- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Orleans City Council Passes Smoking Ban
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:21 pm to Guava Jelly
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:21 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Private institutions? Organizations?
people
quote:
We're not going to jump into the argument of the personhood of private establishments.
regardless of their juridical entity, they're still going to be owned and/or operated by...people
quote:
See the right to life. (don't bother arguing that the science isn't there to support smoking not causing a bevvy of respiratory disease, it doesn't hold water and you know it).
will hunting you ain't
quote:
See the right freedom of movement. Telling patrons or employees to "go somewhere else" is a restriction of that right.
you have no freedom to be on another person's property. i beg you to test this out at various junkyards at night
cite your freedom of movement after you enter somebody's house at 3am
1
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:21 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Sushi restaurants infringe on my right as someone who doesn't like seafood. See how fricking retarded that sounds? There are plenty of restaurants that serve things other than seafood, and there were plenty of bars that were smoke free
Seafood doesn't give you cancer from standing near it for an extended period of time.
Hell, even if you don't believe there is a causal link between second-hand smoke and cancer, there is still plenty of evidence to support it.
I defy you to cite a single study that suggests prolonged exposure to food-grade seafood causes cancer.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:23 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Seafood doesn't give you cancer from standing near it for an extended period of time.
So a person with a nut allergy should be able to shut down a bar because nuts are near them.
Or, they could choose not to touch them.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:24 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Seafood doesn't give you cancer from standing near it for an extended period of time.
some people are deathly allergic to seafood
what about peanuts. should we shut down all businesses that use peanuts because people may have an allergic reaction?
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:25 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
So a person with a nut allergy should be able to shut down a bar because nuts are near them.
ARGH
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
regardless of their juridical entity, they're still going to be owned and/or operated by...people
Again, I'm not arguing the personhood of private businesses. There are plenty of laws in place that protect the public from unhealthy or unsafe activities of businesses. This is yet another one of those laws.
quote:
will hunting you ain't
Ad hominem abusive
quote:
you have no freedom to be on another person's property. i beg you to test this out at various junkyards at night
cite your freedom of movement after you enter somebody's house at 3am
Apples, meet oranges.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:27 pm to Winkface
A much more sensible law would be to make bars specify with a sign on the front whether or not they allow smoking imo. Let the consumer decide
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:30 pm to Winkface
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
some people are deathly allergic to seafood
Since you're committed to red herring arguments, I'll play. Conservatively speaking, I'd guess that under 5% of the population of the U.S. has that kind of violent reaction to seafood. A significantly higher portion of the same population is susceptible to cancer.
Also, seafood usually doesn't come in aerosol form.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:31 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
There are plenty of laws in place that protect the public from unhealthy or unsafe activities of businesses. This is yet another one of those laws.
tell me where it stops, then. since you're so keen on using government to make people's health choices for them, this is crucial
the irony of this debate being centered on an establishment that sells excess alcohol as its primary revenue is almost too much
you know alcohol was illegal in this country at one point for the exact same arguments you're making, right?
quote:
Apples, meet oranges.
no you made the silly comment. there is no "right of movement" onto private property. a bar is private property
now when state-owned bars prop up, you may have an argument. but they don't, so we don't have to discuss them
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what about peanuts. should we shut down all businesses that use peanuts because people may have an allergic reaction?
its come down to this?Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:32 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Since you're committed to red herring arguments, I'll play. Conservatively speaking, I'd guess that under 5% of the population of the U.S. has that kind of violent reaction to seafood. A significantly higher portion of the same population is susceptible to cancer.
America is the country based on protecting the minority. You don't want to use that argument.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:33 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Conservatively speaking, I'd guess that under 5% of the population of the U.S. has that kind of violent reaction to seafood. A significantly higher portion of the same population is susceptible to cancer.
so we make these laws based on threshold % of likelihoods of cancer formation due to environmental factors?
you don't want to go down THAT road
quote:
Also, seafood usually doesn't come in aerosol form
you've obviously never been around a person deathly allergic to it...nuts are worse
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:33 pm to fightin tigers
quote:They just don't get it.
America is the country based on protecting the minority. You don't want to use that argument.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:34 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
its come down to this?
it's the same argument, just with a sillier variable
you are the ones arguing health protections. we all know it's not about the fact that you don't like smoking personally...it's about health
so i discussed health
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's the same argument, just with a sillier variable
anything you try and compare it to seems silly....well, because there is nothing to really compare it to.
quote:
you are the ones arguing health protections. we all know it's not about the fact that you don't like smoking personally...it's about health
It's both.
of course, you smoke, so we can question your intentions too
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
Fwiw, after reading the last couple of pages, you're winning by a pretty decent margin.
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
I can't argue this anymore. I'm out of breath and going to smoke a cig. 
Posted on 1/22/15 at 6:39 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
anything you try and compare it to seems silly....well, because there is nothing to really compare it to.
no it's the same thing. it's a dangerous substance that some people have negative reactions to. the heart of this discussion is a behavior that produces a substance that creates a negative externality. end of story. that same problem applies to things like seafood and peanuts, as they create negative externalities as well
quote:
of course, you smoke
nope. i smokeD, but i don't smoke
and now that i have a sense of smell again, i don't often like smelling like smoke, so i don't go to smokey bars if that's an issue
if i went to go to a bar and avoid the smoke, i go to a smoke-free bar. if i don't care, i go to a normal bar
simple solutions to complex problems
Page 36 of 63
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News