tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post7948705650156972918..comments2023-11-27T11:16:11.797-05:00Comments on Skeptic but Jewish: Liberal Lunacy 6: Anti-SmokingBaruch Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-32059757735280308482011-07-04T05:30:14.907-04:002011-07-04T05:30:14.907-04:00Smoking causes asthma in kids. And it mostly affe...Smoking causes asthma in kids. And it mostly affects low income people who can't afford to buy a house. They live in apartments, maybe the parents don't smoke, but it all comes in from next door and the kids get asthma. And since its mostly black kids nobody cares, especially not the fake-Jew Calvinist determinists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-59361763831910984852010-12-21T17:40:43.613-05:002010-12-21T17:40:43.613-05:00"From definition number 2 in Websters for Uto..."From definition number 2 in Websters for Utopian "proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes." Anarchy is an impractical social and political scheme that you have suggested to be an ideal. Its not just wrong its Utopian. Sorry.": <br /><br />I do not care what Websters defines. It is a terrible definition. By that definition the minimum wage is "utopian" because it does not work. By that definition the war on drugs is "utopian" because it is a massive failure. <br /><br />My definition of utopia is a perfect or almost perfect society. That is what most people think of a utopia. If you use one of the online dictionaries that is how they define it. <br /><br />Being wrong does not make you utopian. Liberals are not utopian because they support the minimum wage law, just economically wrong. Most conservatives are not utopian because they support the war on drugs, just economically wrong. <br /><br />Being wrong and being utopian are completely distinct. <br /><br />You said I was wrong. You did not do much to explain why I am wrong, but I played along with you. I said that even if I am wrong that does not make me utopian. Because in order for me to be utopian I must have a vision of a perfected structure of the world. Which you never was able to demonstrate where. Thus, your objection to me being utopian is an empty statement that you never were able to demonstrate. <br /><br />"Anarchy is an impractical social and political scheme that you have suggested to be an ideal.": <br /><br />Empty dangling statements will not win me over to your side. I heard that "anarchism/libertarinaism is unrealistic, and I am being a realist" probably over a hundred times in my life by people who do not back up those statements with much arguments. <br /><br />"Your definition of state is not a definition it is a polemic.": <br /><br />I get to define what a state is since I am writing about it. I do not care how dictionaries define worlds. Definitions are not right or wrong, they are up to how we define them. That is how I define the state. A group of people who settle and decide various decisions for the public that the public voted upon is not a state, by my definition, and I have no problem with such an organization of people. <br /><br />"then they have the right to eat at your bar without someone swinging a sword around would you not agree?": <br /><br />I agree. But what if the owner of the restaurant designed a sadistic restaurant where there is a chance to be severly hurt or possibly even killed by a random flying sword? And say there were masochists who enjoyed coming into this restaurant, possibly sexually attracted people to BDSM who were sexually turned on by pain, then you are suggesting that these people cannot come to such a restaurant people you do not want to be there? Why are you against people who sexually arouse themselves by physical pain and cruelty? <br /><br />If this can be allowed then kal vichomer certainly a chain smoking club that serves food. <br /><br />"You may do so within your own home. You cannot do it in a commercial establishment. Free association is not unduly compromised.": <br /><br />Why not? And do not tell me that is what the court ruled. I do not care what they ruled. I want to hear an argument. <br /><br />"Lol. The roar of the exciting math dweeb. None of my many friends would agree. You on the other hand...a loner...have no yardstick with which to measure how interesting people find you.": <br /><br />You are right. It is hypocritical of me to decide what is boring and what is not by my own standards if it is not my standards but the standards of others who decide what is exciting. <br />--- <br /><br />This has nothing to do with the anti-smoking movement. I am not sure why you keep on returning to the subject of anti-statism every time even though I said nothing about it. I did not even rile against the FDA in my above post. You turn me off topic into some other conversation which is not appropriate to this post.Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-81520777167667382722010-12-21T15:26:00.782-05:002010-12-21T15:26:00.782-05:00"If my ideas are wrong then they are just tha..."If my ideas are wrong then they are just that, wrong. How do you deduce utopian from here?"<br /><br />From definition number 2 in Websters for Utopian "proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes." Anarchy is an impractical social and political scheme that you have suggested to be an ideal. Its not just wrong its Utopian. Sorry.<br /><br />"My definition of the state was a coercive land monopoly that claims ownership over a territory and uses violence to establish its claim.<br /><br />Your definition of state is not a definition it is a polemic. I can define the state as "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory" from Websters.<br /><br />"But the patrons decide if they want to enter it or not. I do not see what is so hard to accept about that."<br /><br />Its not per se; If I don't like someone because they are of a different color skin should that mean I can keep them out? Think about it this way. You own a restaurant, a commercial enterprise (with a separate tax code and various other responsibilities to society in exchange thereof) if you invite people in for another purpose than smoking; namely to eat at your restaurant or to drink at your bar, then they have the right to eat at your bar without someone swinging a sword around would you not agree? If you expressly set up a smoking club that sounds like just the sort of common sense rules that should be allowed. The main point here is that common sense rules the day. <br /><br />"Why? Why cannot I open up my own house and say, "this is my own home and I welcome who I choose into my own house, those who come in pay for things I serve them". What you are saying is contrary to the freedom of association. "<br /><br />You may do so within your own home. You cannot do it in a commercial establishment. Free association is not unduly compromised. <br /><br />You are such a boring person. <br /><br />Lol. The roar of the exciting math dweeb. None of my many friends would agree. You on the other hand...a loner...have no yardstick with which to measure how interesting people find you. I'm glad you interest yourself.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-43228716234936247622010-12-21T12:19:37.636-05:002010-12-21T12:19:37.636-05:00"It is utopian to believe that anarchism (as ..."It is utopian to believe that anarchism (as you defined it in an earlier screed) is possible.": <br /><br />Let us say that Charles Darwin believed that evolution can happen without punctuated equilibrium. Does it make him utopian if he was wrong about it? No. It makes him wrong. <br /><br />If my ideas are wrong then they are just that, wrong. How do you deduce utopian from here? You need to say something about me that points to be greater promised perfected world or some change in human nature. Otherwise I am not utopian, just wrong. <br /><br />"10 people come together and form a law; one of the person's breaks the law...what happens? If nothing happens, there is no law, if there is an enforcement method then there is a defacto primitive state.": <br /><br />You missed my point. That is not the definition of a state. My definition of the state was a coercive land monopoly that claims ownership over a territory and uses violence to establish its claim. Where exactly does this happen here? <br /><br />Using force is not a state. I am not a pacifist. Sure, you can find some pacifist anarchists out there who go so far that they turn into gay vegans. But I think those people are rather stupid and utopian. I am no pacifist. I will fight. I defend my private property with lethal force. <br /><br />I am not against police, courts, or the military. These are forceful institutitons, of course. But they are necessary to defend freedom from within and without. But that alone does not make them states. If you are being robbed and I take out my beloved magnum .357 and blow out the brains of the theif to save you then I am being violent and forceful but I am not a state (because I am not a land monopoly that ... you get the idea). <br /><br />"Yes, there can be a formal dress only restaurant. The requirement that someone conform to a dress code does not cause measurable harm or damages to the patrons. Second hand smoke clearly does.": <br /><br />But the patrons decide if they want to enter it or not. I do not see what is so hard to accept about that. According to you it should be illegal to have a smoking club? Can you answer that question. There cannot be a smoking club because second hand smoke damages people who agreed to walk in there and end up smoking anywhay?<br /><br />"Restaurants represent a kind of intermediate public place.": <br /><br />Why? Why cannot I open up my own house and say, "this is my own home and I welcome who I choose into my own house, those who come in pay for things I serve them". What you are saying is contrary to the freedom of association. <br /><br />"I don't see why it so difficult for you to understand that there are shades of gray in every situation.": <br /><br />Because this situation is incredible simple. If I asked you if a person can kill other people for no other reason at all you will say "no". Oh my science, you are such an absolutist! Oh no. In this case you have no problem taking such a strong stance because there is no grey area here. In this case, with retaurants setting their own policies, I have no problems at all because it is their own little place. It is really not so hard to understand. I do have shades of grey, but they only come up with complicated questions (what exactly is recognized as property; at what point it is considered aggression; when are children recognized as adults, and so forth). But your questions are very easy for me. <br /><br />"Even in absolutely public squares there are laws against public nudity, for example, and I for one applaud them.": <br /><br />You are such a boring person.Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-22916291607544669662010-12-21T09:50:16.339-05:002010-12-21T09:50:16.339-05:00"Saying I am utopian is an empty statement if..."Saying I am utopian is an empty statement if you cannot defend your case."<br /><br />It is utopian to believe that anarchism (as you defined it in an earlier screed) is possible. You stated then that anarchism does not mean that people don't come together to create laws. So lets go with that. 10 people come together and form a law; one of the person's breaks the law...what happens? If nothing happens, there is no law, if there is an enforcement method then there is a defacto primitive state. I'm not going to spend the energy writing explaining how one thing inevitably leads to a larger and more expansive state apparatus. One only needs to read history to see how the state has grown. The fact is, there are absolutely no anarchy's out there...NONE. That alone should convince you that the idea is Utopian (Utopia comes from Utopos meaning no-place in Greek).<br /><br />"Can there be a formal dress only restaurant? If you say yes, then this restaurant automatically discriminates against those who do not dress formally. It is a public place and so according to you it cannot do that."<br /><br />Yes, there can be a formal dress only restaurant. The requirement that someone conform to a dress code does not cause measurable harm or damages to the patrons. Second hand smoke clearly does. The case of the restaurant is interesting because it is not cut and dried. It involves many conflicting rights. For example, a restaurant cannot discriminate against a person just because he is black. <br /><br />Restaurants represent a kind of intermediate public place...not the center of the town square, but not absolutely private space either. I don't see why it so difficult for you to understand that there are shades of gray in every situation. <br /><br />Even in absolutely public squares there are laws against public nudity, for example, and I for one applaud them.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-3984175756410668132010-12-20T22:21:58.171-05:002010-12-20T22:21:58.171-05:00"I know that this does not fit within your li..."I know that this does not fit within your libertarian utopia but it is certainly is the view within the real world.": <br /><br />If you are going to accuse of me of vices then you should justify them. Saying I am utopian is an empty statement if you cannot defend your case. You said that last time and you never done anything to defend that view. In fact, from everything that I say and you say, you sound way more utopian that I am. From my experience people who understood my position have told me I was instead being too cynical. But both those accusations are just empty statements. If you wish to use that against me then explain how this is so. <br /><br />Now let me ask you a very simple question. Can there be a formal dress only restaurant? If you say yes, then this restaurant automatically discriminates against those who do not dress formally. It is a public place and so according to you it cannot do that. What about a smoking club? Can there be a smoking club like there is a drinking club? If you say yes then you have just agreed with me. It is a smoking club that serves food. What is the big deal?Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-64695126828393052392010-12-20T18:31:31.977-05:002010-12-20T18:31:31.977-05:00"Bars are not public places. Do not like it t..."Bars are not public places. Do not like it there then do not go there, go to places that do not allow smoking."<br /><br />You exhibit a very unsophisticated understanding of the law. "Public Place" for many people in many communities means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to, banks, bars, educational facilities, gaming facilities, health care facilities, hotels and motels, laundromats, public transportation vehicles and facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, and waiting rooms." <br /><br />I know that this does not fit within your libertarian utopia but it is certainly is the view within the real world.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-34313504188388242652010-12-20T13:09:33.095-05:002010-12-20T13:09:33.095-05:00Liberals and conservatives alike, indeed. That...Liberals and conservatives alike, indeed. That's because liberal and conservative are two ways of saying 'busybody' although at times they disagree on what behaviors they should bully others about.Puzzledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12866127197554237039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-23477688336486204972010-12-20T12:34:20.022-05:002010-12-20T12:34:20.022-05:00"There are plenty of people (both liberal and..."There are plenty of people (both liberal and conservative) who believe that smoking in enclosed public places should be banned.": <br /><br />It is mostly a liberal thing though. What I said about the fear mongering of these people is apparent.<br /><br />"I remember the days when every bar you went into was smokey and you would leave with a headache and your clothes smelling of stale smoke.": <br /><br />Bars are not public places. Do not like it there then do not go there, go to places that do not allow smoking. <br /><br />"educating them about the FACT that smoking is bad for you is one thing.": <br /><br />Putting "smoking kills" and "smoking causes impotence" is not educating it is fear mongering. Do you agree with that?Baruch Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879864721961862810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6587700778834733354.post-13360732461920844022010-12-20T10:33:49.712-05:002010-12-20T10:33:49.712-05:00There are many intermediate positions. There are ...There are many intermediate positions. There are plenty of people (both liberal and conservative) who believe that smoking in enclosed public places should be banned. I remember the days when every bar you went into was smokey and you would leave with a headache and your clothes smelling of stale smoke. I don't think that is an unreasonable ban since it clearly affects other people. Banning the right of people to destroy their own health strikes me as not reasonable; educating them about the FACT that smoking is bad for you is one thing. Banning it totally is very different.Herr Snooblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235146307373159873noreply@blogger.com