🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3j6euf$lil@agate.berkeley.edu> Tommy the Tourist (Anon User) <nobody@csua.berkeley.edu> writes:
>cfodor@megatek.com (Chris Fodor) wrote:
>
>What is rational about whining about the so-called "rights" of 
>one group to practice a FOUL HABIT in PUBLIC, even if it severely 
>impacts others?  OTOH, I'm sure it seems "rational" to you...

Again.  Attacks on the position, not the arguments.  Ignored.

>> Some people might want to work in a smoking environment if they 
>> were smokers.
>
>I imagine a lot of people would prefer to be allowed to do a lot 
>of things at work, many of which would be perfectly legal if done 
>at home.  

You have twisted the argument, again displaying poor debate skills.

You stated that employees were forced to work in a smoking environment if
the employer allowed smoking (such as in a resturaunt).

I responded as above.

You then started talking about what the employee desires, as opposed to
what the employer desires.

However, you did raise some questions, which I will answer individually.

>Does the fact that you can legally masturbate at home 
>mean that you should be given the "right" to do it at your desk 
>at work? 

It should be up to the employer.  I doubt most businesses are going
to get more productivity (or any) with employee(s) masturbating at their
desks.  Therefore the employer would frown (at the least) upon that
practice.  Not to mention that it is lewd and obscene conduct (and
against the law.)

However, I'm sure some employers, such as sex-show operators encourage
their employees to masturbate.

>Just because you can fondle your spouse or "significant 
>other" at home, should you therefore have the right to do it to 
>an unwilling fellow employee in the hallway at work? 

While this does bear slight similarities to cigarette smoking (a
personal infringement which could cause physical damage) they are
quite different.  Non-consensual physical contact is illegal.

The employer seeks to maximize productivity.  Having workers
subjected to sexual harassment is going to get them lawsuits and
unhappy workers.  Having some workers coughing is also bad, but
having other workers unable to get their nicotine will similarly
harm their performance.  That is why at most companies employees
are asked (and hopefully provided with) a place to smoke outside.
The smokers politely go out of their way to make things comfortable
for others.

At a place where smoking will not impair productivity, such as a bar
or resturaunt, where the customers will want to smoke (and service
is an issue to the employer) it is up to the employer.  In some cases,
the employer will want to serve the customer by allowing it, in others
by barring it.

>If your 
>employer finds that sort of behavior to be "acceptable", should 
>any employee who finds it offensive be forced to leave and find 
>another job?

If the behavior is a part of the workplace and directly pertains to
the job, yes.

Many jobs put workers in situations that range from unpleasant to
downright dangerous.  It is the employees choice to work in those
conditions.

>I can sit in my living room naked and watch TV all 
>day, if I choose to.  Should my employer allow that, even if I 
>claim that it won't interfere with getting my job done?

I think that your employer is the judge of how your behavior affects
both your performance and the performance of those around you.

Not you.

>> You are doing more than daring to complain.  You are asking that 
>> the state intervene on your side to stop an activity in a private 
>> place that you are perfectly capable of avoiding on your own.
>
>The state has already done that.  The tobacco industry tried to 
>put forth a bogus ballot initiative to repeal the law, spending 
>millions of dollars to support it, but the voters saw through it 
>and voted it down. 

You have twisted the argument.

The topic, while based on the law, had nothing to do with it
specifically.  It was about idea that the law embodies.

>Also, nobody is arguing for banning smoking 
>in "a private place".  The law you're constantly whining about 
>specifies PUBLIC workplaces.  Your side spent millions of dollars 
>trying to convince California voters to overturn that law, and 
>they failed miserably.  Live with it.

Sure they are public workplaces, but they are also privately owned.
Both the public and the employee can make an informed choice as to
whether they want to go there.  There are enough smokers and non-
smokers to support a simple separation, instead of banning one side
because the majority doesn't like them.

>> I think it would be reasonable, and work within our society, for 
>> the employer to pass the extra cost on.  (I also think it is 
>> reasonable for the employer to choose who they hire, but that is 
>> not the way our society seems to work.)
>
>Would your buddies at Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds buy that?  
>I somehow doubt it...

The owners of those companies are not my buddies.  You created a strawman
and I shot it down, so you resorted to a personal attack.
 
>> Allowing/banning smoking is equivalent to a business owner having 
>> political signs (not minority slurs... "XXX for Pres 96" for 
>> example) posted in his window.  They make statements that people 
>> might not like, or even offend people, but it is perfectly legal 
>> for the owner to hold and display that opinion.
>
>I doubt that such a sign would end up sending anyone to the 
>hospital with a life-threatening asthma attack, though.  There's 
>a difference between merely "offending" someone and endangering 
>their health.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.  
>Where do you find a constitutional "right" to force others to 
>breathe toxic substances?

Again, you twist the argument.

YOU compared signs saying "Smoking allowed here." to signs
saying "Die, Nigger, Die."

I responded as above.

Then YOU started talking about free speech.

A sign saying "Smoking allowed here." not only does not give anyone
an asthma attack, it reduces the possibility of such an attack occurring.

>> Because the business owner feels that the acticity (smoking) is 
>> related to the business itself.  Drinking liquor at a meal is 
>> unnecessary, and being around it is a *REAL* hazard for 
>> alchoholics.  Therefore (using your logic) resturaunts that serve 
>> alchohol are forcing alchoholics out of a job?
>
>The sale and drinking of alcohol *IS* a major part of the 
>business of most restaurants that serve it. By contrast, most 
>smokers bring in their own cigarettes which they've purchased 
>elsewhere, so they generate no revenue for the restaurant.  Many 
>restaurants have "Michelob" on the menu.  When was the last time 
>you saw "Marlboros" on a menu?  Since you want to use alcohol for 
>a comparison, though, let's make your analogy a bit more 
>appropriate:
>
>Let's say that a group of people, each carrying a six pack of 
>beer, came into a restaurant and asked for a table.  Before the 
>waitress even came to take their order, they had already opened 
>their first can of beer and started drinking it.  After the beer 
>had been consumed, and it had passed through the beer-drinker's 
>body, the waste products of that beer were disposed of from each 
>person's bladder by openly urinating in the dining area, spraying 
>their urine around so that employees and customers in other parts 
>of the restaurant were showered with the "second-hand beer" and 
>went home smelling like a unflushed toilet!
>
>Let's say that when the beer drinkers left, they threw their 
>empty beer cans on the floor, leaving them for someone else to 
>clean up.  Does this constitute acceptable behavior, in YOUR 
>opinion?  If a beer drinker expelled his "used beer" on YOUR 
>face, hair, and clothing, should you be called a "bleeding-heart 
>statist Communist" for invoking existing laws to remedy this 
>disgusting behavior?

I think it is the business owner's best interest to stop this practice,
which he will.  The business owner wants to serve as many customers
as possible.  If they cater to those who enjoy unfettered urination
(stranger things have happened...) they would certainly avoid hiring
employees that had a problem with it.  They would also take great pains
to avoid attracting customers who had a problem with that practice.

Completely unrelated side note:  The ammonia in urine actually makes
it an effective natural disinfectant used in many primitive cultures.

>OTOH, I doubt that your hypothetical "alcoholic restaurant 
>employee" absorbs much alcohol by merely being around those 
>drinking alcoholic beverages.  You can't say the same about being 
>around cigarette smokers and their airborne toxins.

Sure, but that employee is going to see people getting pleasantly
buzzed.  Smell the drinks.  Smell it on their breath.  Do you think
they are going to have an easier time not stopping for a sixer on the
way home?

If a substance common in the workplace exacerbates their illness by your
logic it should not be allowed because to do so impairs their rights.
True or false?

>> Giving up your freedom merely because you are capable of doing 
>> so, (or don't use that particular freedom), is a good way to lose 
>> most of your freedom.
>
>That's why I won't surrender my freedom to breathe smoke-free air 
>at work or at a public restaurant just to make some selfish 
>cigarette smokers (and the tobacco barons who make billions from 
>their addiction) happy!  Thanks for the encouragement...

What about your freedom to have Carbon Monoxide free kwik-i-marts?
Do you support a measure to remove gas pumps from public street corners
because they spew toxic gases?  (Either yes or no please.)

Your freedoms become limited once you enter the door of a private
establishment that makes an effort to warn you of the what you will
encounter within.

>Neither am I willing to overturn the vote of millions of 
>Californians just because you don't think that what they decided 
>was "politically correct".

Well, I also happen to think it isn't in line with the Constitution of
the United States.  But then a lot of legislation isn't nowadays...

I am not attempting to be politically correct.  Neither am I whining.
Lastly, I have no affiliation with any tobacco company.

Your hyperbole and inaccuracy do not do your argument well.

Hopefully, everybody has killfiled this (or me and you) by now and we are
conducting this conversation in private, where it belongs.  Unfortunately
your lack of an e-mail address makes this impossible.  I do not condem
you anonymity (as it has nothing to do with the debate.)  I merely wish
we could stop bugging people in 5 different groups with our debate.
-- 
------------------------------+ The 1990s mark the entry of the average
 Chris Fodor                  | man into the internet community; soon
 cfodor@megatek.com           | followed by the below average man; and
------------------------------+ then, finally, the idiot man.