Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
If he wants to say "the public has spoken" and "that's the way it is"... then he really doesn't have the right to complain when some people want to limit his rights by passing silly votes like gays can't be legally married.

I've already discussed this. You must've missed it, suppressed it, or ignored it.

The public cannot always decide what is right or wrong. In certain cases, such as in discrimination by society as a whole against a minority such as african-americans or homosexuals, these rights must be protected by law. The public is not always right, and they should not always get to vote directly on what kind of people can do certain things.

However, what they can do is look after public health. There is much scientific evidence that smoking kills. Smoking in public places, therefore, kills people. It places a burden on our society.

Voters have every right to make that kind of decision to ban such activities from public places, and they did here.

I understand you tried to make the point that people voting against gay marriage think it'll destroy society or whatever. That's fine that they believe that, but they're just being bigots. On the other hand, you really cannot deny that smoking does kill.

So this is why your comparison fails.

I'll break it down further:
1) The no-smoking law discriminates against a simple activity, an active choice the person made. This is not the case with gays.
2) The no-smoking law is based on the scientific evidence that smoking hurts people and does kill people. This is not the case with gays.

Are we done with that ridiculous argument yet, Ming? Maybe we should compare them to Blacks next.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You choose or choose not to enter the place of business.

See the difference?

Of course. But that wasn't the context of my discussion with Cort. We were talking about whether employees of the establishment have that same choice.

If you wish to address those arguments I have made, feel free.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by laurentius


Since the 1945-onwards?

Do tell.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
Are we done with that ridiculous argument yet, Ming? Maybe we should compare them to Blacks next.

Nahhh... all I'm saying is that the majority seems to be fine by you when it's on your side, and when it isn't, than your side, the minority side is right and the majority is wrong

Not a silly or ridiculous argument at all. Just an observation

[laurentius]

Originally posted by MRT144


this is one of my arguements. being completey consistent and absolute lends to absurd applications or ridiculous hypocrisy.


and ming one of my arguements is the idealism you have about property rights give way to the practicality and desires of the majority. and it isnt always right. but we look at this case by case, issue by issue.

Indeed so. We call it in Finland "yksisilmäisyydeksi" or being able look at things with just one eye. Its really the curse of idealism and a fundamental conflicting force in making politics. In order to make the society to work, you have to sometimes give up something.

Now I'm participating in this smoking argument mostly for my own intellectual vanity but the point stands. You cant be consistent until the end without being ridiculously idealistic. Hypocrisy, you'll get that as a bonus when you try hard enough.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Nahhh... all I'm saying is that the majority seems to be fine by you when it's on your side, and when it isn't, than your side, the minority side is right and the majority is wrong

Not a silly or ridiculous argument at all. Just an observation

Not everything is black and white, Ming...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher

Not everything is black and white, Ming...

It sure seems so from comparing the comments you are making in this thread to other threads on the subject of gay marriages. It's very black and white to anybody that takes the time to read them

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson


Of course. But that wasn't the context of my discussion with Cort. We were talking about whether employees of the establishment have that same choice.

If you wish to address those arguments I have made, feel free.

You mentioned something about workplace conditions. Correct?

Did you take into account that smokers might work in a pub and want to have an ashtray at the end of the bar so they don't have to leave the premises to have a smoke? As if leaving the premises for a smoke is an option for service staff...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You mentioned something about workplace conditions. Correct?

Did you take into account that smokers might work in a pub and want to have an ashtray at the end of the bar so they don't have to leave the premises to have a smoke? As if leaving the premises for a smoke is an option for service staff...

I talked about health concerns for employees.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the ashtray at the end of the bar. If there is no smoking in the bar, why do you need an ashtray in it?

[notyoueither]

For the same reason that patrons can make a choice of whether to go there or not, workers can choose to work there or not.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ming


Nahhh... all I'm saying is that the majority seems to be fine by you when it's on your side, and when it isn't, than your side, the minority side is right and the majority is wrong

Not a silly or ridiculous argument at all. Just an observation

and we recognize this to be mostly true in the application of laws in society. but thats from the viewpoint of an absolutist that this is ideal. a pragmaticist believes in evaluation cases on there own while using a general principle as a starting point and guide.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, have you ever been addicted to a substance and been expected to go 8 or 10 hours without it?

It can be quite uncomfortable, but I can understand if you are not a part of the governments tax scheme *** social crusade by busy bodies.

[Ming]

a pragmaticist believes in evaluation cases on there own while using a general principle as a starting point and guide.

And then if that is a true... a pragmaticist should never uee the "majority has spoken argument" as a support point in his arguments, because it is inconsistent with their beliefs

[Ming]

Again... remember... let's remove the hostilities from the discussion. There seems to be more than enough material on both sides here to pick at. no need to get hostile about it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by notyoueither
For the same reason that patrons can make a choice of whether to go there or not, workers can choose to work there or not.

Your assertion would require the precondition that all workers can get whatever job they wish. Clearly not the case. Sometimes (or rather, usually) people have to work at jobs they would rather not. As I said to Cort earlier, I think working in a bar tends to be "rather not" more than "dream job". But people have to make a living.

Is it too much to ask that while doing so they aren't needlessly exposed to a potentially life threatening health risk?