a bar that allows smoking. The two things are different. If a place allows smoking and you go inside, you have made the decision for yourself, i agree with that." and I wanted to check on a clarification: That statement would indicate that you are against bans on smoking in bars or businesses that would like to choose to allow smoking, particularly since such bans increase the amount of sidewalk smoking. Am I understanding you correctly there?
MK, a thought regarding your discussion of options and choices and the denial thereof.
I don't drive. I ride a bicycle. My brother lives about 25 miles north of me. It would be a hefty bike ride, but quite doable if I took advantage of the pleasant state highway system provided.
Unfortunately, not only is that option LEGALLY denied to me and my bicycle, but it would also, under your feelings about what constitutes options and choice, be denied to me because of the extreme danger caused by all those people in cars driving at 60 or 70 miles per hour on those roads.
I'm not asking for them to be banned altogether, no more than you are asking for smoking to be banned altogether. They should be perfectly free to drive, in their own lane away from the healthy, normal, non-polluting bicyclists and walkers, as long as they observed a sane maximum speed of about ten miles per hour. Heck, since they're in a separate lane, maybe even bump that to fifteen miles per hour as long as there were no walkers or cyclists within visual distance!
See? I can be just as "reasonable" in offering "compromises" and "options" as Antismokers!
Bikes on the freeway is a bit different. A Parkway near me allows it on the shoulder as do other highways like state routes and interstates by Arizona Department of Transportation laws, even though it is dangerous due to high speed and possible quick pull-offs. While it is legal, it isn't exactly smart. This partially due to polluting cars but also because of the high speeds of the freeways. In AZ you can get up to 75 mph on stretches of I-10, I-17 and I-40 and route at 55. While still doable, being on the side of the road with a parkway or route going at 55mph I rarely see besides the parkway I live by which has continuous bike traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden
WallSt, you wrote to Whipper, "Of course you don't smoke, nobody who spends their entire lives on message boards defending smokers like their life depends on it smokes....in fact, they're all fighting for liberty just like you."
Actually Wall, you'd be surprised. While there aren't that many who are strongly active, there are indeed a number of nonsmokers out there who've supported the Free Choice side pretty strongly in this fight. There are even a number of ex-smokers who have moved over to Vaping who have retained their opposition to smoking bans, although unfortunately some of the more near-sighted ones throw the smokers to the antismoking wolves hoping to sate their appetite -- it doesn't usually work: Once the wolves smell blood they don't usually stop until the sheep AND the goats are slaughtered.
Also: I'd like to revisit something form two days ago. You'd said, "This is a debate about smoke on sidewalks, not when you enter a bar that allows smoking. The two things are different. If a place allows smoking and you go inside, you have made the decision for yourself, i agree with that." and I wanted to check on a clarification: That statement would indicate that you are against bans on smoking in bars or businesses that would like to choose to allow smoking, particularly since such bans increase the amount of sidewalk smoking. Am I understanding you correctly there?
I think the thing they meant is if the bans were shifted towards the sidewalks and bars can decide is that you give up consent to walk in compared to it being a jungle with out on the sidewalks currently as smokers have been pushed out onto the sidewalks and your consent is being on the sidewalk which isn't consent compared to walking into a bar that says "This restaurant allows smoking," on the door or a window outside. Now if you aren't going to read it (like those that walk into a restaurant with a gun despite a sign saying guns aren't permitted like those in Arizona do) then that is a different story.
Bikes on the freeway is a bit different. A Parkway near me allows it on the shoulder as do other highways like state routes and interstates by Arizona Department of Transportation laws, even though it is dangerous due to high speed and possible quick pull-offs. While it is legal, it isn't exactly smart. This partially due to polluting cars but also because of the high speeds of the freeways. In AZ you can get up to 75 mph on stretches of I-10, I-17 and I-40 and route at 55. While still doable, being on the side of the road with a parkway or route going at 55mph I rarely see besides the parkway I live by which has continuous bike traffic.
I think the thing they meant is if the bans were shifted towards the sidewalks and bars can decide is that you give up consent to walk in compared to it being a jungle with out on the sidewalks currently as smokers have been pushed out onto the sidewalks and your consent is being on the sidewalk which isn't consent compared to walking into a bar that says "This restaurant allows smoking," on the door or a window outside. Now if you aren't going to read it (like those that walk into a restaurant with a gun despite a sign saying guns aren't permitted like those in Arizona do) then that is a different story.
So what you're saying is that you are in favor of repealing the ban on smoking in bars,
but that you want there to be a ban on smoking on sidewalks?
So what you're saying is that you are in favor of repealing the ban on smoking in bars,
but that you want there to be a ban on smoking on sidewalks?
It seems to me it would solve a lot of the problems. Of course, some people tend to paint a picture of massive clouds of tobacco smoke rolling down the sidewalk, akin to smoke from a wildfire. Keep in mind that I said some people. Some people are quite good with words and can lead you to see a picture in your mind. In reality, how bad is smoking on sidewalks? I don't see it being this massive problem like some would have you believe. Roll back the smoking bans, bring the smokers back inside, and be done with all of this nonsense. The anti-smokers took an inch and now many want to begin taking feet, and eventually miles. There is obviously no way to please these people unless there is an outright ban on smoking. Heck, my county just banned smoking on golf courses. Golf courses! And they did it under the claims of it being about health. Give me a break.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 01-22-2015 at 03:11 PM..
Reason: Removed icon
So what you're saying is that you are in favor of repealing the ban on smoking in bars,
but that you want there to be a ban on smoking on sidewalks?
I'd let the businesses decide BUT if they do rollback a ban, they would have to mark that they allow smoking so non-smokers can enter at their own risk or do not go in.
I'd let the businesses decide BUT if they do rollback a ban, they would have to mark that they allow smoking so non-smokers can enter at their own risk or do not go in.
All you want is a sign on the front door.
All you want is to know whether or not a bar allows smoking.
Then you can make an informed decision.
Outstanding. I'm glad you came around. Freedom of choice.
I'd let the businesses decide BUT if they do rollback a ban, they would have to mark that they allow smoking so non-smokers can enter at their own risk or do not go in.
Somehow I don't think any kind of marking would be necessary. I think it would be pretty obvious as soon as you approached the door. And word of mouth would travel quickly regarding who allows smoking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
