chefjeff said:Man, a lesson in what the Constitution is is in order here...
How you think MY position reflects that violence
CreeDo said:I was trying to make the same point as you are... people associate "rights" with the constitution but they shouldn't. When the word 'rights' get used, the undereducated start blabbering on about 'guaranteed rights' that don't really exist... for example the 'right' to clean air (doesn't exist legally), or the 'right' to smoke or the 'right' to run your business any way you want.
You say that I don't understand property rights, but I think I understand them better than you, because I understand that there's no special 'bill of rights for property owners' that spells out what he can do with his business. People think he has rights that set him apart from other citizens, like he gets a guaranteed right to sell what he wants, or make whatever rules he wants. Others think he at least has the same rights as a citizen on his own private property. Maybe you think his business can have an exception to city ordinances for example.
It's simply not true. He doesn't have any specific special rights.
A property owner can't say "It's my property, so I can choose not to hire black people or women to work on it. They're free to get jobs somewhere else." He can't say "It's my property, so I can serve nasty diseased food that might make you sick. If you know that risk coming in, you can't complain. It's your choice to eat here anyway, or your choice to take your business elsewhere." He can't say "yes, there's a city or state ordinance that says strippers have to wear G-strings, but it's my business. I can make my own choice about what they wear. If there's a market demand for 'clean' strip joints, someone else can open that business and those customers can go there."
My point is that people act like this is some big special violation of rights and that it's the first time it's ever happened to business owners. In reality a business owner has lots of little restrictions. Every day he has to bend to state and city ordinances. It's legal to watch porn in my own home, but I can't put it on the TV at the pool hall. I can spit in my own kitchen, but he can't spit in his. I can be visibly drunk and I can have all the smoke I want in my own home, but he can't at his business.
Suddenly smokers start pretending to care about 'property rights' when before the bans they could give two shits about the topic. To be fair, at least one other poster in the thread was a nonsmoker but was still bothered by it. But I think he's not seeing that these kinds of conflicts between law and business are pretty routine, and the time to start arguing about them was 100 years ago.
-------------
lol, not sure how you got guns or violence into this thread. I never said anything about your position reflecting any violence. I think we got enough to argue about, let's stick to smoking.
btw: my point about the 'you can live somewhere else' is that it's shitty to be voted off the island whether it's on a large scale (you have to move to another state or city) or a small scale (you have to play at another pool hall).
CreeDo said:lol, I carefully read and point out the flaws in your arguments and you come back with "you ignore my points and I refuted everything you said!" Then you say some of the wackiest shit I've seen since since I last watched cheech and chong.
I'll try to use shorter, simpler, and smaller words.
You say: "u cant just 'vote people off the island' with ur mean laws! it goes against liberty!"
I say: "isn't forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke 'voting them off the island' too?
You say: "you dunno what ur saying about the constitution and rights!"
I say: "Neither of those words belongs in this argument. Nothing written in any legal document spells out rights to smoke or rights of a business owner. Oh, but you disagree! You found a relevant quote in the constitution (which has nothing to do with this argument)!
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
That phrase is so vague, anyone can twist it to mean anything they want. I can say "they were thinking of obvious rights like the right to have clean air everywhere". You can say "no, they were thinking of obvious rights like a business owner's rights to set his own policies about things like smoking." Some other guy can say "they were thinking about our right to look at any porn we want, even if it has little kids in it" ... some other guy can say "that phrase is talking about the right to open casinos anywhere".
Can you understand now why I keep trying to steer us away from arguments about 'rights' and 'constitution'? But you keep circling back to them like a fly butting his head against the glass over and over, wondering why he can't get outside.
Your last point, if I understand it, is:
"the state is forcing a stupid law on business owner! and u support that law! and if he doesn't agree with that law he gets jail and fines! That is like VIOLENCE against him! U r support violence against another person! I m not! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, UR SIDE = UNREASONABLE AND VIOLENT AND MY SIDE = REASONABLE AND PEACEFUL, THERE4 MY SIDE MUST BE THE RITE 1!!!!"
Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages.
Honestly I've been wasting upwards of an hour a day in this thread and it's starting to wear on my patience. I don't understand how anyone can be careless enough about their health to smoke at all, much less rude enough to smoke around other people who are bothered by it, not to mention rude enough to suggest the nonsmokers (who are the majority) should find another place to play pool just to humor the smoking minority. You're asking us to travel to another building when we're just asking you to step outside before lighting up? And yet you talk as if you're being bullied? lol, horseshit.
I'm gonna force myself to quit this thread, because it's developing into an unhealthy habit for me and may be bothering other people![]()
CreeDo said:You say: "you dunno what ur saying about the constitution and rights!"
I say: "Neither of those words belongs in this argument. Nothing written in any legal document spells out rights to smoke or rights of a business owner. Oh, but you disagree! You found a relevant quote in the constitution (which has nothing to do with this argument)!
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
That phrase is so vague, anyone can twist it to mean anything they want. I can say "they were thinking of obvious rights like the right to have clean air everywhere". You can say "no, they were thinking of obvious rights like a business owner's rights to set his own policies about things like smoking." Some other guy can say "they were thinking about our right to look at any porn we want, even if it has little kids in it" ... some other guy can say "that phrase is talking about the right to open casinos anywhere".
CreeDo said:lol, I carefully read and point out the flaws in your arguments and you come back with "you ignore my points and I refuted everything you said!" Then you say some of the wackiest shit I've seen since since I last watched cheech and chong.
CreeDo said:I'll try to use shorter, simpler, and smaller words.
You say: "u cant just 'vote people off the island' with ur mean laws! it goes against liberty!"
I say: "isn't forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke 'voting them off the island' too?
CreeDo said:Your last point, if I understand it, is:
"the state is forcing a stupid law on business owner! and u support that law! and if he doesn't agree with that law he gets jail and fines! That is like VIOLENCE against him! U r support violence against another person! I m not! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, UR SIDE = UNREASONABLE AND VIOLENT AND MY SIDE = REASONABLE AND PEACEFUL, THERE4 MY SIDE MUST BE THE RITE 1!!!!"
Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages.
CreeDo said:Honestly I've been wasting upwards of an hour a day in this thread and it's starting to wear on my patience. I don't understand how anyone can be careless enough about their health to smoke at all, much less rude enough to smoke around other people who are bothered by it, not to mention rude enough to suggest the nonsmokers (who are the majority) should find another place to play pool just to humor the smoking minority. You're asking us to travel to another building when we're just asking you to step outside before lighting up? And yet you talk as if you're being bullied? lol, horseshit.
I'm gonna force myself to quit this thread, because it's developing into an unhealthy habit for me and may be bothering other people
Jimmy M. said:Hi Creedo. Quitting now might not be such a bad idea. It will never end.The bottom line is, business owners "own" the right to do business according to the law. No matter the business, there are laws governing it. However, with your selection of debate partners, that is a point that will continue be garbled and lost in all of the tit-for-tat nonsense. It's a good debate tactic, really; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t. Heh. I made this very point in another thread and Jeff started hitting me with references to Dostoevsky. It was actually pretty funny. In fact, I printed some of that conversation and passed it around to some of the people at my office. We all got a pretty good laugh out of it. I guess I should say, "thanks". Office life can be a bit boring some times without some form of humor.
The good news is, if you live in a state where indoor smoking is allowed, and that's the way you like it, then you still have a chance to vote, start petitions, or whatever you want to do, to try to keep it that way. If you live in a state where indoor smoking is not allowed, and you like it that way, you can just be happy knowing that you can go wherever you want now and not have to breathe anyone else's smoke. If you live in a state where you don't agree with the smoking law, then I don't know what you can do other than "choose" to deal with it, become some sort of activist for your cause, or move to a state where you agree with the law. Or you can just choose to b*tch about it in a billiards forum where your voice can REALLY be heard.![]()
CreeDo said:(snip) Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages. (snip)
chefjeff said:Here's something that you and your co-workers can use to relieve about five minutes of boredom. It is relaxing and informative:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
Jeff Livingston
Jimmy M. said:It doesn't have the same uplifting effect on office morale as your posts in that last "smoking" thread that I made reference to. I'll stick to passing the more "lighthearted stuff" around to my co-workers
I'm still not sure where property rights come into this argument though. Like, the pool room owners, in most cases, OWN their tables, right? So they could do whatever they want with those tables (unless they want to use them for some other illegal activity - like dropping them off a building onto someone's head). They could chop them into bits and that would be fine. What is it that they OWN that their property rights are violated by an indoor smoking ban? Even if they own the building, you can't just buy a building then open whatever type of business that you want to open there. You still need the necessary permits to do business. Ahhh ... now we're getting somewhere. You purchase those permits/licenses/whatever "as is". You can't purchase them then change them to your will. In effect, you are purchasing the right to conduct your business. I could continue here, but do I really need to go on? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I KNOW you know how it works. I think you're just beating a dead horse because you have some insatiable lust for debate. I wouldn't mind being your debate partner from time to time but this one is dead. If it were a fight, they would have stopped it already (sjm, Las Vegas, 2007).
Next!
Edit: I just thought I'd add that, if I owned a bar and I honestly believed that a statewide smoking ban were going to hurt my business, I would probably be pissed off if such a ban were passed. However, without being in the situation myself, I still think that I could be rational enough to know that "property rights", while the argument might sound good to some, aren't really being violated. The right to conduct business, according to the law, isn't a piece of "property" that you can do with as you please. (emphasis is ChefJeff's)
chefjeff said:Now, as for the licensing requirements....This argument has been repeated here, yet never rationally justified. Licensing is another form of violent control. And it does little or nothing for safety of the customers. It is used mostly to protect established businesses from new competition. So, the licensing argument falls as flat as the anti-smoking arguments. If you want to get into that, we can...much study has been done in this area. It is the same principle, just a different subject.
Very well said and I couldn't agree more!MrLucky said:I applaud the day this happens! I fell sorry for the addicted smokers that cannot seem to break this nasty and unhealthy habit but perhaps a ban is what will help save their lives by forcing them away from the seduction of the money hungry Tobacco Corporation LobbiesI certainly know that it will make my pool hobby much more enjoyable and safer !