And by the Way...

[Rachel]

Originally posted by steelcult

Originally posted by Rachel
- I\'d like to see how police would regulate any kind of consensual sex ).

Umm Rachel, I hate to tell you this, but until recently (Last Year as a matter of fact) it was illegal for many of my homosexual friends to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes.

Oh no, I\'m quite aware of that - it\'s illegal in Tasmania too apparently - a friend was telling me that one periodic pastime of gay rights advocates is to wander into the police station and embarrass them by insisting on being arrested for having illegal sex. But until the stupid law gets changed...

What I meant by regulating sex was that unless you\'re actually shagging in front of the police station (or anywhere particularly public) then I\'d think an arrest is fairly unlikely.

Unless there are sex-raids in the States that no-one\'s talking about

(how does this have anything to do with the original topic? not sure. Do people still have a fag after a shag? )

Rachel

ps Faye - good point, and all people\'s religious/spiritual/atheistic beliefs should be respected, but I know I didn\'t mention religion anywhere. I was talking about citizens of a country all having the same rights (or they should) under the law, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion in those countries that hold religion and the state to be separate.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Rachel
What I meant by regulating sex was that unless you\'re actually shagging in front of the police station (or anywhere particularly public) then I\'d think an arrest is fairly unlikely.

(how does this have anything to do with the original topic? not sure. Do people still have a fag after a shag? )

Actually, the main case in Georgia that caused such controversy was a case where officers had been called to an apartment on (IIRC) a noise complaint, were let into the apartment by Person X, and wandered into the bedroom to find a gay couple being intimate. They were arrested, tried, and convicted. I believe this occurred in 1979, though I may be wrong on that date.

This *was* recently overturned in Georgia, last year IIRC. So there\'s, what, 24 years or so of stupid.

As for topic...we don\'t need no steenkin\' TOPIC. :innocent:

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by darthfoley
This *was* recently overturned in Georgia, last year IIRC. So there\'s, what, 24 years or so of stupid.

well, wow. Ok then, I now see how it could happen. I guess at least the noise complaint means it was sex *worth* getting arrested for... I\'d hate to think someone got arrested over an average shag :bouncy:

But yes, that is both awful and insane. I\'m glad it was overturned! And yup, 24 - that means I\'m as old as stupid. Make of that statement what you will

As for topic...we don\'t need no steenkin\' TOPIC. :innocent:

I guess it wouldn\'t be a CMON thread without a *little* deviation. Do we have a little deviant anywhere?

 

[stumpkiller]

did someone call for me?:duh::moon:

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by darthfoleyI don\'t smoke, I don\'t *have* go where people smoke unless I *choose* to do so. I *will* regulate the air in my own house, even to the point of making my own mother sit outside on the porch in the cold to smoke when she comes to visit.

Yet again, this is a different topic. If some plant was dumping toxic waste into the drinking water, it would be something I had no *choice* about - except for my choice whether or not to sue them, or blow up the plant (j/k), or move. Since that would be a corporation infringing on the rights of MANY people, I find it to be a totally different argument.

I don\'t see your difference. Rather I see the a difference, but I don\'t see where you draw the line. What is the inherent difference between the choice to avoid places where people smoke and the choice to live in a town that doesn\'t have a polution-creating power plant? (or more closely just not to drink the water and only buy bottled water)

As to the rights of \"many people,\" that can\'t be the distinction because smoking in public buildings (or places of employment ala Ireland) infringes the rights of many people, namely nonsmokers.
As to not *having* to go where people smoke, how else would you buy food if people are smoking either in the store or outside the doorway? I suppose you have the choice to order pizza every night.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by vincegamer

I don\'t see your difference. Rather I see the a difference, but I don\'t see where you draw the line. What is the inherent difference between the choice to avoid places where people smoke and the choice to live in a town that doesn\'t have a polution-creating power plant? (or more closely just not to drink the water and only buy bottled water)

As to the rights of \"many people,\" that can\'t be the distinction because smoking in public buildings (or places of employment ala Ireland) infringes the rights of many people, namely nonsmokers.

As to not *having* to go where people smoke, how else would you buy food if people are smoking either in the store or outside the doorway? I suppose you have the choice to order pizza every night. [/quote]

You don\'t see the difference between a person\'s total lack of control over what some factory might be dumping into the water table, and a person\'s total control over which building they walk into?

As for places of employment, etc...the OWNER of the establishment should have the say-so, not the government. That would be the major sticking point. Much like that mostly forgotten flap about the nekkid avatar, the simple fact is that whether you or I or anybody else likes it is immaterial - if Chern (the OWNER) had said it goes, it goes; he says it stays, it stays. Simple as that. The same should be true of any restaurant/pub/bar/store etc.

Finally, yeah I could order pizza every night; or I could go kill a deer and feed my family that way; or I could hold my breath and walk thru the smoke (and I wonder what grocery store it is you frequent where people apparently hang around outside the doors to smoke) for all of 5 seconds to get inside; or I could find a restaurant whose owner had decided not to allow smoking on his property (well, I could if the owner would be allowed to make that choice...unfortunately, thanks to nonsense crusades like Truth and similar attitudes, he isn\'t allowed to make that choice, is he?). :idea: :innocent:

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by darthfoley

You don\'t see the difference between a person\'s total lack of control over what some factory might be dumping into the water table, and a person\'s total control over which building they walk into?

You\'re mixing up the logic on that one

The person has total control over the building they walk into, just as the townsfolk in Pollutionsville have total control over which town they live in.

However, just as a Pollutionsvillian can\'t control what the plant pumps into the water, the individual can\'t control what the smokers (or whoever) exhale into their breathing space.

But apparently only one of those is a problem

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Rachel
You\'re mixing up the logic on that one

I don\'t see it that way; however, if I have, then I refer to my original point that these are two completely different topics and can only posit that I have managed to tangle myself in a net by trying to argue them both at once. :innocent:

Originally posted by Rachel
The person has total control over the building they walk into, just as the townsfolk in Pollutionsville have total control over which town they live in.

However, just as a Pollutionsvillian can\'t control what the plant pumps into the water, the individual can\'t control what the smokers (or whoever) exhale into their breathing space.

If we can all agree that the person has total control over where they go and what they expose themselves to...


THEN WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT? lol

Don\'t *go* to the pub if smoke makes you nauseous. Don\'t *visit* a relative if they smoke and you don\'t like it, take up a nice long distance, non-coughing correspondence instead. Don\'t *go* somewhere that you know there is going to be smoke and then complain about it; it\'s a like a vegetarian going into a steakhouse and complaining that they serve dead animal...I just don\'t get it.

And most of all, don\'t attempt to involve the government in something that is none of their business in the first place; petition the owner of the establishment to do something about it. It\'s his place; let him decide. Otherwise you\'ll wind up with another situation like Prohibition and we all know how well *that* worked out.

As Dennis Miller said...if we try to get everybody on the same page on every issue, we wind up like Germany in the 1930\'s...which didn\'t really turn out all that funny.

Anyway...pints all around...cheers...

 

[mule]

Originally posted by Rachel
Oh no, I\'m quite aware of that - it\'s illegal in Tasmania too apparently -

Not anymore, about a month ago they changed the law with a huge about-face, and are now supposed to be the most \'progressive\' state in Australia, can\'t remember why thou.

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by darthfoley
THEN WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT? lol

Don\'t *go* to the pub if smoke makes you nauseous.

oh dear... and i swore I wasn\'t going to perpetuate this any longer... but what *I* was arguing about was people having to make that choice. I\'d rather all towns had clean water than have to pick and choose because some were stinky.

The entity creating the pollution gets to be the thing/person that has the responsibilty to stop it, rather than people just putting up with or avoiding it. Maybe they have to be asked to do it, but the \'fault\' still lies on their shoulders since they\'re actively producing the mess.

and I stand corrected about Tasmania

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Rachel
oh dear... and i swore I wasn\'t going to perpetuate this any longer... but what *I* was arguing about was people having to make that choice. I\'d rather all towns had clean water than have to pick and choose because some were stinky.

The problem is, as soon as you take that entity\'s right to do Offensive Thing X away...it won\'t be long until they take something *you* like away.

I\'d rather have the choice and the responsibility for myself, that\'s all.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by darthfoley
I could find a restaurant whose owner had decided not to allow smoking on his property (well, I could if the owner would be allowed to make that choice...unfortunately, thanks to nonsense crusades like Truth and similar attitudes, he isn\'t allowed to make that choice, is he?).

You may have missed my earlier point that he WAS allowed to make that choice, and apparently no one did. And to stick with the pollution analogy, the factory owner could make the choice not to pollute at all, but he didn\'t. Before labor laws, people had the choice not to employ children in locked sweatshops for 14 hour days but didn\'t make that choice either. This is a case of the majority of a democratic society deciding that something is harmful (not just bothersome) and that since the industry has no inclination to stop the majoritarian democracy will make them stop.
Now, no one is telling smokers they cannot smoke. Smoke all you want. Just don\'t do it in a public gathering place.

Oh, since you mentioned prohibition I assume you mean prohibition of alcohol. Our government still prohibits methamphetamines, opiates, child pornography, counterfeit cancer medication and a host of other things society has deemed harmful. Because one has been allowed doesn\'t mean all will or should be.

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by vincegamer
You may have missed my earlier point that he WAS allowed to make that choice, and apparently no one did.

In other words, why didn\'t half the bars in California become non-smoking? My only guess is no one was willing to be first to do it. If the industry was willing to permit smoking/non-smoking designations, why didn\'t anyone adopt the latter before the laws were passed?

I had to go back through the postings to find the one you\'re talking about (at least I assume this is it). So, the choice was there and no business owner decided to make their business \'smoke-free\'? If so, then doesn\'t that indicate that perhaps the \'majority\' isn\'t the camp you think it is? My guess is that nobody made that choice because 1) they didn\'t want to lose potential profits or 2) they didn\'t feel like a non-smoker\'s health was important enough..in which case...why would you want to go?

Originally posted by vincegamer
Oh, since you mentioned prohibition I assume you mean prohibition of alcohol.

Yes, generally when that word is capitalized, it refers to that period of time.

Originally posted by vincegamer
Our government still prohibits methamphetamines, opiates, child pornography, counterfeit cancer medication and a host of other things society has deemed harmful. Because one has been allowed doesn\'t mean all will or should be.

Possibly not - though I would say that at least two of those should be reversed - but it\'s amusing to me that the ones that are legal are probably the most harmful. Why would those then be the legal ones? Cause those are the ones the government makes the most money from.

Can we stop dropping anvils on the horse now?

 

[Nailpainter2003]

Can we stop dropping anvils on the horse now?

PAH-LEEeeeaaaase!!:flip::bouncy: It\'s DEAD already!

 

[stumpkiller]

ok

BROGNNNN-nnnng, Oops, just one more:flip::duh:

 

[wiccanpony]

OUCH!!! OW!!...that smarts!!!

looking up to see where anvil came from...seeing Stumpkiller running away, giggling....grrrrr:flame:lol

 

[stumpkiller]

Originally posted by wiccanpony
OUCH!!! OW!!...that smarts!!!

looking up to see where anvil came from...seeing Stumpkiller running away, giggling....grrrrr:flame:lol

giggle? GIGGLE??? I don\'t giggle! I laugh maniacally BWAAHAAHAHAHAHA! HA ha? oh nevermind lol