|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2005 : 06:43:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
"This is the classic if you support X then you can't bitch about Y prejudgicial language fallacy."
I didn't argue that one couldn't "bitch" about smoking bans. I argued that one can't accuse smoking bans of being fundamentally offensive public policy and still be consistent if they support other public policies that restrict other harmful recreational behaviors. They can still bitch about smoking bans for other reasons, like Kil saying the bans are based on bad science. That is a very consistent, and very GOOD argument. But this "smoking culture" or "what about smokers' rights" stuff is rather inconsistent unless one takes a libertarian or similar stance on all similar issues.
Example of a reasonable law that protect people from themselves: seatbelt laws. They aren't so ridiculous as to put someone in jail for not wearing their seatbelt, and in fact, one can't even get pulled over solely for not wearing their seatbelt. And while not wearing one's seatbelt is a personal choice, and any potential harm is only done to the person choosing to not wear their seatbelt, requiring seatbelt use is a minor inconvenience to those who might oppose it.
In Illinois, you can be pulled over specifically because you have no seatbelt on.
quote:
The smoking ban issue is definitely different from seatbelt laws. Many smokers will argue that not being able to smoke in bars is a much greater inconvenience than having to put on a seatbelt. However, the MAIN REASON for the bans on smoking in bars has been to protect employees, and to a lesser degree, customers.
I'm a smoker and I argue that the contentions of harm are based on junk science. The reasoning is seriously flawed. If it was a clear and present danger to employees, OSHA would be able to act independantly of any law to stop it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 06:49:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Val:
Kil used the N word (Nazi). It evoked an emotional response. Not everyone currently responding to your posts have used that word in describing your position. Lumping your opposition together based on the worst arguements and choices of words does not strengthen your position or address the refuting evidence supplied.
Gee whiz, I'm not sure how I should take this… 
Sorry, Kil. I interpreted his response complaining that he shouldn't be treated like a fascist as related to your anti-smoking Nazi statement. I thought it was an attempt to shift the focus from the data you presented to the one term which would possibly give the slightest impression of being called a fascist. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 07:04:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In response to GeeMack's last post -
Er, so I lack a sense of social beneficence because I called people who knowingly hurt their own children a mean name. Yeah.
I have not once advocated controlling people. Unless you are using some kind of crazy definition of "control".
I have no idea what you are responding to in your second paragraph.
And you continue to continue on the "second hand smoke is harmful" bit without any evidence. If the child had asthma, chronic bronchitis, or some other breathing condition which is exaserbated by smoking, then yes, they would be morally corrupt. Because my oldest has cronic bronchitis, I only smoke at work. (2 cigars a day) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 07:10:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I have not once advocated controlling people. Unless you are using some kind of crazy definition of "control".
How is advocating laws which would force a segment of the population to change their behaviour not "controlling people?"
All laws and regulations are, by definition, attempts to control society.
Oh, by the way, given that a large number of the injured and dead from automobile accidents are the victims of other people's incompetence behind the wheel, and that a further substantial number of accidents are truly "no fault," seat-belt laws are primarily an attempt to save people from other drivers and from "fate."
But then you wrote:quote:
However, the MAIN REASON for the bans on smoking in bars has been to protect employees, and to a lesser degree, customers.
Great, then there's little need to even discuss any "protect people from themselves" points, unless the "MAIN REASON" is shown to be baloney. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 07:54:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
I have not once advocated controlling people. Unless you are using some kind of crazy definition of "control".
control: a relation of constraint of one entity (thing or person or group) by another
You support a modification of the behavior of certain people, and your method of choice is governmental legislation and enforcement. So let's see, my definition of control comes from the dictionary and common usage. Oh, that crazy dictionary.  quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
I have no idea what you are responding to in your second paragraph.
My second paragraph...quote:
Originally posted by me...
Maybe it would be a good idea if there was a law that bar owners must post a sign at the entrance of their establishments. This sign should state clearly that people inside are likely to be smoking. Then even stupid people would know that going in there might result in them picking up some of that smoke smell. I personally find it nearly unfathomable that anyone over 21 who is going to bars is stupid enough to not know that in the first place. But I've heard stories of just such situations.
You advocate that, when it comes to smoking tobacco, the government should control the people that you've judged to be incapable of making their own decisions. I'm making an alternative suggestion that involves less government control. I suggest providing the information necessary for individuals to make their own informed choices. I suggest placing a sign directly at the entrance to each bar reminding people that there may be smokers inside. Most people would already know that, of course, but a posted sign would help the people who don't seem to have the intellect to remember that from one bar visit to the next.quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
As for thing about leaving bars alone - why? I would like to go to my neighborhood bar with my husband every weekend, but as it is we only go about once a month or less because the smoke bothers his eyes, makes both of our hair and clothes smell like shit, and tempts my cravings.
A "smokers inside" sign in a visible location outside the door to the bar would likely resolve the situation encountered by the people from your example above. They could read that sign just before they pull open the door to the bar, and if they don't want to be in an environment where people smoke, they could simply turn around and walk away.
You have a problem and you've advocated controlling masses of people as a solution. My proposed solution would be less intrusive on the existing businesses. It would only cost each bar owner a couple of dollars to implement. The enforcement would be extremely fast, easy, and inexpensive, since it would only require a drive-by of the city inspector. And best of all it would put the burden of responsibility where it belongs, squarely on the individual who chooses to enter the bar.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 08:35:17 [Permalink]
|
OK, GeeMack, since you aren't going to take things in context… I will retract my “crazy” comment and re-respond:
If in this conversation we use the definition of “control” as: a relation of constraint of one entity (thing or person or group) by another then indeed, all laws are a form of control. So control, while it has the potential to be bad, isn't necessarily bad.
So when you referred to “marfknox's desire to see people controlled”, you must have meant it in a totally innocuous way. You weren't really trying to use subtle connotations of the word control to paint me in a negative way just because I happen to support a piece of legislation in my home city that you would not support if you lived here.
You are wrote: “You advocate that, when it comes to smoking tobacco, the government should control the people that you've judged to be incapable of making their own decisions.”
You know, you aren't even arguing against my position, like many people on this forum have in quite persuasive and intelligent ways. Instead, you're just rewording my position in a way that makes it sound ridiculous.
You also aren't focusing on the actual piece of legislation that I'm claiming to advocate, and apparently you are deliberately ignoring my position on smoking bans in cars because it would contradict with those nice little blanket statements that you like to make about my general position on the anti-smoking movement.
And your sign suggestion conveniently ignores much of a 6 page discussion.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2005 08:56:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 08:55:19 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer:
I have already agreed that the criticisms of many studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke are valid, and I also thanks people for educating me, and said that it had started to influence my position.
But there's a different between the claim (as Cecil on straight dope mentioned) that the dangers of secondhand smoke aren't conclusive and saying I don't have a “bit of evidence”.
If you want just a “bit”, heck, nobody's yet pointed out how the studies of the effects on cats and dogs that I posted are junk science.
When the discussion shifted to talking about smoking in the home around children, opposed to being a “clear and present danger to employees”, and when it shifted from me advocating a legal restriction, to me criticizing certain actions as simply immoral, how we analyze studies, and what studies we analyze must also shift. After all, one of the criticisms of using epidemiological evidence to support smoking bans in businesses is that all the evidence from them relates to long-term exposure to secondhand smoke in the home.
The criticisms made by Cecil of straight dope specifically primarily focused on the idea that secondhand smoke is a high cause of lung cancer. Indeed, I totally agree that it is up in the air whether growing up with parents who frequently smoke in the house is likely to cause cancer, but secondhand smoke is carcinogenic for other reasons too. But there is evidence of children who live with smokers having higher incidences of bronchitis, asthma and other repertory problems. Indeed, that is exactly the sort of thing I cited in the example of my cousin. When he was 7 he could run a certain distance in a certain time, and now that he's 8, even though the other kids all improved in their times, his ability declined. It was a big enough thing that it was noticed by the school and family doctor, and the doctor specifically told my Aunt and Uncle to stop smoking around the kid.
I don't think (certainly I hope) that most parents who smoke don't sit and chain smoke around their kids indoors on a daily basis. I hope my very specific wording in this criticism would make it quite clear that I'm not criticizing parents for smoking. My dad smoked ‘til I was 10. I didn't even know until I was 8 because he never smoked around me.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2005 09:00:47 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 09:44:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
You know, you aren't even arguing against my position, like many people on this forum have in quite persuasive and intelligent ways. Instead, you're just rewording my position in a way that makes it sound ridiculous.
To take second things first, your position sounds ridiculous to me, and apparently to many others on this forum, even prior to rewording. Pardon me if it makes you uncomfortable when I cut to the chase, but I feel I've made a fair assessment of your position, although maybe I haven't used some pleasant drawn out phrasing that would make everyone more comfortable.
Regarding arguing against your position, I'm one of the few here, across more than six pages of discussion, who has repeatedly offered a solution to your problem. Most people seem to find problems exciting. I happen to find solutions exciting. I might be the only one here who has offered a valid alternative idea about how you could resolve your problem. I believe my suggestion, to let the bar patrons make an informed decision and take personal responsibility for that decision, was well thought out and intelligent. It is simple to implement, costs nearly nothing, and keeps people out of smoke filled bars if they find those environments uncomfortable.
My suggestions may not seem especially persuasive to you, but I'm okay with that because I understand many people can't see the billion shades of gray in the middle when they're focused on the two ends. In this case those two ends seem to be: Let people do what they want behind closed doors in private establishments, and if they don't want to be involved in those activities or be subject to the risks, let them choose not to go into those places. Or: Take the responsibility of choice away from those people and apply a system of governmental control to prevent them participating in those activities.
I don't discount the capabilities of my fellow humans to the extent that I would remove their option to make such choices. It's a rational, intelligent position to require individuals to be responsible for their own decisions, a concept that seems somewhat difficult for you to grasp. It may just be as you said, since I advocate more freedom and individual responsibility, and you advocate less freedom (more control) and social responsibility, we may have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 10:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
And despite Humbert's earlier accusation – I do not have my mind all made up. I really did start this discussion because I'm open minded.
Well, gosh. In all honesty, unless you are playing devils advocate, you really do seem to have your mind made up, at least tentatively. That you are generally siding with those studies that seem to show a link between passive smoking and illness, after acknowledging that they may be flawed, has to be some kind of indication of where you are coming from. I am not saying you are not the least bit open-minded. But you are nowhere near the middle, trying to figure out what is the best thing to do either.
quote:
marfknox:
Your point about drunk driving hurting many more innocent bystanders is well taken, but drunk driving is already illegal. Criminal, in fact. One doesn't actually have to get into an accident to be prosecuted, and they're slapped with a lot more than a fine.
Apparently, my point wasn't well taken. Yes it is against the law to drive drunk. But as we see by the numbers, that law does not keep people from doing just that. As I said, drinking impairs judgment. So, what we have are these places that serve customers a mind-altering substance that impairs judgment and then expect the drinkers, in that impaired condition, to make responsible decisions. As long as there are bars, there will be more dead people on the roads killed by drunk drivers than there would be otherwise. Lots of them. But our main concern, since drunk driving is already a crime, should be protecting employees and patrons from the dangers of passive smoking, even though much of the research supporting that link is in question, and no one is forcing anyone to work in a smoke filled environment, or step into one for that matter. And remember, we are not talking about children here. We are talking about adults making choices.
Until we can figure out a way to get people to and from bars without driving, please don't tell me that passive smoking even matters in the total scheme of things. If you had a sense of priority, you would place your energies where they would do the most good. Saving the most lives would be a good start. And you would be working to save the lives of people who didn't make the choice to be in a dangerous environment.
I am not suggesting that we close down bars. I am suggesting that they are inherently dangerous places for many reasons. And if we can live with that reality, it becomes almost comical pass laws to protect a few while many die. Perhaps it strokes our social conscience and alleviates some of our guilt. As a liberal, I can relate to that as a motivating factor. But as a critical thinker, I can see it for what it probably is…
quote:
marfknox:
I also understand that, living in California, you have a very different experience and point of view than me. Can you try to see my point of view as well? As a citizen of California, if you think things have gone too far, then you need to organize an opposition there. (If you aren't involved in one already.) But California is culturally different from other parts of the USA. It is not a sound argument to *assume* that what has happened there will spread everywhere, or even that what has happened there will not reverse if damaging backlash becomes evident. The ban in Philly and Columbus are city bans, not state-wide ones. PA and OH have a big rural population that opposes this sort of state-wide legislation.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 11:40:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
You know, you aren?t even arguing against my position, like many people on this forum have in quite persuasive and intelligent ways. Instead, you?re just rewording my position in a way that makes it sound ridiculous.
To take second things first, your position sounds ridiculous to me, and apparently to many others on this forum, even prior to rewording. Pardon me if it makes you uncomfortable when I cut to the chase, but I feel I've made a fair assessment of your position, although maybe I haven't used some pleasant drawn out phrasing that would make everyone more comfortable.
Two words. Straw man. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the only reason marfknox supports a ban on smoking in bars is for selfish, personal reasons.quote:
Regarding arguing against your position, I'm one of the few here, across more than six pages of discussion, who has repeatedly offered a solution to your problem. Most people seem to find problems exciting. I happen to find solutions exciting. I might be the only one here who has offered a valid alternative idea about how you could resolve your problem. I believe my suggestion, to let the bar patrons make an informed decision and take personal responsibility for that decision, was well thought out and intelligent. It is simple to implement, costs nearly nothing, and keeps people out of smoke filled bars if they find those environments uncomfortable.
quote:
Maybe it would be a good idea if there was a law that bar owners must post a sign at the entrance of their establishments. This sign should state clearly that people inside are likely to be smoking. Then even stupid people would know that going in there might result in them picking up some of that smoke smell. I personally find it nearly unfathomable that anyone over 21 who is going to bars is stupid enough to not know that in the first place. But I've heard stories of just such situations.
If this is the solution to your straw man of marfknox's position then I'm baffled. How is putting a sign up going help her make an informed descision? She seems to already be aware that smoking occurs in bars. Are you implying that she is stupid?
Also, I'm a bit surprised that you don't oppose exposing children to secondhand smoke. Do you feel that secondhand smoke is definitly not harmful to children? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 12:58:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Also, I'm a bit surprised that you don't oppose exposing children to secondhand smoke. Do you feel that secondhand smoke is definitly not harmful to children?
It may not be the best thing in the world for children, but smoking in the home doesn't quite equate to parents being "morally corrupt shitheads." That sort of judgemental moralism based on flimsy evidence is the exactly the sort of thinking that links marfknox to religious fundamentalists, despite her protests to the contrary. Kil certainly nailed that aspect. And I would also like to point out that I knew she would drag "the children" into this discussion eventually. She's willing to snatch at any pretense of the moral high ground. Don't bite on that chum.
I think GeeMack has her pegged, actually. She doesn't want smoking in bars for purely personal and selfish reasons. (She doesn't care if people smoke when she's not around.) The rest is just hand-waving, a way to rationalize a foregone conclusion. She now says that public health is her main concern, but that issue didn't even come up for several pages into this thread. Why would that be?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 13:48:38 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 13:43:29 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
“you really do seem to have your mind made up, at least tentatively.”
1.) Is it a bad thing to take a stance on an issue knowing you might be later proven wrong?
2.) The adding of “at least tentatively” really weakens what you are saying. I mean, if one is a critical thinker, then aren't ALL their opinions “tentative”?
“But you are nowhere near the middle, trying to figure out what is the best thing to do either.”
An argument is not made more valid by being more in the middle.
Also, this is a silly thing to claim, because what is our measure of the extremes, and what is the measure of distance between positions? Personally, I count a great deal of distance between banning smoking in bars and banning the production and use of cigarettes, and from that perspective, I'd claim to be more in the middle than on the extremes. If you want to view me as an extremist, fine, but that's an opinion.
GeeMack has implies that I'm an extremist too with his talk of how he sees gray areas (suggesting that my position is all black and white – which amazes me, for if my position were REALLY black and white, I imagine I'd be in favor of banning smoking altogether, and I said over and over and over again that I am very against that.)
Kil, I don't personally “place my energies” on anti-smoking legislation. (Unless you count this conversation on skeptic friends as activism.) I do engage in regular activism and community service, but most of it involves promoting art education, church-state separation and gay rights. And I do that stuff ‘cause those issues interest me personally. I don't think a citizen must seek out what is the “most important” social issue and fight for that. We should fight for what interests us personally and what we know the most about – then we will be better activists. I don't know why anyone on this forum would assume I'm some sort of hard core anti-smoking activist just because I have an opinion on the smoking ban issue. Like I said, it interests me because it's up for debate in Philly where I live.
I totally see your point with the drunk driving (you seem to say that a point is not taken unless the person changes their position to agree with you. I can understand and respect your position while not holding it.) I would also argue that the drunk driving position has different complexities than the smoking bar ban issue. I don't want to get into them, first because I don't think I'll change your mind, and it's also not really relevant to this discussion. Sufficed to say, while it is useful to make such comparisons, we must also keep in mind that they are not directly parallel.
Kil wrote: “That you are generally siding with those studies that seem to show a link between passive smoking and illness, after acknowledging that they may be flawed, has to be some kind of indication of where you are coming from.” (emphasis added)
What's the indication? I'm not sure what you're getting at with the last part of this paragraph.
But yes - I acknowledge that we don't yet have conclusive evidence that excessive exposure to secondhand smoke (such as in a workplace) is a severe[i/] health threat, opposed to being a minor health threat. But if I have to gamble, in this case I‘ll risk erring on the side of employee health. It is not a civil right for people to be able to smoke in bars. If it were, I'd be on your side. This ban would be an inconvenience for smokers, not a tragic blow to their freedom. And like I said, if there turns out to be significant cultural backlash (like an extensive black market, or mass protests, or big percentage of businesses going out of business) I would change my opinion. But so far, from what I've read, bar bans don't hurt businesses, there are no massive protests (just a lot of grumbling), and the growing black market in NYC was caused by the tax hikes, not bar bans.
Here's a question … can anyone on t |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 13:50:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Also, I'm a bit surprised that you don't oppose exposing children to secondhand smoke. Do you feel that secondhand smoke is definitly not harmful to children?
It may not be the best thing in the world for children,
That's putting it a bit mildly.quote:
but smoking in the home doesn't quite equate to parents being "morally corrupt shitheads." That sort of judgemental moralism based on flimsy evidence is the exactly the sort of thinking that links marfknox to religious fundamentalists, despite her protests to the contrary. Kil certainly nailed that aspect.
So marfknox makes a moral judgement and that links her to religious fundamentalists? Everybody makes moral judgements, not just marfknox and religious fundamentalists.quote:
And I would also like to point out that I knew she would drag "the children" into this discussion eventually. She's willing to snatch at any pretense of the moral high ground. Don't bite on that chum.
If you beleive that marfknox is dragging "the children" into this discussion in order to snatch the moral high ground in her support for a ban on smoking in bars, it would be rather simple to point out that children are not permitted in bars and thus deny her that particular point of high ground.quote:
I think GeeMack has her pegged, actually. She doesn't want smoking in bars for purely personal and selfish reasons. The rest is just hand-waving, a way to rationalize a foregone conclusion.
Maybe, I'm certainly no mind-reader. I prefer responses that address what a person actually says though.quote:
She now says that public health is her main concern, but that issue didn't even come up for several pages into this thread. Why would that be?
I don't know why that would be. If you think that it's important I would suggest asking her.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 14:07:01 [Permalink]
|
Ah, Humbert, giving up on actual debate and going right for the personal attack on my character already? You know, Kil was being cute with the whole “Nazi” remark. But you, you're just being mean.
Even if your slander of my motivations were true (there's no point in my denying it since you've made it quite clear that you regard me as deceptive) how does that weaken the other (not straw-man) arguments posed on this discussion? Or are you going to argue that all people who favor smoking bans in bars do so for “purely personal and selfish reasons”?
Humbert wrote: “And I would also like to point out that I knew she would drag "the children" into this discussion eventually.”
This is especially funny because if you re-read the post where I first mention children, I was talking about an argument a friend of mine made against bar bans that I agreed was a persuasive criticism. Obviously trying to use “children” in an argument for banning smoking in bars is preposterous since children aren't allowed in bars. Fundamentalists don't typical use children to argue against the position they favor. But if you want to back-pedal and call me a wishy-washy relativist, I suppose you could use it for that.
Humbert wrote: “She now says that public health is her main concern, but that issue didn't even come up for several pages into this thread.
Actually, it came up on my second post on page 1 of this discussion. I guess I'll have to make sure that next time I begin a discussion on skeptic friends to give a nice hierarchical outline of my reasoning so people like you won't later use my conversational style to argue that I'm a deceptive moral fundamentalist. Ta.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 14:39:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Ah, Humbert, giving up on actual debate and going right for the personal attack on my character already?
Well, I hardly think that a judgment made this far into the thread qualifies as rash, but I have given up trying to reason with you.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Obviously trying to use “children” in an argument for banning smoking in bars is preposterous since children aren't allowed in bars.
Of course it is, but that didn't stop you from slipping in your concern for their welfare anyway. Perhaps I should note that I am against smoking bans in bars and people who beat their spouses.quote:
quote:
Humbert wrote: “She now says that public health is her main concern, but that issue didn't even come up for several pages into this thread.
Actually, it came up on my second post on page 1 of this discussion.
You mentioned that you have relations who work in bars and find cigarette smoke unpleasant. Nothing in your comment suggests a concern for their health.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 14:46:48 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
