Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Air Up There

Smoking Airline 2006

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#61 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 15 July 2006 - 09:20 PM

View PostBroph, on Jul 15 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

Things happen fast on a plane. It's a pressurized, oxygenated environment. A fire that is started in a seat could easily engulf the cabin quickly.

Damn it! Didn't think about the pressurized oxygen...Alright, that could present a tad bit of a problem. Alright, as much as I hate to admit it...You got me about the falling asleep on a plane. Good point.

Altough I give fair warning....If I'm on a plane and the captain comes across the PA system and says "brace yourselves for emergency landing, cause we're going down." I'm lighting up. LOL
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#62 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 16 July 2006 - 02:15 AM

Quote

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.
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? That this fact needs to be "merely demonstrated", because disputing ONE law must mean ALL must be dispensed with? Are you kidding? :blink:

Quote

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.
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.

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. Does driving a bus and collecting fares get you blown up? I'm introducing a very specific set of circumstances, and you're carrying on as if they couldn't possibly exist.

Quote

That makes no sense. How did I get "impatient" when I merely replied to what you wrote?
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)

Quote

I'm sorry, but that's just dancing around the issue. You're not addressing anything that I said.
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.

Quote

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 have a better question...do you?

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."

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. Further examination will show I even said each regulation should be judged on its own individual merit. In general, I have no real problem with extending an argument to the logical conclusions it may imply for related issues. But then again...I'm not given to tossing around pretentious debate terminology. There are much better ways to expose a poorly reasoned argument.

I could go on and respond to the rest of your post but it'll save time if you just digest what I've already written, and see if agreeing to disagree on what constitutes reasonable government regulation will satisfy. One thing you wrote at the end does deserve special attention though:

Quote

Should they also have the option of working in hazardous waste, or underwater, or on the moon?
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. :p

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 16 July 2006 - 02:23 AM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#63 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 July 2006 - 06:55 AM

View Postscherzo, 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.

Quote

That this fact needs to be "merely demonstrated", because disputing ONE law must mean ALL must be dispensed with? Are you kidding? :blink:

OK, seriously, I have no idea what you're saying there. Who is saying what about dispensing laws?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

I have a better question...do you?

Um, yes. I clearly showed how your arguments were strawman arguments.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Further examination will show I even said each regulation should be judged on its own individual merit.

Ah, but when did you say that?

Quote

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.

Quote

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. :p

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.


#64 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 16 July 2006 - 10:18 AM

Gentlemen, lets not make this personal, please. Consider this an Official Cool It, please.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#65 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 16 July 2006 - 11:22 AM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Jul 14 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

Quote

Broph: Just yesterday I saw a guy smoking in an open area that is clearly marked as "no smoking".
A friend of mine helps run a small airfield operation.  They do a annual community festival at the airport.  Every year they have to chase away people who are smoking over the avgas bunkers despite the countless signs and warnings about explosion hazards.
The day before yesterday a Jeepfull of kids pulled up to a gas station as I was pulling out.  Probably I would have been less forceful in my remarks to the idiot who was puffing away if I hadn't been leaving anyway.  Maybe.   :suspect:  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Airline, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users