Fallout from a smoking ban!!!

chefjeff said:
Democracy is violence by a bigger group over a smaller one. It is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.

The lambs have no rights, apparently...except to be eaten by the free* society.

Jeff Livingston

* Freedom isn't one group forcing another group to behave as the first wants. Freedom is for the individual, the smallest minority. No one individual is free to initiate harm against another. And to follow that, no one can get conspire with others to inititate harm against another(s).
Click to expand...

Sorry it took so long to respond. I thought this thread had gone the way of the wind.

The sheep and wolf analogy is an old one. The US isn't a simple democracy such as your example describes. We are a constitutional, representative democratic republic. There are not direct elections of laws and there is a constitution that limits what laws can be enacted. Extend the analogy to take that into account and lo and behold, it becomes: "deciding what to have for lunch that is not one of us."

Now, if you were making the analogy about anarcho-capitalism, it would become "two wolves competing to be first to 'add value' to the sheep by slaughtering it and sell it to the others."

This is really a classic libertarian strawman, used by many flavors of anarchists for centuries. The authors of the US Constitution were well aware of this. They devoted a segment of the Federalist papers to it: "... it may be concluded that a pure democracy... can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction... A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Federalist No. 10, James Madison.
 
Illinois goes non smoking on Jan 1. I believe that will make 18 States. I have never understood why the decision to be a smoking establishment or not was not left up to the owners. When we get to all 50 look out! I've contended for a long time now that as soon as we are done dealing with smokers (I'm a smoker) the next logical group to go after is all the fat people (I guess I fit here too). The leading cause of death in this country is not smoking it is obesity. What will we do....in restuarants you can't order certain items if you are overweight, if you can't sit in a chair without blocking through traffic you can't come in, instead of having a number of people capacity we could have a mass capacity, those who are overweight or close to it have to sit farthest from the door so the quiker people can get out fast in an emergency, no more all you can eat buffets, etc., etc., and etc. Does this sound rediculous? I think it makes sense that it could happen. If a business owner can be stopped by the States from conveniently serving a specific type of clientel (smokers) then why not any other type? If we allow the States to have this kind of power are we sure they will use it appropriately? There track record doesn't indicate a positive response.

The pool hall I'm at is very concerned about what will happen. They have been in business for only two years and the VAST majority of their clientel is young and smoke. Because of their location they have no area for people to smoke outside. Someone on here asked if we would stop playing pool because we can't smoke. I think those in the league that I run who are young and just starting out will stop. Will we get others to replace them in time, sure...in time. Will I quit, no, but I will reduce the time I spend at the pool hall. Our tables are play by time. You can bet I won't have the table running while I step ot to have a smoke. It's too bad that we "the people" have allowed this to happen. Wouldn't have been better to let each establishment declare ( by posting notice) their status as a smoking establishment or nonsmoking. Then people could choose which they would rather go to. I just don't think it is right for the States to take away "choice" when it can be handle in a way that causes no harm to either group. If nonsmokers are concerned about their health they could go to the nonsmoking establishment and enjoy themselves while we smokers could go to ours.

Just my thoughts....I could be wrong!
 
Well then, using that logic............

1. Let's get rid of all the ladies sections in the stores. Why should anyone's children have to look at thongs and bras. Not to mention the ladies section where they sell those "personal" products.
2. Close all the Malls. It's just a place for the gangsters to hang out and sell their drugs.
3. Shutdown the movie theaters, the stuff they show is terrible.

I think you get the drift....we do have a constitution in this country!
 
chefjeff said:
Letter to the Editor...

Yesterday afternoon, I was picking up my kids from school and drove past the Billiard Barn, which is really just a common pool hall. As my children looked on, about a dozen young men were standing outside the pool hall, dressed like gangsters, jousting with each other, and smoking cigarettes where all could see! Do they not work? What a wasted life!

Why is it that my children must be subjected to such public scenes on the peaceful streets of our town? Why aren't these undesirables taken off the streets? What message does it send to my children to see such things?

I'd like to see all the pool halls and bars regulated (or better, simply closed down) so this type of behavior doesn't happen ever again to be witnessed by my, or anyone's, children. We did it with smoking; we can do it with places such as these, too.

Signed,
Unhappy Mom

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Using this logic..........

1. We need to close all the sections in stores that sell thongs, bras, ladies "personal care items", etc. My children should not have to see that stuff.
2. Close the theaters, they show really bad stuff there.
3. Close the Malls, they're just hangouts for gangsters and drug dealers.

I think you get the drift...we have a constiitution in this country. You have the choice to drive a different way home.
 
These extremification arguments are always so typical and funny. Take any logical situation encountered today, then extremify it the Nth degree. And then argue against your own proposed extremified statement. And thus, indirectly claim that you win your point, because you've proven the absurdity of the extremification. And then spend the rest of your time defending your extremification argument, and avoiding the original logical issue, which you were on the wrong side of, at the onset. Then in addition add in all kinds of justifications of how your analogy applies, and that it may not be taken seriously, but the point applies nonetheless.

Re-occuring pattern that you see so often. Humans can be so funny.

And overall, it's usually just a matter of someone wanting to selfishly defend something which they are so emotionally attached to. Any logical arguments presented that is counter to one's selfish desire (no matter which side of the argument you're on), will automatically be discounted without even thought or consideration, and any even remotely half baked story which supports your selfish desire will be accepted as gospel and fact, and thus proves your case.


The other ironic thing is, that they know that over 99% of the cases presented are so extremified, that even if it did come to referendum for voting by the people, that it'd be shot down virtually 100% of the time. Thus, the extremified analogy which they raised, knowingly will not occur. Yet their original selfish desire will also still not be supported. So, the extremification argument is of no relevance. But, to the one's with the selfish agenda, that is of no matter to them.

Also of note: It's funny how far they will go to inconvenience someone else, as opposed to making even the slightest inconvenience for themselves. For a bit more topical example, if you don't want to be in a smoking bar / pool hall, then you should drive 30+ miles to go to a pool hall in another city, county, or state, all so that some people don't have to walk 30 feet to simply smoke outside to their heart's content.
 
Last edited:
Flickit, this is more commonly known as a "slippery slope" fallacy. It is a very well known logical error. But the people who use them while debating never studied Logic, so no worries for them!

Russ
 
TX Poolnut said:
Sorry it took so long to respond. I thought this thread had gone the way of the wind.

The sheep and wolf analogy is an old one. The US isn't a simple democracy such as your example describes. We are a constitutional, representative democratic republic. There are not direct elections of laws and there is a constitution that limits what laws can be enacted. Extend the analogy to take that into account and lo and behold, it becomes: "deciding what to have for lunch that is not one of us."

Now, if you were making the analogy about anarcho-capitalism, it would become "two wolves competing to be first to 'add value' to the sheep by slaughtering it and sell it to the others."

This is really a classic libertarian strawman, used by many flavors of anarchists for centuries. The authors of the US Constitution were well aware of this. They devoted a segment of the Federalist papers to it: "... it may be concluded that a pure democracy... can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction... A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Federalist No. 10, James Madison.
Click to expand...

I never said a the US was a democracy...in fact, I explained that it is suppposed to be a constitutional republic, so I'm not sure what your beef is with my post.

Now, in local instances, for example anti-smoking laws, in some cases, businesses are voted out of business by the majority, referendum, etc.

Thanks for bringing up the Federalist papers...most have never heard of them, much less read them. Don't forget the anti-federalist papers, too, and.....

Don't forget a towel,

Jeff Livingston
 
FLICKit said:
These extremification arguments are always so typical and funny. Take any logical situation encountered today, then extremify it the Nth degree. And then argue against your own proposed extremified statement. And thus, indirectly claim that you win your point, because you've proven the absurdity of the extremification. And then spend the rest of your time defending your extremification argument, and avoiding the original logical issue, which you were on the wrong side of, at the onset. Then in addition add in all kinds of justifications of how your analogy applies, and that it may not be taken seriously, but the point applies nonetheless.

Re-occuring pattern that you see so often. Humans can be so funny.

And overall, it's usually just a matter of someone wanting to selfishly defend something which they are so emotionally attached to. Any logical arguments presented that is counter to one's selfish desire (no matter which side of the argument you're on), will automatically be discounted without even thought or consideration, and any even remotely half baked story which supports your selfish desire will be accepted as gospel and fact, and thus proves your case.


The other ironic thing is, that they know that over 99% of the cases presented are so extremified, that even if it did come to referendum for voting by the people, that it'd be shot down virtually 100% of the time. Thus, the extremified analogy which they raised, knowingly will not occur. Yet their original selfish desire will also still not be supported. So, the extremification argument is of no relevance. But, to the one's with the selfish agenda, that is of no matter to them.

Also of note: It's funny how far they will go to inconvenience someone else, as opposed to making even the slightest inconvenience for themselves. For a bit more topical example, if you don't want to be in a smoking bar / pool hall, then you should drive 30+ miles to go to a pool hall in another city, county, or state, all so that some people don't have to walk 30 feet to simply smoke outside to their heart's content.
Click to expand...

In 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' Rober M. Pirsig discusses the logic of taking a purportedly reasonable opinion to the logical extreme to see if it still is reasonable. It is called (I probably don't have the latin spelling right) redicio ad absurdum.

The following may fill you with inner mirth.

Carlo M. Cipolla - THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY

First Law - Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

Second Law - The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

Third Law - A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Fourth Law - Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

Fifth Law - A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

The corollary - A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

The writer of 'The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity', an economics professor at Berkeley, died in 1981. Recently the web sites that carried the full text have received letters from a lawyer in Italy complaining about copyright infringement. Now the full text has disappeared from the web. I do have it hidden away on my computer, if anyone is interested.:D
 
FLICKit said:
These extremification arguments are always so typical and funny. Take any logical situation encountered today, then extremify it the Nth degree. And then argue against your own proposed extremified statement. And thus, indirectly claim that you win your point, because you've proven the absurdity of the extremification. And then spend the rest of your time defending your extremification argument, and avoiding the original logical issue, which you were on the wrong side of, at the onset. Then in addition add in all kinds of justifications of how your analogy applies, and that it may not be taken seriously, but the point applies nonetheless.

Re-occuring pattern that you see so often. Humans can be so funny.

And overall, it's usually just a matter of someone wanting to selfishly defend something which they are so emotionally attached to. Any logical arguments presented that is counter to one's selfish desire (no matter which side of the argument you're on), will automatically be discounted without even thought or consideration, and any even remotely half baked story which supports your selfish desire will be accepted as gospel and fact, and thus proves your case.


The other ironic thing is, that they know that over 99% of the cases presented are so extremified, that even if it did come to referendum for voting by the people, that it'd be shot down virtually 100% of the time. Thus, the extremified analogy which they raised, knowingly will not occur. Yet their original selfish desire will also still not be supported. So, the extremification argument is of no relevance. But, to the one's with the selfish agenda, that is of no matter to them.

Also of note: It's funny how far they will go to inconvenience someone else, as opposed to making even the slightest inconvenience for themselves. For a bit more topical example, if you don't want to be in a smoking bar / pool hall, then you should drive 30+ miles to go to a pool hall in another city, county, or state, all so that some people don't have to walk 30 feet to simply smoke outside to their heart's content.
Click to expand...

What post(s) are you referring to?

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
What post(s) are you referring to?

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

I think ChefJeff is referring to every thread on AZBilliards that wanders off the original subject and goes political, or religious.

Not that there's anything WRONG with that!
 
Some folks enjoy smoking, and playing pool at the same time

Some folks enjoy smoking, and playing pool at the same time.
It used to be nice to have the freedom to do that around here.
Unfortunately the 4 poolrooms close to me have shutdown.
 

Attachments

  • efren_smoking.jpg
    efren_smoking.jpg
    86 KB · Views: 167
whitey2 said:
Some folks enjoy smoking, and playing pool at the same time.
It used to be nice to have the freedom to do that around here.
Unfortunately the 4 poolrooms close to me have shutdown.
Click to expand...


Woundnt the ashes get all over the felt?? Anyway if they were allowed to smoke coundnt they put down their cig for 1 second to shoot?
 
8-Ball Player said:
Wouldn't the ashes get all over the felt?? Anyway if they were allowed to smoke couldn't they put down their cig for 1 second to shoot?
Click to expand...

Yes, ashes get on the table along with burns and spilled drinks. They don't care about "Your" equipment or anything else. I would gladly throw the guy right out on his arse myself. If the manager didn't do it, I would find someplace else to play.
Purdman :mad:

Just like an a-hole that wants to practice jumping and leaving burn marks all over your table. He wouldn't do it on his own table though. The world is full of narcissistic jerks.
 
I suspect Efren was careful, bit I agree

I suspect Efren was careful, but I must agree that smoking like
that at the (exact) same time as shooting is not a habit I agree
with. Yes, if the ash would fall, it would get on the cloth obviously
causing a small stain unless it was brushed or vacuumed off
carefully. I remember the signs in the best (closed now)
poolroom in my area.

House Rules:

No Eating, Drinking, or Smoking over the tables.
No Foul Language
No Gambling (Like that one was enforced)

I think there was a fourth rule, but I can't be sure. And it was
funny when folks would "white out" the "No" in "No Gambling".
 
I'd like to thank all of the smoking nazis for replying to my posts for a couple of reasons:

1.) It gave me a chance to respond with the liberty arguments that I want more to understand and integrate into other issues, thus increasing my chances of living in a more peaceful, prosperous society, and...

2.) Because of this thread, I ended up doing more research on second-hand smoke and have found that it isn't nearly as unhealthy as I had thought it was,* so my concerns for temporarily being in smoky environments has diminished greatly so I may increase my pool hall time.

Smoke 'em while ya can,

Jeff Livingston

*This site shows how to better analyze various studies, particularly those concerning smoking issues: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

From the site:

...We make no attempt to cover every study of SHS, but to give you examples of a good study, two bad ones, and the politics that surrounded them. Combine that with the knowledge of how statistics work, and you'll be able to spot bogus studies with ease.

We also have several pages about how smoking bans effect (sic) businesses, including hundreds of links to news articles about bars, taverns, bingo halls, pool halls, private clubs and restaurants that are suffering, many to the point of closing, because of smoking bans. ....
 
Last edited:
chefjeff said:
I'd like to thank all of the smoking nazis for replying to my posts for a couple of reasons:
..

Smoke 'em while ya can,
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... That's funny. You make your post sound like you have had a change of heart and tone regarding your viewpoint on smoking, caused by the interaction from the opposing viewpoint, making you see the error of your previous ways. As if, you've now had a life altering epiphany.

Yet, your current post is just as much pro-smoking as your earlier posts. Once again, you want the ability to go to a pool hall, and still smoke.

Of course, as has already been stated, no matter what you still can. You just may have to take a very short walk to get outdoors, so you can do so. The fresh air will do ya good.
 
FLICKit said:
Hmmm.... That's funny. You make your post sound like you have had a change of heart and tone regarding your viewpoint on smoking, caused by the interaction from the opposing viewpoint, making you see the error of your previous ways. As if, you've now had a life altering epiphany.

Yet, your current post is just as much pro-smoking as your earlier posts. Once again, you want the ability to go to a pool hall, and still smoke.

Of course, as has already been stated, no matter what you still can. You just may have to take a very short walk to get outdoors, so you can do so. The fresh air will do ya good.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this post has been already posted....AZ is giving me trouble today...


More thanks as it brings up another reason, #3.)

I exposed FLICKit, et al, for their continued use of blatant dishonesty in their posts against pool hall owners and their voluntary customers. I've stated on this thread and other threads numerous times that...

I DO NOT SMOKE!!!

They either didn't read my arguments (evasion, due to laziness or not wanting to know, ie intellectual dishonesty) or hoped others wouldn't integrate the facts, thus attempting to mislead them by mistating those (more dishonesty) or...and I think this one is the main reason: they live by a creed of forcing others to make the world as they want it, without accepting personal responsiblity to take care of their own selves or for the harm they inflict onto others.

Ergo, I am NOT selfish as they have tried to portray me. In fact, I would, by most, be considered NONselfish for arguing with integrity a position that has no personal benefit to me (save liberty).

Jeff Livingston

P.S. All my arguments on this issue (and all other issues on AZ, btw) stand as posted, each fully integrated with honesty, with the other posts, and all integrated with reality. (A simple search reveals this to be true, so don't necessarily take my word for it here.)
 
Strange World

Snapshot9 said:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Jun/20070616Busi003.asp
Click to expand...


I have a lot of friends that smoke and I hang out with them all of the time. I put up with the smoke because I want to hang out with them and I want to play in leagues and tournaments.

We have a new pool hall that is no smoking, and people are going there as much as they are going to the established pool hall where smoking is allowed.

While I feel sorry for those that want to quit but can't, I have little compassion for smokers that cannot smoke in public places. First of all, we non-smokers put up with the smoke for a long time, now the shoe is on the other foot. Second, if I took the dust from a demolished building and spread it out into the air with a fan, people will complain. But they see no problem with blowing the same junk in your face all day. The effects of smoke, whether you are the smoker or a friend/co-worker of smokers is astonishingly bad. Third, people throw butts around like they are going to disappear tomorrow, but it is littering. The paper lays around for a long time and has to be cleaned up. Even better, the guys that put them in the urinal. If there is a screen, someone has to pick that cig butt out of the urinal. Not very thoughtful.

Don't get me started on people that smoke with their kids around. To willfully give your kid ear aches and lung problems is criminal.

To see the bad effects suffered by the rescuers of 9/11, and having watched my grandmother die of emphasyma (sp?) its a wonder smoking is allowed at all. And I really like what it does to my group health plan, thanks.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top