scherzo, on Jul 14 2006, 10:51 PM, said:
Why the barrage of question marks, when the answer is already plain as day in the section you quoted Broph? I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation, misses the point.
You suggested that without smoking regulation that there is "freedom". I merely demonstrated that there are already numerous controls on business. This is no different.
I said each individual issue needs to be judged on it's own merits. Period. Going down a laundry list of what does and does not require regulation misses the point.
And the merit of this case is that non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe in the smoke of smokers.
No, it's a strawman because the danger the other professions have are directly related
to the job. Breathing in smoke is not directly related to the job. If carrying food and taking orders gave people lung cancer, then your argument would be valid; in reality, it's not.
The "argument" would come immediately after, but you got impatient.
That makes no sense. How did I get "impatient" when I merely replied to what you wrote?
Here's a case where quoting the entire statement could have been helpful. No need to rush it. There's plenty of time to work in all that strangely popular debate terminology.
I'm sorry, but that's just dancing around the issue. You're not addressing anything that I said.
Although I have to ask...is a person who's introduced "boom boxes", "shirtless guys", and finally "rogue paint flickers" to the mix...really in a position to start complaining about "straw men".
They're not straw men. Go to any family restaurant and you'll see a sign posted somewhere telling people that they have to wear shirts and shoes to enter. It's even in the movie "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" - "no shirt, no shoes, no dice", I believe that phrase goes. Obviously, there was a problem with people entering such establishments without shirts, people were upset about it and passed laws. Now shirts are worn in such places and notices are posted to inform people of the law. Do you understand what a strawman argument is?
I mean, basically your argument boils down to " if one thinks a business owner should be permitted to have smoking in his place, they must also think every other regulation should be thrown out to be consistent".
I said no such thing. I merely showed the flaw in your statement that you somehow thought businesses had limitless freedoms in their pursuits.
It sure would be in a restaurant where people are smoking I wager.
Nonsense. You're putting in conditions that have nothing to do with the job of being a waitress. A waitress in Hawaii may have to worry about sunburn whereas a waitress in Alaska would not. Does that make sunburn a risk of being a waitress? No. Same thing goes for smoking.
Can you fish for Alaska crab in the safety of your own backyard? No. The risk of being a fisherman who is trying to catch Alaska crab is that he or she sail in a boat in Alaska waters. The risk is inherent in the job. Do you see the difference?
Actually I think it'd be pretty difficult take food orders and not be exposed to smoke...in a restaurant where people smoke.
That's why you don't allow people to smoke!
You can't alter the specifics of the job, and still construct the argument you have.
But breathing in smoke is not a "specific of the job". The job is taking orders and serving food. You are the one introducing constructs that are not inherent
to the job.
Everyone has their own threshold for where they think personal freedom, should be reigned in by regulation for the greater good. I will say that the nanny instinct behind this particular crusade, is one we should take great care in implementing.
IMHO, you're ignoring the prior statements that showed that when smoking was banned, lung cancer and heart attack rates were reduced. That should be enough for everyone that it's not a "nanny instinct" but, in fact, a reality of the situation.
Trust me when I tell you the crackdown won't end with smokers
Sure it will.
Not this kid. I only think they should have the option.
Should they also have the option of working in hazardous waste, or underwater, or on the moon?