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.
The Free Market doesn't have a brain. The free market didn't end slavery, or child labor, or shoddy construction practices. People with brains ended those things because people have values, and an economic theory does not. And conservatives most certainly did, at one tame, support slavery and child labor, and the "freedom" to build buildings as they pleased. Look it up. You can start with the Civil War.
And for the conservative argument that the free market can correct bad behavior, at what cost? AFTER people are dead, or injured? Cause that's how we would learn that a building was built poorly, or that a product is dangerous, or that "food" is poisonous.
And your blanket statement that "Americans are all about telling private business owners what to do" now seems to be something you support. You are now saying we can tell private business owners how to build buildings, what property they can own, and who they can hire.
I actually agree that smoking bans are in that grey area where the juicy stuff is. But a very large majority of Americans are of the opinion, after learning about the dangers of second-hand smoke (especially on the people that work there), that we do not want it in our restaurants.
Ok, there is no point in engaging you. You don't understand the free market and you just demonize conservatives.
I never claimed that government had no role. You don't even understand the ideology in conservatism that you seem to hate which is typical of Obama liberals. I'm pretty sure nobody is dying b/c some people are smoking at a restaurant nobody forces them to go to. So your comparison to shoddy construction is foolish forcing an analogy that just doesn't work on any level.
They aren't your restaurants if you don't even eat at most of them and you do not own any of them. We are not living on a collectivist commune. Sorry brother. This isn't your HOA.
I consider Greer proper to be very conservative (good grief, you can still smoke in restaurants there).
FYI: Actually you can't. Not in downtown at least. Only smoking at bars after 9pm is allowed. It's better than nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemsonTiger45
Actually Greenville got 90 percent of businesses in downtown to ban smoking but the city wasn't satisfied with that, they wanted to force the other 10 percent to ban it as well. I can see sugar bans, trans fat bans, other bans on the horizon b/c when you give control freaks a taste of victory, they come back for more. I think it is disturbing at how many Americans are all about telling private business owners what to do.
I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to not go to the restaurants where smoking is not banned. Smoking has been proven time and time again to be a health hazard, not only to the smoker, but to those around him/her. It's a public health issue, not a rights issue. Sugar, trans fat, and other bans may be on a horizon, but it's a completely different subject. Those things may or may not harm the person ingesting them, but not the people around them. Sure the government needs to check themselves (I personally thought that the sugary drinks ban in NYC was ludicrous) but there is a vast difference between trying to help people enjoy themselves in a healthy environment and a "nanny state".
Last edited by oldhousejunkie; 06-26-2013 at 10:10 AM..
The conservatives we have here are much more of the "craycray" variety, I must say.
You here a lot about Kenyan Socialist Muslim Presidents.
And Rush Limbaugh.
And science is mocked as some sort of belief system. Lol.
I'm a mechanical engineer, pretty sure I have a better claim to science than some Obama liberal government guy. These guys who major in political science and liberal arts don't anything about science yet you claim to be source authority on all things science.
Temperature data doesn't back up your global warming alarmism. I don't know you want to fight this, it's not the end of the world as we know it, seems like that is good news.
I'm a little tired of people lecturing me about science as though they got a trademark on it.
I'm a mechanical engineer, pretty sure I have a better claim to science than some Obama liberal government guy. These guys who major in political science and liberal arts don't anything about science yet you claim to be source authority on all things science.
Temperature data doesn't back up your global warming alarmism. I don't know you want to fight this, it's not the end of the world as we know it, seems like that is good news.
I'm a little tired of people lecturing me about science as though they got a trademark on it.
Since you seem to enjoy pointing out logical fallacies, then let me point out your appeal to authority. Unfortunately, because you are a mechanical engineer, your field is far removed from the field of climatology. You don't really have any claim to the science, either.
Since you seem to enjoy pointing out logical fallacies, then let me point out your appeal to authority. Unfortunately, because you are a mechanical engineer, your field is far removed from the field of climatology. You don't really have any claim to the science, either.
I think I have a better claim than some liberal arts or business guy. He was the one wrapping himself up in Science as though he has some superior claim to it. I don't think anybody should automatically agree with me on this issue simply b/c I am a mechanical engineer and I never expressed it that way, it was just to poke fun of his I Am The Guardian of Science (TM) approach to the debate. I think intelligent people can disagree on global warming.
A lot of what liberals believe about global warming comes straight from Al Gore who did poorly in all his science classes in college and the man even failed out of divinity school. Yet you see people, especially in the media, paint Gore as some kind of wizard of smart, simply b/c he has the "right" view on global warming.
Since you seem to enjoy pointing out logical fallacies, then let me point out your appeal to authority. Unfortunately, because you are a mechanical engineer, your field is far removed from the field of climatology. You don't really have any claim to the science, either.
The two climatologists I know personally both strongly believe in climate change.
I don't agree with the government banning smoking in privately owned businesses. That being said, I refuse to eat in any restaurant that allows smoking. I hate the smell of cigarettes.
The two climatologists I know personally both strongly believe in climate change.
I don't agree with the government banning smoking in privately owned businesses. That being said, I refuse to eat in any restaurant that allows smoking. I hate the smell of cigarettes.
that Micheel Mann guy at Penn State was exposed as a fraud in Climategate and he is the originator of the hockey stick data manipulation trick. He is even suing Mark Steyn and National Review for mocking him, he does not like to be challenged which in my opinion is the primary characteristic of somebody who is seeking to deceive rather than advance knowledge.
I don't think the great scientists like Albert Einstein ran away from debates like most of the global warmer guys do. They expect to get favorable coverage by the media and they clearly got the teacher's pet syndrome but the teacher can't always coddle you, you got to learn to fly on your own at some point. We saw Obama get exposed by Romney especially in that first debate b/c he grew up in a very liberal area and never had to debate anything. Romney not even a particularly good debater in my view.
that Micheel Mann guy at Penn State was exposed as a fraud in Climategate and he is the originator of the hockey stick data manipulation trick. He is even suing Mark Steyn and National Review for mocking him, he does not like to be challenged which in my opinion is the primary characteristic of somebody who is seeking to deceive rather than advance knowledge.
I don't think the great scientists like Albert Einstein ran away from debates like most of the global warmer guys do. They expect to get favorable coverage by the media and they clearly got the teacher's pet syndrome but the teacher can't always coddle you, you got to learn to fly on your own at some point. We saw Obama get exposed by Romney especially in that first debate b/c he grew up in a very liberal area and never had to debate anything. Romney not even a particularly good debater in my view.
One of my friends that works as a climatologist actually loves to debate with people that try to deny climate change. Most of the "science" denying climate change has been debunked over and over yet Rush Limbaugh and his ilk continue to perpetuate denial of the effects of climate change. It is a complicated topic that is not easily discussed in an internet forum. I doubt anyone here will sway anyone's beliefs on this issue.
I'm no fan of Obama or Romney either, for that matter.
I'm amazed the mods have let this run as far as it has.
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.
