Fair? Who told you life was fair?
Fair? Who told you life was fair?
Flagpole Willy wrote:
I'm for poor people since I'm a Democrat, and basically, smoking hurts poor people the most. They have less education, fewer avenues to help them quit, fewer avenues to help them when they get sick, and many work in places like smoke filled bars and even if they aren't smokers, 8-10 hours a day in a smoke filled room is seriously bad for you.
So as a Republican, I'm against poor people?
Quitting cost nothing, whether rich or poor. It would seem poor people would be less inclined to smoke since smoking cost money and by definition poor people have little of this. And I don't know which bars you go to, but most people working in them (bartenders, waitstaff) would not be considered "poor."
SC Slim wrote:
Flagpole Willy wrote:I'm for poor people since I'm a Democrat, and basically, smoking hurts poor people the most. They have less education, fewer avenues to help them quit, fewer avenues to help them when they get sick, and many work in places like smoke filled bars and even if they aren't smokers, 8-10 hours a day in a smoke filled room is seriously bad for you.
So as a Republican, I'm against poor people?
Quitting cost nothing, whether rich or poor. It would seem poor people would be less inclined to smoke since smoking cost money and by definition poor people have little of this. And I don't know which bars you go to, but most people working in them (bartenders, waitstaff) would not be considered "poor."
Yes. As a Republican, you are against poor people -- at least more than Democrats are, and you really shouldn't be. The fewer poor people there are, the less crime there is, and the less of a chance that someone might take your stuff. Also, if you don't consider bartenders and waitstaff to be considered poor, then you don't know the definition of it. Of course there are college kids who work as waiters and bartenders to help with expenses while in school. We don't count them -- those are just temporary jobs for them. I'm talking about the 50-year old guy who is a bartender (doesn't own the bar). He ain't there because he likes to stay up until 2:30 a.m. listening to some college crap band play wrong notes all night. He's there because he's poor and if he doesn't make less than minimum wage plus tips he'll be on the street.
Flagpole Willy wrote:
Yes. As a Republican, you are against poor people -- at least more than Democrats are, and you really shouldn't be.
hahahaha...need to take a breath here..hahahahahaha
Flagpole Willy wrote:
Yes. As a Republican, you are against poor people -- at least more than Democrats are, and you really shouldn't be. The fewer poor people there are, the less crime there is, and the less of a chance that someone might take your stuff. Also, if you don't consider bartenders and waitstaff to be considered poor, then you don't know the definition of it. Of course there are college kids who work as waiters and bartenders to help with expenses while in school. We don't count them -- those are just temporary jobs for them. I'm talking about the 50-year old guy who is a bartender (doesn't own the bar). He ain't there because he likes to stay up until 2:30 a.m. listening to some college crap band play wrong notes all night. He's there because he's poor and if he doesn't make less than minimum wage plus tips he'll be on the street.
That's hilarious! You should write for tv!
Driving a car is legal if you have a driver's license, does that mean I can just drive my car over people and cause them suffering and perhaps death? Cause second hand smoke has been proven to do that.
Well... wrote:
That really wasn't an attempt at humor. The original poster makes the argument that if an action is legal, it should be allowed at every place and time. I was just pointing out how rediculous this is, as many actions that are legal and acceptable in one time and place are not in another setting.
90% of you have completely missed the point while using your "clever" analogies. It makes my head hurt how stupid people are on here sometimes.
I'm on the smoking diet and lost 30 lbs in 30 days. Whoo-woo!!!!
kartelite wrote:
Flagpole Willy wrote:Yes. As a Republican, you are against poor people -- at least more than Democrats are, and you really shouldn't be.
hahahaha...need to take a breath here..hahahahahaha
Well, if you got a chuckle out of it, then as I've said many times before, "mission accomplished"!
Lucky for you, you can take a breath because you aren't poor and don't have to work in a smoke-filled enviornment every day.
You need to learn what a "right" is.
A right is something that I do that does not infringe upon your ability to do something. For instance, I can swing my fist as hard as I want right up to the tip of your nose.
As for smoking, I contend that restaurants are NOT public places. A restaurant can set a dress code for instance and deny people entrance for not dressing properly if it so chooses. (Are those "Shirts Required" laws of business decisions for instance?).
I think a business should be allowed to deny people to smoke or to allow it. The people who work in those places know that it is part of the deal. If a person is too idiotic to not know that he will be working in a place where people smoke then I am not sure he has the brain power to be a worker for you. As a customer, you also have the choice not to go to places with smoking.
Many restaurants do not allow smoking. The owner made a decision--one I support fully by spending my money at those places. However, the government should not be in this business.
Some of the examples given are lame. The serving alcohol to a minor is not the same since that is an illegal act regardless of the location.
The music example is also not appropriate as your loud playing might disturb someone else who does not have a choice. For instance, you are doing this at your home and your neighbor cannot sleep. Neither is willing to move or should be made to move. So you are infringing on their rights. Also, you have alternatives: headphones or soundproofing your room.
As for nakedness, maybe that should be allowed. A private business should be able to allow patrons to be naked. Just do not fry bacon naked.
No you cannot run stop signs since that could infringe on another person if you slam into them. The person does not really have a choice to make the decision on avoiding a stop sign unlike in choosing a restaurant/bar.
We allow what people consider to be rights to be taken away by electing people who do it. Those advocating banning smoking are taking away the rights of property owners, but this has been happening all over the country for a while now. Heck, the Kelo decision makes sense with this type of mentality.
Simple: If you do not want to be in a place with smokers, then find a place where there are none. They are out there.
You're way off here. You're clearly one of these people that thinks that a business owner has a "right" to do whatever he wants on his property. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are any number of things a restaurant must go through that restrict his "rights". Think about zoning laws, liquor/bar permits, just for starters. Health code inspections, health code violations, the city can shut you down for any of these. On, and on, and on. The government tells you where you can and can't build. Whether you can serve liquor. How to keep your kitchen clean. What minimums to pay your staff. Etc, etc, etc.
No one has a "right" to smoke -- it's a privilege, and one that has been continually restricted as the negative health effects have become known. Remember, you used to be able to smoke in movie theaters, airplanes, hospitals, just about anywhere. My city (Indianapolis) went smoke free today. It's about time.
luv2run wrote:
You need to learn what a "right" is.
A right is something that I do that does not infringe upon your ability to do something. For instance, I can swing my fist as hard as I want right up to the tip of your nose.
I think you need to work on your definitions of a "right". What you are suggesting could legally be considered assault. You uhh, don't have a right to assault someone.
Right to Assault? wrote:
I think you need to work on your definitions of a "right". What you are suggesting could legally be considered assault. You uhh, don't have a right to assault someone.
You are missing the point completely. He's not saying you have the right to swing your fist and hit someone in the nose, he's saying you have the right to swing your fist up UNTIL it hits someone in the nose, at which point it infringes on someone else's rights. Understand?
America Is Wacked! wrote:
Yet you insist that normal Americans accept the queer lifestyle as normal. Something is totally wrong with this.
First of all, being a homosexual is not a "lifestyle choice" like, say, buying a wardrobe or where you decide to vacation. Second, unlike secondhand smoke, the actions of a gay couple in no way directly impact you (unless they bind and gag you, and force you to watch or take part). In contrast, your homophobia DOES affect them, as I would be willing to bet from your comment that you'd be very pleased to limit their rights as citizens.
And if I don't want to allow the coloreds in my restaurant, then I should be able to keep them out! All power to the business owner - unless they want topless dancing or to sell sex videos and sex toys, then the government has to protect the public good!
No, YOU don't get the point. Assault can be defined as the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not. If you take a swing at me, it's assault, whether you land the punch of not.
For him to say he has the right to do this indicates he has no idea what his "rights" are, and therefore, he probably shouldn't be smugly suggesting others don't know what a "right" is.
Right to Assault? wrote:
No, YOU don't get the point. Assault can be defined as the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not. If you take a swing at me, it's assault, whether you land the punch of not.
For him to say he has the right to do this indicates he has no idea what his "rights" are, and therefore, he probably shouldn't be smugly suggesting others don't know what a "right" is.
You still don't get it. He was making a point, the example isn't meant to be put under a microscope. It's an oft used example that apparently you've never heard of.
If this is his point:
"You need to learn what a "right" is.
A right is something that I do that does not infringe upon your ability to do something. For instance, I can swing my fist as hard as I want right up to the tip of your nose."
...then it is fatally flawed. He's telling someone else to learn what a right is, by giving an example of something that isn't a right. That fails pretty much every logical thought process I can think of. Based on your responses, you don't know, either.
Okay, I guess I'll give up. You are apparently autistic and can't grasp abstract ideas very well.
If abstract thinking means making a statement, then giving an example in the following paragraph which contradicts that statement, then, yeah, I guess I'm autistic.