Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 196 of 253 (51536)
08-21-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 12:42 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
However, permission is implied on behalf of the bartender by the fact that he's got an ashtray out. To use the prostitute example, I don't consider soliciting a prostitute to be rape. It may suck for her, but it is voluntary. Similarly, although it may suck for the bartender, there he was offering a service (specifically, a place I can grab a drink and a smoke) and I took him up on it.
In this particular case, the bartender was smoking. So it's kind of academic. But it's still a topic worth addressing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 12:42 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 1:00 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 253 (51541)
08-21-2003 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 12:52 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
Dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
However, permission is implied on behalf of the bartender by the fact that he's got an ashtray out.
Forced acquiescence is permission? You really think a bar in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places is going to have a good business if they don't allow smoking?
quote:
To use the prostitute example, I don't consider soliciting a prostitute to be rape.
Indeed, but it isn't like someone who is destitute has much of a choice about what one will do for money. It isn't that you're raping the prostitute...it's that the prostitute is forced into the position of selling sex.
quote:
Similarly, although it may suck for the bartender, there he was offering a service (specifically, a place I can grab a drink and a smoke) and I took him up on it.
Right, but if he didn't offer that service, you wouldn't be there nor would most of the clientele and thus there would be no bar in the first place.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 12:52 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 1:34 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 253 (51555)
08-21-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 1:00 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
Forced acquiescence is permission?
Hang on... who forced him? Honest. Who put a gun to the guy's head and said, "you must work at this establishment?"
Nobody has the right to a pleasant job. Or even an entirely healthy one. We don't demand that coal miners be allowed to do their job without coal or gas leaks, do we?
quote:
You really think a bar in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places is going to have a good business if they don't allow smoking?
Ah. Government regulation sets in.
To me, it's nasty business for the government to tell a business owner they cannot target a certain demographic. (In the case of bars, smokers.) It's a hop, skip, and a jump from not allowing a person to run a gay bar because it might make potential heterosexual customers or employees uncomfortable.
Yes, I know uncomfortable is a far cry from health-damaging. But the legal justification would be the same for both.
But screw legislation. It's a separate matter from morality. As you say, the likelihood of a non-smoking bar in an area where there are smoking bars is slim to nil. I hate to sound callous, but tough freakin' titty.
Nobody questions whether a smoke-shop should allow indoor smoking. Why? Because they're selling freakin' tobacco! Why the Hell wouldn't they allow, or even encourage the use of tobacco? It's their damn product! Of course they want you to light up!
Similarly, a place to smoke is part of a bar's product. If the customers just wanted to drink, beer is cheaper at the liquor store. You're at the bar for environment, for ritual, and for certain amenities such as smoking. If more customers want non-smoking than want smoking, market demands will make sure it happens.
It hasn't happened because nobody wants a freakin' bar where you can't smoke, any more than they want a smoke-shop that doesn't sell tobacco. It would be nice if the bartenders could have a place to work that sold the product they wanted to sell. It would also be nice if I could sell my used kleenex for big money. I can't though, and I can't expect others to avoid products more appealing than my used kleenex simply because I want to sell them.
quote:
Indeed, but it isn't like someone who is destitute has much of a choice about what one will do for money. It isn't that you're raping the prostitute...it's that the prostitute is forced into the position of selling sex.
Let me ask you an honest question. Do you think it's immoral to solicit a prostitute?
For reasons about bartenders I listed above, I think it's pretty clear that I don't think it's immoral. But I don't want to work from the assumption that you think the same thing.
quote:
Right, but if he didn't offer that service, you wouldn't be there nor would most of the clientele and thus there would be no bar in the first place.
Welcome to capitalism. Enjoy your stay.
If the local comic book store didn't sell comic books, I wouldn't make a stop there every Wednesday.
If the local bar didn't provide a place to smoke, I'd take my business elsewhere.
What's wrong with that?
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 1:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 2:22 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 199 of 253 (51570)
08-21-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 1:34 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
Dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Forced acquiescence is permission?
Hang on... who forced him?
The societal and financial forces that required him to allow smoking in the bar.
Do you really think a non-smoking bar could catch on in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places?
quote:
Nobody has the right to a pleasant job.
Who said anything about pleasant? We do have laws preventing the deliberate infliction of harm upon workers.
quote:
Or even an entirely healthy one. We don't demand that coal miners be allowed to do their job without coal or gas leaks, do we?
No, but we do what we can to make sure that they aren't exposed unnecessarily. If you're going to mine coal, you necessarily have to put up with the geologic hazards of digging in the earth such as coal dust and natural gas pockets.
When was the last time you needed to smoke to have a drink or serve a drink?
quote:
quote:
You really think a bar in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places is going to have a good business if they don't allow smoking?
Ah. Government regulation sets in.
You're missing the point. You were the one that pointed out that financial straits can put someone in a position where they have few choices about what to do for money and thus might become a prostitute. It isn't because he wants to...it's because he has to.
Similarly, financial straits can put an establishment in a position where they have to put their workers at risk. They may all want to make things safer, but they will be unable to remain in business if they do.
This means that the workers have no choice but to be subjected to a risk that is not a physical necessity.
quote:
To me, it's nasty business for the government to tell a business owner they cannot target a certain demographic. (In the case of bars, smokers.) It's a hop, skip, and a jump from not allowing a person to run a gay bar because it might make potential heterosexual customers or employees uncomfortable.
How does cancer relate to "uncomfortable"?
Last time I checked, nobody died from being around gay people all day. They have died from being around smokers all day.
If you want to smoke and risk contracting cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., you go right ahead. You do not have the right to take other people with you. So unless we're going to say that businesses have the right to restrict employment on the basis of one's status as a smoker, then the regulation has to fall upon the smoker to keep it to himself.
quote:
Yes, I know uncomfortable is a far cry from health-damaging. But the legal justification would be the same for both.
No, it wouldn't. It is precisely because "uncomfortable" is a far cry from health-damaging.
Nobody died being around gay people all day. They have died from being around smokers all day.
quote:
But screw legislation. It's a separate matter from morality. As you say, the likelihood of a non-smoking bar in an area where there are smoking bars is slim to nil. I hate to sound callous, but tough freakin' titty.
So it's moral to put other people at risk when they have no choice in the matter to avoid you, who are putting them at risk?
We shouldn't put lane markers on freeways in order to make driving safer? We shouldn't control pollution emissions or safety standards?
quote:
Nobody questions whether a smoke-shop should allow indoor smoking. Why? Because they're selling freakin' tobacco!
Indeed.
That's why it's called a "bar." They are in the business of selling alcohol. Thus, you expect to find people drinking there.
quote:
Why the Hell wouldn't they allow, or even encourage the use of tobacco? It's their damn product! Of course they want you to light up!
And when the bar wants to become a tobacco shop, then they can make that their argument.
quote:
Similarly, a place to smoke is part of a bar's product.
Really? Where? Where in the liquor license does it talk about smoking?
When did it become mandatory to smoke in order to drink or serve alcohol?
quote:
If the customers just wanted to drink, beer is cheaper at the liquor store. You're at the bar for environment, for ritual, and for certain amenities such as smoking. If more customers want non-smoking than want smoking, market demands will make sure it happens.
And put everybody who has no choice but to work at a bar at risk from the smokers.
quote:
quote:
Indeed, but it isn't like someone who is destitute has much of a choice about what one will do for money. It isn't that you're raping the prostitute...it's that the prostitute is forced into the position of selling sex.
Let me ask you an honest question. Do you think it's immoral to solicit a prostitute?
In and of itself? No. I don't see a problem with the concept of money for sex. However, the way it is practiced makes the "noble" prostitutes few and far between. Life is not like the movies and the hooker with a heart of gold doesn't exist.
quote:
quote:
Right, but if he didn't offer that service, you wouldn't be there nor would most of the clientele and thus there would be no bar in the first place.
Welcome to capitalism. Enjoy your stay.
So if enough people are willing to pay money, you should be allowed to kill people?
quote:
If the local comic book store didn't sell comic books, I wouldn't make a stop there every Wednesday.
But being around comic books won't kill you.
quote:
If the local bar didn't provide a place to smoke, I'd take my business elsewhere.
What's wrong with that?
The part where simply being there can kill you due not to the actions of the management or workers or product but due to the customers.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 1:34 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 3:03 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 253 (51577)
08-21-2003 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 2:22 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
The societal and financial forces that required him to allow smoking in the bar.
Again... he doesn't have to. I don't have to go to work in the morning. I have to pay rent, so I go.
If you think that's a fundamental unfairness, you're problem isn't with smoking. It's with the system we live in.
But by the logic you're using here, my having to go to work because of economic necessity makes me a slave. It is entirely against my desire to do so, but I am forced by the economic system. I think we can all agree that slavery is wrong, whether the slave is being whipped by his master or not, right? Does this mean I should not have to go to work?
quote:
Do you really think a non-smoking bar could catch on in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places?
No. It would be a shitty product being offered. That's why bars do allow smoking. It's what their customers want.
quote:
No, but we do what we can to make sure that they aren't exposed unnecessarily.
How can one run a bar that allows smoking without allowing smoking?
The very fact that it is possible to prevent smoking at a bar separates smoking bars and non-smoking bars into separate products. If there smoking is allowed at a bar, it is a smoking bar. Therefore, smoking is necessary to provide the specific service being offered: a smoking bar.
quote:
When was the last time you needed to smoke to have a drink or serve a drink?
I don't need to drink it out of a glass, either. I could always pour it into a used dog-food can.
quote:
Similarly, financial straits can put an establishment in a position where they have to put their workers at risk. They may all want to make things safer, but they will be unable to remain in business if they do.
1) This argument falls apart before it begins. "They can't stay in business without allowing smoking! But smoking isn't necessary to their business! So let's take away their right to allow smoking, which is required for them to stay in business!"
2) What if nobody in the town likes alcohol? Do we bemoan the fact that the bar will go out of business if they offer a product nobody wants? Similarly, if the product they are offering is a non-smoking bar, and nobody wants a non-smoking bar, why exactly are we crying for them?
quote:
This means that the workers have no choice but to be subjected to a risk that is not a physical necessity.
The jukebox isn't a physical necessity either. Neither is the pool table. Or any live music they bring in. Or other people. Or any of the reasons a person goes to a bar. Technically, they could just set up feeding troughs that let you insert a dollar, have a single shot of vodka spat into your mouth, and you could swallow and leave.
That'd be one shitty bar, though. I can't imagine anyone would want to go there.
But those automatic shot machines are certainly better for the bartender's back than standing behind the bar all day.
quote:
How does cancer relate to "uncomfortable"?
It doesn't. I acknolwedge that one sentence later.
However, telling a business what demographic they can and cannot target is the same, no matter what demographic it happens to be.
quote:
If you want to smoke and risk contracting cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., you go right ahead. You do not have the right to take other people with you.
Sure. It's a good thing they came to me and offered the service, huh?
quote:
So unless we're going to say that businesses have the right to restrict employment on the basis of one's status as a smoker, then the regulation has to fall upon the smoker to keep it to himself.
Or on the basis of one's willingness to work at the establishment? Last I checked, every last business in the country restricts their hiring policies on that litmus test. Ever since we banned slavery.
Note: Willingness does not equal desire.
quote:
When did it become mandatory to smoke in order to drink or serve alcohol?
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.
The businesses which simply give you liquor and send you packing are called "liquor stores". It's a very different buying experience. Bars are a social congregation that centers around alcohol. Liquor stores are a store which sells alcohol.
quote:
So if enough people are willing to pay money, you should be allowed to kill people?
If the person is willing to be killed? Honestly, I say yes. For instance, I'm in favor of assisted suicide.
quote:
The part where simply being there can kill you due not to the actions of the management or workers or product but due to the customers.
The management and workers offered the service. The customers just took them up on it.
[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 2:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 3:40 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 212 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 9:22 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 201 of 253 (51589)
08-21-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 3:03 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
quote:
The societal and financial forces that required him to allow smoking in the bar.
Again... he doesn't have to. I don't have to go to work in the morning. I like paying rent, so I go.
Precisely. That's my point. The owner likes to pay his rent, so he must put his workers at risk because the customers can't seem to control themselves.
quote:
If you think that's a fundamental unfairness, you're problem isn't with smoking. It's with the system we live in.
No, not really. I'm balancing rights: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
quote:
quote:
Do you really think a non-smoking bar could catch on in a municipality that doesn't ban smoking in public places?
No. It would be a shitty product being offered.
And yet, California doesn't seem to have suffered for it.
quote:
That's why bars do allow smoking. It's what their customers want.
But what about the workers? Why does your desire to smoke overrule their right not to be put at risk of death just to earn a paycheck? Especially when the job they were hired on to do has nothing to do with smoking?
quote:
quote:
No, but we do what we can to make sure that they aren't exposed unnecessarily.
How can one run a bar that allows smoking without allowing smoking?
By not allowing any smoking. In an ideal world, a smoker would not smoke in public since he knows that his smoke will affect others and thus, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
But alas, we have found that a matter of etiquette has been so trampled that it must become a matter of law.
quote:
The very fact that it is possible to prevent smoking at a bar separates smoking bars and non-smoking bars into separate products. If there smoking is allowed at a bar, it is a smoking bar. Therefore, smoking is necessary to provide the specific service being offered: a smoking bar.
The thing is, there is no way to have both. Societal functioning can only allows for one or the other, not both.
quote:
quote:
When was the last time you needed to smoke to have a drink or serve a drink?
I don't need to drink it out of a glass, either. I could always pour it into a used dog-food can.
What does that have to do with anything? When you drink, you need to drink out of a container of some sort. But I fail to see how that compares to doing something else at the same time.
quote:
quote:
Similarly, financial straits can put an establishment in a position where they have to put their workers at risk. They may all want to make things safer, but they will be unable to remain in business if they do.
1) This argument falls apart before it begins. "They can't stay in business without allowing smoking! But smoking isn't necessary to their business! So let's take away their right to allow smoking, which is required for them to stay in business!"
That's precisely right. They can't stay in business unless they allow smoking. But to do so puts innocent lives at risk. Therefore, since a person's right to live overrides a person's right to smoke anywhere he wants, we're going to have to restrict smoking.
quote:
2) What if nobody in the town likes alcohol? Do we bemoan the fact that the bar will go out of business if they offer a product nobody wants?
No.
But as I said before, a bar is in the business of selling alcohol, not tobacco.
quote:
Similarly, if the product they are offering is a non-smoking bar, and nobody wants a non-smoking bar, why exactly are we crying for them?
Because the workers who want a safe working environment cannot find one.
This part of the thread started when you asked about the morality of what you did. I pointed out that you were exposing other people to the harmful effects of your smoke.
You responded by saying that the existence of an ashtray was assent. I am simply pointing out that such is not justified. They don't really have a choice in the matter.
quote:
quote:
This means that the workers have no choice but to be subjected to a risk that is not a physical necessity.
The jukebox isn't a physical necessity either.
Nobody died from being around a jukebox.
People do die from being around smokers.
quote:
Neither is the pool table.
Nobody died from being around a pool table.
People do die from being around smokers.
quote:
However, telling a business what demographic they can and cannot target is the same, no matter what demographic it happens to be.
Hardly. A business has more interests to cater to than just the customer. There are also the workers.
Are you suggesting that it is allowable to restrict employment in a non-tobacco related business on the basis of one's status as a smoker?
quote:
quote:
If you want to smoke and risk contracting cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., you go right ahead. You do not have the right to take other people with you.
Sure. It's a good thing they came to me and offered the service, huh?
They dragged you into the bar and made you smoke?
From what I can tell, unless there is a law that is preventing you from smoking, the only person who controls whether you smoke is you.
quote:
quote:
So unless we're going to say that businesses have the right to restrict employment on the basis of one's status as a smoker, then the regulation has to fall upon the smoker to keep it to himself.
Or on the basis of one's willingness to work at the establishment?
When all the establishments are smoking bars, how does one choose differently?
I seem to recall another thread on this vary same topic: How can there be selection of any significance among identical items?
quote:
Note: Willingness does not equal desire.
Precisely. Just because there's an ashtray there does not mean you have their acceptance.
quote:
quote:
When did it become mandatory to smoke in order to drink or serve alcohol?
You're not much fun at a bar, are you?
I'm a lot of fun.
I don't even drink.
It's true, I don't go to bars very often since I don't drink and don't smoke and don't like being around smokers or drunks. Having fun has very little to do with whether or not one smokes or drinks.
quote:
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.
No, not at all. If you want to drink and smoke, then do it someplace where you aren't putting someone else's life in danger without their permission. The existence of the ashtray is not assent. They don't have a choice. If they don't allow you to smoke, they don't stay in business and like you say, they gotta pay the rent.
The point behind a bar is to serve you alcohol.
That doesn't include attempting to kill your waitstaff.
quote:
quote:
So if enough people are willing to pay money, you should be allowed to kill people?
If the person is willing to be killed? Honestly, I say yes. For instance, I'm in favor of assisted suicide.
Who said the person was willing?
When the only place to work is one that is filled with smoke, you don't really have much of a choice, do you?
quote:
quote:
The part where simply being there can kill you due not to the actions of the management or workers or product but due to the customers.
The management and workers offered the service. The customers just took them up on it.
Oh, you mean the management and workers actually had a meeting about this?
When was the last time you heard of the management asking the waitstaff if they wanted the place to go smokeless?
You're a waiter. You want to pay the rent. Where do you go to work when all of the establishments are smoking establishments because that is the only way to stay in business?
And all because the smokers are being incredibly rude....
Like I said, this interaction is because you asked what was immoral in your actions.
It was where you assumed that everybody was OK with your smoking and, without asking, forced them to risk their lives for your pleasure.
No, the presence of an ashtray is not assent. It is there because it has to be there, not because we know the staff wants it to be there.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 3:03 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 4:44 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 203 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 5:19 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 253 (51610)
08-21-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 3:40 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
Precisely. That's my point. The owner likes to pay his rent, so he must put his workers at risk because the customers can't seem to control themselves.
For starters, I added a bit to my post while you were typing this. It's about slavery. Go back to it.
Secondly, there is no reason to control oneself on a matter where one has been invited to do otherwise.
quote:
No, not really. I'm balancing rights: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Get your nose out of my face, you won't get hit.
quote:
And yet, California doesn't seem to have suffered for it.
Then what's the problem? If people will like non-smoking bars, let the market decide.
You keep flipping back and forth on whether non-smoking bars are viable. Why do you keep doing that?
quote:
Especially when the job they were hired on to do has nothing to do with smoking?
I don't know how many times I can explain the concept of a bar, and why it is not a liquor store with seats. It's still in the above posts if you want to read it.
quote:
quote:
How can one run a bar that allows smoking without allowing smoking?
By not allowing any smoking.
Rrhain, read those two sentences together. Please.
quote:
In an ideal world, a smoker would not smoke in public since he knows that his smoke will affect others and thus, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
Who said anything about public? Last I checked, bars were private institutions. Did the government colonize our nations bars, and no one told me?
quote:
The thing is, there is no way to have both. Societal functioning can only allows for one or the other, not both.
Why not? If smoking isn't necessary to run a bar, why won't non-smoking bars crop up on their own?
quote:
What does that have to do with anything? When you drink, you need to drink out of a container of some sort. But I fail to see how that compares to doing something else at the same time.
Unless you see some appeal in drinking something out of a used dog-food can, I have to assume you're just being obstinate. Please stop doing so.
quote:
That's precisely right. They can't stay in business unless they allow smoking. But to do so puts innocent lives at risk. Therefore, since a person's right to live overrides a person's right to smoke anywhere he wants, we're going to have to restrict smoking.
Gee, for someone so concerned about their livelihood, you don't seem to care much about their livelihood. I thought the fact that economics demanded smoking that made all this necessary in the first place?
quote:
But as I said before, a bar is in the business of selling alcohol, not tobacco.
And as I said before, there is a difference between a liquor store and a bar.
Obviously a bar is in the business of providing a place to smoke, or this wouldn't even be an issue.
"Stop smoking in there!"
"Dude... nobody's smoking in here. Smoking isn't part of a bar."
"Oh... okay, go about your business."
quote:
Nobody died from being around a jukebox.
People do die from being around smokers.
Look up. The point just went way over your head, but you might still catch it.
quote:
Are you suggesting that it is allowable to restrict employment in a non-tobacco related business on the basis of one's status as a smoker?
I believe I already gave you an answer to this question. Repeating the question won't get you a different answer, and is, if I'm not mistaken, a violation of forum guidelines.
quote:
I am simply pointing out that such is not justified. They don't really have a choice in the matter.
Presumably, they were bound and chained to the bar, then. Otherwise, they have the freedom to leave at any time.
quote:
They dragged you into the bar and made you smoke?
No. They invited me to take part in a service they were offering. I chose to take them up on it.
How did they invite me? By having a business that allows smoking. Presumably they do want my business, right? I mean... they're not actively trying to keep me out, and would actually prefer that I (and my money) be there. Correct me if I'm mistaken there.
One of the ways in which they have chosen to entice me to come into their bar and partake of their services is to allow smoking. Crazy man that I am, I assume that the fact that they allow me to smoke in their bar means I am allowed to smoke in their bar.
Go figure.
But apparently, in Rrhainworld, this adds up to rudness and lack of self-control.
quote:
I'm a lot of fun.
Gee, that's not what I asked you. I'm sure you're a very fun guy under the right circumstances. I asked if you were a fun guy at a bar. It was actually a rhetorical question, though; the point was made afterward.
quote:
No, not at all. If you want to drink and smoke, then do it someplace where you aren't putting someone else's life in danger without their permission.
They allow smoking. It is not possible to allow something without giving permission to do it. I mean it is logically impossible.
quote:
The existence of the ashtray is not assent.
I guess it was decorative, then? Weird choice for a decoration. Put enough of those knick-knacks out, and people will start thinking smoking is allowed there.
quote:
They don't have a choice.
Given my habit of bringing a gun to a bar and holding bartenders hostage, this is true. But for everyone else it's a load of bunk.
If they don't want smoking there, they can not allow it. They should be prepared to lose business as a result, though. That's basic business.
Again... if I run a store which sells candy, it will do more business than a store which sells used kleenex. I understand that this is horribly unfair to a person who wants to sell used kleenexes. Life sucks, Mr. Kleenex.
quote:
Who said the person was willing?
I guess my first tip off was when he went to the bar, filled out an application, and accepted the job when it was offered to him.
But that's just me, I'm weird like that.
quote:
When was the last time you heard of the management asking the waitstaff if they wanted the place to go smokeless?
The waitstaff was aware of the fact that the bar allowed smoking when they applied for the job.
quote:
You're a waiter. You want to pay the rent. Where do you go to work when all of the establishments are smoking establishments because that is the only way to stay in business?
Maybe... just maybe... there are jobs in the world other than waiter.
I don't want to go on any sort of crazy limb with that one, but it bears thinking about.
quote:
It was where you assumed that everybody was OK with your smoking and, without asking, forced them to risk their lives for your pleasure.
I didn't assume anything. The first time I was in that bar, I asked the bartender, "is it cool to smoke in here." He looked at me like I was nuts, and pointed to the ashtray.
Why did he look at me like I was nuts? Perhaps because when a bar allows smoking, traditionally it means that they are... wait for it... allowing you to smoke.
Crazy concept, I know.
One last point. You own a car?
Whether a person needs the money or not, they can walk out of a bar.
No one can walk out of the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 3:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 6:13 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 213 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 9:33 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 253 (51622)
08-21-2003 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Rrhain
08-21-2003 3:40 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
quote:
Like I said, this interaction is because you asked what was immoral in your actions.
It was where you assumed that everybody was OK with your smoking and, without asking, forced them to risk their lives for your pleasure.
And incidentally, we got off my personal morality a while ago. If you look back, I mentioned that the bartender was smoking.
So even in a world where a man gives me permission to smoke, but I'm meant to somehow read his mind and see if he really means it before doing so, none of this applies to me. The poor man who was being forced to risk his life was also a smoker.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop projecting your personal anger on me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 3:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 6:17 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 204 of 253 (51627)
08-21-2003 5:34 PM


I would point out that most - every one, in fact - of the bars I've been into around here actually sell tobacco, so the invitation to smoke is pretty clear to everybody.

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 6:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 205 of 253 (51646)
08-21-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 4:44 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
Dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
Secondly, there is no reason to control oneself on a matter where one has been invited to do otherwise.
What makes you think you've been invited?
The existence of the ashtray is not an invitation.
quote:
quote:
No, not really. I'm balancing rights: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Get your nose out of my face, you won't get hit.
You're the one swinging, it is your responsibility to control your actions. Nobody else can do it for you. I don't have telepathic control over your brain to cause you to stop swinging your fist. I have just as much right to be there as you do. Would you mind if I urinated in your drink? Then what makes you think others want to breathe your smoke. The fact that other people are doing it doesn't mean you have permission. The existence of the ashtray is not permission, either.
quote:
quote:
And yet, California doesn't seem to have suffered for it.
Then what's the problem? If people will like non-smoking bars, let the market decide.
Because the market is not perfect.
quote:
You keep flipping back and forth on whether non-smoking bars are viable. Why do you keep doing that?
I'm not flipping at all. Perhaps you missed my direct statement:
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.
The bars in California are smoke-free because there is a law preventing them from allowing smoking. Business is just fine.
quote:
quote:
Especially when the job they were hired on to do has nothing to do with smoking?
I don't know how many times I can explain the concept of a bar, and why it is not a liquor store with seats.
I don't know how many times I can explain the concept of a bar, and why it is not a smoking room.
quote:
It's still in the above posts if you want to read it.
Right back at you.
Where in the liquor license does it talk about smoking?
quote:
quote:
quote:
How can one run a bar that allows smoking without allowing smoking?
By not allowing any smoking.
Rrhain, read those two sentences together. Please.
I did. That's why I wrote them.
Did it occur to you that perhaps your premise was mistaken? That you are starting from an untenable position?
quote:
quote:
In an ideal world, a smoker would not smoke in public since he knows that his smoke will affect others and thus, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
Who said anything about public? Last I checked, bars were private institutions.
You'd be wrong. Bars are public places. Just because it's a private business does not mean it is the same as a private domicile. A bar does business with the public. If it wants to be private, then it must become a private club. But the moment it becomes open to the public, then it must abide by public regulations.
quote:
Did the government colonize our nations bars, and no one told me?
How do you think California and New York City managed to get the bars smoke free? Asking really nicely?
Of course not. They passed a law.
quote:
quote:
The thing is, there is no way to have both. Societal functioning can only allows for one or the other, not both.
Why not? If smoking isn't necessary to run a bar, why won't non-smoking bars crop up on their own?
Because the smokers won't stop smoking.
quote:
quote:
What does that have to do with anything? When you drink, you need to drink out of a container of some sort. But I fail to see how that compares to doing something else at the same time.
Unless you see some appeal in drinking something out of a used dog-food can, I have to assume you're just being obstinate. Please stop doing so.
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?
quote:
quote:
That's precisely right. They can't stay in business unless they allow smoking. But to do so puts innocent lives at risk. Therefore, since a person's right to live overrides a person's right to smoke anywhere he wants, we're going to have to restrict smoking.
Gee, for someone so concerned about their livelihood, you don't seem to care much about their livelihood. I thought the fact that economics demanded smoking that made all this necessary in the first place?
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.
quote:
quote:
But as I said before, a bar is in the business of selling alcohol, not tobacco.
And as I said before, there is a difference between a liquor store and a bar.
What does that have to do with anything? You're right: A bar is not a liquor store. But a bar is also not a smoking room.
You do understand the difference, yes? A bar is in the business of alcohol. What does smoking have to do with alcohol?
quote:
Obviously a bar is in the business of providing a place to smoke,
(*blink!*)
You didn't just say that, did you?
Where in the liquor license does it mention smoking?
quote:
quote:
Nobody died from being around a jukebox.
People do die from being around smokers.
Look up. The point just went way over your head, but you might still catch it.
(*chuckle*)
Care to answer the point, then? Or are snide comments the only thing you have?
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).
quote:
quote:
Are you suggesting that it is allowable to restrict employment in a non-tobacco related business on the basis of one's status as a smoker?
I believe I already gave you an answer to this question. Repeating the question won't get you a different answer, and is, if I'm not mistaken, a violation of forum guidelines.
But if you don't actually answer it directly, then it isn't really an answer. Here is what you said:
Or on the basis of one's willingness to work at the establishment? Last I checked, every last business in the country restricts their hiring policies on that litmus test. Ever since we banned slavery.
Note: Willingness does not equal desire.
So tell me, how does that answer the question? I asked you a yes-or-no question and you responded with 40 words, none of which were "yes" or "no."
Please explain to me how that is an answer. Instead, it is avoiding the question. If you don't answer the question and continue to make a point that begs the question which you avoided, then you will find the same question asked.
quote:
quote:
I am simply pointing out that such is not justified. They don't really have a choice in the matter.
Presumably, they were bound and chained to the bar, then. Otherwise, they have the freedom to leave at any time.
Yeah, and prostitutes can get out of the business whenever they want, too.
Are you really that naive?
quote:
quote:
They dragged you into the bar and made you smoke?
No. They invited me to take part in a service they were offering. I chose to take them up on it.
Really? There was a sign?
quote:
How did they invite me? By having a business that allows smoking.
You mean by being forced to conform to a skewed market is a free choice? How is a coerced response a legitimate response?
quote:
Presumably they do want my business, right?
Yes.
But when did your business of buying a drink become a business of smoking?
quote:
I mean... they're not actively trying to keep me out, and would actually prefer that I (and my money) be there. Correct me if I'm mistaken there.
You're ignoring the greater economic environment. They can't offer you a service if they're not in business, now can they? And since the business climate requires smoking, they don't have a choice.
quote:
One of the ways in which they have chosen to entice me to come into their bar and partake of their services is to allow smoking.
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.
quote:
Crazy man that I am, I assume that the fact that they allow me to smoke in their bar means I am allowed to smoke in their bar.
The question is not about you being "allowed" to smoke. The question is whether or not you are "wanted" to smoke.
A bar is a public place. If you're going to smoke where other people are, it is only polite to ask them if they don't mind.
quote:
But apparently, in Rrhainworld, this adds up to rudness and lack of self-control.
Hey, if you think I'm overbearing when I consider it rude not to ask before smoking, then I guess you won't find me rude when I decide to piss in your drink without asking.
quote:
quote:
I'm a lot of fun.
Gee, that's not what I asked you. I'm sure you're a very fun guy under the right circumstances. I asked if you were a fun guy at a bar.
Come with me and see.
quote:
quote:
No, not at all. If you want to drink and smoke, then do it someplace where you aren't putting someone else's life in danger without their permission.
They allow smoking.
That doesn't mean they want smoking.
You do understand that a coerced response is not a legitimate one, yes?
quote:
It is not possible to allow something without giving permission to do it. I mean it is logically impossible.
Does the word "coercion" mean nothing to you?
If they don't let you smoke, they go out of business.
quote:
quote:
The existence of the ashtray is not assent.
I guess it was decorative, then? Weird choice for a decoration. Put enough of those knick-knacks out, and people will start thinking smoking is allowed there.
It's recognition of a reality. You're going to smoke whether they like it or not. If they want to remain in business, they have to deal with your smoking. Since I'm sure they don't want the bar burning down, they're going to try and give you a place to put your ashes.
How does that translate to them wanting you to smoke?
Do you not understand the process of, "We would rather you didn't, but if you are going to, then..."?
quote:
quote:
They don't have a choice.
Given my habit of bringing a gun to a bar and holding bartenders hostage, this is true. But for everyone else it's a load of bunk.
Right. That's why so many non-smoking bars exist in municipalities that don't restrict smoking in public places. That's why so many non-smoking restaurants exist in municipalities that don't restrict smoking in public places.
The problem is that smokers smoke everywhere. You can't get away from it. Because the smokers haven't figured out how to ask before lighting up, and because non-smokers have been too pathetic to ask them to put it out, and given the recent history when such a huge percentage of the population smoked, we find ourselves in a society where there is no way to get away from smokers.
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?
quote:
If they don't want smoking there, they can not allow it. They should be prepared to lose business as a result, though. That's basic business.
And thus, they don't pay their own rents.
Yeah, that's not coercion. Do it our way or starve. That's a real free choice.
quote:
Again... if I run a store which sells candy, it will do more business than a store which sells used kleenex. I understand that this is horribly unfair to a person who wants to sell used kleenexes. Life sucks, Mr. Kleenex.
But a bar isn't in the business of tobacco. It's in the business of alcohol. Where in the liquor license does it mention smoking?
quote:
quote:
Who said the person was willing?
I guess my first tip off was when he went to the bar, filled out an application, and accepted the job when it was offered to him.
Right, because he doesn't really need the job. He has all the money in the world and is simply taking this position as a hobby. He doesn't need to earn a paycheck in order to eat, pay the rent, pay the bills, etc.
quote:
But that's just me, I'm weird like that.
Right. You seem to think that all options are equally available and equally viable.
quote:
quote:
When was the last time you heard of the management asking the waitstaff if they wanted the place to go smokeless?
The waitstaff was aware of the fact that the bar allowed smoking when they applied for the job.
And, of course, they didn't need the job in order to pay the rent. They were perfectly qualified for any other job out there. Why if they wanted to, they could get hired at the local computer company and program software.
I find it puzzling that you don't understand this since you were the one that brought up people turning to prostitution not because they want to but because they have to.
quote:
quote:
You're a waiter. You want to pay the rent. Where do you go to work when all of the establishments are smoking establishments because that is the only way to stay in business?
Maybe... just maybe... there are jobs in the world other than waiter.
And how does one become qualified for those jobs? And how does one pay for the training required to become qualified for those jobs?
quote:
I don't want to go on any sort of crazy limb with that one, but it bears thinking about.
Yes, you need to think more about it. What is the population of waitstaff like? Why are they in that position. While there are plenty of people who like tending bar and waiting tables, do you really think that they're the majority? Or perhaps waitstaff positions are filled more with people who find that it's the only job they can get.
Nah, couldn't be. All options are equally available and equally viable.
quote:
quote:
It was where you assumed that everybody was OK with your smoking and, without asking, forced them to risk their lives for your pleasure.
I didn't assume anything. The first time I was in that bar, I asked the bartender, "is it cool to smoke in here." He looked at me like I was nuts, and pointed to the ashtray.
Did you ask the rest of the waitstaff? What about the rest of the patrons? Just because the barkeep doesn't mind doesn't mean everybody else is of the same persuasion.
A bar is not a smoking room. It's a bar.
quote:
One last point. You own a car?
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?
But yes, I do.
What makes you think it has any emissions?
quote:
Whether a person needs the money or not, they can walk out of a bar.
The waitstaff can walk out of a bar? They are there because they need the money.
quote:
No one can walk out of the planet.
Indeed. But do you need to transport yourself and goods from one place to the next in front of other people?
Do you need to smoke in front of others?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 4:44 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 9:48 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 206 of 253 (51647)
08-21-2003 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 5:19 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
Dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Like I said, this interaction is because you asked what was immoral in your actions.
It was where you assumed that everybody was OK with your smoking and, without asking, forced them to risk their lives for your pleasure.
And incidentally, we got off my personal morality a while ago. If you look back, I mentioned that the bartender was smoking.
Oh, I saw that.
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?
Knock yourselves out.
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.
quote:
So even in a world where a man gives me permission to smoke, but I'm meant to somehow read his mind and see if he really means it before doing so, none of this applies to me. The poor man who was being forced to risk his life was also a smoker.
Again, it was just you, your girlfriend and the barkeep?
Knock yourselves out.
Were there other people? Did you ask them?
quote:
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop projecting your personal anger on me.
(*chuckle*)
I see. I disagree with you and somehow that makes me angry.
You were the one that jumped on the defensive.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 5:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 9:54 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 207 of 253 (51650)
08-21-2003 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
08-21-2003 5:34 PM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
I would point out that most - every one, in fact - of the bars I've been into around here actually sell tobacco, so the invitation to smoke is pretty clear to everybody.
You can buy cigarettes at the grocery store here in California.
But you're not allowed to smoke in the stores.
You can still buy cigarettes in the bars here, too, but you're not allowed to smoke in the bar.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2003 5:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 210 of 253 (51769)
08-22-2003 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dan Carroll
08-21-2003 9:54 PM


Re: I agree with buzsaw.
Since we are drifting from the main topic, I'm going to try and cut this down. If there's something you feel you want addressed, please bring it up again:
Dan Carroll responds to me:
quote:
Are you suggesting now that the other patrons are somehow coerced into visiting this bar?
Is there a non-smoking bar they can go to?
If not, then yes, they are coerced into visiting a bar filled with smoke. "You can have any color you want so long as it's black." That's not a choice. That's forcing.
quote:
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?
You know the answer to this already:
A bar is not a smoking club. A bar serves the public. 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.
quote:
Do they own the bar?
Of course not. But the bar is open to the public and as members of the public, we have to come to a compromise between two conflicting desires. It would appear that one should tend toward the behaviour that isn't going to kill anybody.
quote:
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.
You've seemingly forgotten the economic climate in which the bar exists. What the owner wants may very well be irrelevant.
quote:
It's rancorous posts that make me assume you're angry.
What rancor? Be specific.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-21-2003 9:54 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-22-2003 10:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024