The Dangers of ‘Public Health’...
- Thread starter Kent C
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
In GA, places which are for adults only (bars, shops like 'adult toy' stores, etc), smoking is permitted by law -- if you have to be 18 just to walk in the door, smoking can legally be done there. Some of those 'stores' may disallow smoking, because of the potential danger to merchandise, but they're allowed their own discretion -- but all bars are smoking permitted zones.
Strange how some states manage to exercise a little "common sense" and others don't seem to have heard of it.
Andria
Actually 'collective guilt' isn't necessarily an attribute of those who push public good, but only a tool used by them against others to achieve their goals - that and fear mongering. They fail at reasoned arguments, so they use emotion instead....
If you have an actual lawn, the mower will tear them up. Cigarette filters are really just cellulose (plant fibers) that have been treated with acetic acid (vinegar). They're as natural as leaves, although some people can't stand to have those around, either.
The point we should be hammering on is that a government that commits fraud to deprive its citizens of their liberties, is a government that is committing acts of war against its own people. It is as unlawful and intolerable as purposely throwing innocent people in prison.
Yes, the mower will shred them up into quite a mess, all over the lawn. Fortunately, we don't know any smokers; I was the last holdout.
Andria
Never said seedy was a crime and don't appreciate comments of my not understanding, especially when definitions are not being provided. For someone that has bowed out of conversation based on ad hom, I sure hope you have more than ad hom to make your points going forward.
I stand by idea that slippery slope began around 1776 and that there are key dates in history where it made huge leaps forward (or backward).
Rights are inherent (or as Jefferson/Franklin said - inalienable - not to be 'determined'. Behavior may be 'determined' but not rights. "Property owner" means he who has rights regarding his property.
Very trivial to the point I was making.
Ok... perhaps I misunderstood.
Here's what you said: "it could be a business that only caters to adults, is known for activities that are seedy, and is known to be place where local laws are not enforced much and STILL I think that there would be certain laws / unwritten rules that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment,"
"Seedy" is followed by "place where local laws are not enforced" - which implies crimes are being overlooked. IF that is not what you meant, then why add something that implies (or actually says) just the opposite?
Same with, then: "and STILL I think that there would be certain laws.... that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment?" .... IOW, crimes are taking place, if there are laws that trump.
How else is anyone reading this to understand that?
And this is the other aspect - if all you are talking about wrt seedy, etc., is vices, then there should be no laws. (or mention of them, as you have done). Crimes are only about harming others or violating their rights - not what some may regard as 'seedy' either by one person or two or more consenting adults where no harm is done - no rights violated.
It is your own words above that give one the impression that you had no clue as to the difference between vices and crimes - hence my comments about your not understanding it.
Exactly. Criminalizing vices directly contradicts the unalienable right to pursue one's happiness. No victim, no crime.
Trying to paint a picture with few words. Main point is that "certain laws / unwritten rules trump whatever it is any individual would think they could do." Picture I was trying to paint is that of establishment on certain side of town, catering to a certain type of clientele, and yet these unwritten rules about "public space" would possibly trump whatever are the accepted rules of this particular establishment. And painted this picture to bring up a worst type of case scenario that is not blatantly illegal, and yet that social norms would still be (somewhat) present.
I'm still trying to understand how you connected seedy with crimes being committed. And wondering why you are nitpicking on that point? I mean, I'm okay if that's where you wanna go and to discuss how it is possible a seedy place could be engaging in crimes, but not sure why you think I was saying seedy must mean crimes are being committed, and then make that my entire point.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you are going for or are stuck on. Let's move away from the seedy place (and worst case scenario picture) and go with something mainstream. Like a bank.
I'm saying there are unwritten rules or social norms that are not necessarily / usually written down that are in place that would, for many people (but not everyone) trump whatever is local law / ordinance. Vaping would be a pretty good example. If I vaped openly in a bank (with zero intention or actual exercise of blowing into anyone's face), and no local law saying "no vaping" that the social norms would likely be enough for most people to say that is disallowed. Manager of bank could be vaper, everyone working or visiting the bank could be a vaper, but it could still be a fellow vaper that says "don't do that here" and manager could be like, "yeah, we don't allow that" (even while that is nowhere in writing, and not really an actual rule).
Vaping is not the only example I could come up with, though is probably best for both this thread and this forum. I think I could come up with 50 examples of things I could theoretically do in the public space area of the bank, that are not harming anyone, and that would be perceived as just enough of a nuisance that someone could invoke unwritten rule (along lines of common courtesy) to say it is disallowed. And I am saying it is mostly to only because of it being a "public space."
A bank is a good example, with Halloween coming up and all. Around here, many, many people "dress up" for Halloween at work, especially those in retail where costumes/candy are sold -- but banks all have signs on them on Halloween that say "No masks permitted in bank".
And in fact, my favorite teller at our bank is a vaper, and we often converse on that topic, and I was proud to show her my new etched mods -- but I don't vape in there. There are no laws or rules, but it just doesn't seem right to me; some mods might actually look like weapons (coolfire2?), and that would definitely be the definition of uncool in a bank. I just don't do it; at the bank where we have our mortgage, I always go thru the drive-thru, just because I don't want to stand there in line for 15 minutes, unable to vape. At the other bank, I rarely ever have to wait in line, or not for very long anyway, so it's really not an issue.
Andria
That (social norms - whatever they may be) is the sticking point for most 'traditional' and/or 'religious' conservatives and why they tend to lump vices and crimes in certain instances whether it is promoting laws against certain behavior or just wrinkling their noses. Those type of laws regarding non-right violating behavior leads to the slippery slope doing away with freedoms. The very first 'smoking designated area' did that and led to the mass demonization and further regulations and restrictions.
As I've said before, free minds and markets may 'offend one's sensibilities' but it's not going to harm you or violate your rights. And that's the trade off vs. a police state which mandates or prohibits behavior according to someone's or some group's subjective idea of what is the 'social norm'.
When you or Andria (or me) go into a bank without vaping or cursing (wait... I've cursed in a bank before :- ) ... then we set examples perhaps, but not all will follow. The bank owner of course can make his/her own rules, but risks losing customers as a result. But the gov't should have no say in the matter unless harm is done to others. (and actual harm, not 'hurt feelings' lol )
The entire concept of 'social/societal norms' is a product of consensus/democracy/mob rule.
That the perceived 'harm' supposedly being addressed is so often a fictitious creation in the first place fuels my skepticism whenever someone invokes this type of argument.
That the perceived 'harm' supposedly being addressed is so often a fictitious creation in the first place fuels my skepticism whenever someone invokes this type of argument.
Best thread ever!
Here's another quote about property rights that might be of interest.
On property rights: “It is not the right OF property which is protected, but the right TO property. Property per se has no rights; but the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property . . . . The three rights are so bound to together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland.
Here's another quote about property rights that might be of interest.
On property rights: “It is not the right OF property which is protected, but the right TO property. Property per se has no rights; but the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property . . . . The three rights are so bound to together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland.
http://www.libertarianism.org/publi...ns/philosophy-declaration-independence-part-2
When we speak of property today, we usually mean a thing or an object that is owned, something to which we have a moral and/or legal right to use and dispose of, such as a pencil. This pencil, we say, is my property; I own it; I have a right to use it, give it away, sell it, or destroy it.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the word “property” was often used in a broader sense to mean rightful dominion, or moral jurisdiction, over something. As the Lockean William Wollaston put it during the early eighteenth century: “To have the property of any thing and to have the sole right of using and disposing of it are the same thing: they are equipollent expressions.” This broad conception permitted Wollaston to speak of a man’s “property in his own happiness.”
Whereas we would say “This pencil is my property,” earlier libertarians were more likely to say “I have a property in this pencil.” When John Locke argued that the proper function of government is to protect property, he explained that by “property” he meant a person’s “Life, Liberty, and Estate.” This usage is what Locke had in mind when he wrote that “every Man has a Property in his own Person.”
When we speak of property today, we usually mean a thing or an object that is owned, something to which we have a moral and/or legal right to use and dispose of, such as a pencil. This pencil, we say, is my property; I own it; I have a right to use it, give it away, sell it, or destroy it.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the word “property” was often used in a broader sense to mean rightful dominion, or moral jurisdiction, over something. As the Lockean William Wollaston put it during the early eighteenth century: “To have the property of any thing and to have the sole right of using and disposing of it are the same thing: they are equipollent expressions.” This broad conception permitted Wollaston to speak of a man’s “property in his own happiness.”
Whereas we would say “This pencil is my property,” earlier libertarians were more likely to say “I have a property in this pencil.” When John Locke argued that the proper function of government is to protect property, he explained that by “property” he meant a person’s “Life, Liberty, and Estate.” This usage is what Locke had in mind when he wrote that “every Man has a Property in his own Person.”
If you had said "the sticking point for most" and left it at that, then we'd probably be all done with this disagreement. I'm saying public space is based on majority (as in virtually everyone's) sense of norms.
I see these sense of norms in virtually every (public) place I visit, including ECF.
I feel like you are equating "public" with "government" and can understand that, as it would seem (to some, perhaps all) that something has to be there to enumerate these norms. But that is literally impossible. In my previous example of vaping in the bank, I tried to make as clear as possible that the actual rule of "don't vape in the bank" doesn't exist (in the hypothetical example) and that everyone in there could be a vaper, and it could still be disallowed by management, based partially on made-up rule on the spot and mostly on the sense of norms aspect that comes with public space(s). Again, I could come up with 50 examples (probably way more) and none are likely enumerated anywhere in writing, and most would probably show up as ridiculous examples, but the underlying point is that we have a sense of it being abnormal to do that in public.
In my current reality I know I can vape in a bank, know I could possibly do it and not even be noticed, or probably do it in noticeable way and might not even get asked not to do it. But like Andria, I would consider myself very unlikely to do it there and based partially on the nature of that particular public space. The social norms, as I understand them, for that type of public space would likely be enough for me to not even consider doing it. Heck, now that I think of it, a bank is perhaps best example of this point I'm getting at. I mean, I openly advocate a hospital as one of best places indoors to vape, and would say a bank is likely one of the worst places, and I am partially basing that reasoning on social norms. If there were no social norms or perhaps I mean if I didn't have (my own) awareness of social norms, there is not a place you could name that I wouldn't consider feasible place to vape, assuming humans are allowed or able to breathe there.
I completely agree about hospitals; in fact, the last time I visited my mom, I didn't even bother going into her pvt bathroom to do it -- her door was closed, so I just sat and vaped as I visited with her. I'm sure if I'd been exhaling when a nurse walked in, she'd have gotten a massive attitude, but (thanks probably to my very-thin vapor) none of the nurses that kept coming in ever saw a thing, and it certainly didn't bother my mom -- in fact she thanked me for helping the room smell better!
But banks really are a horse of another color entirely -- one always knows, in a bank, that one is being watched very carefully, whether directly by humans, or by cameras that some human is or will be watching, and it is absolutely imperative in a bank to do absolutely nothing that might draw negative attention -- if one wants to keep banking there, certainly. At our "regular" bank, the one with a teller who vapes, *probably* nothing much would happen, if anyone even noticed -- but I like that bank, so I'd just rather not risk being asked to take my banking biz elsewhere. And I'm certainly not interested in the sort of response a bank is likely to have if they perceive even the slightest amount of "risky behavior."
Andria
Even when I was a smoker I would often high-beam someone ahead of me who threw a .... out the window.
That's one thing that always ticked me off, and always will.
Our homeowner's association does not allow fire pits.
It's all for insurance reasons.
I have one anyway.
Same for the homeowner's association of one of my rental properties.
Again, all for insurance reasons.
I have at times considered the appointment of Supreme Court Justices to be the most important thing a President does.
And too often lately, one of the worst things that they do.
You've bought into the ambiguity that is created by those who want to impose restrictions everywhere by redefining 'public'. The standard differentiation between property owned privately and property owned by government is that the former is considered "private property" and the latter is "public property". But from their viewpoint, IF they can get everyone (or a majority or just the media) to accept "public" to mean every inch of space available - then it would follow that gov't has control of that space.
And the laws regarding those historically have been very distinct. Private owners could make their own rules whereas on public/gov't property there were laws that determined what could or could not be done.
Those who wanted to implement certain behavioral restrictions began speaking of 'public spaces' such as malls, businesses some private parks, that the 'public' ie. people, patronized. And thus began the redefining of the term so that they could also intervene into what are actually private spaces. And the 'rules' that were once the owner's privilege to decide became 'laws' which the gov't decides.
And once that is allowed then the original definitions have been changed to where someone like you can bring into the discussion "what is accepted as 'public spaces'" and then use that altered definition to make some kind of spurious argument. When someone attempts to nail down the actual definitions and what the true separation is between what gov't controls and what private individuals should be able to control given the basis of private property, then they are accused of "using semantics" where the first misuse of semantics was the original ambiguity brought about by the redefininig of terms in order to enact regulations.
This is much like redefining ecigarettes as 'tobacco products' but not only ecigarettes but every component of an ecigarette including 0 nic eliquid. I can give you many other examples of this type of "misdefining" in order to 'persuade' the not-so-bright into accepting gov't regulations.
I don't doubt, that the use of 'public' isn't a common mistake - I know 'public school teachers' who have no idea that they are government employees, but that doesn't justify any sensible person who actually knows the difference in using it when discussing the issues that actually define it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
