We are not animals, we are civilized and do not eat our young.
Jim
Wait what? But I already fired up the grill... damnit!
poolhall smoking
- Thread starter donny mills
- Start date
Wait what? But I already fired up the grill... damnit!
So, can you give a reasonable, safe, and fair method for decision making when there are multiple factions and opinions? Pistols or swords?
What if I want to my neighbors car and I am bigger, stronger and more powerful than he? Without the rule of law....I win.
Even primal tribes have rules that protect the general good.
We are not animals, we are civilized and do not eat our young. Jim
Sorry, I meant to say "some of us do not eat our young". :wink:
Jim
What if I want to my neighbors car and I am bigger, stronger and more powerful than he? Without the rule of law....I win.
Even primal tribes have rules that protect the general good.
We are not animals, we are civilized and do not eat our young. Jim
Sorry, I meant to say "some of us do not eat our young". :wink:
Jim
I would like to give you props here. This format you have presented is the first thing I've seen in this thread that actually resembles a logical argument. What I mean by that is that it follows the basic structure of offering premises (statements that are *assumed* to be agreed upon) and then creates conclusions that follow from the premises. If you ever take a class in formal logic, this is the way you would be taught to argue.
Now, it is important to point out that one can make a logical argument that is based entirely on premises that are *false*. Likewise, it is possible to build a logical argument in which the conclusion is also false. Whether or not I agree with an argument has nothing to do with whether it is logical. Likewise, whether or not the conclusion or any of the premises are true has nothing to do with if it is logical. Here is an example of an argument that is false but logical:
-one item shall be counted as one. (premise)
-two items shall be counted as three. (premise)
-I have one item (given)
-I also have two items (given)
-I do not have any additional items (given)
-Therefore I have 4 items (conclusion)
If you take a look at this, the person who doesn't understand what logic is will say that the argument "makes no sense", which correctly translated means "is illogical". This is wrong however. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, thus the conclusion is logical. The flaw with this argument is in the premises. We need to throw out the premise "two items shall be counted as three", because this is incorrect. Two items are counted as *two*. So this is an example where the argument given is logical and valid, but rests on a premise that is false. Whoever makes this argument needs to abandon it when it is pointed out that one of the premises is false.
If you apply this sort of thinking to the above argument, a few things become clear: Many of the premises listed certainly require additional exposition and discussion. The biggest issue, however, is that the argument doesn't take into consideration the *purpose* for public gatherings in many circumstances. In other words, a professional boxing match quite clearly involves hurting another person. If this *didn't* happen, the fans that paid their money to be their would be upset! So in the example of a boxing match breaks down the above argument. Likewise, take the example of a mosh pit at an outdoor concert. Many people that participate in a mosh pit do so because they find the violence of it enjoyable and exhilarating. One is not force (well, hopefully) to participate in a mosh pit. However, if one does, they should do so with the expectation that it may result in them being injured or injuring someone else. It should now be clear that this leads to the smoking idea. When one enters an establishment that allows smoking, they should do so with the expectation that they will be exposed to smoke. Thus, the conclusion that "there ought to be a law" becomes illogical when you introduce the premise "one ought to operate under the laws and conduct regulations of the situation or establishment one enters." Because this naturally gives rise to the premise "certain establishments open to the public allow smoking". Also, in response to the conclusion "there ought to be a law", it might be useful to point out that in most places there *are* laws that target this exact thing. Some of those laws are that "one may not smoke in a public place", and in other places the LAW is "one *may* smoke in a public place".
I am only using the above post as an example. Absolutely no disrespect intended to Jim S. In fact, I am trying to give you a compliment for formatting your post in the form of a logical argument. Nice job!! I agree with your conclusion, but would like to see how we might all bring forth the necessary premises to support it and present them in a logical way. That would be fun (for me anyway...not sure about everyone else).
Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thanks for the great post!!
KMRUNOUT
Jeff,
With all due respect, I don't think you get it. You sound stuck on an ideal that while interesting and possibly appealing on its own, is quite unrealistic in the context of a society. Your ideal requires that people always do the right thing to their fellow person in order to work. This doesn't always happen in reality though. You spell out a slippery slope of control. Any slippery slope is only worth mentioning if you are implying that the first step on that slope is a mistake. Are you implying that the very first step of any kind of regulation of any kind is a mistake? For example, laws against blasting a fog horn at 3 am every night in a quiet neighborhood? Think that through...I'd like to hear what you think.
Thank you,
KMRUNOUT
Like a gun in your face Jeff? Is that what you need to be "controlled" by someone else? Cause you keep bringing that idea up. Simple courtesy isn't sufficient?
Ok, but what prohibits Michael's owner from paying Joe's Good Food Insurance Agency for the A+ rating? If Joe is a private individual, then Joe has something to gain (potential tangible property in the form of money) by a bribe. In therory, the government, not being a private individual, ought to have nothing to gain, because the government should not own any property. (I know I know, keyword "should")
KMRUNOUT
sausage
Banned
there are several issues here that are getting all mixed into one argument..... despite what our lovely gov says, people have the ultimate authority to do whatever they wish to do with their own bodies. that includes eating bad food, taking illegal drugs, drinking and yes, smoking. most rational people agree that smoking in places where other, non-smokers MUST go, like on a train, an airplane, the DMV et., should not be allowed. the only real argument is: do smokers have the right to foul the air of a private business where the public can simply opt not to go? the libertarian in me says, YES, they do have that right and we have the right to take our business elsewhere. the argument gets more dodgy when kids enter the equation.... i was at a SMOKEY pool hall in north dallAss and in walked a nice young couple with a newborn baby. i couldn't believe it. the baby was basically put in an unsafe environment and had no way to opt out. is this child abuse or neglect?
Jeff,
Sounds like a good idea. Let me know when you have successfully established your own state that offers the situation you are after. Until then, you are living in *this* state. *This* state has a system of laws because that is what the "members" of this state have decided upon. I am ok with laws. So, apparently, are most of the other people here. If you want to live in a lawless state, you are going to need to go somewhere else. Though I'm pretty sure all the other places are already claimed. Perhaps, then, that an already existing state has the kind of arrangement you are after. Can you think of any? I can't.
KMRUNOUT
I don't assume that business owners are smart or moral or whatever. They're just people, like you and me....just like those in govt. who currently run the safety codes systems, btw.
As people, they are of course able to screw up....big time! In a business environment, these screw-ups are costly. Therefore, being selfish and greedy, these business people have incentives to not screw-up, right? That is, if they make trouble for their customers instead of solving it, the businesses don't survive or prosper. That is the controlling element in business. In govt, the controlling element is the gun.
It just depends which side of it you want it on.
Jeff Livingston
Jeff,
We both know that the government per say does not establish codes. they only enact the codes laid out by experts in the field and brought to legislation by representatives. :wink:
Also, have you considered that the flip side of your second paragraph is that the foolish greedy people have an incentive to *gamble*. They have an incentive to take a chance that their shoddy inexpensive wiring will hold up. If they win, they make a profit over the cost of proper wiring. If they lose, they are either exposed as incompetent, or worse, bring serious harm to the customers who unknowingly frequent that establishment. Why do you think casinos are popular? People like the idea of something for nothing. The casino offers the attraction of paying a little to win a lot. I personally do not want the house to win when it comes to my personal safety and the safety of others.
KMRUNOUT
And those state legislators got their jobs how?
sausage
Banned
sure, the masses might vote in slavery too if given the chance but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. this nation was based on the premise that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority. people have the right to take drugs. do they have the right to take them in a private business where the public at large is not required to go? YES because when enough people get smart to the dangers of second hand smoke, they will open a NON-SMOKING pool hall and everyone will play pool happily ever after..
lol, this post should be a sticky.
I would direct people to read this wiki entry as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Here's my favorite fallacious arguement from the article
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness
Both true.
Sources? Sounds like this is your idea, without any real data to back it up.
Neither. These are both wrong. The state, in theory, should not own anything. "ME" is a concept that involves not only my body but my thoughts and mind. This is something that no one owns-certainly not the state. However, to say that "I own me" is a little ridiculous, because when I die, I not only stop owning me, "me" disintegrates. I control my own actions, and the state imposes regulations against certain of those actions. The state enforces these regulations and may imprison or otherwise harm or control me. That's it.
Not true. Certainly not true just because you say so. I believe that the state can and does determine to *some* extent what I ingest. I cannot ingest cocaine whenever I want to. I believe that I am part of the state, and the state is part of me. Neither "owns" the other.
This is what is called "hyperbole". We have not determined that at all. We have clearly established that a property owner absolutely *can* determine the use of their own property WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAWS IN EFFECT REGARDING THAT PROPERTY. For example, I can choose who to invite into my home. That choice is mediated only by (legal) a court ordered warrant to enter or (illegal) anyones choice to forcibly enter my home. So I do not need to ever invite a non-smoker into my home if I don't want to. I believe that a homeowner has the right to smoke in their own home, but might face additional consequences as a result of exercising that right, such as higher insurance premiums, health problems that place a burden on the scarce medical resources we have, and harm caused to other members of that household.
I agree that this situation requires a good deal of thought. I have thought quite a lot about it over the course of my life, and have determined that a society with laws is better than a society without laws. Likewise, I have determined that no everyone is capable of successfully exercising their own freedom without negatively impacting the freedom of others.
KMRUNOUT
I remember smoking and drinking with a girl in a bar that was in a restaurant. We were having a good time when a woman with a 2 year old in her arms walked up to us and said,
"I would really appreciate it if you two would not use the f word because my child is starting to learn words and I can tell you that because I work here."
I asked her why she brought her child into a smokey bar.
The bottom line is the govt knows that people will bring innocent children into smoke filled rooms. They know that poor waitresses, bartenders, casino dealers etc WILL take jobs in a smokey room. They know non-smokers will go to bars and pool rooms for fun even though it is sacrificing their health.
Yes, in a perfect world all of these people would make the right decision to not enter smoke-filled establishments but the govt knows that is not reality and will never happen.
So they made a decision to protect all the people with bad judgment (practically everyone) from cancer and stench by having smokers go outside and socialize while they smoke which is a very small sacrifice for the greater good.
Yes I'm very proud of the state of Washington Govt. Well played.
"I would really appreciate it if you two would not use the f word because my child is starting to learn words and I can tell you that because I work here."
I asked her why she brought her child into a smokey bar.
The bottom line is the govt knows that people will bring innocent children into smoke filled rooms. They know that poor waitresses, bartenders, casino dealers etc WILL take jobs in a smokey room. They know non-smokers will go to bars and pool rooms for fun even though it is sacrificing their health.
Yes, in a perfect world all of these people would make the right decision to not enter smoke-filled establishments but the govt knows that is not reality and will never happen.
So they made a decision to protect all the people with bad judgment (practically everyone) from cancer and stench by having smokers go outside and socialize while they smoke which is a very small sacrifice for the greater good.
Yes I'm very proud of the state of Washington Govt. Well played.
Ha ha...thanks. That wiki entry was great. It should be required reading for anyone who wishes to know a little bit about logic and how it works. I have seriously considered starting a thread about this...
Great example, by the way!
KMRUNOUR
sure, the masses might vote in slavery too if given the chance but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. this nation was based on the premise that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority. people have the right to take drugs. do they have the right to take them in a private business where the public at large is not required to go? YES because when enough people get smart to the dangers of second hand smoke, they will open a NON-SMOKING pool hall and everyone will play pool happily ever after..
Correction: if the masses voted in slavery, it would indeed make it constitutional, since the constitution lays out the procedure for enacting laws and regulations. This is true, or course, unless the constitution specifically prohibits slavery, which I don't think it does. You are certainly right, however, that enacting the law does not make it *right*
Are you implying that cocaine should be legal? Just checking...
sure, the masses might vote in slavery too if given the chance but that doesn't make it right or constitutional. this nation was based on the premise that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of the minority. people have the right to take drugs. do they have the right to take them in a private business where the public at large is not required to go? YES because when enough people get smart to the dangers of second hand smoke, they will open a NON-SMOKING pool hall and everyone will play pool happily ever after..
Rep for understanding our republic.
LWW