Lydia, in her comment, essentially states that the fact that the World Health Organization says smoking’s bad is a reason to ban it in private businesses:
That frankly, doesn’t matter.
Lydia might think she knows what’s best for business owners, but she doesn’t. In fact, she has absolutely no legs to stand on in this regard. You see, if we were talking about public places- like government buildings- Lydia would have a good argument. Anyone has the right to enter a public building. Therefore, it should be as safe and welcoming as possible.
But we’re not dealing with public places. We’re dealing with private places. Private businesses are like private homes- and owners of private businesses should be able to do what they wish on their private property, just like in homes.
——————–
Next, Lydia attacks my statement about racial issues having been resolved:
Unfortunately, Lydia is wrong here, too. We’ve had laws on the books for quite awhile dealing with segregation and discrimination with regard to entering businesses. By “dealt with,” I meant that it was an issue that is not comparable to the smoking ban; and is largely remedied due to laws that are in place. Just because something that is against the law still occurs does not mean that the issue itself has not been “dealt with.” Being “dealt with” does not imply success; it merely implies that SOMETHING has been done to fix it.
You’re very clever, Mr. Hittle. I applaud your use of direct quotes to sustain your argument. However, I find it curious that you say that a substance known to cause, among other things, death, has no bearing on how public policy should be formed. Smoking contributes to unnatural death. Unnatural death in this case is tantamount to murder. In other words, second-hand smoke contributes to the slow and painful murder of American citizens. Murder is wrong no matter where it is committed.
I would never be so pompous as to claim as to “know what’s best for business owners”. What’s best for business owners in this case “frankly, doesn’t matter”. Smoking kills. Killing is murder. It’s not about rights, its about protecting the sanctity of human life. And I think we can all agree that protecting the sanctity of human life is of the utmost importance, am I correct Mr. Hittle?
And no, racism has not been dealt with. As long as it exists and people suffer because of it, it has not been dealt with, regardless of whatever laws may exist condemning it. I would say that acts such as Native Americans being shot at with bb guns and drenched in urine are indicative that this issue has not been “largely remedied”.
Smoking contributes to death. So what? So does booze, peanuts, and automobiles. Through liver disease, choking, and car accidents, respectively. We don’t rescind citizens’ rights to enjoy those things.
Unnatural death is tantamount to murder? So who’s doing the murdering? This is an odd argument. If an unnatural death is murder, then should the growers of peanuts be hauled into court because they make a product on which consumers can easily choke? What about brewers, whose product may cause liver disease? You are trying to pry open a line of reasoning through which smoking is murder. Unfortunately, it fails because when you let smoking be “murder,” you also let a lot of other stuff be “murder,” too.
What’s best for business owners DOES matter, in this case. In fact, it ALWAYS matters what’s best for citizens. This issue is NOT about the sanctity of human life. All of that tripe you wrote about human life is really a deflection of the true argument.
Quite simply, if you value a smoke-free life and feel strongly that smoking is bad, don’t go to a bar that allows smoking. Period. End of story. But don’t force your beliefs on others who choose to smoke.
You do not have a right to enter that establishment. Therefore, you do not have the right to dictate to the owner of that establishment what he/she allows in the establishment.
You are not the boss of everyone. You don’t know what’s best for others.
And finally, I would recommend you actually read my post before you comment. You’re still relying upon the wrong meaning of the phrase “dealt with,” which I clarified in my original post here.
-MH
I think you’ll find, Mr. Hittle, that my reading comprehension is quite good even for a woman. I’ve simply chosen to reject your definition of “dealt with” as unsatisfactory and contrary to the phrase’s connotative meaning. I’ve never claimed to be “the boss of everyone”, or to “know what’s best for others” as you state. These are straw man arguments and are logically fallacious. I suggest you consult your PHIL 100 textbook for further reference. If you haven’t taken PHIL 100, I strongly recommend it.
While your argument that booze, peanuts, and automobiles are just as bad as smoking is interesting, it too is flawed. Booze, in moderate amounts, may actually be beneficial to a person’s health. Some studies have shown that it may reduce the risk of heart attack: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3968.php . Peanuts are delicious and make a wonderful spread to put on toast. Cars enable transportation, which is also wonderful. When it comes to smoking there are no upsides. No amount of cigarette smoke is safe. None. 0. Nada, for our bilingual friends. If one is exposed to cigarette smoke, whether by direct intake or through second hand smoke, they are at much higher risk for illness and death. Tragically the damage doesn’t end there. New studies that third hand smoke, or the smoke particles that linger in one’s hair and clothing is also dangerous, particularly to children and pregnant women:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7813124.stm This means that employees who work at these places may be endangering not only themselves but potentially their innocent children. Not to mention the fact that smoking in the workplace creates unsafe working conditions. I’m sure you’ve heard the commercials.
While booze, peanuts, and automobiles have benefits, smoking has none. Frankly, I believe that smoking is a choice and so long as it is legal people are entitled to make that choice. But that choice ends when the results endangers not only those around that person but their children and any pregnant women they come in contact with. It is about sanctity of life, Mr. Hittle. We as American citizens have a duty to protect our citizens, and if that means no more smoking in bars I’m all for it.
First of all, the phrase “even for a woman” seems like you’re trying to accuse me of sexism or something without saying it outright. Puh-leeze. Take that crap elsewhere.
Second, if you reject my definition of “dealt with,” then I reject your definition of “smoking.” It now means “moonbeams and rainbows popping out of your mouth.”
Third, you’d have to take a logic class to find out what logical fallacies are. Intro to Philosophy only teaches the basics. I know because, as a philosophy major, I’ve taken both classes and therefore know that I’m not creating straw men. If I were saying your actual argument was “I know what’s best for everyone,” then trying to argue against that statement, then yes, I would be creating straw men. But no, I refuted your arguments point-by-point instead of creating an easier argument to refute. When I say you don’t know what’s best for everyone, I’m simply stating that as a fact, I’m not saying that’s your argument.
Fourth, your entire rebuttal argument about booze, peanuts, and cars in relation to smoking is incredibly flawed. You don’t analyze the dangerous nature of booze, peanuts, and cars, nor do you analyze the pleasurable aspects of smoking. You only focus on the parts that help your argument.
Yes, we get fun and pleasure from booze, peanuts, and cars, but they can also kill us. Or they might not. We can also get fun and pleasure from smoking, and it can also kill us. Or it might not. So when we ban one, we should ban the rest. Down with peanuts!
Fifth, where you ARE correct is where you say that employees who work at these places may be endangering themselves. That’s the whole point. They’re endangering THEMSELVES in a VOLUNTARY fashion. As for their children, you’re on a slippery slope. Should children not be allowed to ride in cars, as there is potential for them to be unsafe? Should they not be allowed to play outside for fear that they would catch a cold or be run over by a car? How much should the government meddle in the parent-child relationship? Do you subscribe to Secretary of State Clinton’s “it takes a village” theory?
Sixth, contrary to your assertion, smoking DOES have benefits. It is pleasurable to some people who choose to do it. A substance or activity doesn’t have to have a purpose other than pleasure to be useful. Chewing sugary gum (without teeth whitening stuff) is actually bad for dental health and has no benefits other than tasting good. So should we ban it? Well, using your logic, we should.
We don’t have to be around smoking if don’t want to. We have a CHOICE whether or not to enter a bar. Your argument removes choice from the equation, with the government instead forcing its will upon citizens.
You can post your news stories all you want. We all know smoking is unhealthy. That isn’t the issue, and its frankly boring to read your ramblings from atop your moral high-horse. The issue isn’t about health. It’s about freedoms and those who want to take away those freedoms in the name of “the sanctity of life” and “protect(ing) our citizens.”
That mentality is a scary one. If we can ban smoking on PRIVATE property, which is what the smoking ban does, we can ban lots of other things in the name of citizens’ safety. We can ban cars, guns, lawnmowers, microwaves, needles, kitchen knives, non-ergonomic chairs, etc etc.
Quit taking away others’ freedoms in the name of the common good. Your intention- a safe citizenry- is good, but your method- taking away freedoms- is not. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And you’ve bought us a one-way ticket to Hades.
Good to know I’m sending us all to hell, Mr. Hittle. This must be the loving Christian compassion and tolerance I hear so much about.
I’m disappointed.
That last comment shows why you love straw men. It’s because you’re an expert at constructing them.
Yes, and I beat my wife too. Don’t forget that part.
It’s now apparent that you can’t refute my arguments, so I’ll stop posting unless something substantive (ie: other than ad hominem)is posted. This is an interesting debate, to be sure. I am certain the ban will be challenged in the next legislative session.
I’m sad for you, Mr. Hittle. I really am. I have no idea what happened to make you so unconcerned about the deaths of other human beings, but it must have been awful.
I’m sorry.
1 п. “Не имей сто друзей, а имей сто шекелей” тоже хорошо рифмуется
8 п. Ты никогда не потеряешь работу. Когда закончатся фотографии можно размещать рисунки (да хоть бы и конкурс объявить на лучший рисунок Одри (-:), аппликации и фотографии поделок из пластилина…
9 п. Сто пудов !
Занятно пишете, жизненно. Все-таки, для того, чтобы делать по-настоящему интересный блог, нужно не только сообщать о чем-то, но и делать это в интересной форме:)