We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline

quote:

---

Phew! What a relief. That you took so long to comment had me worried. I went over what I'd said a hundred times and began to think that I had offended you.

​

Glad you're back.

---

If I'm offended, I have no probelem telling someone, don't worry.Beyond that, among friends I'm pretty hard to offend.I just don't get to every thread every day. I've also been out out computer contact for the last few days.Not to worry!

quote:

---

In some ideal world, maybe we could compare the effect of a loving, stable, single parent home with the effect of a loving, stable traditional couple home.

---

I'd like to point out that your use of the word "traditional" in the above is not accurate.The idea of a mother and a father and their children as representative of a "traditional" family setting is really mythical. It is something that has never been the norm of human society but was sold to us as the "one, true, natural" family structure in the West starting less than 100 years ago I'd estimate.In Victorian times we used to live in large extended families, and the same is true in frontier and farming families during that time and previous.A farmer's wife wasn't just taking care of the kids all day while he was in the field; she had to tend to the running of the household, the large kitchen garden that fed them, and the preserving of the harvest to sustain them over the winter. Often a grandmother or older siblings or maiden aunts lived there and took care of the babies while the mother worked all day.The idea that it's "natural" for a simgle woman and a single man to raise a bunch of children all by themselves is anything but.

quote:

---

sex...don't want to spoil the surprise for you but its real good...even when its bad..its good..

---

Uh, I have to say that bad sex is just bad...

quote:

---

Are you just objecting to my use of the word "traditional"? This is the second time this has been pointed out to me. Is it just because of how I'm saying things, or does it have an application to my general point?

---

Well, in my post I was objecting to your use of the word "traditional" with regards to families in your posts. You seem to imply that a father and a mother with children, the so-called "nuclear family", was "traditional", or "the norm".Truthfully, it puzzled me that you said this because I know your own chosen living situation is much closer to the actual traditional family arrangement.It also puzzles me that, despite your own living arrangement in which lots of various adults, not just the mother and the father, participate in the upbringing and care of the children in your community, you still insist that to have the the birth mother and birth father be the primary parenters is gravely important.Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

quote:

---

You're not much fun at a bar, are you? I mean... if you're trying to suggest the only purpose of a bar is to serve you a drink and then clear you on your way, you can't be much of a bar guy.

---

I think that the purpose of a bar is to get together with friends, have a drink, and hang out.I have many non-smoking friends and we constantly bemoan the fact that there is no such thing as a non-smoking bar in our community.I enjoy having an occasional drink, and I love to hang out, but I rarely do so at a bar anymore because I can't stand the smoke.I used to go to out dancing, too, but I can't bring myself to do so anymore because I feel like I am trying to perform an aerobic workout in the middle of a burning building.Anyway, more and more non-smoking bars and nightclubs are popping up all over the country, and I and a bunch of my friends will be very pleased.

quote:

---

Get your nose out of my face, you won't get hit

---

Hold on a minute.I know you put a smiley face at the end of this statement, but there is a real point here.Are you saying that your right to smoke supercedes my right to breathe smoke-free air?So, if you decide to smoke in a public place (where there are lots of people and you don't know how many people around you mind if you smoke) and I don't like it (maybe I'm preganant or have asthma, or I just want to avoid the second-hand smoke), I'm the one who has to move away from you?Why should I be the one to go have to find clean air when you are the polluter who has invaded the available clean air around me?(I'd like to mention that this happens all the time)

quote:

---

If you are in a bar which allows smoking, then you have intentionally gone to a smoke-filled area. The smoke-filled area has not come to you. Nobody invaded anything around you.

​

That's your call. If you don't want to be in a smoke-filled area, don't seek one out.

---

I'm not talking about a bar. I tend to lean towards agreeing with you specifically about the bar/smoking issue. Bars are well-known to be places where people go to smoke and drink. Basically, it's where we go to consume all the legal recreational drugs.I'm talking about public places and public gatherings in general, though.Do you believe that if you feel like smoking while in a crowd at a concert or an outdoor festival, for example, and there is no specific ban on smoking but no "tradition" or "expectation" of being around smoke like at a bar, that everyone else should be required to move away from your smoke if they don't want to breathe or smell it, rather than you having to move away from everybody else before you light up?Imagine you had a machine strapped to your body that emitted low-concentration poisonous (but pleasure-producing for you) gas which can reach many feet around you. It is well known and well documented that exposure to this gas causes illness, possibly deadly, in some people when they are exposed to it over time. Not to mention it smells really bad and makes other people's eyes, nose and throat burn.Are you saying that it is your right to emit this poison gas regardless of who is around you and if they want to be exposed to this poison gas or not?Are you saying that the government should not act to keep you from emitting this poison gas in office buildings, restaurants, busses, airplanes, airports, hospitals, movie theaters, etc.?Smoke-free air is the default.You have no right to turn me into a smoker against my will just because you want to smoke and I happen to be near you.That's why smoking is banned in most public places regardless of private ownership.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2003]

quote:

---

I constantly bemoan the fact that there is no Indian restaurant in my community. I love Indian food.

​

So?

---

This isn't a direct analogy.A more direct one would be if there were lots of Indian restaurants in your community but they all allowed smoking and were constantly filled with smoke.This would mean that you would be fine with going to the Indian restaurant but I would avoid it because I can't stand the smoke.

quote:

---

It's a tough question. My self-interest says, "YEAH! YEAH, I DO! THINK SO!" But honestly, logically, no. If I'm in a crowd of people, I move away from the crowd before lighting up.

---

I'm glad to hear it.You are very much in the minority, as a smoker, in my personal experience.Most smokers, in my experience, have little concept or care of how their smoking affects other people when those people are in a crowd of strangers.I frankly believe that, since nicotine addiction is similar in strength to heroin addiction, smokers are often nearly as irrational, defensive, and inconsiderate as heroin addicts when it comes to getting their fix.

quote:

---

The addiction is part of it, sure. But another big part is when, for example, somebody tries to come along and outlaw smoking in bars. The smoker's reaction is, "Oh, come ON! No smoking in BARS now? Are you freakin' kidding me? That's it, I'm smoking every god-damned place I can. And if you don't like it, EAT IT."

​

Is it the most rational response in the world? Nah. But damn satisfying, in a juvenile way.

---

I get you.But don't you also think that this juvenile overreaction is, in part, the addiction talking?I mean, replace "smoking" with "wearing a machine that emits poison gas", and it doesn't seem so ridiculous to make you stop, does it?

quote:

---

Well, that just gets us right back into the whole debate, doesn't it? And as always, if the place you want to wear it is at a poison gas machine expo, then yeah. I think it is pretty ridiculous.

---

Of course.At a tobacco or smoking festival, I would expect to see lots of people smoking and if I were to go I would not complain about anybody's second hand smoke.I would also pretty much accept that a bar is another place where smoking is to be expected, just due to the culture, although non-smoking bars can and do exist and are successful.However, nowhere else is it part and parcel of the experience, I don't think, and the smoker shouldn't assume that just because he or she is outside, for example, that the people around him or her don't mind that they are smoking near them.I really just think that smokers needing their drug tend to not care who they bother or injure because the emotional anxiety and physical discomfort they experience when in withdrawl or having cravings is much greater than their concern for others' comfort or health.When you add to that the legality of adult smoking and the ready availability to tobacco, I am very grateful every day to the elected officials who passed the laws to stop smoking in nearly every public space.The fact that smokers in these post-smoking ban days can and do manage to sit through and entire movie without lighting up, for instance, means that they didn't absolutely HAVE to smoke in the first place. They just wanted to and didn't care about all the non smokers around them.I support everyone's right to smoke 100% just so long as someone's smoking doesn't interfere with my right to breathe smoke-free air.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2003]

quote:

---

For the most part, I'm with you. What I don't understand, though, is why a lot of people feel there can't be, for instance, a smoking movie theater. If the understanding before you go in is that one of the services available at the theater is the ability to smoke, what's the harm? Don't go there if you don't want a room full of smoke!

​

I'm not saying there shouldn't be non-smoking theaters as well. Far from it. I'm just wondering why it's an all or nothing proposition. As I've been saying throughout this thread, if there's really enough adamant demand for non-smoking businesses, what the Hell do we need a law for?

---

The reason we need a law is for the previously-stated reasons.Smoke-free air is the default.Smokers, as history shows, generally don't care who is around them in a smoking-optional place. They will smoke if allowed, which automatically makes everyone around them passive smokers, and passive smoking is known to cause deadly illness.These laws save states lots of money because they don't have to pay out as much in medical costs to people who have worked in passive smoke environments for decades and subsequently contract lung disease or cancer. It's also much cleaner and much less stinky to have smoke-free environments, so cleaning costs go down, particularly in historic or ornate theaters. I would imagine that removal of smoking also removes a large fire liability so insurance rates go down for the theater owners, not to mention they eliminate the holes burned in their seat cushions.It's not my problem that some people have gotten themselves addicted to nicotine and that their choice of drug delivery involves burning tobacco and blowing the dangerous smoke all around them.I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to accomodate such people any more than I should have to accomodate people who choose to wear poison gas emitters everywhere they go.As for why there can't be smoking movie theaters, I would imagine that is because in many communities across the country, there is only one movie theater.

quote:

---

If someone started a smoking lounge that was open to the public, would you object? Or would you just not go to the smoking lounge?

​

If that smoking lounge served drinks or food, or showed movies, would you object? If that smoking lounge happened to be shaped like a bar, restaurant, or movie theater, why would you care?

---

As long as the stated main purpose of the place is to smoke there, I don't care.However, what you are describing is different from a movie theater, the main purpose of which is to show movies, which also allows smoking.Basically, any business that allows smoking effectively becomes a smoking lounge no matter if that is its stated main purpose or not, which is the reason for the laws, I'm thinking.

quote:

---

So... let me see if I have this straight... If a local Hoyts theater allows smoking you have a problem? But if it changes its name to "Hoyts Smoking Lounge" you don't have a problem? Even if it's the exact same business?

---

As long as the main thing people are meant to do there is lounge and smoke, not watch movies, then no, I don't have a problem.I doubt that they would be able to afford to screen "Return of the King" if they allowed smoking except maybe in a couple of years when it goes to second run theaters.I don't think they would get enough people there because of the smoke.

As long as I can't smell it, I wouldn't care.