|
|
#151
06-28-2007, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? 
|
|
#152
06-28-2007, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Theoretically people such as yourself who are ignorant enough to misunderstand basic rights might go to a murder raffle to see what all the cool kids are doing. I support the rights of stupid people to die and leave the rest of us the [censored] alone.
|
|
#153
06-28-2007, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
So the principles you cite are not enough to convince me fully, and there is also the fact that smokers (and the property owner) are essentially making the place of public accomodation off-limits to all except those who wish to injure their own health and the health of others. There's something wrong and twisted about that, and I don't think it is fair to non-smokers at all. [/ QUOTE ] Bars and restaurants are not places of public accommodation. They belong to the property owner and as such who is and isn't welcome is up to the owner not the public. Look on any menu of any bar you have been to and will bet that 90% + have a statement at the end that says something like "This establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason" Come on into my non-smoking bar and and complain about not being able to smoke and this rule will get enforced real quick.
|
|
#154
06-28-2007, 07:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Theoretically people such as yourself who are ignorant enough to misunderstand basic rights might go to a murder raffle to see what all the cool kids are doing. I support the rights of stupid people to die and leave the rest of us the [censored] alone. [/ QUOTE ] Some people who think they understand basic rights, actually don't. Whether it is you or I who misunderstand, is open to debate. Consensual slaughter is not a basic right in my book, but apparently it is in yours.
|
|
#155
06-28-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Theoretically people such as yourself who are ignorant enough to misunderstand basic rights might go to a murder raffle to see what all the cool kids are doing. I support the rights of stupid people to die and leave the rest of us the [censored] alone. [/ QUOTE ] Some people who think they understand basic rights, actually don't. Whether it is you or I who misunderstand, is open to debate. Consensual slaughter is not a basic right in my book, but apparently it is in yours. [/ QUOTE ] If I volunteer to die what business is it of yours? what kind of screwed up sense of self righteous power has you thinking you can control my life and how I choose to live it or end it?
|
|
#156
06-28-2007, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Theoretically people such as yourself who are ignorant enough to misunderstand basic rights might go to a murder raffle to see what all the cool kids are doing. I support the rights of stupid people to die and leave the rest of us the [censored] alone. [/ QUOTE ] Some people who think they understand basic rights, actually don't. Whether it is you or I who misunderstand, is open to debate. Consensual slaughter is not a basic right in my book, but apparently it is in yours. [/ QUOTE ] Assisted suicide, yea or nay? Boxing, yea or nay?
|
|
#157
06-28-2007, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Secondhand smoke on harms more people than does a boxing tournament. It is the harm to others that defines this category of activity for purposes of this argument. [/ QUOTE ] So cars should be outlawed?
|
|
#158
06-28-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
But "the public" has no right to frequent any particular establishment. The bar down the street doesn't put their TVs on the weather channel. I might "otherwise frequent" it if they did. They don't serve organic milk, only sodas (which are unhealthy, of course). I might otherwise frequent it if they did. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The "minority of smokers" are NOT able to exclude anyone - UNLESS THE OWNER ALLOWS IT. I open an establishment. Some people come in, and get punched. They find this objectionable. Should punching be banned? Oh, BTW, my establishment is a boxing ring. And you still haven't defined "public accomodation". If I have a cookout at my house, and invite the entire neighborhood over for burgers, is my house a "public accomodation"? What if I charge admission (i.e. a cover charge)? Now what if I call that admission a "membership fee"? How does charging a "membership fee" (usually a defining feature of private clubs) change things? I live in Little Rock, but I work in Conway (30 miles north of Little Rock), which is in a dry county. A new restaurant has opened up in Downtown Conway which serves alcohol. How do they do it? They charge a $5 "membership fee" (and the membership includes a $5 food voucher). They advertise (the ads have a tiny little "attention members and guests" disclaimer in them). Is this a "public accomodation"? [/ QUOTE ] Bump for JK.
|
|
#159
06-29-2007, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] No they shouldn't. DUCY? [/ QUOTE ] Theoretically people such as yourself who are ignorant enough to misunderstand basic rights might go to a murder raffle to see what all the cool kids are doing. I support the rights of stupid people to die and leave the rest of us the [censored] alone. [/ QUOTE ] Some people who think they understand basic rights, actually don't. Whether it is you or I who misunderstand, is open to debate. Consensual slaughter is not a basic right in my book, but apparently it is in yours. [/ QUOTE ] If I volunteer to die what business is it of yours? what kind of screwed up sense of self righteous power has you thinking you can control my life and how I choose to live it or end it? [/ QUOTE ] People who choose suicide are often, at least temporarily, mentally ill and should be protected from themselves while in this condition. A murder lottery, on the other hand, is a barbaric notion more worthy of a Shirley Jackson story than a real life drama. I don't support the "right" of people to engage in violent, deadly barbarity for twisted pleasure's sake, even on private property.
|
|
#160
06-29-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Secondhand smoke on harms more people than does a boxing tournament. It is the harm to others that defines this category of activity for purposes of this argument. [/ QUOTE ] So cars should be outlawed? [/ QUOTE ] Cars are for most people a necessity of modern life whereas cigarettes are not. So no, cars should not be outlawed. Moreover, I'm not for banning the smoking of cigarettes outdoors where the fumes disperse, only indoors where the fumes are concentrated and are affecting others, thereby preventing non-smokers from having reasonable access to those workplaces or venues.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
