Smoking ban

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Lose the right wing blind spot Night Stalker and see society for what it really is.

This quip is beneeth you. Considdering that Right Wingers are often viewed as [warning OTT comment ahead] greedy, intolerant, Bible Thumpers .... one would be hard pressed to attatch that label to one that is non-religious, advocates Liberty and tolerance for All, and seeks compromises in the best intrests of all instead of wanting everything for me only on my terms.

On the other hand ........

Stick to the topic and try to view the big picture of the individual. For I am much more than a woefully miopic two dimensional label. [/QUOTE]Reasons why Jesus was left wing:

1.Subsidised health care - he healed people for free, and on his day off (the sabbath)

2.No individual property ownership - he distributed loaves and fishes to all who were hungry. He had no posessions, and lived communally. He actually encouraged a rich young man to sell all he had, and follow him.

3.Peace activism. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" he told Peter as he ordered him to NOT defend him as soldiers arrested him.

4.Egalitarianism. When asked by the disciples who was the greates among them, he pretty much levelled the playing field. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

5.Anti-death penalty. He died so we might live. He came to bring eternal life to all who accept it, nullifying the wages of sin - death. He also prevented the then legal excecution of a woman caught in adultery.

6.Free education. His parents found him at an early age lecturing in the temple. He never charged for his wisdm or teaching.



I could go on. I would assert that a true "bible thumper" is most assuredly LEFT WING Night Stalker.

You ATTACK liberty, by advocating oppression of the masses as they are held prisoner to individuals licenses to step all over the rights of other individuals. You preach tolerance, yet practice intolernce. TRUE TOLERANCE TOLERATES INTOLERANCE. If you cannot tolerate intolerant people, beliefs or religions, you are not truly tolerant. You tolerate only that which falls into your view of right or wrong. Nyaa nyaa nyaa.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: As I see it, in a bar you're already killing your liver. In a stripclub you're killing your soul, and in a government building you're killing your sanity. Why should lungs get special treatment? More importantly, the freedoms of the Smoker are in question. I believe a private property should have the legally protected power to ban smoking or consumption of alcohol or whatever they want on their premesis, but mandated state bans effectively rule what one can and cannot consume. I feel this is a direct violation of our natural rights. I feel a lot of things are in violation of our natural rights.

So should a man be allowed to murder, rape and molest in his own home? Some personal rights NEED to be restricted for others safety. Smoking around a woman with lung problems will kill her. Not immediately, but in time. Smoking around children hampers full growth. Smoke damages and kills. Fair enough if you want to do it to yourself. It is the innocent that need protection.

[Night Stalker]

miopic again I see. It's easy to build Stawmen from partial arguements and beat up on them rather than address a full statement or even (heaven forbid) concede a point. I will agree that the Market (consisting of both buyers and sellers) is self serving and does not always work to individual intrests. Often when a market is unadapted to including options, options become ignored. Sometimes markets need a little bit of outside steering, not full on banning or regulating, just redirection. Note that I said that a small % of establishments should be reserved for BOTH smokers AND non-smokers and let the market do the rest. By giving that little nudge, the system will normalize. That compromise also addresses everyones intrests with out letting one group trump the other.

You ATTACK liberty, by advocating oppression of the masses as they are held prisoner to individuals licenses to step all over the rights of other individuals. You preach tolerance, yet practice intolernce. TRUE TOLERANCE TOLERATES INTOLERANCE. If you cannot tolerate intolerant people, beliefs or religions, you are not truly tolerant. You tolerate only that which falls into your view of right or wrong.

The only response to this is:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and WRONG!

I advocate neither individuals, nor "Society" steping on others rights or Liberty. I fully advocate that "My right's end where another's begin". How this applies to smoking is simple. I acknowlege your desire for a smoke free work environment. Therefore I advocate creating that sancturary for you. I also acknowlege Timber's desire for a place to socialize where smoking is accepted, and support creating that sanctuary as well. Seems pretty tolerant to me, without impinging on anyone's desires or liberties. As for the rest of your Ad Hom, I'll politely ignore it, but I do have a Kettle I'd like to introduce you to.

On the point about Jesus (skates dangerously close to the Rules) I would not insult him or his teachings by labeling him Left Wing, as again, that is utterly miopic and simple minded. I would agree though that if He were alive today (in America), he would be labeled a Liberal, Hippy freak, and jailed under the PATRIOT ACT for sedition and terrorism.

And finally, I have found that of those that loudly proclaim to follow His teachings, few actually do. His name has been used way too often to support the most intolerant and horific injustices in history .... totaly counter to His teachings.

[ 04-02-2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[John D Harris]

I smoke CHEAP CIGARS!!! The cheaper and stinkyer the better, I own the air in my home and the air in my shop, if anybody doesn't like it. Don't come by and visit me, or buy anything from me. I'm not really interested in the company of busybodies or their business, evil smokefilled pregnant women and children killers money spends just find with me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: TRUE TOLERANCE TOLERATES INTOLERANCE. If you cannot tolerate intolerant people, beliefs or religions, you are not truly tolerant.

Incorrect. This is a line often used to dodge the many issues of intolerance. It is a phallacy of half-logic that implies doing nothing (tolerating) in the face of intolerance is somehow the moral high road to take. It is simply wrong. It is an excellent excuse to make if you are against giving basic equal rights to Gays, for example, and want to deflect critism away from yourself.No matter how often this errant line is repeated, it does not excuse intolerance and following this 'advice' will never bring an end to intolerance.

True tolerance stands up against intolerance, speaks out against intolerance, but does not fall prey to the hate and fear spread by those who do practice intolerance. True tolerance counters hate with Love and lies with Truth. True tolerance does not tolerate intolerance at all.

After all when good people do nothing in the face of evil, evil does flourish.

[ 04-03-2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: TRUE TOLERANCE TOLERATES INTOLERANCE.

Incorrect. [/QUOTE]Ah... no Chewbacca. Quite correct. Think about it. Your post proved my point.

You said "True tolerance does not tolerate intolerance at all' Impossible. True tolerance in your world is INTOLERANT, ie does not tolerate intolerance.

This is simply not possible. It's a contradiction. Your version of tolerance is intolerant of things that fall outside your subjective ideas of what is "good". True tolerance tolerates everything. Inside or outside one's subjective morality.

Now, we can debate the moral justification for intolerance of certain things. I agree certain issues need to be stood against. But be self aware enough that you are in fact being intolerant. Intolerance of being killed in a time and place is essential to survival for example.

Therefore, intolerance itself is not "evil". It entirely depends what is not being tolerated.

Time and again Chewbacca I see you use broadly sweeping proclaimations appealing to some "higher morality" completely seemingly unaware that your subjective morality is no higher or lower than the rest of us. You view something as right or wrong, and someone disagrees with you. That's life. Your higher morality is no less subjective than anyone elses - even if it contradicts yours. Morality is subjective brother.

Cya.. out of time

[ 04-05-2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

The building is on fire.
I enter the building and get burnt.
I then complain that my liberties have been affected by the fact that the building is on fire.

The idea that I have exercised my liberty and freedom of choice by entering the building never crosses my mind. The idea that, if a building is on fire, it would be sensible to go to a place where there is no fire does not cross my mind either. I then go on to choose a profession where fire is a normal occupational hazard. I become a fireman. I then complain bitterly about having to work with fire...

I live in the twilight zone of the ban-smoking in smoking venues brigade where my delusions have become a reality...

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Time and again Chewbacca I see you use broadly sweeping proclaimations appealing to some "higher morality" completely seemingly unaware that your subjective morality is no higher or lower than the rest of us. You view something as right or wrong, and someone disagrees with you. That's life. Your higher morality is no less subjective than anyone elses - even if it contradicts yours. Morality is subjective brother. Cya.. out of time

Oh the irony...

Exactly where have I stated that my personal sense of morality is better or worst than anyone elses, even if it differs? How exactly am I unaware. Prove these assertions about me. Prove them or retract.

Here, I will spell it out so it will be on the record: If you think that intolerance, bigotry, ethnic cleansing, segregation, inequality, ect. are some how morally high, then you've got me...I think my 'morality' , including the conscious practice of tolerance, is higher than people who have or support any of those qualities. Am I all alone in this perspective of being moral? I think not.


Lay off the ad hominems and personal commentary and quit changing the context of words mid-discussion (you know very well what context of the word intolerance I am using, and its not the same context of being intolerant to being killed) and maybe, just maybe, I will have a thoughtful reply that pertains to the topic. But if thats the best that can be offered, an accusation of being "holier than thou", with a lecture on the subjectivity of morality and some word twisting then I have nothing more to add in reply in this discussion beyond this post.


********************************************


If the spirit of the word tolerance included tolerating hate-speech, the KKK, Nazi death Camps, bigotry, segregation, and Ect. then we would not need the word intolerance at all. It wouldn't matter. There is a third state that should be described, and that is apathy. Apathy is what you get when intolerance is tolerated. Indifference to hate, ignoring bigotry- allows it to flourish.


The spirit of being tolerant is naturally against intolerance.


Another perspective: Tolerance is like water for illustrative purposes

It is like Ice and steam. Water can only be one form or the other at any give time. Apathy is like water that has stood too long: stagnant.

Not exactly a perfect metaphor, but tolerant is not a perfect word as evident by this very discussion.

For example: Someone can get so totally hung up on proving the literal defintion of a word, that they fail to grasp the spirit of its meaning from the perspective I have provide.

They even go so far as to assume that, because I find the focus on being totally literal incorrect, that I must think myself higher or better. When the truth is I have a different perspective, one that is correct for me. I'm willing to allow these two different ideas stand side by side, expressing my opinions that the literal perspective, is incorrect and why.

I tolerate the differing perspective, as it seems not to be rooted in intolerance,( though the ad hominem tactic used to reply to my disagreeance may skirt the border) but I disagree. Disagreement is not intolerance. Disagreement is not to automatically say I am morally better. Can you tolerate disagreement?

The other thing is I can grasp and understand the literal perspective, but I reject it for a perspective that has personal meaning and an inspired call for action that has demonstratably brought results for the betterment of society. After all Rosa Parks didn't just give her seat up to a white guy on the bus that day. I sure the hell wouldn't call her intolerant. You can if you want, if that perspective works for you fine. I disagree.

I can also formulate a literal perspective that differs: Tolerance doesnt tolerate intolerance because tolerance is the exact opposite of intolerance. Ideas that are mutually exclusive. Very much a paradox, but like i said I reject the narrow literalist perspective in this case even it if creates a concept that logic wants to deny. Even if it might give a big middle finger to the dictionary defintions. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img]

Are my perspectives understandable? Are they graspable? Are they tolerable? Will I get a reply that isn't a cheapshot-accusation that I think I'm better than thou? Will dictionary definition number three or four of the word get tossed in the mix? I guess I will find out next time....

[ 04-05-2004, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: On the point about Jesus (skates dangerously close to the Rules) I would not insult him or his teachings by labeling him Left Wing, as again, that is utterly miopic and simple minded.

It's called "making a point". Perfectly reasonable. You are further to the right than I am. So, to me you are a right winger. Yet you use terms such as "Christian Right", a term I find utterly nonsensical, given the presented facts about Jesus. A right winger can be Christian, just as a left winger can.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick is right about the fact that true tolerance tolerates intolerance.

However, regarding the smoking ban, if his response to my proposal as to how we can both have our liberty protected is simply, "you should tolerate my intolerance," then my reply is a simple and big F-U. (I'm sure you understand, Yorick ).

When trying to protect my liber-tay, my tolerance for your position only extends so far. It does not extend into the realm of your intolerence -- that, in fact, is the point at which I become intolerant as well. If a minimum % is unacceptable, then I'll go to the mat fighting for my right to smoke in bars, whether or not I destroy your lungs in the process. If we can't both have it our way, then I'll rip your head off fighting to have it my way. I think that most of us would.