Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 253 (51703)
08-21-2003 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 6:13 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
What makes you think you've been invited?
Rrhain, you might like repeating yourself. I hate it. But one more time, just for you, I'll spell this out.
The bar is attempting to entice me to partake of their services by allowing smoking as one of their services. I choose to take them up on this enticement.
If you need it simpler than that, I'm afraid I can't help you.
quote:
I have just as much right to be there as you do.
Yes, you certainly do. And you have just as much right as me to leave if you don't like the conditions there, don't you?
quote:
Would you mind if I urinated in your drink?
Yes, I would mind. Which is why I don't frequent sex clubs where that sort of thing is encouraged. I choose to take my business to an environment that caters to me. As a result, I stick to bars with a strict "no pissing in other peoples' drinks" policy.
See how simple that is? I don't like the environment at a business... so I take my money elsewhere. Wotta concept.
quote:
The fact that other people are doing it doesn't mean you have permission.
True. The fact that the owner of the bar has given me permission is what gives me permission. You know how he/she has done so? By allowing smoking in his/her bar.
Does all this really need to be explained?
quote:
You can have one or the other but not both. That is, either all the places can be smoking or all the places can be smoke-free. It is an unviable position to be one when everybody else is the other.
Why is that? If there's really such a legion of bar patrons who want non-smoking bars, then wouldn't being the only non-smoking bar in town be a gold-mine?
That is, of course, if the patrons actually want a non-smoking bar.
quote:
I don't know how many times I can explain the concept of a bar, and why it is not a smoking room.
You've stated this, yes. That's not the same as explaining it. One does not go to a bar simply to drink alcohol. One goes to a bar for conditions and circumstances in which the alcohol will be enjoyable to drink. These run the range from dancing, games, music, and any number of other things. If one of the amenities provided is that smoking is allowed, then the bar is, in fact, a smoking room as well as a drinking room.
quote:
Where in the liquor license does it talk about smoking?
Nowhere. Where does it mention chicken wings? Where does it mention a jukebox? Where does it mention a pool table?
The Starbucks I worked at in high school had a restaurant license. We had to have one because of the toaster with which we heated bagels. Nowhere on the restaurant license did it mention coffee.
Clearly, by your logic, Starbucks is not a coffee house.
quote:
Did it occur to you that perhaps your premise was mistaken? That you are starting from an untenable position?
My premise, which you managed to quote twice and still ignore, was that if a bar owner wants to allow smoking at his bar, he has to be able to allow smoking at his bar.
I would have thought this was self explanatory. Apparently you find it untenable. May I ask why?
quote:
A bar does business with the public.
Yes. It is a private institution that does business with the public. It is not your job to determine the terms of that business. It is (or ideally should be) between the bar owner and his/her patrons.
quote:
They passed a law.
Oh, a law! Well forget it then. It must be right.
quote:
Because the smokers won't stop smoking.
Why are the smokers even relevant to the establishment of a non-smoking bar? If there are that many non-smokers horribly put out by smokers, shouldn't they be able to support a non-smoking bar?
quote:
No, I'm being quite serious. I asked you a direct question: What does that have to do with anything? Seeing as how if I serve you a drink, it will need to be in a container of some kind and thus I should consider providing a pleasing container for you have to do with smoking?
Again. One does not go to a bar to slam a cold one and take off. You can always stop at the liquor store and do that at home. One stops at a bar for a nice place to have a drink. To kick back and grab a smoke. To chat up a pretty college girl. Whatever. These features are what makes the bar. Sure, smoking isn't necessary to have a drink. Neither is a glass that doesn't taste like a dog's mouth. Both increase the enjoyment.
quote:
Business hasn't dropped in California. Despite all the whining from various camps that said that it would destroy business, there was no drop and, if I recall correctly, business actually increased.
Wow. Sounds like they didn't need a law at all. If business increased, then obviously there are lots of people who would prefer a non-smoking bar to a smoking one. Makes me wonder why they don't just open a non-smoking bar, instead of trying to dictate terms to the smoking ones.
quote:
(*blink!*)
You didn't just say that, did you?
(*blinks back!*)
Yup. Looks like I did.
If bars aren't in the business of providing a place to smoke, then why do you want to stop them from providing a place to smoke? Sounds like a big waste of effort to me.
quote:
Care to answer the point, then? Or are snide comments the only thing you have?
There are many things in a bar besides alcohol.
Pretty simple when you read it, huh?
quote:
When was the last time somebody died while playing pool or listening to music? Come on...but those brain cells to work (assuming they're not dead from oxygen deprivation).
This becomes very funny one post down the line, when you accuse me of being defensive.
quote:
But if you don't actually answer it directly, then it isn't really an answer.
Just for you, Rrhain... really slowly, really simply.
No, there is no need to limit employees to smokers only. Those willing to do the job, either smoker or non-smoker, will do just fine. Just like every other job on Earth.
quote:
Yeah, and prostitutes can get out of the business whenever they want, too.
Man... those pimps in the bar industry? Fucking vicious. Once saw a bartender get his nose cut off for trying to quit.
Tell you what. Go talk to a hooker. Ask her if she's got more or less options than a bartender.
Let me know if she laughs, cries, or punches you.
quote:
Really? There was a sign?
Yup. That ashtray you insist so strongly is "not an invitation."
Can you give me one single reasons a business which did not allow smoking would provide ashtrays for its customers? For funny hats, perhaps?
quote:
How is a coerced response a legitimate response?
What you call coercion, most people call promise of greater profits. Of course, if we look at your comments on California, even the idea of greater profits falls apart. So where exactly is the coercion?
quote:
But when did your business of buying a drink become a business of smoking?
Around when the bar decided to offer me a place to smoke, I suppose.
quote:
No, they don't have a choice about that. If they don't let you smoke, they won't remain in business when surrounded by business that allow it.
Yup. I would definitely go to another bar. That's called capitalism. If the bar next door was charging less for drinks, I'd probably go there instead too. Bastard that I am, I'd be "coercing" the first bar to lower its prices.
quote:
It's recognition of a reality. You're going to smoke whether they like it or not.
Actually, if I saw a no-smoking sign up, I wouldn't smoke. I probably wouldn't bring my business back there either. Just like if the bars around here all went non-smoking by law, I'd just drink at a friend's apartment.
Would I still be coercing them if the law was passed, and I stopped patronizing their business?
quote:
Do you not understand the process of, "We would rather you didn't, but if you are going to, then..."?
Sure. But I better understand, "We'd rather you didn't. And it's our place. So don't."
quote:
The problem is that smokers smoke everywhere. You can't get away from it.
Sure you can. Leave the bar. Bye!
quote:
So since a non-smoking bar can't survive surrounded by smoking bars, how do you find it a "free choice" to permit smoking in a bar?
But Rrhain, the way you tell it there are throngs of non-smokers yearning for a place to call their own! Surely one bar could arise to meet this growing market?
quote:
Yeah, that's not coercion. Do it our way or starve. That's a real free choice.
How about, "do it the way of the people providing the money, or don't get the money."
Waitwait... how about "provide a service people want, or don't get paid."
My God, what a horrible dystopian age this has become. You know, I have to go to work and do my job each day or not eat. Where's my special law?
quote:
And how does one become qualified for those jobs?
Those on a skill level with bartender? Usually by being able to fill out the application.
They pay less, sure. Job happiness or more money... which to choose?
quote:
Nah, couldn't be. All options are equally available and equally viable.
From the way you're reacting, it would seem that I suggested they quite their jobs and run for Senate or something. There are other jobs on a level with or lower than bartender. There are very few jobs on a level with or lower than prostitute. Comparing the two directly is ridiculous.
quote:
Did you ask the rest of the waitstaff?
What, the other bartender, who had just stamped out a butt?
You know, I didn't bother?
quote:
A bar is not a smoking room.
If you keep saying that over and over, it'll probably become more convincing. But if a bar is not a smoking room (presumably "a room in which people smoke?") then what's your problem?
quote:
Oh, please...you're not about to say that a car pollutes and thus that makes it OK to smoke in another person's face, are you?
No. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I do wonder how you can be against one and not the other.
Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. I'll sit in a gasoline powered car for ten minutes with the windows rolled up, and smoke a full cigarette. Meanwhile, you can sit in a car of the same year and model with the windows rolled up, and a hose leading from the exhaust pipe into the car. We'll see who comes out in better health.
quote:
What makes you think it has any emissions?
Most cars do. But that's why I'm asking, to find out.
quote:
The waitstaff can walk out of a bar?
Yup. Legs... marvelous things, aren't they?
quote:
They are there because they need the money.
Obviously more than they need a different job.
quote:
But do you need to transport yourself and goods from one place to the next in front of other people?
Sure. But I certainly don't need to do so with a gasoline-powered engine when more eco-friendly options are available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 6:13 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 253 (51704)
08-21-2003 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 6:17 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
The bartender was the only other person in the room, then?
No other waitstaff? No other patrons? It was just you, your girlfriend, and the bartender?
Me, my girlfriend, two bartenders (both smoking) our friends, and many other patrons.
Are you suggesting now that the other patrons are somehow coerced into visiting this bar? Must they also go to this bar or not eat?
quote:
Since your smoke doesn't know that it's supposed to stick around you, your girlfriend, and the bartender, you're going to have to ask that of every other person in the place and then worry about the new people coming in before your smoke has had a chance to dissipate.
I can't wait to hear you justify this one. Why do the other patrons have the right to enter a smoking establishment and demand that nobody smoke? (Short of voting with their dollars?) Do they own the bar? Because last I heard the owner was the only one who controlled whether the customers were allowed to smoke in his/her bar or not.
quote:
I disagree with you and somehow that makes me angry.
No. It's rancorous posts that make me assume you're angry.
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 6:17 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2003 5:34 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 253 (51806)
08-22-2003 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rrhain
08-22-2003 5:34 AM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
Is there a non-smoking bar they can go to?
Irrelevant. There's no Indian restaurant in my area, but I don't have the right to demand that the local Chinese place start serving Indian food.
quote:
If not, then yes, they are coerced into visiting a bar filled with smoke.
No they're not. They don't have to go to a bar at all. They might not like that, but they don't have the right to a bar they'll enjoy.
quote:
A bar is not a smoking club.
Keep repeating it. It might become true.
Do you have anything to say about the reasoning I gave which disagrees with this statement?
quote:
Since your smoking causes death in other people, they have every right to ask you to refrain from engaging in that behaviour which puts other people at significant, non-trivial risk.
By entering a bar which allows smoking, they made the choice to sit in a room full of smoke. If they don't like it, they're free to go elsewhere.
Again... I can't stroll into Wok 'n Roll and demand a chicken tikka masala. Whether I can get a chicken tikka masala elsewhere makes no difference. If I decide to eat there anyway, nobody's forcing me to have general tsao's chicken.
quote:
You've seemingly forgotten the economic climate in which the bar exists. What the owner wants may very well be irrelevant.
What the owner allows, however, is very much relevant. And the owner is, ultimately, the only one who can force himself to do anything.
quote:
What rancor? Be specific.
Your posts came off as rude and aggressive. If you really want, I can go back through and lift examples. But I'd rather tone things back and we can all just be civil from now on, if that's amenable to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2003 5:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 253 (52051)
08-24-2003 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by nator
08-24-2003 9:33 AM


I already answered the majority of this when Rrhain asked it. But to sum up...
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 9:33 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 5:34 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 222 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 10:21 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 253 (52052)
08-24-2003 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by nator
08-24-2003 9:22 AM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
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 constantly bemoan the fact that there is no Indian restaurant in my community. I love Indian food.
So?
quote:
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.
Cool, I hope that works out for you. It's always nice when a business you enjoy opens right near you. A Borders just opened up near my apartment, and that graphic novel section is gonna clean out my bank account...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 9:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 10:25 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 253 (52058)
08-24-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by kjsimons
08-24-2003 5:34 PM


quote:
I remember when smoking was allowed everywhere. Airplanes, buses, trains, restaurants, restrooms, everywhere except fuel depots and explosives factories. By your logic, in those days my wanting to eat out, take a plane, train or bus trip, or even just go to the bathroom meant that I chose to go into a smoke-filled area, so it's my own fault.
Frankly, yeah. Assuming it's not your plane, bus, train, restaurant, or bathroom.
If it isn't, I'd much rather leave it up to the owner of the plane, bus, train, restaurant, or bathroom to decide.
If you don't like their decision, tough luck. Just like if the owner of any of these things decides I can't smoke there, tough luck for me.
It's when the government steps in and makes the decision for the owner that I get pissed off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 5:34 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 8:04 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 253 (52067)
08-24-2003 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by kjsimons
08-24-2003 8:04 PM


Rather than repeat the entire thread, I'd much rather advise you to go re-read it. You ignored an awful lot of stuff. For instance, I don't remember saying anything about "out in public." Just private institutions.
Of course, if you want is to toss some more insults, lemme know. I'll take off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 8:04 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 8:43 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 253 (52071)
08-24-2003 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by kjsimons
08-24-2003 8:43 PM


quote:
You were talking about a bar that was open to the public.
But not owned by the public. It's that simple.
As I said earlier in the thread, I really don't like repeating myself. If you have something new to say, lemme know. If not, post away. I just won't bother responding.
In the meantime, I think I'll head over to McDonalds and demand that they serve me a lamb vindaloo. I've got a real hankering for a lamb vindaloo. And since they're open to the public, they must owe me the type of service I want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by kjsimons, posted 08-24-2003 8:43 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 253 (52128)
08-25-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by nator
08-25-2003 10:21 AM


quote:
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?
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.
In other words, I'll still smoke a cigarette, but I don't see the point in getting in everyone's face with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 10:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 11:06 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 253 (52129)
08-25-2003 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
08-25-2003 10:25 AM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
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.
I don't see the difference. One service or another. The service I'm looking for is bars and restaurants that allow you to smoke. It's part of the reason I live in the neighborhood I'm in; you're allowed to smoke just about anywhere. Go twenty minutes north, that won't be the case.
In the case of my previous example, the service I'm looking for is Indian food. Some will let me smoke, some won't. If they won't, the Indian food will probably be enough of a draw to get me in the door anyway. If they will... damn, I've found my restaurant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 10:25 AM nator has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 253 (52138)
08-25-2003 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by nator
08-25-2003 11:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 11:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 12:00 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 253 (52151)
08-25-2003 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by nator
08-25-2003 12:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 12:00 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 1:47 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 253 (52167)
08-25-2003 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by nator
08-25-2003 1:47 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 1:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by :æ:, posted 08-25-2003 8:05 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 235 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 11:06 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 253 (52233)
08-25-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by :æ:
08-25-2003 8:05 PM


Re: Two cents...
Even that's not logically consistent, though. Why not just outlaw smoking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by :æ:, posted 08-25-2003 8:05 PM :æ: has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 253 (52247)
08-25-2003 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by nator
08-25-2003 11:06 PM


quote:
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.
And again... if someone starts a business where one of the services provided is that you can smoke, how is that asking you to accomodate anything? If you never enter the business, it has no effect on you whatsoever.
For instance, if someone started a restaurant where the schtick was that waiters were constantly singing to you as you eat, it would annoy the living crap out of me. So I wouldn't go to that restaurant, and I would never have to hear a waiter sing as long as I lived. Not once. It would have no effect on my life at all.
Now obviously, being annoyed is not the same as a health detriment. But the ability to avoid the situation is the same in either case. If the business isn't selling what you want, don't give them your time and money. But damn, don't pass a law that says that no one else is allowed to partake in it. That's not people expecting you to accomodate anything. It's exactly the opposite.
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?
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by nator, posted 08-25-2003 11:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by nator, posted 08-26-2003 11:07 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024