Now I'm mad

[julo]

PPS: Why? It doesn't do anyone any good. It just makes your point seem rediculous.

Well I'm sorry.
But for me a rpinciple must be valid in every case.
If you say I should not apply a law because of it's financial effects on small business, I say well the slave merchants lost their business because of the slavery ban (AGAIN A GOOD THING).
do you think slavery ban should have been kept going?

Laws are about principle. if not it would be impossible to live in society. you would need a law for each case.

 

[SnoMan]

Otherwise legal activities. There have been laws against poisoning work and public places for decades if not centuries. So too laws against assault and destruction of property.

They are finally being wholly enforced.

Many laws in place are very respectable. I'm certain more in certain areas could be passed in a reasonable manner.

But.


To what degree does the government need to protect us from ourselves?

 

[SnoMan]

do you think slavery ban should have been kept going?

I'm confused by your wording.


Did you just ask me if I think slavery should be legal? Or something to that extent?

 

[julo]

I'm confused by your wording.


Did you just ask me if I think slavery should be legal? Or something to that extent?

Well kind of.
I'm sure you'are against slavery. no personal attack intended.
I'm trying to respond to your point on my exageration being somehow stupid and pointless.

I use for my argumentation usually stuuf that strikes people (WWII, Slavery) to take the reasonning of my opposite talker and put it in a situation that show him (her) that it is not valid.

my post was to respond to the fact that this law or separate room may close some bars. => financial consideration should not be taken into account, we are taking about lives.
You said my exageration was ridicule, so I explained again exagerating more.

I read that you have a solution for separate rooms, and it could be a good one.
The government could also refuse to collect taxes for the construcation of the room, so the price would be lowered,... many solution to help building those rooms.

I hope I haven't offended you with my (maybe not well chosen) exemple.

 

[julo]

I like the way the discussion turned out, more serious (maybe not always from me) and well mannered that at the beginning.

sounds like we could almost find a compromise.

 

[SnoMan]

I don't think any decent person wouldn't be offended to at least some degree given the accusation.

However, you are explaining as to why you chose that direction...most wouldn't have that....and Hey, it's the internet, no reason to get angry about anything.

I still disagree though. I feel that you're comparing apples to something that is almost entirely unlike an apple.

 

[julo]

I don't think any decent person wouldn't be offended to at least some degree given the accusation.

However, you are explaining as to why you chose that direction...most wouldn't have that....and Hey, it's the internet, no reason to get angry about anything.

I still disagree though. I feel that you're comparing apples to something that is almost entirely unlike an apple.

Sorry again.

At least you did not say oranges

 

[julo]

That's not the case here. They're protecting everyone from inconsiderate, reckless, even dangerous persons.

That's what drunk driving laws do, that's what rape laws do, discrimination laws, laws for safety, against destruction of property, against assault, against dumping of toxic checmicals and releasing of pollutatnts into the air, etc. etc. do and always have.

No one's rights are being taken away here. People can still smoke all they like, but as always their rights end where the rights of others begin. That's nothing new. That's logical. That's common-sense and common decency.

I was going to say the same so :

+1

 

[vindy500]

julo ur arguing yourself here (i think) slavery was damaging to people. smoking is damaging to people. slavery was banned. you can figure out the next sentence

 

[julo]

julo ur arguing yourself here (i think) slavery was damaging to people. smoking is damaging to people. slavery was banned. you can figure out the next sentence

How, I think I've always been clear on the fact that I'm all for the banning but some compromise can be made (see separated highly-filtered room)

but maybe I forgot to write a 'not' somewhere.

 

[SnoMan]

That's not the case here. They're protecting everyone from inconsiderate, reckless, even dangerous persons.

That's what drunk driving laws do, that's what rape laws do, discrimination laws, laws for safety, against destruction of property, against assault, against dumping of toxic checmicals and releasing of pollutatnts into the air, etc. etc. do and always have.

No one's rights are being taken away here. People can still smoke all they like, but as always their rights end where the rights of others begin. That's nothing new. That's logical. That's common-sense and common decency.

Point made.

Would you support the option of the partitioned room as I suggested early as a compromise.

 

[SnoMan]

I just don't wanna have to go out into cold and rainy weather if I'm out somewhere and want to smoke. If it were 70 with a soft breeze all the time, then I'd be fine with not smoking in the bar. Oh, and I'd like to take my drink with me too.



I'd have to hold you guys accountable for my pnuemonia.

 

[driver800]

I do think it's reasonnable, I live in a state where helmets are not mandatory for motorbikes, so why should seat belts be?
that's absolutly not logical, and reasonnable.

It's proven that helmets save life as seat belts, so why a difference (another debate).

but the argument is valid (I think)

I support seat belt laws for 1 reason: If a person driving a car takes any type of evasive maneuver to avoid an accident, the seatbelt holds them in place so they have a much better opportunity to maintain control of the vehicle. Drivers not in their seatbelt are tossed around the inside the car, severly affecting their ability to control the vehicle. That is where someone else not wearing a seatbelt could hurt me or my family. I've experienced it directly.

 

[vindy500]

ill swap my cancer for your pnuemonia everyday of the week

 

[SnoMan]

That was lame and you know it.

 

[vindy500]

ahh yes yes, it was meant as humorous reply to your (i think) humorous ps

 

[SnoMan]

I know

I'm still crackin on ya though.

 

[julo]

I support seat belt laws for 1 reason: If a person driving a car takes any type of evasive maneuver to avoid an accident, the seatbelt holds them in place so they have a much better opportunity to maintain control of the vehicle. Drivers not in their seatbelt are tossed around the inside the car, severly affecting their ability to control the vehicle. That is where someone else not wearing a seatbelt could hurt me or my family. I've experienced it directly.

I thought and experienced that the seat belt mostly works when you slam on the brakes but do not work in case of lateral movement

but you're point is valid and true, also I don't agree 100%. I drive my motorcycle and a car passes by and throw (you know the tire, on gravel stuff) a rock at me I don't have a helmet, so I loose conscious and hit another car.

I am all for seat belts, AND helmets. I always wear 1 when I go ride my bike.

 

[vindy500]

this is what i hate about online boards, you cant tell if the people have a sense of humor or are actually grumpy old men waving there sticks

 

[julo]

this is what i hate about online boards, you cant tell if the people have a sense of humor or are actually grumpy old men waving there sticks

You can't also tell if they are grumpy YOUNG men waving there whatever.