Which Poster Hates Freedom the Most?

[DamnYankee]

CERTAIN health regulations, yes, as in making sure food is inspected, kitchens are clean, workers wash hands, etc.

KNOWING that a place allows smoking affords any individual the CHOICE of either eating there or working there. Regulations including 'clean air' as a health regulation in order to deprive a property owner of a right to run his business are nothing more than the same end around on property rights as the CSA is to avoid having to amend the constitution for prohibition of possession of an item.

Here's a scenario that blows your "choice" issue out the window. I walk into a restaurant and the the air is fine so I "choose" to eat there. I order a meal then four people at the table next door light up. The conditions that I made my choice have suddenly changed. I can't leave without paying for a meal that I'll never receive. My right to consume my $60 food investment in a healthy environment and provide necessary subsistence has been violated, exchanged for the "right" of others to consume a ten-cent cigarette to satisfy an unnecessary and unhealthy habit.

Then there's this:

...you can operate a bar and allow smoking. It just has to be private, for members only. You can charge $1 for a lifetime membership, have them sign in at the door and your issue goes away.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here's a scenario that blows your "choice" issue out the window. I walk into a restaurant and the the air is fine so I "choose" to eat there. I order a meal then four people at the table next door light up. The conditions that I made my choice have suddenly changed. I can't leave without paying for a meal that I'll never receive. My right to consume my $60 food investment in a healthy environment and provide necessary subsistence has been violated, exchanged for the "right" of others to consume a ten-cent cigarette to satisfy an unnecessary and unhealthy habit.

you failed to ask if they were a smoking or non-smoking establishment. You're paying for your own mistake, not the property owners. Learn from your mistake, not force others to run their business the way YOU want them to. YOUR rights weren't violated at all, you just failed to look out for yourself. You want the liberal way out and make the government look out for your safety.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure, that's why you failed to address the issues raised.

So tell me again why businesses that are open to the public shouldn't have to comply with health regulations.

The fact that the health regulations exists is what he is arguing against. The fact that a privately owned business can be told that they must not allow people to do something that is completely legal is interference on a level that should not exist.

I can see making them warn the public that it is a smoking establishment, but that is all.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here's a scenario that blows your "choice" issue out the window. I walk into a restaurant and the the air is fine so I "choose" to eat there. I order a meal then four people at the table next door light up. The conditions that I made my choice have suddenly changed. I can't leave without paying for a meal that I'll never receive. My right to consume my $60 food investment in a healthy environment and provide necessary subsistence has been violated, exchanged for the "right" of others to consume a ten-cent cigarette to satisfy an unnecessary and unhealthy habit.

Then there's this:

Great, so make them post a sign informing the public of the smoking. But to ban it is against the principles of freedom.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The fact that the health regulations exists is what he is arguing against. The fact that a privately owned business can be told that they must not allow people to do something that is completely legal is interference on a level that should not exist.

I can see making them warn the public that it is a smoking establishment, but that is all.

I agree. Just have places put up warning signs like they do warning signs about other things: Need to be 18 to gamble and legal penalties for non-compliance, need to be 21 to drink and legal penalties for non-compliance, smoking is permitted in this establishment and these are the health-risks of choosing to enter.

 

[DamnYankee]

you failed to ask if they were a smoking or non-smoking establishment. You're paying for your own mistake, not the property owners. Learn from your mistake, not force others to run their business the way YOU want them to. YOUR rights weren't violated at all, you just failed to look out for yourself. You want the liberal way out and make the government look out for your safety.

I knew it was a smoking establishment but the air was fine at the time I made my decision. Inconsiderate people changed the environment.

I'm taking the conservative point of view and want what I paid for, and expect the other patrons to exercise personal responsibility by not contaminating my immediate environment and usurping my right to healthy subsistence.

Then there's this, which have ignored for the second time (three times and you're out):

...you can operate a bar and allow smoking. It just has to be private, for members only. You can charge $1 for a lifetime membership, have them sign in at the door and your issue goes away.

 

[Kamala Trump]

smoking you guys? fucking smoking?

I hate it when you too fight.

I need my binky.

 

[Timshel]

Here's a scenario that blows your "choice" issue out the window. I walk into a restaurant and the the air is fine so I "choose" to eat there. I order a meal then four people at the table next door light up. The conditions that I made my choice have suddenly changed. I can't leave without paying for a meal that I'll never receive. My right to consume my $60 food investment in a healthy environment and provide necessary subsistence has been violated, exchanged for the "right" of others to consume a ten-cent cigarette to satisfy an unnecessary and unhealthy habit.

Then there's this:

Your scenario is stupid. No one goes into a restaurant sniffs the air and then decides whether to eat there. If it is an issue for you, you are perfectly capable of determining whether the restaurant allows smoking or not before you are seated, much less order. You make your choice then and the conditions do not change.

 

[WinterBorn]

I knew it was a smoking establishment but the air was fine at the time I made my decision. Inconsiderate people changed the environment.

I'm taking the conservative point of view and want what I paid for, and expect the other patrons to exercise personal responsibility by not contaminating my immediate environment and usurping my right to healthy subsistence.

Then there's this, which have ignored for the second time (three times and you're out):

The conservative point of view should be less gov't interference. That is clearly not the case.

And the fact that you can call it a private club to avoid gov't interference is not the issue. Calling it a private club effects plenty of other things as well. Privately owned businesses should not have to scramble around and look for loopholes to avoid gov't interference and a reduction of freedoms.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I knew it was a smoking establishment but the air was fine at the time I made my decision. Inconsiderate people changed the environment.

you made a choice KNOWING the air could be filled with smoke. That is not the property owners issue, but yours.

I'm taking the conservative point of view and want what I paid for, and expect the other patrons to exercise personal responsibility by not contaminating my immediate environment and usurping my right to healthy subsistence.

while not taking any responsibility for your own decisions, is that the conservative position now?

Then there's this, which have ignored for the second time (three times and you're out):

irrelevant. You aren't allowed a choice to enter a private club unless you choose to be a member. have a seat in the dugout. you struck out.

 

[DamnYankee]

Your scenario is stupid. No one goes into a restaurant sniffs the air and then decides whether to eat there. If it is an issue for you, you are perfectly capable of determining whether the restaurant allows smoking or not before you are seated, much less order. You make your choice then and the conditions do not change.

Actually before the ban went into effect this exact situation occurred right up the street from us. Most of the restaurants has "smoking sections" but this one did not. We found this out before being seated but, since the air was fine at that time and the restaurant had been highly recommended to us by some trusted friends who have the same dislike for cigarette smoke that we do, we figured that the patrons there would be considerate. This table of four next to us was not. I was slightly offended but my dear wife, being of less hardy constitution, became physically ill. She still refuses to dine there.

So the scenario is real; hardly "stupid" as you have summarily dismissed.

 

[DamnYankee]

you made a choice KNOWING the air could be filled with smoke. That is not the property owners issue, but yours...

Actually I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely that folks would be so inconsiderate, just like I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely for one of the kitchen workers to sneeze into the soup.

And then there's this:

...you can operate a bar and allow smoking. It just has to be private, for members only. You can charge $1 for a lifetime membership, have them sign in at the door and your issue goes away.

Since you failed to address it three times (your blatantly obtuse post notwithstanding), debate point scored for me.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely that folks would be so inconsiderate, just like I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely for one of the kitchen workers to sneeze into the soup.

you got exactly what you asked for by 'assuming' without asking.

And then there's this:

Since you failed to address it three times (your blatantly obtuse post notwithstanding), debate point scored for me.

you have been fined 25 credits for violations of the logical debate statute. and your debate point has been deducted for failure to use reason.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The fact that the health regulations exists is what he is arguing against. The fact that a privately owned business can be told that they must not allow people to do something that is completely legal is interference on a level that should not exist.

I can see making them warn the public that it is a smoking establishment, but that is all.

It's legal to spit. It's legal to deficate. It's legal to walk bare footed, it's legal for a man to go with out a shirt. By you're reasoning then I can do any of these in a restaurant?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely that folks would be so inconsiderate, just like I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely for one of the kitchen workers to sneeze into the soup.

And then there's this:

Since you failed to address it three times (your blatantly obtuse post notwithstanding), debate point scored for me.

Well, it's a good thing that two guys didn't start kissing or else you would have had to burn the place down.

 

[DamnYankee]

you got exactly what you asked for by 'assuming' without asking.



you have been fined 25 credits for violations of the logical debate statute. and your debate point has been deducted for failure to use reason.

In fact we did ask the waitress, and she indicted to us that they have never experienced a problem.

Stop acting like a baby because you failed three times to address an issue.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, it's a good thing that two guys didn't start kissing or else you would have had to burn the place down.

As long as they didn't start butt-banging I probably wouldn't have felt the need to go to that extreme.

 

[DamnYankee]

It's legal to spit. It's legal to deficate. It's legal to walk bare footed, it's legal for a man to go with out a shirt. By you're reasoning then I can do any of these in a restaurant?

LOL That reminds me of a Steve Martin stand-up routine:


Hot Date: "Do you mind if I smoke?"
Steve: "Do you mind if I fart?"

 

[zappasguitar]

Actually I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely that folks would be so inconsiderate, just like I made the decision knowing that it would be highly unlikely for one of the kitchen workers to sneeze into the soup.

And then there's this:

Since you failed to address it three times (your blatantly obtuse post notwithstanding), debate point scored for me.

Oh my heavens YES!!

It certainly was inconsiderate of those other patrons to not put YOUR feelings ahead of their own...how self-centered they were!

Let me ask you...how were they to know you and your wife weren't ALSO smokers simply waiting til the end of your meal to light up?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In fact we did ask the waitress, and she indicted to us that they have never experienced a problem.

Stop acting like a baby because you failed three times to address an issue.

ok taichi.