Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 84962	2007-11-24 19:46:00	Do you think the Government intrudes too much...	Myth (110)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
614907	2007-11-29 01:44:00	My response was "no". I don't support banning bars completely. Not "that's not true". You tried to reduce my argument to absurdity...I followed it through to a logical conclusion. Admittedly I injected a little humour, but the point I was making is valid. If you find that absurd, clearly your original argument is flawed. See below. ...but you introduced a whole set of new premises - one of which is that loud music and alcohol is comparable to cigarette smoke. I hold that it isn't comparable and that staff deserve to be protected from carcinogens in the workplace.How can you say loud music and cigarette smoke aren't comparible? Cigarette smoke: causes severe and irreversable harm to bar staff. Loud music: causes severe and irreversable harm to bar staff. How are they different? Yes, personal responsibility is a good thing. But don't we have laws in place for those people that show none of it?Correct. Those who act irresponsibly should be free to take the consequences. Bar owners gave little or no thought to staff working in a cigarette smoke laden environment before the law forced them to.Think about that statement a little, and tell me what you think about this one: "New employees in bars gave little or no thought to what their working environment would be like when they applied for the job, or else they didn't care about the smoke. They were not forced to apply for a job at a bar, they were perfectly free to work elsewhere." What I think you are forgetting is that bar owners didn't just say "OK guys, we've decided that from now on your workplace will be a smoky hazard to your health." What actually happened was they advertised for staff: "Would you like to work in a smoky and unhealthy environment? Contact us to apply." My point is that anyone accepting such a job knew full well what they were getting themselves into. Consider the following scenario: A newly minted soul looking for a job sees an ad: "Skydiving instructor needed, call us today!" (assume that they have the qualifications for the job). They call, and are accepted for the job. Work starts tomorrow. They sue their new employer, because said employer expected them to jump out of an aeroplane - even though such an act is clearly dangerous.Put this way, it's obvious - a skydiving instructor would clearly be expected to jump out of planes, and should have known exactly what they were getting into when they applied for the job. Anyone stupid enough to accept a job with no idea of what they are expected to do is an idiot and deserves everything they get. Rebut that. :D	Erayd (23)
614908	2007-11-29 03:50:00	Rebut that. :D Oki doki I followed it through to a logical conclusion. You didn't. You threw in a few new premises of your own (that are subject to their own flaws) and then extrapolated from there. It then became something you were asserting - not an extension of my argument. If you find that absurd I was referring to the technique of reductio ad absurdum - I wasn't stating that your argument was absurd. My apologies if you took that wrong. How can you say loud music and cigarette smoke aren't comparible? The trouble is, everything is comparable if you make your set large enough - everything in the universe can be held to be comparable. The distinction between alcohol, loud music and cigarette smoke is that the first two are not known carcinogens. Cigarette smoke: causes severe and irreversable harm to bar staff. Loud music: causes severe and irreversable harm to bar staff. How are they different? Your assertions are correct - but too broad. It is a matter of sensible degree. I (and the legislators) draw the line at carcinogens and say that carcinogens in the workplace are worth enacting legislation around. Correct. Those who act irresponsibly should be free to take the consequences. And sometimes the law is used to set what our society holds to be responsible and enforces sanctions. Think about that statement a little, and tell me what you think about this one: "New employees in bars gave little or no thought to what their working environment would be like when they applied for the job, or else they didn't care about the smoke. They were not forced to apply for a job at a bar, they were perfectly free to work elsewhere." Our economy is a regulated one. It is regulated because the robber barons, the South Sea Bubble and countless other examples taught democracies that laissez faire economies end up hurting a lot of people. So while your assertion about freedom can be defended in theory, history shows that workers are not looked after by employers and the distribution of wealth is such that workers are not as "perfectly free" as your statement implies.	Deane F (8204)
614909	2007-11-29 04:45:00	You didn't. You threw in a few new premises of your own (that are subject to their own flaws) and then extrapolated from there. It then became something you were asserting - not an extension of my argument.I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that point. Are you saying that your argument stops at smoking? Because extending that policy of meddling on the basis of harm goes a hell of a lot further than just that. What premises are you saying I made? I was referring to the technique of reductio ad absurdum - I wasn't stating that your argument was absurd. My apologies if you took that wrong.Gotcha :D. It does have some validity though. The trouble is, everything is comparable if you make your set large enough - everything in the universe can be held to be comparable.Yes - however that isn't a relevant argument, because we were discussing harm to employees caused by their workplace environment. Comparing cigarettes and loud music is perfectly reasonable within the scope of the discussion. The distinction between alcohol, loud music and cigarette smoke is that the first two are not known carcinogens.Since when was something required to be carcinogenic to be unhealthy? Cancer is only one form of damage; there are many others - an example would be severe loss of hearing. Whether something is cancer-causing or not is irrelevant to the discussion, the important point is that harm is done to employees by some environmental factor in their workplace. Alcohol doesn't belong in this debate though, as it damages the customers, not the staff. I only mentioned it as a point of humour, which I don't think everyone understood. Your assertions are correct - but too broad. It is a matter of sensible degree. I (and the legislators) draw the line at carcinogens and say that carcinogens in the workplace are worth enacting legislation around.I disagree. You may draw your line here, but in my opinion it's inappropriate for this to be where the legislators draw theirs - there is a lot more to workplace safety than just carcinogens (although I'm not denying that carcinogens are a bad thing). And sometimes the law is used to set what our society holds to be responsible and enforces sanctions.And this is where the democratic process breaks down. Law should be used to carry out and enforce what society as a whole (not minority factions of it) deem to be acceptable. It's simply not on for the legislators to be driving their own agendas, although regrettably this seems to happen a hell of a lot in politics. The old motto "power corrupts" comes to mind. Our economy is a regulated one. It is regulated because the robber barons, the South Sea Bubble and countless other examples taught democracies that laissez faire economies end up hurting a lot of people.It is regulated because over time, humans have discovered that regulation works. The only debate is over how much regulation is appropriate. So while your assertion about freedom can be defended in theory, history shows that workers are not looked after by employers and the distribution of wealth is such that workers are not as "perfectly free" as your statement implies.This point is irrelevant. The debate is not about whether or not employees are looked after by their employer, I don't think anyone is disputing that a certain level of legal protection for workers is a good thing. The issue at hand is whether it is appropriate to force changes on an employer to retrospectively limit the impact of a bad decision made by the employee. At the end of the day, the employee wasn't smart enough to evaluate the situation they were getting themselves into - and as a result, they should live with the situation. No-one forced them to be there. [edit: This would be different if the employer was being deliberately deceptive and misrepresented the situation, but that is clearly not the case in this instance.] An equivalent situation would be legislating that all cars are required to have foam bumpers, because some cyclists decided to ride on the motorway. At the end of the day, again, this is their choice, and the dangers involved are obvious. Whether or not they want to take that risk is a personal choice, but they should be prepared to take the consequences of that risk.	Erayd (23)
614910	2007-11-29 05:00:00	Libertarianism is fine - but in the end it's a utopian dream. agreed i'm a non-smoker and enjoy going to bars. frankly, i find having to put up with other people's smoke can be enough to send me home. so my night is ruined because some other people's addiction made me sick. i can wear earplugs to block out music, but i'm not wearing a gas mask. (actually i hate bars with music turned up too far, as you can't hold a decent conversation) how is it fair, that one has to enjoy smoking to go out to a bar? whereas if smoking is not allowed in a bar then everyone can enjoy it, and smoking can still be had outside. and it applies to other public places too: how would you feel if someone lit up on a bus? it's not like a car, where one should be allowed to smoke at the detriment of the value of the car and their own health then there's the improvement of worker health etc etc although, what does bother me is that this law is ultimately one step closer to banning tobacco altogether. why is that a problem for a non-smoker? because while it would be nice, i think people should have the choice to smoke (thus my support for banning in bars), andof course once tobacco's gone they'll have precedent to ban alcohol too	motorbyclist (188)
614911	2007-11-29 07:14:00	although, what does bother me is that this law is ultimately one step closer to banning tobacco altogether. why is that a problem for a non-smoker? because while it would be nice, i think people should have the choice to smoke (thus my support for banning in bars), andof course once tobacco's gone they'll have precedent to ban alcohol too I think the amount of revenue gained from excise tax on alcohol and tobacco pretty much guarantees they'll never be banned.	Deane F (8204)
614912	2007-11-29 07:38:00	andof course once tobacco's gone they'll have precedent to ban alcohol too No they won't. Smoking damages your lungs and increases your risk of cancer in normal average doses (eg half a pack a day or more). Alcohol, if one consumes an average amount (lets say a glass of wine a night and a bit more each weekend), isn't going to kill you, or even hurt you at all if you're responsible.	george12 (7)
614913	2007-11-29 09:04:00	Should we ask how many bar workers have hated their jobs due to having to deal with drunken customers?, How many have been assulted?, groped, abused? Hell yes, There are drunks in bars, ban the consumtion of alcohol, Think of the poor bar workers. If there was a need for a smoke free bar, Then someone would have opened one, at the very least they could have just stipulated a smoke free area, and the bar staff can f off somewhere else if they don't like their crappy job.	Metla (12)
614914	2007-11-29 11:37:00	No they won't. Smoking damages your lungs and increases your risk of cancer in normal average doses (eg half a pack a day or more). Alcohol, if one consumes an average amount (lets say a glass of wine a night and a bit more each weekend), isn't going to kill you, or even hurt you at all if you're responsible. and back to self responsibility and the government stripping us of it.... considering the government's response to many harmless activities which are only bad when abused, the current attempts at raising the drinking age and all the health damage, violence and crime alcohol is responsible for i wouldn't be surprised if it was treated like tobacco in 50 years time but of course, then they'd need to invent taxes on something stupid like carbon to make up for the lost revenue:lol:	motorbyclist (188)
614915	2007-11-29 20:17:00	Should we ask how many bar workers have hated their jobs due to having to deal with drunken customers?, How many have been assaulted?, groped, abused? Hell yes, There are drunks in bars, ban the consumption of alcohol, Think of the poor bar workers. If there was a need for a smoke free bar, Then someone would have opened one, at the very least they could have just stipulated a smoke free area, and the bar staff can f off somewhere else if they don't like their crappy job. Ah, you are one of those that think the employer should have a say in what happens in his bar,no no the workers know best,so please don't try to deny them there rights.	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8