Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    Hmm.

    The way I see it, it goes beyond adaptation.

    What do you think of Mill than? Which books have you read of his?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    What do you think of Mill than? Which books have you read of his?
    I've read "On Liberty" also. It would appear that we have different interpretations of his meaning, which is, after all, perfectly legitimate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Please don't be so pathetic to launch that kind of attack on me. Who the hell do you think you are? I'm not even recieving any EMA money and I wouldn't spend it in a restaurant. I don't know what kind of inflated ego you have to assume that I would do that and quite frankly I think you're being pathetically childish. I mean excuse me sorry if I want to actually take a break from being immersed in your silly personal attacks and ridiculous analogies but DONT YOU DARE MAKE assumptions like that again.
    Why write misleading posts than?

    I really don't see what's wrong... I get EMA,
    (EMA thread).

    Attack? What wrong with getting EMA? Its not your fault your poor. If you are ashamed of it than theres no need to be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You know...you may have picked up a couple of tricks from watching big tony on the telly...but the problem is, when your involved in a sustained argument, continually trying to switch the conversation onto a topic that you know your opinions find a solid "moral" basis will only work for a significant period of time - as happened here when people stopped talking about the issues and started getting annoyed at you not answering the simple question - resulting in personal insult and the whole debarkle descending into a farce.
    Maybe if you plan to extensively argue a case in future, you choose something more fitting, or maybe do some research on the exact topic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    You know...you may have picked up a couple of tricks from watching big tony on the telly...but the problem is, when your involved in a sustained argument, continually trying to switch the conversation onto a topic that you know your opinions find a solid "moral" basis will only work for a significant period of time - as happened here when people stopped talking about the issues and started getting annoyed at you not answering the simple question - resulting in personal insult and the whole debarkle descending into a farce.
    Maybe if you plan to extensively argue a case in future, you choose something more fitting, or maybe do some research on the exact topic

    I did respond, merely in my way namely i held to my view that liberty is of utmost importance. Some people jut disagee with this, perhaps because they have never been deprived of it to any great extent. Sticking to your principles and rejecting anothers premises does not mean you have not done research on a topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why not let the owner decide? All restaurants that i go to have smoking and non smoking areas. Its for the market to decide i.e. if its bad for business owners will react accordingly, not the government.
    Hear Hear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Hear Hear.
    Good to see there are some tories who value freedom
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    So you're saying it's a matter of choice?

    How about those in the vicinity of a smoker, who don't have that choice?
    You are chained to them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    Should they not have the *liberty* to do as they wish, also? Smoking isn't a right, it's an addiction.
    Who are you to decide on what I am or am not addicted to? And if I am addicted, who are you to decide that I am not allowed to be addicted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    But why should someone who chooses sensibly not to partake in a vice be disadvantaged?
    i) Anyone who chooses to smoke is not sensible
    ii) Smoking is a vice
    iii) This vice is forced on everyone who appear incapable of taking the rather easy decision of not going near smokers. Im terribly sorry, should we submit an application to the government before we choose not to enter a smoking environment? Do we need the Labour government to help us to not enter a smoke filled environment?

    Any more Labour contributions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    I can honestly say I know of NO restaurants in my town that disallow smoking. What am I to do? I'm sure there are thousands more like me.
    Dont go into those restaurants? Restaurants want a profit, if these thousands werent willing to eat with smokers they would run out of business. They dont because they are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    This is not about liberty.

    We are not stopping people from smoking, but simply want to ensure that it is not a regular practice inside buildings where non-smokers are subject to increased risk of various diseases and can not always "choose" to leave as soon as a smoker arrives.

    Why should non-smokers be the secondary citizen here?
    There is a case for limiting smoking in a place of work. There is no reason to prevent smoking in places of social gathering, such as restaurants, pubs, bars etc. It clearly is a case of individual freedoms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    I don't really think objectivism understands the gravity of this health risk... He appears to be brushing it aside, and shifting the focus somehow to liberty...
    Which is ultimately far more important. If and when someone demonstrates theyre forced to consume tobacco smoke, I will recognise the point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't made up my mind about this issue, and one can come to different conclusions even if they make economic efficiency their primary objective.

    The British economy is composed of the incomes of all people (and capital) living in Britain. The inability of someone to work has a detrimental effect on the overall economy, and by extension lowers the average income of every Brit. If the government can prevent someone from smoking and thus getting cancer, it increases the amount of people actively taking part in the British economy. Of course if you take this far enough, the government shouldn't allow people to do anything remotely dangerous for the same reason. Therefore, absolute protection is an unworkable policy. On the other hand, the government can't remove all safety regulations either, since the market doesn't value life as highly as it arguably should and would greatly increase the amount of accidental deaths while assuring an optimal economic output. A substantial part of the population is willing to increase their own chance of death for a larger salary, and it can only be expected that a substantial portion of them will die.

    Also, in a country with national healthcare, the cost to the taxpayer is increased every time someone gets lung cancer, which means the taxpayer has a legitimate right not to have his money wasted on something that can be reasonably prevented. It would not be unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to submit requirements for how their money is spent, one of them being that it's not wasted on people who got ill needlessly. Since people who smoke can't be denied national healthcare, other methods must be used to achieve this objective.

    The argument against limiting the freedom of smokers has been adequately explained by objectivism, so I won't bother repeating what he already said.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why write misleading posts than?

    (EMA thread).

    Attack? What wrong with getting EMA? Its not your fault your poor. If you are ashamed of it than theres no need to be.
    There was no need for an unnecessary comment that implied I was mis spending EMA money - and sorry but I don't like that I thought it was completely uncalled for and the tiniest bit insulting
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry to bring up the cupcake issue, but the TSR insomniacs debated this at 3:00am.

    Would a more accurate analogy be...

    People sit in restaurants with needles filled with HIV virus. They inject themselves because they enjoy it. Occassionly they inject other people with HIV sitting in the restaurant. Obviously this is extreme, the point however is that a line has to be drawn. This line will have to cut off 'liberty' somewhere.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    Sorry to bring up the cupcake issue, but the TSR insomniacs debated this at 3:00am.

    Would a more accurate analogy be...

    People sit in restaurants with needles filled with HIV virus. They inject themselves because they enjoy it. Occassionly they inject other people with HIV sitting in the restaurant. Obviously this is extreme, the point however is that a line has to be drawn. This line will have to cut off 'liberty' somewhere.
    :congrats: *TSR Insomniac is back* But yeah there's a difference between liberty and just plain courtesy... If I smoked and I was asked to stand outside while I do it I wouldn't feel the tragedy of lost liberty exactly...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    ... If I smoked and I was asked to stand outside while I do it I wouldn't feel the tragedy of lost liberty exactly...
    Most decent people wouldn't, but obviously people like objectivism have different views...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Hear Hear.
    im afraid on this issue you are incorrect.

    when you have two groups of people; those who wish to smoke and those who dont want it, in an area whether it be a pub or a restaurant or a shopping centre, the logical course of action is to prevent the more dangerous activity.

    its easy for people to sit here and say banning smoking infringes on "rights" and "liberties". its unfortunate that upholding them for the smoker inevitably infringes on those of the non smoker.

    when we consider that the non smoker isnt billowing a toxic cloud around them, i think its fairly obvious who needs their "freedoms" infringed. if they dont like it, then tough s!-!it
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Which is ultimately far more important. If and when someone demonstrates theyre forced to consume tobacco smoke, I will recognise the point.
    What about the children of a smoker then? Not only are they exposed to cigarette smoke in the home, but also in public places. I'm sure a three year old going to the cafe for tea with mother or father has no choice in the matter, and therefore is forced to consume tobacco smoke.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,068

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.