OP
OP
Ah, but the argument seems to hold water. The ban I mentioned is not on workplaces or in public, but in the home.
Are Slippery Slopes Real?
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
Ah, but the argument seems to hold water. The ban I mentioned is not on workplaces or in public, but in the home.
WC_lun
Senior Master
Is the ban a result of smoking first being banned in public, then in the work place? Or is the ban of smoking at home more of a overall systemic approach? It matters if the slippery slope arguement is valid. Then can the ban at peole's home really be achieved? It would seem a constitutional issue in that case, which would be hard to overcome. Now keep in mind, if renting, that isn't your property, but rather the landlord's, so he could put conditions on your renting the place.
Excuse me? Given that mathematics is founded on logic and all of science and engineering is founded on mathematics I have to say that I would be most interested in seeing a proof of that assertion :lol:.
As to the use and abuse of science, that has little to do with the science and much more to do with money and power (and poor research on occasion (plus the odd catastrophic unintended consequence)).
WC_lun
Senior Master
You live with a woman and you want proof there's no logic?
<whistles quietly so his wife doesn't hear him laughing>
The logic you find in numbers and science isn't the 'logic' you find when you deal with people, then there is no logic at all! Ask any police officer lol!
http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/
http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/
Interesting link, Tez. The article is largely nonsense; 'look-at-me!' circular double-talk dressed up to look smart. But the comments after it, specifically those of Steve Thomas, were well worth waiting for .
.
Interesting link, Tez. The article is largely nonsense; 'look-at-me!' circular double-talk dressed up to look smart. But the comments after it, specifically those of Steve Thomas, were well worth waiting for
The article is what is wrong when people try to sound smart. Just say what you think and say it from the heart is good enough for most, it's honest at least. Too many people think it's clever to try and play games with words, they think they sound educated when in fact well educated people put things plainly without playing word gymnastics.
Ok, so... Bars, Restaurants etc, are all Private Property. They are open for the use of the public at the discretion of the owner. So, if a Bar allowed smoking, wouldn't it only effect you if you went to their place, as you stated above about a private home? By going, aren't you choosing to expose yourself to the environment? If so by your own argument the ban would make no sense... but a ban on smoking outside the bar would: The exact opposite of what we have now.
Not that it matters to me, I don't smoke.
OP
OP
The argument that government has used to ban smoking in restaurants and bars is not about patrons, but about employees, who are being exposed to 2nd-hand smoke whether they like it or not.
OK, so that's a valid argument in and of itself, but it gets the camel's nose under the tent, and it has been noticed that not many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in bars and restaurants have made any exceptions for bars and restaurants that HAVE no employees other than the owners. That behavior kind of shoots down the notion that it's really all about the safety of the employees. It's not, that's just a backdoor way of getting smoking banned.
And as I've pointed out, the smokers said this would be taken to extremes, and the anti-smokers said it would not. The smokers were clearly correct; now we see banning of smoking in multi-family homes in these towns in California. From there, it will become a statewide law, and then spread to the East Coast (NYC) and then fill in both sides of the country; from the liberal states to the conservative.
The goal is clear - to ban private behavior that 'we' don't care for, using any means necessary and a 'divide and conquer' strategy.
This strategy is the same one used by gun-grabbers since the 1960s, and one which they consistently deny using. Oh no, they don't want to ban all guns! Heaven forbid! They only want to have some 'reasonable restrictions' for the safety of all. And the pro-gun people laugh at this and resist all guns laws, no matter how 'common sense' they seem, because they KNOW that this is a lie. And as you see in the smoking example, it is a lie.
Sometimes, the 'slippery slope' argument is correct. This is one of those times. Notice that several people don't want to talk about that, they want to change the subject. And that's the point.
OK, so that's a valid argument in and of itself, but it gets the camel's nose under the tent, and it has been noticed that not many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in bars and restaurants have made any exceptions for bars and restaurants that HAVE no employees other than the owners. That behavior kind of shoots down the notion that it's really all about the safety of the employees. It's not, that's just a backdoor way of getting smoking banned.
And as I've pointed out, the smokers said this would be taken to extremes, and the anti-smokers said it would not. The smokers were clearly correct; now we see banning of smoking in multi-family homes in these towns in California. From there, it will become a statewide law, and then spread to the East Coast (NYC) and then fill in both sides of the country; from the liberal states to the conservative.
The goal is clear - to ban private behavior that 'we' don't care for, using any means necessary and a 'divide and conquer' strategy.
This strategy is the same one used by gun-grabbers since the 1960s, and one which they consistently deny using. Oh no, they don't want to ban all guns! Heaven forbid! They only want to have some 'reasonable restrictions' for the safety of all. And the pro-gun people laugh at this and resist all guns laws, no matter how 'common sense' they seem, because they KNOW that this is a lie. And as you see in the smoking example, it is a lie.
Sometimes, the 'slippery slope' argument is correct. This is one of those times. Notice that several people don't want to talk about that, they want to change the subject. And that's the point.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
There is something for ya:
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20790
but then read this:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1717.13
though, the date has me baffled.
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20790
but then read this:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1717.13
though, the date has me baffled.
OP
OP
What?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I think you misunderstood. I think people should be allowed to poison themselves in any number of ways on their own time. What I am talking about are employers. An employer shouldn't be able to knowingly and unnecessarily put an employee's health or safety at risk, even if the employee is willing.
I am not talking about somehow removing risks inherent to the job. For example, a fire fighter is going to encounter fires and that's dangerous. But the fire fighter is provided gear that keeps him or her as safe as possible. The fire fighter can't be required to juggle knives while at the station, or inhale scotch guard fumes. While fire is an inherent danger, knives and noxious fumes aren't.
In the same way, a bartender or waitress might risk burns and back problems as inherent parts of the job. But smoking isn't inherent to eating, as demonstrated by people who smoke without eating or drinking, and people who drink and eat without smoking. And so, I don't think that an employer should be able to force an employee to knowingly risk exposure to a known carcinogen unnecessarily, even if that employee would be willing to do so.
Beyond that, knock yourself out. We've talked before about my views on prohibition. It's a free country and, provided that there is transparency so that you are making a knowledgeable choice to eff yourself up, go for it. Eat twinkies and big macs for every meal.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
LOL, sorry.
Slippery slope: My argument was that certain segments are actively working on curbing our rights of animal ownership, a little step at a time (that is what they say in their meetings, of course not on their webpages)
The first article featured two 'ladies' getting busted for trespassing, as they marched themselves into somebody's barn, without permission, to take pictures of the neglected?mistreated horses.
Under the article posted below, in Ohio there could probably not even be any legal ramification for these two women should the animals be determined abused/mistreated....
Slippery: Few people know anymore what animals really need to be happy and healthy.
But more people feel entitled to stick their noses into other people's business. Rules are for the other person, after all.
(the age of the law surprised me though, I had expected it to be much newer. On the same note, I wonder what precedence caused it to be drafted)
That would be the closely tied fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
OP
OP
OK, I got ya. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
My point was not really about how we feel about banning smoking, though.
My point was that the smokers who claimed that banning smoking in the workplace would not be the end of it were right. It isn't. The slippery slope they described at that time turned out to be accurate.
This also helps to explain the reason why gun owners tend to resist all new attempts to regulate firearms, claiming the slippery slope. People in favor of 'reasonable regulation' never seem to grasp why they would think that the slippery slope exists, but here is proof that in some case, yes, it most definitely does exist. Fearing the slippery slope in the case of gun control is hardly paranoid thinking.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I get you. But the hazard here is failing to acknowledge that human nature and reasonable prediction based on cause and effect isn't exactly a slippery slope.
For example, saying, "Oh brother. They've banned smoking in bars. Mark my words, those zealots won't stop until they've banned french fries and big macs." That's a slippery slope.
That's different from acknowledging that there are factions with agendas and the degree of support they receive is a function of money, influence and several other things. Simply put, I'd say that the distinction is whether we draw conclusions based on an emotional litmus test or based on reasonable evaluation.
