What if the gov't banned loud music because people could lose hearing. Is that right? What if some just wanted to go to church "for the people" not the music. Are they entitled to a music ban by the city?
no, don't be ridiculous... smoking is something that can be regulated and is NOT EASILY SUPPRESSED IF YOU MIND BEING AROUND IT... the sun on the other hand can be blocked by those who care relatively cheaply and easily with different clothes, a shade or sunscreen...
AHH you fell in this well thought out trap Paul... BTW I love ya and all I just laugh at your arguments.
You tell me don't be rediculous.... Indeed I think those who want to ban smoking are just as every bit rediculous. Secondly you mention the 2nd part of my two part trap, Protective measures people can take on their own to protect against UV rays such as Different clothes, a shade or sunscrean as you said.
The same can be done by non-smokers INDEED!
They can (1) avoid places of smoke alltogether
They can (2) wear a carbon mask to filter the smoke if they choose to go to a private business where smoke is present.
Just along the same lines as your very own solution for the UV wary people in the presence of the Sun.
The only argument that you can make is that the air is a public resource, but, Eugene, if your eyes get bsoodshot and you start convulsing because you're in a smoking area, the only thing I can say to you is: You're a big pussy.
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
To argue it is a valid point to ban smoking in a private place of business is just as much a level of nonsense as to think the city should ban sunshine with its harmful rays. Period... Just as silly an idea.
ahem... there IS an ordinance on loud music....(of course only in public places tho
in this situation however there still is an easy and cheap way to get around the problem: earplugs... your health would not be infringed upon and you would still be able to visit the church... whats more I'm sure something as easy to deal with such as loud music could be negotiated so that you wouldn't even need to wear your earplugs...
with smoking on the other hand there is no such quick fix... short of an O2 tank (which is much more expensive then earplugs) 2nd hand smoke still effects you and your freedoms... and even with an O2 tank (which is big a bulky and hard to carry around) you would still get the smell of smoke in your clothes and hair further infringing on your freedoms (and before you go nuts with saying we should ban people who don't bathe, I'm just pointing out the inconveniences you have to deal with in addition to the health risks )
The only argument that you can make is that the air is a public resource, but, Eugene, if your eyes get bsoodshot and you start convulsing because you're in a smoking area, the only thing I can say to you is: You're a big pussy.
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
you don't run your car in your office... when we start to get gasoline powered people movers inside office buildings then we will talk...
air is a public resource... but it is a very limited one indoors...
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
All of which fall under heavy regulations. And yes, wouldn't it be nice if all of those things were replaced with cleaner alternatives or at least placed far away from us? There's a reason why people employ the NIMB strategy when the cities and state want to build new oil refineries and powerplants.
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
Paul I respect your point of view very much. I am a person who looks at the arguments for or against something with everything I come across that is a "touchy" issue.
If nothing else we learn at least "why" we each carry our various points of view on either side of an issue when we discuss them what ever the issue may be.
I love to discuss issues and learn perspective from all sides of an issue.
Thanks for being a good sport and again I respect ya tons
They can (2) wear a carbon mask to filter the smoke if they choose to go to a private business where smoke is present.
Just along the same lines as your very own solution for the UV wary people in the presence of the Sun.
Fellowship
we cannot just not go to the bar because people are smoking there because smoke-free bars are few and far between (I will consede that this is a weak point, but the point still stands that the choice is being made for me instead of the other way around)
wearing a carbon mask (i did not know of this until now and i don't even know it will do the job, but regardless) is not the same as wearing different clothes or the other solutions i outlined until they make them stylishly and they are accepted at social gatherings without being labeled as weird... but then how would you consume your drink? or share a kiss? a mask will not do...
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
Eugene I have seen every reply to me directly or indirectly lately from yourself and I have noticed your direct measures to take cheap shots at me be it over my iBook or any other thread.
Here is the bottom line and maybe you will get it.
We discuss and argue as a duty for one thing and only one thing.
To give understanding to others as to why we carry our views.
When we argue a point no matter the side of an issue we communicate as to why we each come to our view.
At the end of the day we each take with us what we will.
There is no need for petty personal comments. Personal comments indicate a lack of maturity.
Paul I respect your point of view very much. I am a person who looks at the arguments for or against something with everything I come across that is a "touchy" issue.
If nothing else we learn at least "why" we each carry our various points of view on either side of an issue when we discuss them what ever the issue may be.
I love to discuss issues and learn perspective from all sides of an issue.
Thanks for being a good sport and again I respect ya tons
It is funny up here in Canada that cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, etc have banned smoking in public places and the Federal government is thinking about legalizing marijuana. I jus think that it is funny that they want to outlaw one thing and bring in another. It will be interesting to see in the next couple of years if our gov't will go ahead in legalizing it.
Ban the sun?????!! This is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at the argument for many reasons. It is illogical to speak about banning something of which no one person, city, country, planet can control. Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to install UV blocking glass, people are still going to have to go out into the environment. I consider it increadibly insulting and profoundly immoral when somenone exposes innocent people to carcinogenic fumes(think CANCER CAUSING!!!) that could ultimately cost people their lives. Case in point: In the news lately in Western Canada(where I live), is a women who has worked as a waitress for 20 or so years at a bar that until recently has never been smoke free. She was just recently diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life. It wasn't a genetic factor that caused it, Doctors determined it to be prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. Her story has been used in a Provincial stop-smoking campaign as a T.V. commercial.
The chances may be small that someone will die from second-hand smoke, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has happened and will happen in the future as long as smoking bans are not instituted and enforced.
Ban the sun?????!! This is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at the argument for many reasons. It is illogical to speak about banning something of which no one person, city, country, planet can control. Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to install UV blocking glass, people are still going to have to go out into the environment. I consider it increadibly insulting and profoundly immoral when somenone exposes innocent people to carcinogenic fumes(think CANCER CAUSING!!!) that could ultimately cost people their lives. Case in point: In the news lately in Western Canada(where I live), is a women who has worked as a waitress for 20 or so years at a bar that until recently has never been smoke free. She was just recently diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life. It wasn't a genetic factor that caused it, Doctors determined it to be prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. Her story has been used in a Provincial stop-smoking campaign as a T.V. commercial.
The chances may be small that someone will die from second-hand smoke, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has happened and will happen in the future as long as smoking bans are not instituted and enforced.
-Dual867
Please know with all seriousness and respect I do not make light of that waitress and what happened to her.
What I will say is this: She should not submit herself to a smoke filled environment for such a period of time.
Just as one should not submit theirselves to the sun as a lifeguard for 20 years and not expect the possibility of skin cancer.
I believe in personal choices. I do not buy the argument that nobody has a choice as to where they work or live for that matter.
I know people from the eastern european country of Romania who moved here no matter the cost to get away from the disaster of the leadership in their home country.
People CAN change their surroundings. I believe in people and their ability to choose to change their own circumstances.
What if the gov't banned loud music because people could lose hearing. Is that right? What if some just wanted to go to church "for the people" not the music. Are they entitled to a music ban by the city?
I laugh at such logic.
Fellowship
How many dB do you guys (or gals) run at your church? A 30 minute set at 95dB (which is about the upper limit on what we run at my church) once a week isn't going to do too much to your hearing.
i have to say, I am of two minds--I am a big proponent of personal rights, but I *do* prefer having a hell of a lot less smoke in my face in enclosed spaces. So I'm torn between an abstract ideal and a personal reality.
On the upside, I don't think this will **** up life around here--people will still go out. I have to say that I do like the traffic patterns created when people go outside to smoke, as there are more opportunities for talking one-on-one and changing group dynamics.
BUT I'm not one of the people who is now forced to go outside, so naturally I'm not as miffed about it.
BUT I'm not one of the people who is now forced to go outside, so naturally I'm not as miffed about it.
[Devil's advocate] ah yes, but now wont you be shut out of the increased opportunities for talking one-on-one? you will be missing a lot of the social interactions that are going to be going on outside... are you concerned about that?[/Devil's advocate]
"ah yes, but now wont you be shut out of the increased opportunities for talking one-on-one?"
No, I just choose to either tay in with folks who stay in, or go outside with the smokers at those intervals--I've been doing it for years, as i do a lot of work in the theater and am not a smoker.
Comments
I go to a church that plays LOUD music.
What if the gov't banned loud music because people could lose hearing. Is that right? What if some just wanted to go to church "for the people" not the music. Are they entitled to a music ban by the city?
I laugh at such logic.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Paul
no, don't be ridiculous... smoking is something that can be regulated and is NOT EASILY SUPPRESSED IF YOU MIND BEING AROUND IT... the sun on the other hand can be blocked by those who care relatively cheaply and easily with different clothes, a shade or sunscreen...
AHH you fell in this well thought out trap Paul... BTW I love ya and all I just laugh at your arguments.
You tell me don't be rediculous.... Indeed I think those who want to ban smoking are just as every bit rediculous. Secondly you mention the 2nd part of my two part trap, Protective measures people can take on their own to protect against UV rays such as Different clothes, a shade or sunscrean as you said.
The same can be done by non-smokers INDEED!
They can (1) avoid places of smoke alltogether
They can (2) wear a carbon mask to filter the smoke if they choose to go to a private business where smoke is present.
Just along the same lines as your very own solution for the UV wary people in the presence of the Sun.
Fellowship
The only argument that you can make is that the air is a public resource, but, Eugene, if your eyes get bsoodshot and you start convulsing because you're in a smoking area, the only thing I can say to you is: You're a big pussy.
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
Fellowship
A bar with smoke in it is like a water park with sunshine thus (evil UV rays)
? ? ?
Hmmmmm do we need to ban sunshine at water parks?
I mean it is not much to ask the business owners of water parks to streatch tarps across their parks as to shade the entire place.
I was just wondering
Fellowship
in this situation however there still is an easy and cheap way to get around the problem: earplugs... your health would not be infringed upon and you would still be able to visit the church... whats more I'm sure something as easy to deal with such as loud music could be negotiated so that you wouldn't even need to wear your earplugs...
with smoking on the other hand there is no such quick fix... short of an O2 tank (which is much more expensive then earplugs) 2nd hand smoke still effects you and your freedoms... and even with an O2 tank (which is big a bulky and hard to carry around) you would still get the smell of smoke in your clothes and hair further infringing on your freedoms (and before you go nuts with saying we should ban people who don't bathe, I'm just pointing out the inconveniences you have to deal with in addition to the health risks
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Banning smoking. . .what a step backwards.
The only argument that you can make is that the air is a public resource, but, Eugene, if your eyes get bsoodshot and you start convulsing because you're in a smoking area, the only thing I can say to you is: You're a big pussy.
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
you don't run your car in your office... when we start to get gasoline powered people movers inside office buildings then we will talk...
air is a public resource... but it is a very limited one indoors...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Yes smoking is a bad habit, it's a drug, and it annoys people, but unless you decide to ban SUVs, diesel engines, and fossil fuel powerplants, I don't know if you can justify an argument about making a ban on these things because they harm a public resource. Yet they are much more detrimental to your lungs than is smoking.
All of which fall under heavy regulations. And yes, wouldn't it be nice if all of those things were replaced with cleaner alternatives or at least placed far away from us? There's a reason why people employ the NIMB strategy when the cities and state want to build new oil refineries and powerplants.
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
If nothing else we learn at least "why" we each carry our various points of view on either side of an issue when we discuss them what ever the issue may be.
I love to discuss issues and learn perspective from all sides of an issue.
Thanks for being a good sport and again I respect ya tons
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The same can be done by non-smokers INDEED!
They can (1) avoid places of smoke alltogether
They can (2) wear a carbon mask to filter the smoke if they choose to go to a private business where smoke is present.
Just along the same lines as your very own solution for the UV wary people in the presence of the Sun.
Fellowship
we cannot just not go to the bar because people are smoking there because smoke-free bars are few and far between (I will consede that this is a weak point, but the point still stands that the choice is being made for me instead of the other way around)
wearing a carbon mask (i did not know of this until now and i don't even know it will do the job, but regardless) is not the same as wearing different clothes or the other solutions i outlined until they make them stylishly and they are accepted at social gatherings without being labeled as weird... but then how would you consume your drink? or share a kiss? a mask will not do...
Originally posted by Eugene
Here's the bigger question. Do you really want to agree with FCiB?
Eugene I have seen every reply to me directly or indirectly lately from yourself and I have noticed your direct measures to take cheap shots at me be it over my iBook or any other thread.
Here is the bottom line and maybe you will get it.
We discuss and argue as a duty for one thing and only one thing.
To give understanding to others as to why we carry our views.
When we argue a point no matter the side of an issue we communicate as to why we each come to our view.
At the end of the day we each take with us what we will.
There is no need for petty personal comments. Personal comments indicate a lack of maturity.
with respect,
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Paul I respect your point of view very much. I am a person who looks at the arguments for or against something with everything I come across that is a "touchy" issue.
If nothing else we learn at least "why" we each carry our various points of view on either side of an issue when we discuss them what ever the issue may be.
I love to discuss issues and learn perspective from all sides of an issue.
Thanks for being a good sport and again I respect ya tons
Fellowship
i understand completely FCiB
The chances may be small that someone will die from second-hand smoke, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has happened and will happen in the future as long as smoking bans are not instituted and enforced.
-Dual867
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
There is no need for petty personal comments. Personal comments indicate a lack of maturity.
with respect,
Fellowship
I'm pretty sure that was just a joke... can we get back to the issue? i want to go to sleep soon...
Originally posted by Dual867
Ban the sun?????!! This is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at the argument for many reasons. It is illogical to speak about banning something of which no one person, city, country, planet can control. Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to install UV blocking glass, people are still going to have to go out into the environment. I consider it increadibly insulting and profoundly immoral when somenone exposes innocent people to carcinogenic fumes(think CANCER CAUSING!!!) that could ultimately cost people their lives. Case in point: In the news lately in Western Canada(where I live), is a women who has worked as a waitress for 20 or so years at a bar that until recently has never been smoke free. She was just recently diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after never smoking a day in her life. It wasn't a genetic factor that caused it, Doctors determined it to be prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. Her story has been used in a Provincial stop-smoking campaign as a T.V. commercial.
The chances may be small that someone will die from second-hand smoke, but that doesn't negate the fact that it has happened and will happen in the future as long as smoking bans are not instituted and enforced.
-Dual867
Please know with all seriousness and respect I do not make light of that waitress and what happened to her.
What I will say is this: She should not submit herself to a smoke filled environment for such a period of time.
Just as one should not submit theirselves to the sun as a lifeguard for 20 years and not expect the possibility of skin cancer.
I believe in personal choices. I do not buy the argument that nobody has a choice as to where they work or live for that matter.
I know people from the eastern european country of Romania who moved here no matter the cost to get away from the disaster of the leadership in their home country.
People CAN change their surroundings. I believe in people and their ability to choose to change their own circumstances.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I think some of you all make poor arguments....
I go to a church that plays LOUD music.
What if the gov't banned loud music because people could lose hearing. Is that right? What if some just wanted to go to church "for the people" not the music. Are they entitled to a music ban by the city?
I laugh at such logic.
Fellowship
How many dB do you guys (or gals) run at your church? A 30 minute set at 95dB (which is about the upper limit on what we run at my church) once a week isn't going to do too much to your hearing.
i have to say, I am of two minds--I am a big proponent of personal rights, but I *do* prefer having a hell of a lot less smoke in my face in enclosed spaces. So I'm torn between an abstract ideal and a personal reality.
On the upside, I don't think this will **** up life around here--people will still go out. I have to say that I do like the traffic patterns created when people go outside to smoke, as there are more opportunities for talking one-on-one and changing group dynamics.
BUT I'm not one of the people who is now forced to go outside, so naturally I'm not as miffed about it.
Originally posted by mrmister
BUT I'm not one of the people who is now forced to go outside, so naturally I'm not as miffed about it.
[Devil's advocate] ah yes, but now wont you be shut out of the increased opportunities for talking one-on-one? you will be missing a lot of the social interactions that are going to be going on outside... are you concerned about that?[/Devil's advocate]
No, I just choose to either tay in with folks who stay in, or go outside with the smokers at those intervals--I've been doing it for years, as i do a lot of work in the theater and am not a smoker.