The Dangers of ‘Public Health’...
- Thread starter Kent C
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nobody has so far challenged the scientific fraud. NOBODY, NOWHERE, NOHOW. And if you think otherwise, you must not even know what an actual challenge to it would look like. Certainly not that worthless tripe from CATO or Jacob Sullum, and not that pathetic stuff in the tobacco growers' lawsuit against the EPA, or that worthless junk from NYCCLASH, either. And what on earth do you mean, "It seems only fellow scientists can do this"? Do you think it's just a contest of who can trot out the most Authority Figures? And where do you get the idea that anybody outside of the little clique of anti-smokers actually has any say in the matter, or that their activities depend on the majority approval of scientists in general? You obviously don't understand the science yourself, and are full of misconceptions.
Quit being dysfunctional. The point is that some people DO know how to attack the scientific fraud, and there have been lawyers willing to take on the case, but there was no money with which to do it. The big law firms that have the money to do it on a contingency basis were all sucked into the state lawsuit against the tobacco companies, and declined to take it on the grounds that it would be a conflict of interest.
Private property v public space. I seem to remember as a young lad with a skull full
of mush there were public spaces and private property's open to the public.
There used to be a distinction. Some how that distinction has become blurred.
The how and why is not as important as realizing that this distinction no longer
exists and,what to do about it.
Regards
Mike
of mush there were public spaces and private property's open to the public.
There used to be a distinction. Some how that distinction has become blurred.
The how and why is not as important as realizing that this distinction no longer
exists and,what to do about it.
Regards
Mike
If the rules aren't explained or even provided, then it is quite plausible that I disregard the owner's rules for other things. Does that not make sense?
If it comes across to me as, I do not have to explain myself, my way or the highway, then if I'm going to be there more than 15 minutes, I will be challenging that version of authority in some way or another. Sometimes it is challenging myself just to see how I (or anyone) could possibly adapt to such authority. I find it, at times, so unprincipled and challenging to do simple negotiating that I'm routinely laughing inside at how silly things are to me in that moment. As I've grown older, I identify that trait as cynicism, but it still seems like innocence to me, as the "my way or the highway" mentality does vary from person to person, so it is a challenge to see how I can make that work for me and for both of us in the moment.
Because vaping is a lot like breathing in terms of how noticeable it is, and because I understand it to be around as harmful (possibly less harmful) than human breath, then my desire to challenge the rule is fairly strong. Tempting to see if I can get around that rule AND still be respectful.
I would like to think and/or have been told that I come off as level-headed, fairly respectful person when out and about in public. It is a mask I am comfortable wearing as it generally makes for smooth travels. When with people that are demonstratively principled, then it doesn't seem like a mask, but me being myself (or natural) with how to make the interaction work. But when I essentially have disdain for the lack of rule confirmation, it feels like a mask because putting all my cards on the table would seem to quickly work against me. Or, I learned real young that putting one's cards on the table in public regarding emotions is likely to be dealt with in very short order by those who have unprincipled understanding of authority. I'm sure it works for them most of the time, but it clearly doesn't work for me, and I'm willing to take a long form approach to overcoming that. IOW, I've learned to be patient with that when I confront it, but am tempted to do things that will challenge it (or violate their rules).
I like, and apply, your "catch me if you can" statement from a few posts back -- it may be against some idiot "rule" or other, but it will be pretty hard for them to catch me vaping behind a stall door in the restroom.
Andria
....according to you.
The problem as I currently understand it with regards to smoking is (on the surface) that it is to be disallowed in all public spaces because SHS has been proven to be dangerous. The problem may also include (below the surface) a policy of disallowing because some people are convinced they know better than others as to how society (in public spaces) is best maintained or run, and are going to exercise their authority and influence to ensure their values are the most prominent.
I identify this as a problem because it used to be that one could smoke and produce SHS everywhere, and it seemed to be a non-issue, for the most part, for non-smokers. Yet, due to ideology of anti-smoking, it was presented as a huge issue for society, and something that needs to be changed. The change that has occurred from anti-smoking types is what I identify as the problem.
The challenges that I'm aware of to this problem are scientific, political and philosophical. Because we still live in a world where smoking is disallowed in most indoor places, then all of these challenges, regardless of how valid they are do show up as unsuccessful challenges. This would include whatever you currently identify as best method for challenging. It may be entirely valid, but it is thus far unsuccessful in overcoming the problem.
The scientific ones that have used scientific method to explain how not so harmful SHS actually is, strike me as the one that is most likely to be how majority could accept a change in course, where smoking is allowed in some (perhaps majority of) places, as the validity of these challenges could be tested by anyone that cares to understand the science and/or repeat the experiments done to date.
The political challenges are addressing life in public spaces beyond just SHS. Because they could have net effect of allowing private property owners to make own decision to allow smoking on their property, then I consider them valid. But because they are going for more than just reversal of SHS from hands of anti-smoking zealots, I'm looking at them as bigger than the noted problem. I'm interested in what else they are conveying and deciding on further validity from there. As I self identify as conservative, then I tend to agree with or find validity in these political challenges.
The philosophical challenges encompass the scientific and political and will tend to think through an issue (any issue) by looking at more than just one side. It is my preferred approach, but if I'm with a crowd that thinks a post like the one you are reading right now is way too long and could've been said in much fewer words, then I'm thinking the philosophical approach is not for this crowd.
"All sucked into the state lawsuit" strikes me as far more dysfunctional than anything I could possibly be doing with regards to the problem.
It hasn't been 'blurred' - it's been taken away by gov't coercion, mainly in the area of smoking...and may be in vaping. But the way to correct it, is not violating private property rights - it's by restoring them.
Then the individual owner can choose what they want to do. My guess, is that most proprietors would welcome vaping and some would welcome smoking as well. But regardless, it is they who can set the rules. And like anything else in a free market - some customers will patronize and some won't. Some people may choose to work there, others won't. The owner may eventually take that into consideration or may make accommodations for both, as in 'smoking/vaping' 'no smoking but vaping' or 'no smoking or vaping' areas.
Some people are, of course, going to violate those rules but that's what bouncers are for. Or if you're ask to leave and refuse - then call the cops. It may behoove owners to explain why they have rules but they are under no obligation whatsoever, to do so.
And this isn't my 'subjective' viewpoint. IF you are going to have private property -THEN that's how it goes in reality. IF you're not going to have private property, then all is determined by government. Some want that. I don't.
Private property v public space. I seem to remember as a young lad with a skull full
of mush there were public spaces and private property's open to the public.
There used to be a distinction. Some how that distinction has become blurred.
The how and why is not as important as realizing that this distinction no longer
exists and,what to do about it.
Regards
Mike
I think the distinction has been blurred, but do still see it existing. As long as privacy is regarded as highly desired, and spaces are needed for private things to be done, then I think it will always exist. Politically, I think it will always exist. Philosophically, I'm not so sure.
Private properties open to the public have existed since first human civilization. What I'm saying in this thread is that there are things that we have collectively decided are not normal for that particular location, and that regardless of who is engaging in the abnormality, if it is a space open to the public, then it is disallowed to some degree and grounds for not being able to return. This includes owner of that property. In theory, an owner of a property can do whatever they want on their property. But if they are doing things in a space open to the public and it is abnormal, it might lead to them not being welcomed in that space. Though if simply not normal, then they may instead make decision that no one from the public is welcomed into that space anymore while they continue to whatever it is they want in that location.
I am also saying the not normal things that are collectively decided as disallowed are, for the most part, not listed anywhere as a rule pertaining to each possible action, for that would be impossible. So instead, it is a general understanding or expectation for when people are out in public. And magically, we all seem to abide by this code, with very few exceptions that will challenge it. Sometimes challenges are even praiseworthy, like a flashmob that does a choreographed dance in a place where you normally never see that. If I did a solo dance routine in the middle of a bank during their busiest time, I wouldn't be surprised if after 30 seconds into my routine, I was shown the door.
For me, the what to do about it is to challenge it where one determines it is reasonable to challenge it. And to challenge it in ways that might not be deemed acceptable, but that are unlikely to harm anyone. They surely may offend someone, including owner of the property, but not harm them. IMO, this is what many of us are doing when we are not entirely focussed on our self serving purpose for being in that location. I think challenges to the way public spaces ought to be governed will always exist, for as long as the physical world exists. I think people that are principled, patient and tolerant will see far fewer challenges in locations they manage or own than those who are unprincipled, impatient and intolerant.
Again, there has been NO CHALLENGE to the anti-smokers' scientific fraud. It has never even been attempted, therefore it is a falsehood to claim that it has been "unsuccessful."
And if you think there have been, then you've been completely snookered. The anti-smokers captured your brain and you don't even know it happened. You have accepted the deceitful charade of half-baked and misdirected legal theatrics as legitimate challenges, and conclude that, because they failed, the anti-smokers must be invincible. That is exactly the impression they want to create, and you are helping them do so. It shows that you can't fight the anti-smokers until you clear their lies out of your own head in the first place.
Correction, there's been no legal challenges. That you don't understand the word "challenge" is on you.
Thanks for the moral support. Your words are too kind.
It does make sense. You may have inadvertently dodged the question. Do you (disregard rules for other things)? And, if so, can I get an example or two? I ask because in thinking about it, I break owners (arbitrary) rules with some regularity as well...often without negative consequences either due to discretion or presentation on my part.
Nothing you have posted here has led me to believe your methods are anything less than respectful and level-headed in public. I do agree that ethics and authority (real and perceived) are sadly disconnected in many cases today. I believe this disconnection is perhaps the greatest obstacle we have to overcome as a society...but perhaps I am wrong in that thought. I DO believe that the disconnect of ethics and authority is more rampant in governmental authority than private property authority. Do you see it that way as well?
In any case, your "patient but relentless" method of challenge is noteworthy.
First of all, good to see you around again...
I sneak a small bottle (250ml) of alcohol into every venue I expect to have a few drinks.
I'm not about to be paying outrageous sums for a couple of drinks.
I also sneak food into movies, for a couple of reasons...
--Because they don't have any food that takes into account my dietary considerations
--And because the prices for their food, once again, is offered at outrageous sums
I know the question was not directed at me, but I'll offer my own reply anyway.
I sneak a small bottle (250ml) of alcohol into every venue I expect to have a few drinks.
I'm not about to be paying outrageous sums for a couple of drinks.
I also sneak food into movies, for a couple of reasons...
--Because they don't have any food that takes into account my dietary considerations
--And because the prices for their food, once again, is offered at outrageous sums
It is good to see you too. I suspect that many of us (when we think about it) are in the same boat. Rule breakers, (nearly) each and every one.First of all, good to see you around again...
I know the question was not directed at me, but I'll offer my own reply anyway.
I sneak a small bottle (250ml) of alcohol into every venue I expect to have a few drinks.
I'm not about to be paying outrageous sums for a couple of drinks.
I also sneak food into movies, for a couple of reasons...
--Because they don't have any food that takes into account my dietary considerations
--And because the prices for their food, once again, is offered at outrageous sums
Roaring via Tapatalk.
I don't believe I disregard rules for other things. If I do, it would be very rare and/or rules I'm not aware of. Vaping indoors strikes me as type of rule that is meant to be broken, while still plausible to do so and be respectful of the property and other people there.
I do not encounter the authority that often. Like with vaping, I'm still batting 1.000 or haven't been ordered not to do it wherever I've done it. I've asked, been told no (or yes) and still do it there if I feel I can get away with it and/or I'm there long enough, or often enough. I also don't encounter the "my way or the highway" type authority all that often. Seems like I did in the 90's and before, but not so much anymore.
I don't know, maybe I'm responding at an unusual time, but can't really think of rules that I willingly break other than vaping indoors. Even with that, I am generally not in any public space for more than an hour, and so I have resorted to asking a lot less lately, though did ask someplace within last month. I know I was in bar recently and was going to ask, but was there for about an hour and really didn't feel like vaping the whole time I was there, so no reason to ask. The items that @DC2 brought up are not something I would do, though I have at some point in my life. Feel free to provide me with some examples of rules that a person might break when in public space, and I'll respond.
I routinely drive faster than the posted speed limit, unless it's a school zone -- I've learned, to my financial discomfort, that cops take those VERY seriously. But I always wore my seatbelt, YEARS before the "click it or ticket" campaigns, because I'm seen first-hand what happens in a head-on collision when you aren't wearing one, and it's very far from pretty, and then there's all that nasty funeral business to deal with too.
Andria
But I always wore my seatbelt, YEARS before the "click it or ticket" campaigns, because I'm seen first-hand what happens in a head-on collision when you aren't wearing one, and it's very far from pretty, and then there's all that nasty funeral business to deal with too.Andria
Actually, there's been no challenge to the scientific fraud, either. I'm the only one. And when there is no outcry over the most egregious part of the anti-smoking persecution, that helps it continue. And why would you expect moral support for a mistaken position anyhow?
Yes, Andria, but these are examples of breaking State rules.I routinely drive faster than the posted speed limit, unless it's a school zone -- I've learned, to my financial discomfort, that cops take those VERY seriously.
Andria
I'm looking for property owner rules breaking.
For example, I drink unsweetened tea. No movie theater offers that as a beverage. Therefore, I smuggle a bit of unsweetened instant tea powder into the theater and mix it with bottled water (that I buy from concessions). The rules say "No outside food or drink", so I'm technically breaking the owners rules.
Roaring via Tapatalk.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
