Ooh! Should we further discuss libertarianism (both right and left) and talk about strip clubs and prostitution or should we keep talking about antismoking totalitarianism and America's f~+@ed up health care system?
At my workplace they recently slapped all supervisory personel with a $150/month surcharge. I know Comrade Truth doesn't like it when I laugh at my bosses' discomfort, but it makes it easier to deal with them when they catch you sneaking in an extra butt on the clock. "What am I doing? What are you doing?"
Of course, they can't charge us with shiznit, because we've got a f#~+ing union.
Team-ster! Team-ster! Team-ster!
[Lights another and enter a fit of coughing; hacks up disgusting amount of phlegm]
Ooh! Should we further discuss libertarianism (both right and left) and talk about strip clubs and prostitution
[Reads Citizen K(e)rensky's post and frowns]
|
Again, why is your right to smoke more important than someone else's right to not have an asthma attack?
Don't dance around bringing up business owners or strippers or anything else unrelated to the question. Don't bring up the false choice of the nonsmoker leaving.
Why is your right to smoke take priority over someone else's right not to be exposed to smoke.
Both people have a right to go there or not, the owner has the right to decide what happens in the building. Done. you think the smoker should go to hell to give you your way. no exception every time. i am saying to hell with both sides, the owner gets to pick. If you have 2 friends coming over, one is blind with a service dog the other violently allergic to dogs you as the home owner get to pick who has their way. And if one is pushed away enough he might just make a new freind, unless of course you make it illegal for him because you think your side is the only way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both people have a right to go there or not, the owner has the right to decide what happens in the building. Done. you think the smoker should go to hell to give you your way. no exception every time. i am saying to hell with both sides, the owner gets to pick. If you have 2 friends coming over, one is blind with a service dog the other violently allergic to dogs you as the home owner get to pick who has their way. And if one is pushed away enough he might just make a new freind, unless of course you make it illegal for him because you think your side is the only way.Again, why is your right to smoke more important than someone else's right to not have an asthma attack?
Don't dance around bringing up business owners or strippers or anything else unrelated to the question. Don't bring up the false choice of the nonsmoker leaving.
Why is your right to smoke take priority over someone else's right not to be exposed to smoke.
As I said before, I'm an (intermittent) smoker. And you still haven't answered the question you were asked. Why is your right to harm yourself and others superior to someone else's right to not be hurt?
It is once again and you will never understand this, the OWNERS RIGHT to decide for himself what customers he wants that has the only rights worth worrying about here. to hell with both sides, it is not them that i give a damn about. Why are you so damn against the owner choosing what business he wants?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I've gotten into smoking a hookah. With herbal molasses. Does that mean I'm a smoker? My mom freaked out when she saw the hookah and she thinks I'm getting high on the doob. But me, I just like fruity flavors like apple, mango and pineapple!
Ooh! Should we further discuss libertarianism (both right and left) and talk about strip clubs and prostitution or should we keep talking about antismoking totalitarianism and America's f#%#ed up health care system?
At my workplace they recently slapped all supervisory personel with a $150/month surcharge. I know Comrade Truth doesn't like it when I laugh at my bosses' discomfort, but it makes it easier to deal with them when they catch you sneaking in an extra butt on the clock. "What am I doing? What are you doing?"
Of course, they can't charge us with shiznit, because we've got a f@&~ing union.
Team-ster! Team-ster! Team-ster!
[Lights another and enter a fit of coughing; hacks up disgusting amount of phlegm]
Naw, it's okay. I merely pointed that out one time as part of the reason for the antagonism between individuals (sometimes). The supervisors should totally make their own union.
And its ironic how many freedom lovng conservatives get their red white and blue boxers in a twist over an individuals choice to smoke pot.Funnier (and demonstrably true unlike what you claim)is the fact that liberals as a whole want to end personal responsibility on so many levels but are bending over backward for drug legalization. How dare you want to let a business owner choose what legal activities to allow under his roof, now enjoy the smell of our legal good folks dope reeking up everything around them hours after smoking themselves into a stupor.
I've also always been simultaneously amused and horrified at the vast majority of the 'personal rights and responsibilities' crowd who state that your right to swing your fist end at their nose, but that their right to swing a fist ends when your corpse stops twitching.
Because "Conservatives" want just as much control as "Liberals", they just want to control different aspects of your life.
Don't make me dig out the Nolan chart!
Naw, it's okay. I merely pointed that out one time as part of the reason for the antagonism between individuals (sometimes). The supervisors should totally make their own union.Team-ster! Team-ster! Team-ster!
[Lights another and enter a fit of coughing; hacks up disgusting amount of phlegm]
I am opposed to the organization of foremen and supervisors into the organs of collective self-defense of the working class. I suppose they could, as you say, make their own union, but, happily--for me anyway--they won't. I've never met such a bunch of corporate kiss-asses in all my life, forever embroiled in their interdepartmental feuds and back-stabbings.
I recently changed shifts and don't yet have a feel for my new supes, but my old supe was one of the worst. The day he started with us, he went on a lecture about how our old supe (with whom I fought constantly, but had a begruding admiration for--he was pretty funny for a douchebag stooge of the plutocracy) had no idea what he was doing and how when he told us we were the best center in the building, it was all lies. Outside of junkies and people with psychological disorders, I've never met such a two-faced liar in all my life. He was also a vegetarian and a practitioner of yoga, which, always blew my mind. "Jeezus," I'd say to my union brothers and sisters after a particularly choice encounter with him, "Imagine what he'd be like if he didn't practice yoga!"
Anyway, with the changing of the shifts, I stepped down from my position as shop-floor steward and got a nice letter from my business agent telling me that the union was a better place for my participation and that I had always been a good steward. [Blushes]
Now, my stewards are named Juice, Sal and the Sullivan Twins. How awesome is that?!?
Call to ban cologne/perfumes loud talking and children and we have a deal. That courtesy to not be a pain in the ass is just as bad.
As soon as people start getting cancer from second-hand cologne, then we have a deal.
It is once again and you will never understand this, the OWNERS RIGHT to decide for himself what customers he wants that has the only rights worth worrying about here. to hell with both sides, it is not them that i give a damn about. Why are you so damn against the owner choosing what business he wants?That's simply not true. You're no longer allowed to do things such as post "White's Only" signs, and you're not allowed to discriminate against anyone who walks into your place of business with a legitimate right to be served. You're also not allowed to discriminate in how you treat your customers either. It's in the area of Non-Discriminatory Laws whose strength varies from state to state. New Jersey has comparatively strong versions of these laws.
You can eject people from your store if they behave in a disruptive or illegal manner, but as long as they behave, you're obliged to serve whatever customer comes in.
Its okay that an owner is forced to not have smoking in his place of business because that would be discriminating against the people who don't want smoke hanging around them at the place the chose to eat.
But its totally okay to discriminate the person who does want a smoke while in an designated area at their place of business?
C'mon lets be fair. Its not about discrimination, its about one side getting what they want because really the example u gave can be discrimination on both sides because 2 people want something different. One person has to be discriminated against their wants so that one Sid can be happy because we are no longer adults who can try to work something out to where both sides can be happy right? No one side is u happy so they have to make the other side unhappy to be happy, and call it discrimination when they can't get what they want even though what they want is denying someone else what they want.
Instead of banning, instead just come up with something where both sides are happy becauseif u ainain't working towards making both sides happy, THEN ur discriminating :-)
