--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
>
> Freedom has always been a big thing for me, and quite simply I
always
> felt that a proprietor should have the freedom to choose what type
of
> establishment he wants to run. If he wants to have a place that
> allows smoking, so be it; if he wants a non-smoking place, more
power
> to him. After all, a patron has the choice to go to whichever
place
> he wants. If you don't want to be around smoke just go to a non-
> smoking place; if you smoke, go to a place that allows it. If the
> non-smoking place is across town, then you decide which is more
> important to you, the convenience of going someplace closer or
> staying away from second-hand smoke. If you choose convenience,
> don't complain. After all if a smoke-free environment isn't
> important enough to you to drive a longer distance, than why is it
> important enough to infringe upon another's freedom to smoke?
>
> Some say that smoking infringes on a non-smoker's right to air free
> from second-hand smoke. That would be true if smokers were going
to
> the non-smoker's house to smoke. But if the non-smoker chooses to
go
> someplace that allows smoking, they have chosen to subject themself
> to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
> consent. If I decide to sleep on train tracks and a train hits me,
> the train didn't infringe on my freedom to sleep wherever I want.
If
> I don't want to get hit by the train, I just won't go to the tracks.
Just wondering, as far as I know it's legal to vomit. So, you would
have no problem if I walked up to you expressed my freedom to vomit
by spewing all over your face?
Further expanding on this ... since vomiting is NOT illegal anywhere
then if you don't want to expose yourself to this possibility, you
should never go ANYWHERE.
See what happens when you use fallacious logic?
>
> An analogy...A Catholic wants to go to church, but it's way across
> town and service is at an inconvenient time. But there is a
> synagogue across the street that has services at better times. He
> gets the idea that he should try to pass a law so that all houses
of
> worship only offer Catholic services because it would be more
> convenient to him...absolutely ridiculous. If you want a Catholic
> service, go to a Catholic church, don't try to make every place
cater
> to your wants, infringing on the freedom of others to do what they
> want.
Silly analogy. I hope this isn't the extent of your logic.
>
> By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
> probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
> smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
> SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.
Be careful, vomiting is allowed everywhere.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
