d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Validation Of The Slippery Slope Argument.
Prev15678921Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 59,865
Joined: Feb 19 2006
Gold: 0.00
Feb 2 2011 09:18pm
Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 08:14pm)
According to this logic, people should also be able to urinate in public parks.


Ummm, I think you misunderstood what they are talking about. Flickr mentioned that he was curious as to why the state had not banned cigs since they are extremely unhealthy for you and that was articwolfs response.

Quote (Flickr @ Feb 2 2011 07:56pm)
People shouldn't be smoking anyway, I don't see why cigarettes are legal when they're known to cause cancer and have many dangerous chemicals in them. ?-?

It's a good thing this happened, just smoke somewhere else, not everybody likes being around smokers anyhow.



Our health shouldn't be put at risk because you want to smoke.
We don't smoke, why would we want you to smoke infront of us?
That simple.


Because when the state starts controlling peoples personal lives you get this like drug cartels and gay marriage ban. As a homosexual you should be for as little Government involvement in personal lives as possible.
Member
Posts: 26,027
Joined: Jan 14 2006
Gold: 110.00
Feb 2 2011 09:28pm
Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 2 2011 09:18pm)
Ummm, I think you misunderstood what they are talking about. Flickr mentioned that he was curious as to why the state had not banned cigs since they are extremely unhealthy for you and that was articwolfs response.


I understand what they're talking about.

I'm arguing that if he wants to argue that smoking should be legal in a public place because the government has no right to tell people what to do, then he should also be against government laws that restrict people from doing other things with their bodies in public places...like urinating in the park. I'm suggesting that it's a poor argument...
Member
Posts: 14,657
Joined: Apr 24 2007
Gold: 0.00
Feb 2 2011 09:36pm
Quote (Santara @ Feb 2 2011 07:03pm)
So some people's right of access to public property is greater than other people's right of access, and you're alright with that? What time should I be in bed, mom?


you the same right to the park just as non smokers and both of you are both banned from smoking in the park

i dont see a difference the law is equal imo


there not taking away your right any more then the non smoker
Member
Posts: 112,095
Joined: Jul 25 2008
Gold: 40.42
Feb 2 2011 10:51pm
Quote (five33 @ 2 Feb 2011 22:36)
you the same right to the park just as non smokers  and both of you are both banned from smoking in the park 

i dont see a difference  the law is equal  imo


there not taking away your right any more then the non smoker


Good argument against gay marriage, I'm convinced. :(
Member
Posts: 2,132
Joined: Jun 9 2009
Gold: 15.00
Feb 2 2011 10:52pm
Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 07:28pm)
I understand what they're talking about.

I'm arguing that if he wants to argue that smoking should be legal in a public place because the government has no right to tell people what to do, then he should also be against government laws that restrict people from doing other things with their bodies in public places...like urinating in the park. I'm suggesting that it's a poor argument...


Put in your bodies, then. Poor phrasing on my part.


Quote (Flickr @ Feb 2 2011 07:13pm)
I said they shouldn't be legal, and people shouldn't be smoking, not that it's okay for the state to tell people you can't smoke.
Marijuana is illegal and people smoke it anyway ~~


I don't understand your response. If something isn't legal, it's the state telling you that you can't do it.

This post was edited by ArcticWolf6 on Feb 2 2011 10:53pm
Member
Posts: 26,027
Joined: Jan 14 2006
Gold: 110.00
Feb 2 2011 10:55pm
Quote (ArcticWolf6 @ Feb 2 2011 10:52pm)
Put in your bodies, then. Poor phrasing on my part.


Yes...but it still lands you in an awkward position because then you would also advocate having sex in the park.
Member
Posts: 2,132
Joined: Jun 9 2009
Gold: 15.00
Feb 2 2011 10:57pm
Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 08:55pm)
Yes...but it still lands you in an awkward position because then you would also advocate having sex in the park.


Oh come on. The phrasing was obviously about chemicals, not genitals.
Member
Posts: 52,224
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Feb 2 2011 11:14pm
Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 2 2011 06:58pm)
You already acknowledged that SHS is detrimental to the health of asthmatics and dismissed it by saying "Bring your inhaler." Would you advocate the freedom to shine strobe lights in the eyes of people who suffer from seizures, telling them to keep their meds on them at all times?


Marginally, and as about as significant as a mild smog day in Los Angelas. Who goes around with a strobe light? A cop. Should we be telling the police they can't use the strobe on their car to control the traffic lights ahead because it may set off someone's seizure? Should I have to turn off the strobe light on my school bus for the same reason? You can't just go around legislating against every tiny inconvenience and annoyance. It wastes time and imposes on people's liberty.

Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 2 2011 07:01pm)
There are many places where nudity is legal. Black Beach being one of them. Why should a ban on nudity be allowed since you seem to be an advocate for "equal access" for all. Why should a naturalist be forced to wear clothes?


Black's Beach is difficult to get to, and apparently has a long history of being known as a nude beach according to the wiki. It notes that nudity is "tolerated," which implies that it's not necessarily legal. From what I understand of nudity outside the home, it generally occurs on private property.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 07:44pm)
Utilitarianism takes into account civil rights...anyone who has read Mill knows this.

However, obviously the utilitarian argument held up for the smoking ban in indoor public places (bars, etc)...so why doesn't it hold here?

The slippery slope argument goes both ways here.

If the danger to others (and infringement on their liberty) was to a certain degree enough to have smoking banned in indoor places, but it's not as dangerous when you're outside, but still in a public place, where do you draw the line?

One could argue that to suggest that the level of harm caused (and liberty infringed upon) is less so outside is rather arbitrary...it still causes harm (disutility), but at lower amount.

I'm not suggesting we make smoking out right illegal, but smokers should be prevented from causing other people harm and infringing on other people's liberty.


I don't agree with the smoking bans in bars either, or with the legitimacy of the Clean Indoor Air Act either. Smoking bans and the CIAA violate private property rights and the 14th amendment, in that some property owners have the right to smoke on their property and some do not.

Non-smokers are completely free to not do business with an establishment that tolerates smoking. Forcing their preferences over the rights of the property owners is absurd.

Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Feb 2 2011 07:51pm)
I can't remember if you're in favor of gay marriage, Santara, but I sincerely hope you are.  :P


In every fashion except the term.

Quote (Cobblestone @ Feb 2 2011 08:24pm)
Honestly, I think it's fair to say that it's pretty easy, upon being offended by second-hand smokers, to move yourself to another location on public property. This diminishes any immediate risk but doesn't impede upon infringement of personal liberty.


/move to the back of the bus.

Quote (Flickr @ Feb 2 2011 08:56pm)
Our health shouldn't be put at risk because you want to smoke.
We don't smoke, why would we want you to smoke infront of us?
That simple.


I don't smoke (aside from an occasional cigar on the golf course or my garage). Your health isn't at any more risk from outdoor smoking than it is from smog, and probably much less.

Quote (brmv @ Feb 2 2011 09:16pm)
&



in the various countries smokers contribute more in tax to the system than the cost of smoking imposed illnesses
the healthcare system in many countries would break down without this surplus
and that is the key reason that governments keep it legal - pure hypocrisy

yes, i fully agree with the bolded
why isn't wearing cheap parfum on public transport forbidden?
or eating fresh garlic before work?

if there are so many people concerned, let them declare smoking as illegal
and have some sort of transition legislation for current smokers


I can't believe we agree on something, and totally legit point: Why isn't wearing perfume (or applying it) on public transport illegal then?
Member
Posts: 55,374
Joined: Mar 6 2006
Gold: 220.48
Feb 2 2011 11:49pm
My father told me about this when he got back from his doctor's appointment earlier today. Had to call me up to tell me about this and ask for some booze money.
He told me "Good thing they have me on this drug that makes cigarettes taste bad, I might actually be upset and have a heart attack on top of everything else!"

Complete and utter bullshit that they're actually going to ban smoking outside.
As congested as the streets of new york are with car exhaust, they have the nerve to ban smoking?
Mind boggling.

How long until we're only allowed to smoke in our homes, under our blankets, with the lights off?

Quote (Santara @ Feb 3 2011 12:14am)
Why isn't wearing perfume (or applying it) on public transport illegal then?


I wish it was. I was at 7/11 earlier picking up a slurpee and a paper when this old woman walked in with so much perfume and hairspray on that I actually told the cashier that he better cut the power because one single spark and we're all dead. My throat was burning. My eyes were watering. The only good thing was when she sneezed, I got a wiff of peppermint and felt better for about a second.

This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Feb 2 2011 11:51pm
Member
Posts: 12,201
Joined: Feb 13 2010
Gold: 14.88
Feb 2 2011 11:53pm
It is not the business of the law—even if this were practically possible, which is, of course, most unlikely—to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright. This is for each individual to decide for himself." -Murray Rothbard, "For a New Liberty"
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev15678921Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll