 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But generally, the public demanded the government protect them, not from themselves, but from the carelessness or callousness of others.
|
and this is wrong too...
it's not the "public"
it's usually a small, vocal minority of whiny people
edit: fixed spelling
Last edited by Sava on 30-08-2005 at 04:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
Vel -- just curious-- but notwithstanding what the law might be, Do you wear your seatbelt?
I do-- to me its a simple precaution and I see no reason not to.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Wow! You're the genius....please forgive my humble presence in the same thread with you. 
So...the masses desire safety, do they?
Why then...that'd mean that they (all those safety desiring masses) would prolly not NEED a law inducing them to wear a seatbelt, since it would be for their own safety and protection.
Which in turn means that the law is just as silly as I had initially indicated, or, even better, was crafted for some other purpose than to provide safety to the masses.
No injuns around? Mayhaps the white man genocide was more effective where you live, but around here we've got PeeDee, Lumbee, Cherokee, and a whole host of others. I don't think they got the memo that they don't exist any more. Might want to send it again, yes? 
And, while it is true that SOME laws were replaced by other, more stringent ones, others were simply deemed too laughable and rediculous to enforce, and faded quietly into obscurity, while remaining on the books (dentists not being legally permitted to sleep in bathtubs, for a prime example of a law that did NOT get a more stringent varient, and there are many others).
But that was amusing, thanks! 
-=Vel=-
PS to Flubber: The one in my truck malfunctioned some years ago and no longer works at all. I don't now, and didn't always before.
It would cost me more to replace it than it's worth, so....nahhh, I don't bother with it.
Will I, when I get around to replacing the truck? Sure. A fair bit of the time.
But that won't change the way I feel about the law, nor will I feel more compelled to do so cos the fundiecrats have tol' me to...
-v.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
So...the masses desire safety, do they?
Why then...that'd mean that they (all those safety desiring masses) would prolly not NEED a law inducing them to wear a seatbelt, since it would be for their own safety and protection.
Which in turn means that the law is just as silly as I had initially indicated, or, even better, was crafted for some other purpose than to provide safety to the masses. |
Talk about being dense in the uptake. Making everyone wear seatbelts makes the masses safer. Car accident fatalities are way down thanks to all the safety laws passed. The masses have gotten security, and at no expense other than putting on a seatbelt.
but please, do keep missing the point when you "analyse" statements....
quote:
No injuns around? Mayhaps the white man genocide was more effective where you live, but around here we've got PeeDee, Lumbee, Cherokee, and a whole host of others. I don't think they got the memo that they don't exist any more. Might want to send it again, yes? |
Captain "missing the obvious" strikes again.
quote:
And, while it is true that SOME laws were replaced by other, more stringent ones, others were simply deemed too laughable and rediculous to enforce, and faded quietly into obscurity, while remaining on the books (dentists not being legally permitted to sleep in bathtubs, for a prime example of a law that did NOT get a more stringent varient, and there are many others).
But that was amusing, thanks!
-=Vel=- |
Except of course anti-smoking laws and seatbelt laws are emminently enforceable. Its easy to spot a smoker. And its easy to set up a random police checkpoint.
Thanks for undermining your own arguement though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Simple-- The argument against regulation is about the choice of going into a smoking place . Children don't have that ability so the state has made that choice with regard to children in public venues. The parents still have the full choice for themselves when not with children. The businesses had a choice to be smoking and non and abide by the rules that that status brings
Note I do not support any parent that "chooses" to regularly inflict tobacco smoke on their children in their own home . Knowing what we know about tobacco, I can respect a person's right to do that to their own body but am uncomfortable with their "right" wrt their children. It is beyond what I think the state can or should get involved in though |
But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:
1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"
So where's the compromise? Did the businesses have a choice to comply with this new regulation? This "choice" thing is just a shell game to keep avoiding the real issue - it's fine to have some government regulation (it's everywhere, and almost always for the "public good") on private businesses, just not when you happen to disagree with it or it might affect you personally. And it's not like smoking itself is being banned, just smoking in bars/restaurants. So you always have your vaunted "choice" - either eat or drink in a restaurant/bar, or smoke. Isn't choice wonderful?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
*wipes tears from eyes* 'k...I've had a moment to recover. That was great. GePap's "debunking" of my post. I'm honored! And, it was pretty good too, at least from a fluff perspective...not a lot of substance, but that's no great shock. 'bout the only comment-worth "rebutt" was the point that the masses get their desired safety on account of the law....but then, since the masses desire safety, that means that most of them were wearing seatbelts before the law came to be, which in turn means that their own actions (not the law, which came later) were what gave them the aforementioned safety...but I know that's too much to follow, so sure....we shall let the point stand!
And Flub...she's a '97 Ranger. Seatbelt jammed up (oddly enough) during an accident (someone T-boned me), and I had to cut the belt to get out of the truck. Didn't bother to get it fixed, and still haven't.
Sometime ~22-24 months from now, the old gal is up for retirement, and will be replaced, along with the defective part(s).
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
I never got this whining from bars and restaurants about losing business from a smoking ban anyway. It's not like it's selectively applied (hopefully), so you're not losing business to your competitors. If people want to go out to eat or drink, they're still going to do it - they just won't be able to smoke while doing it. How many people go out to a restaurant or bar JUST to smoke? If you were planning on going out with some friends for a night at the club, would you cancel the whole thing because you couldn't smoke? Don't feel like cooking tonight, but you'll force yourself to anyway because you can't have a cigarette at the restaurant? You're on a trip and you need to eat - better do it on the sidewalk because you can't light up in a restaurant?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:
1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"
|
I'm a nonsmoker so on a personal level I would not mind if they torched every tobacco field on earth. I agree with both concessions as i see no problem with the government regulating smoking somewhat
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:
1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"
So where's the compromise? Did the businesses have a choice to comply with this new regulation? This "choice" thing is just a shell game to keep avoiding the real issue - it's fine to have some government regulation (it's everywhere, and almost always for the "public good") on private businesses, just not when you happen to disagree with it or it might affect you personally. And it's not like smoking itself is being banned, just smoking in bars/restaurants. So you always have your vaunted "choice" - either eat or drink in a restaurant/bar, or smoke. Isn't choice wonderful? |
Actually there are currently "smoking " restaurants and bars where children are prohibited and non-smoking restaurants where they are not. The compromise was in not bannning smoking altogether-- you know a balancing of a businesses concern to maintain snmoking clientele and the public health issue-- Any given restaurant could choose to be adult or family
So there are lots of places where people can smoke and eat/drink at ther same time. They just can't bring children in there with them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
I never got this whining from bars and restaurants about losing business from a smoking ban anyway. It's not like it's selectively applied (hopefully), so you're not losing business to your competitors. If people want to go out to eat or drink, they're still going to do it - they just won't be able to smoke while doing it. How many people go out to a restaurant or bar JUST to smoke? If you were planning on going out with some friends for a night at the club, would you cancel the whole thing because you couldn't smoke? Don't feel like cooking tonight, but you'll force yourself to anyway because you can't have a cigarette at the restaurant? You're on a trip and you need to eat - better do it on the sidewalk because you can't light up in a restaurant? |
My understanding that the staple at some bars are the folks with a smoke and drink in one hand while the other feeds dollar coins into video lottery type games. Even without the the VLT apparently a lot of the heavy drinkers are the type that frequent bars and don't leave for hours, consuming drink after drink and smoke after smoke
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
*wipes tears from eyes* 'k...I've had a moment to recover. That was great. GePap's "debunking" of my post. I'm honored! And, it was pretty good too, at least from a fluff perspective...not a lot of substance, but that's no great shock. 'bout the only comment-worth "rebutt" was the point that the masses get their desired safety on account of the law....but then, since the masses desire safety, that means that most of them were wearing seatbelts before the law came to be, which in turn means that their own actions (not the law, which came later) were what gave them the aforementioned safety...but I know that's too much to follow, so sure....we shall let the point stand!
|
Its hard to take you seriously when you don;t even understand posts.
The Masses seek security, and they will make laws that they see as making them more secure. The fact that most of them would undertake such actions regardless of the law is meaningless. Most people would never commit murder. Would you then state that its not laws against murder that make us secure, but the goodness of people? Given your point, you must. I guess you want to get rid of anti-murder laws as well. Silly things. Hard to enforce too, just look at all those murders that do happen....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
My understanding that the staple at some bars are the folks with a smoke and drink in one hand while the other feeds dollar coins into video lottery type games. Even without the the VLT apparently a lot of the heavy drinkers are the type that frequent bars and don't leave for hours, consuming drink after drink and smoke after smoke |
No doubt that's the case. But in order for the argument to hold water, you have to assume the these people would no longer come to the bar, drink and feed the VLT for hours on end. So, what are they going to do instead? Suddenly decide that they were wasting their life and give up on that altogether? Get an in-house VLT and drink themselves senseless alone at home?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-08-2005 04:16
|