scherzo, on Jul 16 2006, 07:15 AM, said:
Do you honestly think questioning the efficacy of new, very specific restrictions on business owners, means I don't know some regulations are in place already Broph?
Your statement regarding the freedom of the business connoted that you considered the freedom of the business owner to be universal and absolute.
That this fact needs to be "merely demonstrated"
, because disputing ONE law must mean ALL must be dispensed with? Are you kidding?
OK, seriously, I have no idea what you're saying there. Who is saying what about dispensing laws?
Uh yah...breathing secondhand smoke would be a potential hazard for a waitress working in a smoker friendly establishment. The danger is "directly related" to the job. This is indisputable.
I don't think you understood the examples I gave above. Making a place "smoking" does not change the job of a waitress; she still takes orders and brings food. Only dangers of taking orders and bringing food (i.e. dropping a plate on her foot) are directly related
to the job of being a waitress. Breathing in second-hand smoke, just because you give an example of making the establishment a smoking one, is not directly related
to her job. If I take away bringing food - if she only takes orders, then she is no longer a waitress, right? If I take away the smoke, is she still a waitress? Of course she is. Therefore, there is nothing in the breathing of second-hand smoke that is directly related
to being a waitress.
Is it the job "title" itself you're stuck on? You should know that "jobs" will incur different levels of risk depending on where the work is being performed. For instance driving a bus is significantly safer in Nassau County Long Island than it is in Downtown Jerusalem.
The risk that you mention is due to being a resident
of that area; it has nothing to do with the job itself.
I'm introducing a very specific set of circumstances, and you're carrying on as if they couldn't possibly exist.
That's disingenuous. I'm merely pointing out that the job still exists if one removes smoking, which is easily possible. You're trying to say that smoking is part of the job and can't be separated. It can be.
Because in trying so desperately to pick apart individual "sentences", you're losing focus on what's actually being said.(hint: try reading entire paragraphs before launching into a counterpoint against absolutely nothing)
Again, you're not really saying anything here. Trying to claim that I'm "desparate" is just another debating tactic. You say vague things and give generalities. When I reply to your sentences, I address key points. When I address a sentence individually, I do it because if I copy and paste an entire paragraph, someone may not understand the specific issue in an individual statement that I'm addressing. Anyone reading the exchange is clearly able to go back to your earlier paragraph and read it in its entirety.
Now please, stop with the personal attacks and address the actual issues.
Sure I have. I'll encapsulate it for ya: "Anti smoking regulations against private business owners, is an unnecessary government encroachment on personal freedom." I'll even add an addendum for anyone who pretends to need one: "This does not mean all regulation is the work of Satan" You think the crackdown is peachy keen, and that's perfectly ok. But if you think the health nanny's ongoing crusade will stop with cigarettes, you're honestly...just not paying attention.
See, again, you're going into personal attacks, hyperbole, etc. How can one "just not [be] paying attention" when you haven't given a single example of an extension of this "crackdown" going beyond smoking? You've guessed that it might, but you've certainly not shown any examples, yet you claim that if others don't see it then they're not "paying attention". Sorry, but the responsibility to show such abuse is on your side.
I have a better question...do you?
Um, yes. I clearly showed how your arguments were strawman arguments.
Don't bother answering. You're next paragraph more or less illustrates that you either, have only a vague idea of what a strawman actually is, or just have no sense of irony in when you choose to use the technique yourself. For the record, a "strawman" is a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's position. You attribute that position to him falsely...then easily shoot it down.
Perfect example of same:
Broph: "I merely showed the flaw in your statement that you somehow thought businesses had limitless freedoms in their pursuits."
That's not a strawman. Go back in the history and re-read what you wrote about businesses having freedom.
I guess the biggest problem with THIS strawman,(besides the fact that I never came within stadium distance of saying anything like the above) is I already clearly said I don't support anarchy.
"I don't support anarchy". Thank you for clearly giving an easily recognizable strawman. That illustrates the idea perfectly.
Further examination will show I even said each regulation should be judged on its own individual merit.
Ah, but when
did you say that?
But then again...I'm not given to tossing around pretentious debate terminology. There are much better ways to expose a poorly reasoned argument.
Hey, I can't help it if your arguments are poorly reasoned. I merely pointed out the flaw with the logic, that's all. I'd rather actually debate the subject at hand, but you seem to be more concerned with terminology.
I feel like I should let you know there are people who have(and still do in the case of 2 of the 3) worked in these conditions, but I'm afraid you'll go out and start a protest rally on their behalf.
And again, I point out, that the people who work(ed) under these conditions had those conditions as inherent parts of their job
Edited by Broph, 16 July 2006 - 06:56 AM.