Smoking at tournament matches

[Masayoshi]

Lol...wtf

Let's go to some cliches:
Jews were phased out of Nazi Germany. It's called progress.
Private property was phased out of the USSR. It's called progress.
Manufacturing plants were phased out of the USA. It's called progress.
Elected public officials were phased out of Rome. It's called progress.
Pool was phased out of TV. It's called progress.

As for your ridiculous hyperbole:

Q: Should women make the same wage as men?
A: Some women should earn the same wage as some men. Some women should earn a higher wage than some men. Some women should earn a lower wage than some men. It's not a question of gender so much as a question of relative value.

Q: Should they be able to vote; why not revert?
A: I would assume you're referring to women as "they." And I also assume that by "vote" you mean in public elections. Some women should be allowed to vote in some elections. For example, a woman living in California should not be allowed to vote in a Texas state election. Personally, I believe public elections should include some kind of voting tax, but that is a totally different subject. BTW: If you knew the real reasons why women initially gained the right to vote in public elections, you would sh1t your pants. It had a lot more to do with $$$ than it did progress.

Q: Should gays be able to marry?
A: I cannot answer this question. Marriage is a social contract between 2 people. Marriage usually involves a contract written under the authority of some religious institution. Therefore, if a man wishes to marry another man, he must first find another man willing to agree to such a contract. If these 2 men wish to be recognized as married in some sort of religious ceremony, they must find a religious institution who accepts their proposed contract. As far as I know, the state does not infringe on these rights.

However...

If you're asking whether or not 2 men should be able to enter a legal contract under the authority of the state for purposes of taxes, inheritance, or powers of authority, then I would say that all people regardless of sex, race, or sexual orientation are entitled to non-discriminatory treatment from the state. In other words, if one man and one woman are allowed special privileges by entering in a civil union, these rights should extend to ANY two people. You should be able to enter the same contract, recognized by the state, with any other person including a family member, friend, or lover. I believe this particular special case has been extended to same sex couples in most states, but I am not particularly well-informed in this subject.

Drew, I just want to get things straight for a second so I can give a proper rebuttal.

Are you supporting the argument that people should be able to do anything, anytime in publicly open places because people affected by such acts can just go somewhere else?

If not, in what instances do you think people should be restricted upon what they do?

 

[Drew]

Drew, I just want to get things straight for a second so I can give a proper rebuttal.

Are you supporting the argument that people should be able to do anything, anytime in publicly open places because people affected by such acts can just go somewhere else?

If not, in what instances do you think people should be restricted upon what they do?

No. I am supporting the argument that property owners can do anything with said property, anytime; so long as not infringing upon the right of others' to do the same with their property.

 

[Masayoshi]

No. I am supporting the argument that property owners can do anything with said property, anytime; so long as not infringing upon the right of others' to do the same with their property.

So why do you think it is permissible for people to infringe upon others who want to use their own lungs (which are undoubtedly their own property) to breathe relatively clean air?

 

[Drew]

So why do you think it is permissible for people to infringe upon others who want to use their own lungs (which are undoubtedly their own property) to breathe relatively clean air?

You are more than welcome to breathe clean air. There is plenty of it outside of that smoky pool room...or inside that non-smoky pool room.

 

[justadub]

No. I am supporting the argument that property owners can do anything with said property, anytime; so long as not infringing upon the right of others' to do the same with their property.

So the poolroom owners could just leave exposed wires running down the walls...right? It's their property.

They shouldn't have to refrigerate the food they serve, or take other precautions to insure that people don't get sick...right? It's their property.

They can just leave loose rugs on steps and stairs...right? It's their property.

Smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, why bother? It's their property.

You see, these are the kinds of things that "progress" has insured. That people have a right to expect safety in public places. And yes, if you invite the public in to your establishment, it is now a "public" place. Therefore you must insure their safety reasonably while they are patrons of the establishment on "your property". And finally, with all the progress that we've made, after all this time, many states have had the courage to stand up to the tobacco lobbies and their smoke-addicted constituents, and said "this isn't healthy"...

It is really very simple. Smoking kills people. It really can't be argued, it is harmful. And while I personally don't care if people want to harm themselves by smoking (though I wish they wouldn't) when it harms me, that's when it's gone too far. And when your establishment is open to the public, you cannot be harmful to me.

Why is it so damned difficult to have some courtesy, and think of others for the brief time it takes to smoke a cigarette? Why must you make it a point to annoy others? Why must you make them uncomfortable, with your addiction? It is your addiction. Remember that. Your addiction, not those around you.

 

[Drew]

So the poolroom owners could just leave exposed wires running down the walls...right? It's their property.

They shouldn't have to refrigerate the food they serve, or take other precautions to insure that people don't get sick...right? It's their property.

They can just leave loose rugs on steps and stairs...right? It's their property.

Smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, why bother? It's their property.
Do you want my personal opinion? You are responsible for your own life.

You see, these are the kinds of things that "progress" has insured. That people have a right to expect safety in public places. And yes, if you invite the public in to your establishment, it is now a "public" place. Therefore you must insure their safety reasonably while they are patrons of the establishment on "your property". And finally, with all the progress that we've made, after all this time, many states have had the courage to stand up to the tobacco lobbies and their smoke-addicted constituents, and said "this isn't healthy"...

It is really very simple. Smoking kills people. It really can't be argued, it is harmful. And while I personally don't care if people want to harm themselves by smoking (though I wish they wouldn't) when it harms me, that's when it's gone too far. And when your establishment is open to the public, you cannot be harmful to me.

Why is it so damned difficult to have some courtesy, and think of others for the brief time it takes to smoke a cigarette? Why must you make it a point to annoy others? Why must you make them uncomfortable, with your addiction? It is your addiction. Remember that. Your addiction, not those around you.

Alright first of all...there is no evidence which conclusively links SHS to increased health problems. So yes, it CAN be argued. But that's not really the point, anyway.

The point is that you do not have the right to safety, because nobody, including the almighty government, can guarantee your safety. You do have the right to pursue safety by any means possible which do not infringe on the property rights of others. End of story.

Sounds to me like you just need to quit playing pool. Perhaps you should take up hiking.

Oh and by the way, it's not my addiction. Bet you didn't see that one coming...

 

[justadub]

Alright first of all...there is no evidence which conclusively links SHS to increased health problems. So yes, it CAN be argued. But that's not really the point, anyway.

The point is that you do not have the right to safety, because nobody, including the almighty government, can guarantee your safety. You do have the right to pursue safety by any means possible which do not infringe on the property rights of others. End of story.

Sounds to me like you just need to quit playing pool. Perhaps you should take up hiking.

Oh and by the way, it's not my addiction. Bet you didn't see that one coming...

I dunno where you live, but here in the US, people have a right to expect safe conditions in public places. That is why there are building codes and such. No one in the US is allowed to have their business open to the public and endangering said public.

You can try and spin it any way you like, cigarette smoke is harmful. And it is controllable. Meaning the person doing the smoking doesn't have to expose others to it. Those people simply choose to do so, to be rude and unthinking (or uncaring).

And I don't have to quit playing pool, because smoking isn't allowed here. Betcha didn't see that one coming, did ya?

(No, the fact that you don't smoke doesn't surprise me. I've seen you arguing here enough to realize that this does come naturally to you.)

 

[Masayoshi]

You are more than welcome to breathe clean air. There is plenty of it outside of that smoky pool room...or inside that non-smoky pool room.

So you admit that you would infringe on others' rights so long as the rules are aligned to what you want to do? That is different that what you claimed just a few posts back.

what you just said is no different than telling the smoker to smoke outside. You have just infringed my rights as much as I would have infringed on a smoker had he not been allowed to smoke in the pool hall.

This debate would be a lot easier on you and make you look a lot more logical if you just admit that you don't give a damn about infringement upon everyone but yourself and want rules that let you do what you want when you want regardless of the consequences to others.

 

[chefjeff]

This is so simple.... my neighbor smokes on his balcony. I live in a condo. Somehow, dont ask me how, but I get cig smoke inside my condo all the time. This applies to a business too you know, in terms of adjacent businesses. If you can prove the carcinogen causing smokes are not coming out of your establishment, then fine, i'm actually with you. But you can't. You can't give other people cancer and just say, oh well.

Tell ya what. Let me spray some carcinogen into your home everyday, near where you wife and baby sleep. Do you get it yet?? I don't think people like you ever will, but oh well -- too bad for us.

You've just ageed with Drew, but don't know it.

Respecting property rights fixes both of your problems. Your neighbor is polluting your space and doesn't have that right to control your property. Neither do you have the right to control the property of the pool hall owner.

But you each have a right to control your own property, your body.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

This is what we call a circular arguement. You say it is discrimination because we are not giving them the same rights..

But how are you giving non-smokers the same rights by forcing them to have to abide by smokers terms.

It is harmful, and very unhealthy to both parties.

You are really clutching at straws with this kind of circular arguement.

What force? No one is forced to go into dangerous environments. Those that do go can face the consequences of their actions.

No one is forced to go into smoky environments. It's a choice.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Masayoshi]

What force? No one is forced to go into dangerous environments. Those that do go can face the consequences of their actions.

No one is forced to go into smoky environments. It's a choice.

Jeff Livingston

Smokers force non-smokers to make different choices than they would if said environment was smoke free. Ergo, Smokers are infringing on non-smokers who are infringing on smokers who are infringing on non-smokers etc.

As he said before, that is a circular argument.

 

[Drew]

So you admit that you would infringe on others' rights so long as the rules are aligned to what you want to do? That is different that what you claimed just a few posts back.

what you just said is no different than telling the smoker to smoke outside. You have just infringed my rights as much as I would have infringed on a smoker had he not been allowed to smoke in the pool hall.

This debate would be a lot easier on you and make you look a lot more logical if you just admit that you don't give a damn about infringement upon everyone but yourself and want rules that let you do what you want when you want regardless of the consequences to others.

Um...no. this has nothing to do with the smokers and non-smokers. The venue owner is king in his establishment. His rights are the ones you feel so persuaded to trample.

 

[Neil]

.................

 

[chefjeff]

Smokers force non-smokers to make different choices than they would if said environment was smoke free. Ergo, Smokers are infringing on non-smokers who are infringing on smokers who are infringing on non-smokers etc.

As he said before, that is a circular argument.

YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO BREATHE SMOKE. I know lots of Persons who don't go to smoky places by choice.

YOUR CHOSE TO BREATEH SMOKE when you enter another's property that allows folks to smoke there. You have no right to force the owner to use his property as YOU see fit.

You own your body and can EASILY prevent it from being exposed to smoke.

Now if someone grabbed you and dragged you into a smoky pool hall, THEN YOU ARE FORCED, and you'd then have an argument and a right to remove YOUR body from such a place.

It's very simple. You exist and prosper by this concept, btw.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Masayoshi]

Um...no. this has nothing to do with the smokers and non-smokers. The venue owner is king in his establishment. His rights are the ones you feel so persuaded to trample.

So the owner can discharge a rifle into a crowd at will as long as he does it in his venue? Or would you trample on his rights by telling him that he can't?

 

[Masayoshi]

YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO BREATHE SMOKE. I know lots of Persons who don't go to smoky places by choice.

YOUR CHOSE TO BREATEH SMOKE when you enter another's property that allows folks to smoke there. You have no right to force the owner to use his property as YOU see fit.

You own your body and can EASILY prevent it from being exposed to smoke.

Now if someone grabbed you and dragged you into a smoky pool hall, THEN YOU ARE FORCED, and you'd then have an argument and a right to remove YOUR body from such a place.

It's very simple. You exist and prosper by this concept, btw.

Jeff Livingston

So you are saying that you are allowed to force me to do something (make choices that I would not make had it not been for the smoke), but I am not allowed to force you to do something? Thanks. That explains a lot. Your side has poor logic and double standards up the wazoo, but its good that you admit it and I actually understand where you are coming from. Change is often difficult to accept and people try to fight it tooth and nail even if they know what they have been doing was not right.

 

[LoVe4DaGaMe]

Um...no. this has nothing to do with the smokers and non-smokers. The venue owner is king in his establishment. His rights are the ones you feel so persuaded to trample.

Unfortunately, Your opinion and others may clash, but your arguement is circular as all can be.

You claim it infringes on the rights of the smokers and the owner of the establishment to be "forced" into being non-smoking.

Yet.. the other way around forces anyone who wants to play pool in a non-smoking scenario to just have to "Grin and Bare it". (Especially since I have seen numerous posts about Pool and Smoking going hand in hand, and how a pool hall with non-smoking rules wouldn't make it.. Etc)

Well... Whether you like it or not.. soon.. Smoking will be banned from all indoor places, in every state. The more states that secure a ban on indoor smoking, the more states want to do it as well. It is just a matter of time.. Which inevitably gives me more satisfaction, because I know that in the end, I will get my way.. and you.. unfortunately will be left to complain about how we need to stick it to the "Man" and the "Man" is controlling our every move.. because some of your smoker buddies no longer can try their damnest to give me lung cancer.

I am in the Bar business, and I am all for having smoking in certain establishments.. Establishments where Liquor or Alcohol is a main source of income, because Smoking + Drinking goes hand in hand.. I am all for a smoking ban in Largely public places, and restaurants.

The Pool Halls around here are smoke free, and Most bars are "smoke free" by law.. now.. a lot of them don't follow it.. but that is another story.

So.. To get to the point, in the end, It is inevitable that smoking will be banned inside, no matter where you go.. So the best bet is to just try to start coping with it now. lol.

 

[chefjeff]

So you are saying that you are allowed to force me to do something (make choices that I would not make had it not been for the smoke), but I am not allowed to force you to do something? Thanks. That explains a lot. Your side has poor logic and double standards up the wazoo, but its good that you admit it and I actually understand where you are coming from. Change is often difficult to accept and people try to fight it tooth and nail even if they know what they have been doing was not right.

I can't explain it any better than this:

YOU ARE NOT FORECED TO GO TO SMOKY POOL HALLS.

Geez. Isn't that an OBVIOUS fact?

If not, tell me just how you are forced to go to a smoky pool hall?

Jeff Livingston

 

[Masayoshi]

I can't explain it any better than this:

YOU ARE NOT FORECED TO GO TO SMOKY POOL HALLS.

Geez. Isn't that an OBVIOUS fact?

If not, tell me just how you are forced to go to a smoky pool hall?

Jeff Livingston

I never said I was forced to go to smoky pool halls (in this case, it is more that I am being forced NOT to go to smoky pool halls). I said that I am forced to make different choices than I would have had there been no smokers, therefore my freedom (as Drew puts it) is being infringed upon. Did you not read my post, or do you just have poor reading comprehension?

 

[Neil]

...............