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.
That is the problem with most people these days. They are so spoiled with their freedoms, what they expect, etc... that they do not consider their demands on others are actually infringements. They aren't responsible enough to be free people which is why they slowly erode the freedoms of others and ultimately that of their own.
You can enslave and entire people this way slowly over time and do so without too many violent objections. You just let people infringe on each other until their own self interests have restricted the bulk of society. Then you step in, proclaim yourself their dictator (or ruling faction) and kill anyone who objects (which most won't with any veracity as they have conditioned themselves to accept such infringements).
Precisely! And it is deviously ingenious while simplistic at the same time.
There seems to be a significant element within all human populations that are predisposed to an authoritarian mindset. And throughout the history of human civilization, it's been proven over and over again that it is only a matter of time before such types position themselves among the greater society for which they belong, into positions of ... you guessed it ... "authority". After all, what could one expect an authoritarian to seek other than authority?
The most definitive expose' of the leftist authoritarian mindset can be summarized in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. For those unfamiliar .... the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across the river. The frog, fearful of the deadly sting of the scorpion, says no. The scorpion reasons with the frog, by explaining how crazy it would be for him to kill the frog on the way, because that would doom both of them. So the frog eventually agrees. But, halfway across the river, the scorpion indeed stings the frog ... and as they both begin to drown, the frog asks why did you do that? The scorpion responds .. I couldn't stop myself ... it's just my nature. And so they both die.
This perfectly defines the essence of the left, and their self destructive nature. Those that seek authority over others are not ruled by logic or common interests, but ruled by their insatiable desire for exercising power and domination. It is their nature, even if they convince themselves or others to the contrary. Their basic nature will ultimately prevail and overrule even their own best interests.
The leftist will present all sorts of rationalizations and good reasons for the need for such authoritarianism .... most often invoking the "greater good" or the "best interests of the whole". Such arguments are empty .. and have never delivered on one promise. The results are always the same ... self destruction.
Precisely! And it is deviously ingenious while simplistic at the same time.
There seems to be a significant element within all human populations that are predisposed to an authoritarian mindset. And throughout the history of human civilization, it's been proven over and over again that it is only a matter of time before such types position themselves among the greater society for which they belong, into positions of ... you guessed it ... "authority". After all, what could one expect an authoritarian to seek other than authority?
The most definitive expose' of the leftist authoritarian mindset can be summarized in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. For those unfamiliar .... the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across the river. The frog, fearful of the deadly sting of the scorpion, says no. The scorpion reasons with the frog, by explaining how crazy it would be for him to kill the frog on the way, because that would doom both of them. So the frog eventually agrees. But, halfway across the river, the scorpion indeed stings the frog ... and as they both begin to drown, the frog asks why did you do that? The scorpion responds .. I couldn't stop myself ... it's just my nature. And so they both die.
This perfectly defines the essence of the left, and their self destructive nature. Those that seek authority over others are not ruled by logic or common interests, but ruled by their insatiable desire for exercising power and domination. It is their nature, even if they convince themselves or others to the contrary. Their basic nature will ultimately prevail and overrule even their own best interests.
The leftist will present all sorts of rationalizations and good reasons for the need for such authoritarianism .... most often invoking the "greater good" or the "best interests of the whole". Such arguments are empty .. and have never delivered on one promise. The results are always the same ... self destruction.
Like I said previously in this thread. It's all about control under the guise of "for the greater good."
Let me be quite clear here. I have no objection to people smoking.
I object to having to smell or inhale it and to having the smell linger on my clothes.
Live and let live is my motto. But, just as smokers should be allowed to enjoy their 'vice'. I - and non-smokers - should have the same right not to have to smell it. And therein lies the problem. How do you maintain two sets of conflicting rights?
I understand your objection, but does your objection translate to that of dictating to the choices of a private business?
When you are in public space, do you treat it as "where I go is now my private space"?
The point is, there is a difference between "private" and "public". When in public space, there is no "private space", there is merely your decision to reside in public space with others who may act in a manner you may approve or disapprove of. The solution to dealing with others in "public space" where you may not approve is to remove yourself from that space so as not to deal with them.
In terms of "private space", I hope you understand, your objections are not relevant as in true "private space" (ie a private business, home, etc...), only the owners opinion matters as it is THEIR space.
Public space is everyone's space and that means we may not always like what we encounter through such.
So what you sayig is it should be handled like auto emmmissons. By lowerig it toal allowed and testing those who smoke? Or perhaps handled like drug and alcohol by random testing for habit.Faeit.people do not want to be in close confinement with smokers and their habit and have the majority to make it law .
No one is suggesting any such thing. The idea is that freedom isn't free ... and particularly not free from inconvenience, or the need for cooperation and tolerance from everyone.
The insinuation is that we have too many people suffering from severe mental illness, who's symptoms include the false notion that they are the center of the universe, and that all things must conform to their desires, by force, if necessary.
Of course, given the broad spectrum of human likes and dislikes, no such conformity or elimination if inconvenience is possible, therefore we have two basic choices ... 1) allow one group or authority to dominate over the choices of everyone ... 2) or understand that your individual rights and freedom extends only to the point just before it negatively infringes on another's individual rights and freedom.
To use an analogy ... you find yourself in a movie theater, but the movie sucks. What do you do? 1) Sit there and watch it anyway? 2) Get up and leave? Or 3) stand up and demand that the movie be changed to something more to your liking, regardless of how many others are actually enjoying that movie that they too paid to see?
You have no more of a right to expect 3# than you do to expect to go anywhere and everywhere, expecting everything around you to conform to your desires.
So, if 5 people are sitting at a bar smoking cigarettes, and you go in there .... you have #1 and #2 choices available to you ... not #3.
Let me be quite clear here. I have no objection to people smoking.
I object to having to smell or inhale it and to having the smell linger on my clothes.
Live and let live is my motto. But, just as smokers should be allowed to enjoy their 'vice'. I - and non-smokers - should have the same right not to have to smell it. And therein lies the problem. How do you maintain two sets of conflicting rights?
Ah ... this is your version of compromise? You have no problem with smoking so long as it doesn't occur anywhere in your vicinity? I suppose we should all keep track of your facebook page and calendar so that we may have sufficient time to sterilize the air and make our exit before your arrival, wherever you choose to go? How thoughtfully magnanimous of you!
Frankly, I see little evidence of cooperation or compromise coming from the self anointed centers of the universe, who believe their desires are more important than anyone else's. I'm sure you'd disagree, since you have no problem with smoking per se, so long as we smokers stay away from you, as if we must know where you plan to be 24/7.
And there is a distinct air of superiority and "specialness" in the authoritarian mindset, manifesting in those uncompromisable demands for these smoking bans. First, it was in the workplace. Then to public spaces like bars and restaurants ... then to extend to outdoor events and venues ... and even signs and ordinances that stipulate how many feet from an entrance of a structure ... to attempts to outlaw smoking in freaking cigar shops, where it would be unlikely to find a non-smoker anyway. Now, in certain places even smoking inside your home is a target for the "Tobacco Nazis".
This is why there can be no satisfactory compromise, because NAZIS refuse to compromise. It's not in their nature, even though many will claim that they really don't have a problem with smoking ... so long as no one smokes! LOL
This reminds me of another favorite of the left ... freedom of speech is just dandy, so long as no one says anything the champions of leftist freedom disagrees with.
Amazing!
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-14-2012 at 03:21 PM..
I watched a guy go on about SHS and the dangers to his family while he was chucking wood into his smoker. Everyone was waving away the smoke and coughing as they were coming over to get their food and not one mentioned the connection when he was going on about it, they all just nodded like sheep in agreement. /sigh
Careful there. Don't give the lefties another idea for Big Government control.... they will propose a ban on Bar B Ques.......
Careful there. Don't give the lefties another idea for Big Government control.... they will propose a ban on Bar B Ques.......
Well, if we accept the reasoning for their claims concerning SHS, we will have to ban them, that... and a TON of other things they likely didn't consider.
I have heard of homeowners associations that wouldn't allow wood burning fireplaces. It was unclear if you had to pay a fine if your home actually caught on fire.
I have heard of homeowners associations that wouldn't allow wood burning fireplaces. It was unclear if you had to pay a fine if your home actually caught on fire.
Where I live, city code prohibits wood burning fires in homes (unless you are grandfathered).
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.
