First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Should smokers be allowed to make their own decisions?
Posted 10/19/14
good point, you should murder them... wait, they are dying. i thought you'd be happy!

jk

my family has a history of cancer and schizophrenia, yay.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

IgniteBadIntentions wrote:
Don't judge based on what the person does judge based on how they treat others. That's why you're being judged here.


I judge you, too.



severticas wrote:wait, they are dying. i thought you'd be happy!


I want people to die quickly and painlessly.



Beardyman wrote:

Why would making it inconvenient to smoke be a reputable or fair decision in any way. The inverse surely isn't fair.

While we're at it, why don't we put restrictions on the number of hours allowed to be continuously online. It's for "your own good" and "we should help you with that decision"


Self harm is very different to using the internet.

Of course if someone were to use the net enough that it becomes detrimental, then they need to be stopped.
8566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14


I know free will is an illusion, but it's an illusion I cherish.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

Beardyman wrote:

I know free will is an illusion, but it's an illusion I cherish.


I'm pretty sure a ban on anything is the illusion of choice.
Because it about choosing between the options that are legal.
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

Beardyman wrote:

Why would making it inconvenient to smoke be a reputable or fair decision in any way. The inverse surely isn't fair.

While we're at it, why don't we put restrictions on the number of hours allowed to be continuously online. It's for "your own good" and "we should help you with that decision"


By inverse do you mean making it inconvenient to smoke or making it inconvenient to not smoke?

It's true that it isn't exactly fair to restrict somebody like that, but to restrict the methods and means to the end of smoking cigarettes could still be beneficial to everyone, whether it's exactly fair to everyone's independence. I'm still thinking that designating areas where people may smoke is a decent solution.

Internet usage is unrestricted where I work, because a lot of it is done on computers and it helps to have references for equipment we haven't seen, and it's nice to be able to read when doing some of the more tedious, repetitive, low-attention tasks. Problem is, some people get carried away with it when they first start, they wind up not getting any work done, or getting their work done poorly, and the manager has their access to the internet shut down.

Which is better than firing somebody who could potentially benefit the business, but I'm not sure if I can describe it as fair to let some employees cruise the internet and others to not. I know it's anecdotal and doesn't apply to everything, but if somebody is going to be irresponsible to an extent, I believe it's fair enough to make it inconvenient to an extent.
8566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

morechunch wrote:


Beardyman wrote:

Why would making it inconvenient to smoke be a reputable or fair decision in any way. The inverse surely isn't fair.

While we're at it, why don't we put restrictions on the number of hours allowed to be continuously online. It's for "your own good" and "we should help you with that decision"


By inverse do you mean making it inconvenient to smoke or making it inconvenient to not smoke?

It's true that it isn't exactly fair to restrict somebody like that, but to restrict the methods and means to the end of smoking cigarettes could still be beneficial to everyone, whether it's exactly fair to everyone's independence. I'm still thinking that designating areas where people may smoke is a decent solution.

Internet usage is unrestricted where I work, because a lot of it is done on computers and it helps to have references for equipment we haven't seen, and it's nice to be able to read when doing some of the more tedious, repetitive, low-attention tasks. Problem is, some people get carried away with it when they first start, they wind up not getting any work done, or getting their work done poorly, and the manager has their access to the internet shut down.

Which is better than firing somebody who could potentially benefit the business, but I'm not sure if I can describe it as fair to let some employees cruise the internet and others to not. I know it's anecdotal and doesn't apply to everything, but if somebody is going to be irresponsible to an extent, I believe it's fair enough to make it inconvenient to an extent.


That's why I believe we should avoid legislation over subjects that fall within the realm of personal choice. Consider "rude smokers"
to simply be a negative by-product of a system enabling equality.
1840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Bebop
Offline
Posted 10/19/14
This is just silly.

By that logic I suppose we shouldn't let people who drink make their own decisions.

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14

rohaun wrote:

This is just silly.

By that logic I suppose we shouldn't let people who drink make their own decisions.



Have you ever seen me make decisions when I drink? The logic holds up.
Posted 10/19/14
no they shouldn't

make smokers die
18009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14
Yes. Freedom of expression.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

rohaun wrote:

This is just silly.

By that logic I suppose we shouldn't let people who drink make their own decisions.



I agree.
Definitely not when they're under the influence.
Or in general.

Everyone should just accept the hive mind.
Posted 10/19/14
this question is actually pretty weird.. what decisions do smokers make? except the ones they can't make already that's measurable. you'd have to literally own them, would you not?
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

Beardyman wrote:

That's why I believe we should avoid legislation over subjects that fall within the realm of personal choice. Consider "rude smokers"
to simply be a negative by-product of a system enabling equality.


That's pretty good. I can't totally sign on, though, and I'm having a hard time explaining why.

The personal choice of self-harm is fine by me. The personal choice of a larger destructive act is a by-product that we can make more inconvenient.

I'm not trying to compare cigarettes to guns or anything, but I'd rather not see butts on the ground or people smoking around non-smokers. And somehow, I've got it in my mind that not smoking is less of a choice than smoking. So if you choose to buy cigarettes and smoke them, I don't have a problem with it. I do that too. But if you blow smoke all over the place, it may force people to make the choice of being in a smoking or non smoking area, and I have to take into account the situations when they shouldn't really be asked to make that choice at all.

Like if I'm at a baseball game and somebody is smoking in the seat in front of me. It's making me crave a cigarette really badly (maybe it's making the person next to me gag, but I love second-hand smoke), but I also want to watch the game without this distraction. My ticket says I can only sit in one seat. Do I leave the baseball game, try and find a different spot to watch from, or ask that the person smoking do so somewhere else? Or should I suffer through it because, tough, sometimes people smoke?

They all solve the situation of smoking or non-smoking areas, but how should one person's choice of smoking at a baseball game affect another person's choice to be there in the first place? I dunno, hypothetical situations never answer questions, I shouldn't use them.
8566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14 , edited 10/19/14

morechunch wrote:


Beardyman wrote:

That's why I believe we should avoid legislation over subjects that fall within the realm of personal choice. Consider "rude smokers"
to simply be a negative by-product of a system enabling equality.


That's pretty good. I can't totally sign on, though, and I'm having a hard time explaining why.

The personal choice of self-harm is fine by me. The personal choice of a larger destructive act is a by-product that we can make more inconvenient.

I'm not trying to compare cigarettes to guns or anything, but I'd rather not see butts on the ground or people smoking around non-smokers. And somehow, I've got it in my mind that not smoking is less of a choice than smoking. So if you choose to buy cigarettes and smoke them, I don't have a problem with it. I do that too. But if you blow smoke all over the place, it may force people to make the choice of being in a smoking or non smoking area, and I have to take into account the situations when they shouldn't really be asked to make that choice at all.

Like if I'm at a baseball game and somebody is smoking in the seat in front of me. It's making me crave a cigarette really badly (maybe it's making the person next to me gag, but I love second-hand smoke), but I also want to watch the game without this distraction. My ticket says I can only sit in one seat. Do I leave the baseball game, try and find a different spot to watch from, or ask that the person smoking do so somewhere else? Or should I suffer through it because, tough, sometimes people smoke?

They all solve the situation of smoking or non-smoking areas, but how should one person's choice of smoking at a baseball game affect another person's choice to be there in the first place? I dunno, hypothetical situations never answer questions, I shouldn't use them.


I understand, and even agree to an extent. I guess what I'm trying to say is that our beliefs are not in a vacuum. The very nature of coexistence is compromise and it's really difficult to draw the line a lot of times. Where is the causal link, exactly? Borrowing your baseball game for a second: It also stands to reason that if smoking bothered you enough you would take necessary precautions to avoid it. Perhaps it comes down to an individual's actual strength of conviction regarding these issues.

Personally I refuse to believe I will ever once be able to live in a world I deem wholly acceptable. In fact I cherish the ability life has given me to shrug off these annoyances.

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 10/19/14


This is it.

This is the chunch.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.