ParanoiA

I agree with your premise. But, in a smoking establishment, you are the odd one. It is not their responsibility to pander to you and make you a non-smoking section or put their cigarette out. But you should. If you own it, you should be able to be naked in it. The laws don't agree with me, but I'm used to that... But, you missed the key word - appropriately. It should be partitioned appropriately, so it is truly separate from the non-smoking area. I worked this out by thinking of it as mustard gas - which someone here brought up a while back. If you were to have a mustard gas inhalation area, it would have to be sealed off and ventilated so non-mustard gas inhalers won't get...um..killed from second hand mustard gas. Pointing out that something is, doesn't make the logical argument that it should be. I don't believe that anyone has the right to enforce their ideas of offensive behavior onto other people. This is a flaw of majority rule. It's a small flaw considering the scope of things, but it is a flaw nonetheless. What if we all decided that fat people are offensive and should be shot on site? As long as the majority of us agree then...?? Majority rule is not ethical or right, it's just a consensus - that's it. That's also why we have a bill of rights - rights that cannot be overturned by a majority rule.

I know I have changed my mind on several things. Mostly, an appreciation of other's viewpoints and enhancements of my own. This is just another step to critical thought. Sometimes I take positions on here that I don't even believe just to work out a different perspective. It's nice when someone agrees with you, but worthless all the same.

Why complain about the weather if you're just going to go back outside anyway? Media is a double edged sword. If you insist on steering clear of the "dog food" from established media giants, then you have to worry about accuracy and truth on a much broader scale. If you instead depend on the giants only for your news, then you get the "entertainment" package - trimmed with PC. Why complain? Because we're customers and we can and should complain. We want a better, more truthful, non PC media. Why not complain?

There are some anti-smoking nazi's so extreme that they would likely prefer you sell your child into slavery, to save them from your second hand smoke.

I think we have to decide if we want entertainment, or the news. Bascule is basically complacent on it being entertainment - ie.."All kinds of people died, so here's the most popular or most interesting to our customers - what's the problem?" The problem is us. We watch "entertainment" news and assume that's an accurate reflection of the world and events around us - but it's not is it? Wouldn't that be like watching Law and Order and assuming that's an accurate reflection of criminal law? The show isn't bad...but it's drama and entertainment, not truth and reality. So, perhaps what we're collectively complaining about is the lack of news diversity in the mainstream. ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox are mainstream media outlets that all basically say the same damn thing. They sensationalize the same stories, overlook the same minorities and etc. With more diversity in the news media, perhaps we could have our "reality check" news, and then our entertainment news for those who must know what Brittany Spears is doing and if Phil Spector is going down for murder...even though there are gang rapes on the rise and is far more serious of an issue.

Sorry that was a little vauge. I meant that I was rejecting your analogy since I don't agree that it has the social benefit to dead human ratio that is required to continue with the analogy. Driving isn't a right. Smoking and killing yourself is, or ought to be. To be honest, I'm not sure where driving actually falls in the whole rights argument, in terms of philosophical consistency - so to me it's a bad example. It needs a thread of its own. Smoking is a personal liberties issue to me. If I want to smoke cigarettes and sniff cyanide then leave me to it. If Joe Blow Business thinks he can rake in more customers by opening a cyanide sniffing section, then so be it. It's his business. As long as he's gone to reasonable lengths to partition that area and mark it as such, then what's the problem? No customer walking in the door should have any expectation of not encountering cyanide in that case. That's certainly extreme, and perhaps just a bad of example as I accused your driving example of being - but I don't see how you can be comfortable banning something in a free society like America. There is benefit, but this benefit pales in comparison to the thousands (if not millions) of dead humans so far, the additional strain on oil and the wars that encompass it, the increasing footprint of man on the planet...etc. No corresponding social benefit that we would all agree with. Some would say smoking calms their nerves. I would say it creates a false need which can then be satisfied and make a person feel better. Some would say it helps them to keep from eating, a dietary aid. I know I gained 35 lbs after quitting smoking. This is a typical benefit that we all know about. Why does it have to have a social benefit to steer clear of your proposed banning? I mean, I understand that things with a fairly universal benefit would be hard to do without, but why does that clear them from banning?

There's a social benefit large enough to justify the thousands of dead bodies we mourn over year after year? There's a social benefit if we quit insisting on driving vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds, made of metals and unforgiving, non-elastic materials.

Oh, I may have posted it before. But, I've always thought it would be cool if someone would start a News on News type journalism. Where they would cover how well news stories were covered. This started from two different incidents that I've personally experienced with local news - in two different states. One, Oklahoma and the other here in Kansas City. In both cases, we talked with reporters and in Oklahoma my wife did a camera interview as well. Also in both cases, they played narrative audio questions and then played back our answers - and they NEVER matched up. They played back our answers to questions we didn't get asked. They edited and distorted the interviews to their advantage. This completely changed our "perceived" position - opposite from what we stood for. Keep in mind, we weren't the subject of these stories, but rather just involved as witnesses and so forth but we were misrepresented. The fact this happened the only two times I've been involved in a news story, and in two different states with almost a decade of time between them has helped formulate my bad opinion of media. If they can do this locally, with apparent immunity, just imagine how they're mangling really serious international news. The kind of news and information we use to decide war and etc. Anyway, I think it would awesome for an "Investigative Reports" style news show to do investigative reports on news - ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN - all of them. The media goes unchecked in many ways - it's about time they get a taste of their own medicine and be forced to operate ethically.

Phi for All and Ophiolite make the best points on this one. I'm thinking of the kind of Jerk like the character Dr. House. Some might think House is cool and efficient for circumventing social norms and irreverance to people's feelings and so forth. Even under the blanket protection and control of writing the script and controlling the dynamics of characters this proves to be BS. A little social reverance could actually save a lot of time. He has to waste countless moments trying to repair damage by being "socially efficient" with a sobbing parent or troubled co-worker. Anyway, since I think he makes a great universal "jerk", let me just use him as an example. A jerk of this magnitude defines himself by being contrary. He requires the rest of us to be social sheep, so that he can be irreverant. If we were all logical, non-feeling, irreverant people with no use for social niceties and diplomacy with one another, then he'd have to be something entirely different. Because he has to be contrary - and pretend like we're all stupid for being what he needs us to be. I wonder if the jerks you've encountered in your life are really just fairly intelligent people that forgot that their intelligence was as given to them as stupidity is given to others. Anyway, I like the show House, but have been looking for an excuse to tear the character down...maybe I'm a jerk??

Ok, now an updated question... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.main/index.html I thought Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? Now we've got CNN, MSNBC, Fox News - everybody basically - saying they are in Iraq. So, if they are in Iraq, I guess the administration was right huh? Interesting...

What a disgusting story. We're seeing just how entrepreneurial news really is - it's a corporate business with an eye on profits, not accuracy, truth or any of that crap. As I was reading, shaking my head, I'm also reminded of how many little black kids go missing and yet I don't see them on the news. I don't get the sensationalized story of kidnapped and sexually assaulted children unless they're white and pretty. So, we're all getting shortchanged here - all races. They're reporting news based on ratings and profits only. That's why I've always wondered why the media enjoys such immunity. They are obviously as greedy and corporate driven as any oil company. This is also why I've always thought my "News on News" idea would be cool.

It may raise your blood pressure but it's not the kids doing it. You choose to get angry. Most of what offends you in life is your problem. I agree, in that it isn't reasonable to be forced to deal with other's smoke in public. And it's even more unreasonable to force non-smoking on private businesses. Their only duty should be to designate and label. How about damage to the lungs? Surely we can prove that smoke darkens the lungs can't we? Second hand, third hand, whatever generation of smoke shouldn't matter should it? That's enough harm in my mind to keep anyone from smoking in public outside of a designated establishment. Of course, what about outside?

You don't have to move. You choose to. I don't have to move away from fat people with rotten teeth, but I choose to because it's gross - even though they're the ones being offensive. The thing is, when a smoking area is deamed as such - by the owner of the business, then what right do we have to make laws to stop that? Just like a home owner, you don't have a right to tell them what to do in their own business. If you don't like my smoking in my house, then don't come in. Same with business. If you don't like them allowing smoking and you don't want to be around it, then don't come in. This isn't about your right to frequent any business you want without being offended - you don't have that right. Just like you don't have a right to walk in anybody's house and not be offended. It's their house. And these are private businesses - regular folk like you that own it and make their living from it. It is paid for by them and they have a right to allow smoking or slow emition of mustard gas too - in my opinion - so long as it is marked and partitioned appropriately. You don't have a right to enforce your ideas of offensive behavior on everyone else. We all have ideas of offensive behavior that differ - no matter how practical or popular you think yours are - and that's not a free society. Not in the least. A free society means allowing people to do stupid things. A free society means tolerating the idea that not everybody wants to be like you...

But the level of harm is irrelevant really. That's what bugs me about this. You don't have a right to hurt me "a little bit".

Which is why driving is not a right, it's a priviledge. You're basically "signing up" to drive. Because of the apparent utility value of automobiles over thousands of dead people every year, we make folks pass a driving test. (And despite the thousands of dead people every year, we don't make the test any harder nor teach driving any better.) Rights however are different. I'm free to use my grill while you have to deal with the aroma of steaks and beer, if you're my neighbor. But when your actions actually cause damage to someone else's person or property, it's wrong. Consequently though, it should be ok to have smoking areas, voluntary entrace only by all.

Agreed. I've enjoyed your healthy balanced approach to this subject.

Why? Well is it "wrong" to repeat the words "crap" or "frack" or "darn it" in front of grandmother? I'm still waiting for a good reason for certain words to be declared "dirty", while other words, with the same meaning, are not.

Yeah I don't listen to them too much, although I take note of their position. No, in this case, it was democrats on camera criticizing about lack of armor and number of troops - whatever channel or corporate news outlet you want. I agreed it was a good cause actually, but then it died down and it's the administration pushing for more troops. Anyway, this thread started back in January. My present conclusion is that it directly conflicts with the goal to bring them home, pretty easy call actually. And the criticisms on manpower, or soldier power, were just jabs thrown in the mix.

And particularly since they're only bad because we say they are...why is "crap" just fine, but "shit" is a dirty word? They mean the same thing. Let's just eliminate the silly idea of a word being dirty...

SkepticLance Here's a nice description of an Argument from Ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Not sure if your argument qualifies, but is basically saying just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true. So, when folks say there is no God because you can't prove it, they are arguing from ignorance. I, personally, love these little pre-packaged fallacies they like to use.

Yes. Here's why. Because it's BS. I would never set the bar that high if it was clear he didn't mean it. But you're really going out of your way to interpret it the way you have. He's spinning this on extremely flimsy grounds that NO ONE would buy this lame excuse for a second if we were talking about Bush, Imus, Rush, Rove, Cheney... I'm just expecting the guy to apologize and practice what he preaches (literally..). A racist bigot homophobe gets a never ending benefit of the doubt?? How did that happen?

I've noticed that's a common theme for Sharpton. Jumping on the bandwagon of pre-judgement outside of the court of law, and then refusing to apologize when he's wrong. There are several controversies surrounding him that I had no idea about. His bio reads like a racist and bigot more than an activist.

So is Gordon Brown very popular or is he going to inherit the animosity associated with Blair? I was thinking someone here posted an article or something written by him some time ago and I remember being quite impressed. Not sure if that was the same guy or not, though...

I would imagine he meant Romney was only temporary because he thinks, and it's been debated, that a mormon would never make it through a republican primary. Edit: Just wanted to throw in that Sharpton made an accurate statement, and I don't think mormons all over the country are outraged, or at least I haven't read that, and I personally have no issue with it...nor with Imus. That's the difference here. Neither one of these men need to be smacked around for a mistake. But hey, Sharpton has a special duty in this case, being the self appointed leader to this movement.

I don't want to see him fried either, actually. I just want to see him be true to his word - to demonstrate apology and learn what it feels like to make a mistake in speech and be made to defend yourself from all of its spurs. The thing that really stung me about the Imus controversy, was that Imus was so ridiculously apologetic and never seemed to "fight" back at all - just took his licks over and over again. He apologized to every camera, every group, every sub group - trying to right his wrong. But Sharpton acted like a 5 year old brat with his proverbial hand in the air, still demanding his termination. So, objectively speaking, he doesn't deserve to fry. But in the context of his merciless attitude towards an old man's mistake - he deserves the same treatment he gave.