Im sick and tired of having stupid friends...

[ChumpDumper]

"I will never talk about this again.


































For 52 minutes."

Until my next post, I retire.

[turambar85]

And here is, to avoid anymore confusion, my thread and posts in a nuts .

1. When I said Im sick of having stupid friends, then listed the groups they had joined, I only meant that the ones pertaining to gay marriage, and that mainly being because of why they think what they do, makes them stupid.

I said on numerous occasions that I only put the smoking ban, loving Bush, and hottest is modest as a joke. I do not think them stupid for these views, I merely disagree with them.

2. I made this post wanting to argue the merits of opposing gay marriage and adoption. I think it fine that we argued cig bans, but I would prefer to at least touch on the other topic.

The reasons I dropped the cig ban argument was because of 3 reasons.
i. I had to write my essay, so it wasn't worth pursuing.
ii. I do not believe stronly enough about that issue to waste hours arguing it when I have other things to do.
iii. I also did not pursue the argument not because Chump would not agree, but was arguing by attrition, simply throwing out that wasn't relevant to the issue, and repeating the same things regardless of whether or not I had addressed them. The main problem being that he would also twist my statements for no other reason than being a pain in the ass, obviously knowing what I meant. lol.

Now this does not mean that I have a problem with Chump, I do not. It is just that I, being on a time budget, did not wish to pursue that particular style of argument on this particular subject at this particular time. If any of the 3 problems were changed, or I had more time, I would have been all over it.

I hope this clears some things up.

[turambar85]

"I will never talk about this again.

































For 52 minutes."

Until my next post, I retire.

I said I would not argue cig. bans in this thread anymore, than does not mean I wont discuss what went on in the debate.

[ChumpDumper]

You really have to ask yourself if anyone gives a .

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The best argument for banning smoking in bars is the public health issue - the health of non-smoking patrons, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, the health of the BAR WORKERS. Why should they be forced to work in dangerous conditions? That is why we have occ health and safety laws.

As for reason and religion not getting along... seriously brother, religion is about FAITH and has nothing to do with reason. Don't expect the two to marry...

Concerning gay marriage - someone said "it's just a le". No, it's not. There are very serious legal, financial and taxation consequences that change when you get married. As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing. Let gay people marry! , is their love somehow less because they're gay? Don't like the word using the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, use another term like "civil union" to distinguish hetero and union.

Why are your friends so blinkered? Sounds like they have very narrow worldviews, like most people. If you morally object to their narrow and myopic view of the world, sounds like you you need some new friends.

Good luck with that.

[jochhejaam]

As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing. Let gay people marry! , is their love somehow less because they're gay? Don't like the word using the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, use another term like "civil union" to distinguish hetero and union.

Could your philosophy be construed as narrow-minded? I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?
If everyone were sexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.

[jochhejaam]

As for me, I figure that anything that makes people happy and doesn't hurt others is a good thing.

Sorry about breaking this up into two separate posts. I hit the wrong button and accidently submitted the last post in mid-sentence, then had to edit to complete the sentence

With that philosophy, if others are hurt by their friends or family being sexual then that lifestyle should be considered "not a good thing", right?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?

Not really in this case.

If everyone were sexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.

Nah, I would invest in sperm banks though.

[ChumpDumper]

[SIZE=1]With that philosophy, if others are hurt by their friends or family being sexual then that lifestyle should be considered "not a good thing", right?

Define "hurt."

[jochhejaam]

Not really in this case.

Why not?

[ChumpDumper]

Why not?

There would have to be a possibility of its happening.

[jochhejaam]

Define "hurt."

I'll defer to RuffnReadyOzStyle since he brought it up, then we'll move forward from there.

[jochhejaam]

There would have to be a possibility of its happening.

Hypothetically speaking.

[smeagol]

1. When I said Im sick of having stupid friends, then listed the groups they had joined, I only meant that the ones pertaining to gay marriage, and that mainly being because of why they think what they do, makes them stupid.

I said on numerous occasions that I only put the smoking ban, loving Bush, and hottest is modest as a joke. I do not think them stupid for these views, I merely disagree with them.

So you are sure their views on gay marriage and gays being able to adopt are based on hatred?

Or is it that you think that anybody who is against gay marriage or gay adoption rights, is stupid and bases his/her views on hate?

The reasons I dropped the cig ban argument was because of 3 reasons.
i. I had to write my essay, so it wasn't worth pursuing.
ii. I do not believe stronly enough about that issue to waste hours arguing it when I have other things to do.
iii. I also did not pursue the argument not because Chump would not agree, but was arguing by attrition, simply throwing out that wasn't relevant to the issue, and repeating the same things regardless of whether or not I had addressed them. The main problem being that he would also twist my statements for no other reason than being a pain in the ass, obviously knowing what I meant. lol.

It was fun to read how chump kicked you ass on this argument.

He was not arguing by attrition. He refuted every single point you made until you had pretty much nothing to say.

And when the did he twist your arguments?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Could your philosophy be construed as narrow-minded? I'm wondering if it's fair to examine a certain lifestyle based on the consequences it would have if everyone lived the same lifestyle?
If everyone were sexual the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years.

No, jo, I don't agree because it's a specious argument. The entire human race is never going to be sexual, nor is sexuality ever going to threaten the continuation of the species. sexuality runs at about 8% of the population.

(jokingly) If anything, we need a significant increase in sexuality to reduce the numbers of humans on the planet!

As for your second post, as CD said, it depends on your definition of "hurt". If someone else chooses to feel "hurt" because of your choice concerning what you do in your bedroom, which I think most will agree should only be the business of those taking part, then the person who is "hurt" is choosing to be so about something that they really have no right interfering with. There is no direct hurt or detriment to other people caused by sexuality as it concerns sexuality which is an entirely individual characteristic.

As a caveat, I am not sexual, so either way this issue doesn't really affect me - it just seems like racism to me. It is a case of irrational descrimination based on a characteristic which doesn't affect other people (just like skin colour). It's just narrow-minded bigotry. I know a number of gay couples and their relationships, their love, are just the same as heterosexual couples. Why should they not be allowed to formalise that love and commitment like the majority? It's a case of majority suppressing the rights of a minority group IMHO.

[leemajors]

You go to bars, people enjoy smoking in bars, thus, people smoke in bars.

Now, lets change that to....

You go to bars, people enjoy not showering before going to bars, thus, people in bars smell like rancid body odor.

So, should people adopt that policy and view, should we ban the practice because it causes you to smell?

in california you can't smoke in bars/restaurants, in austin you can't smoke in bars/restaurants. it's awesome, and no one is terribly inconvenienced by it. get ready for it, it's going to happen everywhere sooner or later. i am disgusted when i go to restaurants in other towns where there are still smoking sections. it's disgusting having to smell stale cigarette smoke as you eat.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

You can't smoke in bars here either, and it's okay. People just go outside for a smoke.

It's mainly to protect the workers, and fair enough too. What if you said to all the office workers, "you have to spend your 8 hours a day in the office in a cloud of carcinogens"? Imagine the outcry, and rightfully so. Well, bar workers have lived that for decades.

[turambar85]

Joch, I believe that you are using Kant's "Act so that you can will the maxim of your actions to be universal law." Am I correct?

If that is the case, there is one important exception to be noted.

When arguing in that manner you are assuming that the law or decision being made is one that could be translated into an action being done by everybody. Now, if the law was that we should be gay, then yes, the result would be willing all of society to be gay. However, if the law is allowing gay marriage, the universal maxim would be allowing anybody who is gay to marry.

This premis does not lead to more sexuality, and, thus, does not lead to less of a society. The number of sexuals will not increase to a global epedemic just because we make marriage legal. The same sexuals will not breed with straight people regardless, so we lose no babies.

If we are worried about the ill-effects on society then you need to ban being gay, or require making babies, not ban marriage!

[turambar85]

Ok, I had decided to not post anymore about cig banning, but I can't stand by and have Smeagol pretend to know the situation.

Chump decided that we should ban it because it hurts the lungs of bar patrons.

I decided we should require a ventilation system.

Chump believes that this will be ineffective because not all bars can do this.

Well, if not all bars can do this, then not all bars will allow smoking. By making this law you give the bar owners the choice to allow smoking by getting the required changes, or they simply dont allow smoking. This sort of action should be done on an individual basis. There is no need for the government to make more laws and increase its bloated size.

Why doesnt everybody who doesnt want 2nd hand smoke to protest and not frequent bars who allow it, then we will have some bars that cater to smokers, and some that cater to people who want to avoid the practice.

It is a simple solution, one that does not permit the government to needlessly ban a practice.

And my ass was not kicked, sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

Your "solution" is completely discriminatory against smaller establishments and single-room venues that are the lifeblood of the live entertainment industry in Austin at the very least. You're saying if your venue is big enough AND configured correctly AND you have enough money, you can enjoy a decisive compe ive advantage over those places that cannot meet any one of those three requirements.

Why doesnt everybody who doesnt want 2nd hand smoke to protest and not frequent bars who allow it, then we will have some bars that cater to smokers, and some that cater to people who want to avoid the practice.

Why don't smokers just go outside when they want to smoke? That way everyone can go to every bar in town.

[jochhejaam]

Turambar, I'm not quite sure about your friends position, do they hate the act of sexuality because they consider it an "abominable" sin, or do they hate the person and the act? It's important to differentiate. If it's the latter, and they are claiming to be taking the moral high road, then they are in error (are they Christians?).
Loving your neighbor as youself, is the second of the two greatest commandments cited by Christ. Hating sexuals is a violation of that commandment. Christ came in his first advent to free man from the bondage of sin, whatever that sin might be. He died for all sinners (that would be everyone of us) and in doing so expressed an immense love for the very people that some despise.

I have gay relatives and friends and being in a service oriented workplace I have contact (not physical ) with gays on an almost daily basis. They are treated with genuine respect they are deserving of and they respond with the same.
On the other hand, I have extreme contempt for the actions of activists who attempt to normalize a lifestyle that God clearly says leads people to .

Synopsis? Make it very evident that you love the person but not the sin.

[turambar85]

Your "solution" is completely discriminatory against smaller establishments and single-room venues that are the lifeblood of the live entertainment industry in Austin at the very least. You're saying if your venue is big enough AND configured correctly AND you have enough money, you can enjoy a decisive compe ive advantage over those places that cannot meet any one of those three requirements.Why don't smokers just go outside when they want to smoke? That way everyone can go to every bar in town.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the size of the establishment will make that large of a difference in terms of being able to ventilate.

The smaller establishments will not require as much ventilation, yet will have slightely less room to work with.

IF your argument is money, that is different, and in my opinion, almost as irrelevant.

If it comes down to either

A. protecting the freedoms of the masses

or

B. Making a few businesses make more or less money

then I will always choose option A because it is not the governments job to ban things that can be worked out, and businesses can always find a way to make more money or adapt. They always make more money, they dont always make more freedoms.

[smeagol]

Ok, I had decided to not post anymore about cig banning, but I can't stand by and have Smeagol pretend to know the situation.

Pretend to know the situation? Huh? Not that difficult of a situation that I have to pretend to understand it.

I read the entire thread, analyzed Chump’s and your POVs and concluded your arguments were not enough to convince me people should be allowed to smoke in close environments, bothering the out of other customers.

Even with ventilation systems, if there is a guy smoking right beside me, I will be inhaling smoke. If there are a bunch of guys smoking beside me, your ventilation system, I want those guys to go blow smoke outside.

Chump decided that we should ban it because it hurts the lungs of bar patrons.

No, read your own thread. That was our friend from down under.

I decided we should require a ventilation system.

I’ve addressed this above. A ventilation system does not always work. Maybe in big restaurants, but certainly not in bars and clubs.

Chump believes that this will be ineffective because not all bars can do this.

Even if all bars can do it would be ineffective.

And my ass was not kicked, sorry.

Yes it was. Sorry.

And let me ask you a question? Why is it wrong for smokers to have to smoke outside? Does this infringe their rights as smokers?

[turambar85]

For the same reason that it was wrong for Blacks to not be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites because it bothered them.

For the same reason that it is not ok to demand that people who smell not ride busses.

Because you can not demand that someone change their actions because it bothers you.

You aren't that important.

[101A]

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that the size of the establishment will make that large of a difference in terms of being able to ventilate.

The smaller establishments will not require as much ventilation, yet will have slightely less room to work with.

IF your argument is money, that is different, and in my opinion, almost as irrelevant.

If it comes down to either

A. protecting the freedoms of the masses

or

B. Making a few businesses make more or less money

then I will always choose option A because it is not the governments job to ban things that can be worked out, and businesses can always find a way to make more money or adapt. They always make more money, they dont always make more freedoms.

OK, College Boy...

The freedom of the masses is nearly ALWAYS protected. The point of this country's founding was to protect the freedom of the INDIVIDUAL!!!!

Also, to with you spouting about "Ones morality not influencing which laws should be enacted, etc.., etc..." Every damned law ever passed is based on someone's morality, and it is damn well evident that you have a personal morality you would wish to impose on the rest of us; it obviously includes gay rights.

Finally, the cons ution of this US does NOT mention separation of Church and State as an absolute. Nowhere can you find a Supreme Court argument which argues that religion cannot influence, tradition or even be the impetus or inspiration for laws which might be presented, debated and even (gasp) enacted!

The cons ution and all court decisions on its interpretation have a specific POINT about religion and the state, and their relationship in THIS country. Get back to us when you are finished writing your philosophy essay about Kant, and have time to look it up in your poli-sci 101 textbook.

BTW, why am I against Gay Marriage? Because I don't believe society should condone that lifestyle, or normalize it beyond the levels it already has been. I believe it to be wrong. My bible teaches me that, and any reasonable interpretation of evolution teaches the exact same damned thing. Think about it.