FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The War on Smoking





Bondings
Quote:
(BCN) BELMONT The city of Belmont will set a new standard for anti-smoking legislation in the United States if it approves an ordinance that will be drawn up in the coming weeks, according to the American Lung Association.

After an evening of discussion and testimony from local citizens and anti-smoking advocates, the Belmont City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to proceed with the drafting of an ordinance that revises the city's current smoking ban in workplaces and most public areas, to now include any residence except single-family detached homes.


Although I hate secondhand smoking and am a strong supporter of severe anti-smoking laws protecting non-smokers, I really don't think such drastic measures are justified. In private places like your own house/appartment there is no real harm caused when you smoke.

What I think that happens is that some people are trying to discourage smoking and make the (short) lifes of smokers much harder to even a hell, while the only thing that should happen is the protection of people who don't smoke.

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_319175227.html
Warriorza
Well, my mother smokes and my father did. When I say I don't want them to smoke when I'm around, they tell me not to overact... They are my parents, so I can't be protected from their smoke except from them stopping...
Traveller
Bondings wrote:
In private places like your own house/appartment there is no real harm caused when you smoke.

Of course, that is only true if the smoking is actually done completely in private without being able to reach anyone else.

I know, personally, several people who had relatives die from second-hand smoke. In most cases, one spouse smoked, the other didn't, and the one who didn't (but lived right there in the same private place like their house or apartment) died of emphysema without ever having smoked, nor having had any other risk factors.

A couple of them almost go ballistic when someone decides to trumpet about his rights and to say that second-hand smoke doesn't hurt anyone. They know the truth: that the right for someone not to have his health or life threatened by the irresponsible actions of another far outweighs the other person's right to act self-destructively.
Bondings
Warriorza and Traveller, I have to agree with both of you. I was going to make a whole story about smoking completely alone or with prior approval from other people and ... but that would take too long to write and seem like a mess. Wink

Warriorza, I think that in your situation your parents shouldn't smoke next to you as you don't have a choice as their child. But don't tell them I said this, I take no responsibilities for what I said. Embarassed

In the case of a couple, I wouldn't marry a girl that knows my stance about smoking and continues to smoke near me. Not just because of the smoking, but because of that attitude (which would be the same about other issues).

Quote:
They know the truth: that the right for someone not to have his health or life threatened by the irresponsible actions of another far outweighs the other person's right to act self-destructively.

Exactly what I believe. Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
There is another way to look at smoking: Any smoke that crosses property lines (i.e., to a place where it’s not invited) can be considered a trespass and dealt with using the same principles as with other trespasses, i.e. by one person to another person or their property. Public (monopolistic) laws are not necessarily needed (and, in my philosophy, are never needed because I have other methods).

For example, if a neighbor is poisoning the “weeds” in their own lawn, but some of the poison flows next door and ends up killing the neighbor’s dogs and expensive landscaped plants, then it’s a clear case of trespass. If your society has one simple law that trespass is not allowed, then, when they occur, they are adjudicated as if a contract between 2 people has been violated. (And, if they were smart people, they would have a predetermined specified contract addressing such things, which is not necessarily the same as the contract with the neighbors on the other side.) Determining owed damages, etc. is fairly straightforward based on the particulars of the infringement, but they are strongly influenced by the actual parties involved. On the other hand, public (one-size-fits-all) monopolistic laws will tend to not give the customized justice that is “deserved”.

Harmful smoke being caused by a human to trespass onto another’s property is the same principle as the lawn poison.

In my (political) philosophy, people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves and to their property, even if harmful to themselves, and the one law of trespass is not allowed takes care of everything else. If other people choose to visit property with “harmful” things, that should be their prerogative. (I agree that harming one’s own children needs a different, more complex set of principles.)

A problem of attempting to solve social problems with laws is that you end up with stacks and stacks of lawbooks that conflict, oftentimes make no sense at all, and even worse; and yet they bestow power to be used by the “authorities” over citizens. The one-size-fits-all laws end up eventually fitting none.

In an alternative world of voluntary contracts, people take responsibility for themselves. Those who work harder to make good contracts reap the benefits. Those who are lazy don’t.

In today’s world of the stacks and stacks of impractical lawbooks, the people who work hard are treated the same as the lazy -- nope, sorry, those few who have contacts in the power-structure or who have lots of money and make deals with those in power, will be the ones to benefit from privileges. I don’t see why people like to call this kind of world fair; it’s anything but fair.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, I obviously can’t explain everything I’m thinking on this subject, but I did hope to plant a seed of thought where thinkers here might devise their own philosophic thought around the notion of treating smoke as a trespass, rather than yet another chance to add a bunch of laws.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bondings wrote:
In the case of a couple, I wouldn't marry a girl that knows my stance about smoking and continues to smoke near me. Not just because of the smoking, but because of that attitude (which would be the same about other issues).

That is a very good example of what I’m talking about. You are taking control and responsibility for your own happiness. You don’t need public laws forcing “her” to quit, nor disallowing you to marry “her” until she takes the requisite anti-smoking classes. You and “she” deal with it as responsible adults.

Almost anytime that public laws are created, the result is less ability to take control of one’s own life. The supposed good that occurs with one-size-fits-all laws ends up harming many.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, I personally can’t stand first-hand or second-hand smoke. I don’t call on public laws to deal with my preference. I instead have very clear private laws, which I enforce easily and unemotionally. For example, friends learn they can’t smoke in my vehicles or house so they do it before or afterwards. I learn which places I do or don’t want to visit based on the private laws of those owners. It’s funny that in one previous city I lived, I used to have some of the biggest parties of all our friends -- even though no smoking was allowed inside. No one complained; it was their choice to attend (maybe because I’m really fun in person Laughing).
mattchun
Actrully, I don't think smoking is that harmful, I'm a smoker by the way.
Soulfire
mattchun wrote:
Actrully, I don't think smoking is that harmful, I'm a smoker by the way.

It kills - harmful enough for me.

But in reality, I suppose what you do in your home is not the law's business (in MOST cases). At any rate, I'm glad to say my father (who smokes) is polite enough to step outside to smoke. He says he doesn't want us to get hurt, and keep the house smelling good.
HDirtwater
mattchun wrote:
Actrully, I don't think smoking is that harmful, I'm a smoker by the way.


That's a fairly ignorant thing to say given all the medical proof to the contrary.

Back on topic, there is a point that seems to be missed here, and that is the legislation of what you can and cannot do in your own home. If this goes through, where do we draw the line? How 'bout if we pass a law saying you can't light candles in your own home because they could start a fire? How 'bout if we pass a law saying you can't have more than 3 alcoholic drinks in your own home?

I don't like this at all. I do smoke, but not inside my house. I don't want my stuff stinking. However, I don't think we need yet another law saying what we can and cannot do inside a home that we own.
Warriorza
Everyone who smokes tries to defend him- or herself but that smoking is harmful is - like others said - a medical proven thing. I think that smoking is ok if you really want to, but not with other people around you, espacialy children!

In Holland you may only smoke in your own house or in open air.
I hope smoking will get forbidden in the future and people will say we were dum back 2006 killing ouselfs and others by smoking.
rvec
Warriorza wrote:
Everyone who smokes tries to defend him- or herself but that smoking is harmful is - like others said - a medical proven thing. I think that smoking is ok if you really want to, but not with other people around you, especially children!

In Holland you may only smoke in your own house or in open air.
I hope smoking will get forbidden in the future and people will say we were dumb back 2006 killing ourselves and others by smoking.


It is has been proved smoking is harmful but not how harmful. You can never tell if someone died because of the second hand smoking or because of something else. I agree you'd better take no risk and just smoke outside or in private.

And in Holland there are also some smoker area's. Some places have smoker tubes, most restaurants have smoker area's and most bars don't care if you smoke or not.

I am not a smoker myself and i live in Holland so I am sure about the last thing. I think you meant england.
Bondings
HDirtwater wrote:
Back on topic, there is a point that seems to be missed here, and that is the legislation of what you can and cannot do in your own home. If this goes through, where do we draw the line? How 'bout if we pass a law saying you can't light candles in your own home because they could start a fire? How 'bout if we pass a law saying you can't have more than 3 alcoholic drinks in your own home?

That's what I didn't like about this legislation. People should have the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - including taking drugs, poison and/or killing yourself.

About the candles, if there would be a huge risk of fire (like when you live next to an oil derrick), they shouldn't be allowed.
Warriorza
Bondings wrote:
That's what I didn't like about this legislation. People should have the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - including taking drugs, poison and/or killing yourself.


It's not true that taking drugs is completely harmless. When taking drugs, you will probably feel different then ussual. You have really no idea what you can do when you are drug addict! Some junk ones kicked me and I smacked him in the face...wasn't very smart.

Also when allowing suicide people no longer have a reason not to do it... They can do it over and over again till they succeed.
The Philosopher Princess
Warriorza wrote:
I hope smoking will get forbidden in the future and people will say we were dum back 2006 killing ouselfs and others by smoking.

I hope smoking will not be forbidden in the future, but that it will be practically forgotten, and that when people do remember, they will say “we” were dumb.....

In other words, I believe it’s better for people to not do harmful things because they’ve gotten smarter about them, not because some rulers forbade them. In the first way, the “lesson” sticks better and deeper than the second way.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
People should have the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - including taking drugs, poison and/or killing yourself.


Herein lies the problem... taking drugs CAN harm anyone else if you go out and interact with others. In the privacy of your own home, it's somewhat different. If druggies could be kept at home, I don't see a problem with it. But, just as drunks do, they DON'T stay home. They go out and kill people.
Bondings
Warriorza wrote:
Bondings wrote:
That's what I didn't like about this legislation. People should have the right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - including taking drugs, poison and/or killing yourself.


It's not true that taking drugs is completely harmless. When taking drugs, you will probably feel different then ussual. You have really no idea what you can do when you are drug addict! Some junk ones kicked me and I smacked him in the face...wasn't very smart.

In that case they shouldn't be allowed to leave their room (and definately drive) if they are under influence.

And are you sure the junk kicked you because he took drugs (and was under influence) or maybe because he wanted to kick you? I don't believe people who are blaiming drugs for their actions, in most cases it's their own fault.

And, by my knowledge, most soft drugs have less negative influence on behaviour than alcohol.
sonicj
It never ceases to amaze me how people can take a situation and become so zealous about it that it turns into this "holy war" with so much momentum that it can't even stop.

Yes smoking is bad for you, but I have been told that second hand smoke is worse than first hand. Rolling Eyes Question Rolling Eyes Hello?!?!? Have we lost all common sense?

It is simple really....if a restaurant wants to make their establishment non-smoking, that is their right. If they want to make it smoking that is also their right. No one forces a non-smoker into a smoking restaurant and no one forces smoker into a non-smoking restaurant. Let it take care of itself....don't legislate it. Did prohibition stop people from drinking?!?! NO!

Don't tell me I can't smoke in the open air...that is just stupid....and especially don't tell me that as your driving by in your SUV (not that I have anything against SUV's)

People need to stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and worry about what they are doing.

And to those that have parents that smoke around you...yes you have a right to talk to them about it. Just be respectful in how you talk to them.
Bondings
sonicj wrote:
Yes smoking is bad for you, but I have been told that second hand smoke is worse than first hand. Rolling Eyes Question Rolling Eyes Hello?!?!? Have we lost all common sense?

It just depends on the definition and how you look at it.

The smoke that a smoker directly inhales is much less harmful than the smoke that is coming from the end of a cigarette (second-hand/sidestream smoke).

But a smoker is smoking both first-hand and second-hand (I think), so I guess that makes it worse indeed.

And sometimes (but I doubt this is the case here) frequent (but not too frequent, like someone who smokes) and not really intensive exposure to toxic substances could theoretically have a worse effect than very frequent, intensive exposure.

And, by the way, most ventilation systems do not remove any toxic substances, only the annoying smell (partly). Sometimes they even make it worse for non-smokers.
HDirtwater
Again, we're strying away from the real problem here. To smoke or not is not the issue here. It's the over-legislation. If laws can be passed to prohibit something that is NOT ILLEGAL in one's own home, where does it end?

I've never been in favor of legalizing drugs of any type, and I don't believe that a person can do whatever he likes in his own home (be it drugs, child porn, or any other illegal activity) but we're talking about taking something that is NOT ILLEGAL and making it illegal to do in your home, or outside in the open air. Someone mentioned prohibition before. As we all found out (well, not us, but....) it didn't work. It made people find sleazy ways of getting booze, and led to some of the most horrific gang violence in history.

I'm not saying that smokers are gonna kill each other with tommy guns, but I don't like the precedent a law like this could set.
sonicj
Bondings wrote:


And sometimes (but I doubt this is the case here) frequent (but not too frequent, like someone who smokes) and not really intensive exposure to toxic substances could theoretically have a worse effect than very frequent, intensive exposure.



So are you saying:
less frequent/not intensive=second hand smoker
more frequent/intensive=smoker
and that the latter is less dangerous?

If so, I could see that if the statement that second hand smoke puts off more toxins is true. But lets get out of theory and into reality...a smoker takes in both(which you alluded to). Regardless a smoker chooses to and a non-smoker does not always get that choice especially if a child.

But I agree with a previous poster, my main concern is to not see this legislated.
Bondings
sonicj wrote:
So are you saying:
less frequent/not intensive=second hand smoker
more frequent/intensive=smoker
and that the latter is less dangerous?

I'm not saying this is the case with smoking (I highly doubt it), just that it might be possible. The effects of toxic substances can be very complex and counterintuitive.

If you live your entire life in a sterile environment and get infected by a cold, you can die from it. A 'normal' person would maybe not even notice the cold.
drdestiny
smokers are endangering themselves and others, i think i perfectly justifiable that people should be allowed to smoke in their homes only.
spam
well ok go and criminalise the poor people who get hooked on smoking, 'cos they're harming themselves and the people about them, while the fat cat tobacco companies laugh all the way to the bank, before selling their shares and buying food companies instead before the cancer litigation moves in, all aboard the good ship corporatocracy me hearties, where's me polonium...
Nameless
IMHO, the all the governments of every country should stop being such wimps and just ban smoking outright. If other harmful substances are illegal (and for a number of good reasons I strongly agree with) there is no reason tobacco shouldn't be other than tradition. However, every step towards this is a good one, if not the ideal move.
Warriorza
Nameless wrote:
IMHO, the all the governments of every country should stop being such wimps and just ban smoking outright. If other harmful substances are illegal (and for a number of good reasons I strongly agree with) there is no reason tobacco shouldn't be other than tradition. However, every step towards this is a good one, if not the ideal move.


But smoking exists for a very long time and people didn't even knew it was bad for them. It's very hard to just ban such a tradition that has last for centuries.

But I agree with you, all steps taken against smoking are good ones.
polarBear
Hmmm... Wait a second. I can set my own house on fire if I want to, but I can't smoke in it? That's stupid.

I'd be really pleased with such laws if and only if all the other major sources of carcinogenic substances got closed and/or patched before invading my privacy. Beginning with industrial fumes, later on vehicular exhausts, and just then I'd love to invite this turds to come and knock my door.

After this all has been done, I'd personally want -and fight for- anal GPS implants for drug addicts and farty old people.


This can't be serious.
Bondings
polarBear wrote:
Hmmm... Wait a second. I can set my own house on fire if I want to

In most cases that is completely illegal. Definately if there are houses/forest next to you or you have an insurance covering fire damages.
polarBear
It was a metaphor; perhaps a badly chosen one, but I wasn't talking about literally torching your house. What I tried to highlight is the fact that it is MY property and in the privacy of MY house I should decide what I can do and I can't, as long as it isn't harmful for my neighbours. And I don't see how harmful it may be to smoke in my house compared to burning my trash (something quite habitual in rural areas and suburbs here) or using a 1970 car without any proper filter or even just living on any high traffic zone.
palavra
http://www.infinitelight.org/content/view/720/12/

Quote:
We cannot eradicate such a small habit as smoking, despite all our modern facilities and practically daily symposia and conferences to combat it. Medical science says smoking causes cancer of the larynx, mouth, esophagus, windpipe, and lungs; however, people insist on smoking. On the other hand, the Messenger eradicated countless ingrained bad habits and replaced them with laudable virtues and habits


i don't smoke but my brother does.

i tried every method to make him stop smoking for ten years but
unfortunately i couldn't manage.
yearnforjam
I hate smoking.

Warriorza wrote:
Well, my mother smokes and my father did. When I say I don't want them to smoke when I'm around, they tell me not to overact... They are my parents, so I can't be protected from their smoke except from them stopping...
The Philosopher Princess
{AN ESSAY WRITTEN FOR EVERYONE who’d like to consider this from a different perspective}

I begin with the contention that it’s a general principle that everyone wants their own way on the smoking issue (and every issue, for that matter) and that these wants of everyone are going to conflict. So, obviously, everyone can’t get their way.

The main question for each person is: Are you going to attempt to force your way onto other people, or are you going to attempt to use methods other than force to achieve your wants?

People who use force to get their way are called bullies (or worse), and aren’t respectable. People who use other methods are more civilized and classy, and are worthy of respect. As stated, neither bullies nor classy people always get their ways, so that’s not the issue. The issue is: Are you going to use reprehensible methods on your fellow human beings, or respectable methods?

If you take the bullying route, then you’ll be in cahoots with your choice(s) of force. The Mafia uses force. Street gangs use force. Two-bit street robbers and muggers use force. People who slap other people around to coerce and threaten use force. Governments use force. Monopoly laws forcing everyone to follow its way, backed up by monopoly police forces, obviously use force. Anyone advocating any of those methods to get your way has chosen and initiated force.

There are viable methods other than force, plenty of them, but you’ll never discover them if you have already gotten it in your mind that using force to get your way is okay.

Which way will you choose? Will you choose to be a bully? Or will you choose ways worthy of respect?

This is not an issue of religion per se. But it is an issue of morality. The means used to achieve an end do make a difference.

--- Thus speaketh The Philosopher Princess. Wink
palavra
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
People who use force to get their way are called bullies (or worse), and aren’t respectable. People who use other methods are more civilized and classy, and are worthy of respect. As stated, neither bullies nor classy people always get their ways, so that’s not the issue. The issue is: Are you going to use reprehensible methods on your fellow human beings, or respectable methods?


“Conquering the civilized is through persuasion, not by compulsion.”
The Philosopher Princess
palavra wrote:
“Conquering the civilized is though persuasion, not by compulsion.”

Yes!, that saying that you quoted (which I found here, including the misspelling of through) is consistent with what I am saying Smile.

I’d like to add for readers that the term persuasion might imply to some people that there’s just a bunch of talking and talking going on, which might in turn imply that it could have little impact.

But, while persuasion certainly does include talking, it can also include many other very influential techniques; only one example is voluntary boycott.

Here’s a hypothetical but practical example off the top of my head. Let’s say that in a particular city, all grocery stores allow smoking inside. But, let’s say that a large number of people don’t want to shop for savory foods with the smell of yucky smoke in the air, and start a letter-writing crusade. So, one grocery store owner, being ahead of his time, voluntarily makes his store non-smoking and advertises such. Now people can voluntarily boycott the other, smoking stores. No force at all is involved, and yet this kind of thing can have huge impacts. Some of the other stores will likely switch to non-smoking. But one main point is that there can still be some smoking-allowed stores for those who want it.

In this example, who is it that decides how many and which stores are smoke free? The answer is the free market. Bullying force does not need to be involved to achieve people’s wants. In fact, as soon as you add bullying force as the methods being used, that is precisely when you are not achieving people’s wants.
palavra
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
palavra wrote:
“Conquering the civilized is though persuasion, not by compulsion.”

Yes!, that saying that you quoted (which I found here, including the misspelling of through) is consistent with what I am saying Smile.

.


thanks for correcting misspelling .

saying belongs to Bediuzzaman Said Nursi who was one of the most distingushed man in turkiye (d. in 1960)
http://www.nur.org/treatise/collection/words/about.htm
tefa_taftaf2010
smoking is the very very very bad habit and its the worst thing can the one of us do

i hope all people stop smoking

all mr friends exccept 2 or 3 are smoking ( i hate that )
Montressor
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I’d like to add for readers that the term persuasion might imply to some people that there’s just a bunch of talking and talking going on, which might in turn imply that it could have little impact.

But, while persuasion certainly does include talking, it can also include many other very influential techniques; only one example is voluntary boycott.

In this example, who is it that decides how many and which stores are smoke free? The answer is the free market. Bullying force does not need to be involved to achieve people’s wants. In fact, as soon as you add bullying force as the methods being used, that is precisely when you are not achieving people’s wants.


Incidentally, force can be very persuasive (not that I'm advocating force)

What appears to be the battle here, is which is the higher good, Freedom and Liberty, or Public Safety/Health and Protection-of-those-who-don't-know-better. The Philosopher Princess offers an interesting accommodation argument by essentially saying that we can rely the principles of freedom to trust that people will apply that freedom to protect their health and look out for their own interests, rather than having the government restrict freedom to in the name of "public interest" in order to attempt to protect the general welfare (an actual clause of the Constitution).

Interestingly enough, I think that the same principle could be applied to freedom itself; people will apply their freedom to protect their freedom.

Feel free to correct me (as I know you will), if you think I'm wrong
sonicj
Quote:


Protection-of-those-who-don't-know-better.


WOW! Statements like this really scare me. In this day and age of super communication, does anyone even think that there are people who don't know better? I am 40 and I was indoctrinated about the evils of smoking in school as a kid. And today my son gets an even healthier dose of indoctrination than I did. And I won't even go into the "holier than thou" aspects of that statement.
Montressor
sonicj wrote:
Quote:


Protection-of-those-who-don't-know-better.


WOW! Statements like this really scare me. In this day and age of super communication, does anyone even think that there are people who don't know better? I am 40 and I was indoctrinated about the evils of smoking in school as a kid. And today my son gets an even healthier dose of indoctrination than I did. And I won't even go into the "holier than thou" aspects of that statement.


The statement did not say that they've not been told better, but that they don't know better, for if they truly knew the dangers of smoking to themselves and others, they might not smoke...

Besides the contrast between Liberty and protection is not just one that applies to smoking, and there are many things that the average citizen needs to be protected from that they have no clue about... In this case it's fairly safe to say that most people have been told better and the government does not have to infringe on liberty to protect what the citizens can and will protect themselves (as the princess was saying)
The Philosopher Princess
@ Montressor, as the catalyst, but really @ Everybody

Please forgive me for being so long here on one point, but I won’t have another chance. I did want to give you a reply to your nice posts. It seems to me that if we talked further, we’d agree on many things, or be able to work to come to agreement. Alas, today is my last day here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Montressor wrote:
Incidentally, force can be very persuasive (not that I'm advocating force)

No, it cannot. By definition, the concept of persuasion does not include force. Likewise, if an act involves force, then it is something other than persuasion.

Of course, any word can be re-defined to mean something else. The word walking can be re-defined to mean sitting. Laughing can be re-defined to mean crying. But, to communicate effectively, we stick to the original contexts set, including definitions. I was the first one to set the context of persuasion, and I think I was very clear to distinguish it from acts involving force. You were responding to me, so, logically, it’s not valid to re-define mid-discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~
To elaborate, persuasion involves convincing the mind about something. If somebody doesn’t want to do something, and you stick a gun to their head so they’ll do it anyway, then they likely will do it, but their mind has not been changed. Yes, they have been forced to do it, but their original reasons to not do it are fully in-tact and haven’t changed.

When a person influences another person, they are either
(1) working on the reasoning abilities in the other’s mind -- influencing higher brain skills, or
(2) they are using threats, force, and fear factors -- influencing lower, primitive, survival brain skills.

Certainly, there can be a mixture of the 2 methods, but I contend that anyone who wants to be intellectually pure, will consider anything that involves the least amount of force, as force, not persuasion.

Similarly, a person who only smokes 2 cigarettes a day on an on-going basis, not 2 packs, is not a non-smoker.
~~~~~~~~~~
But, Montressor, Nice Try! And I say that seriously, not sarcastically. In that one statement of yours (which, it’s noted you don’t support), you have performed a context-switch, which (unless done for humorous reasons) is a “no-no” in a serious discussion. However, I have a hard time blaming you much because the politicians and apologists in the Media do this exact same kind of thing all the time, and I realize that many in the public “learn” that it’s okay. I hope you will be persuaded (Wink) that it’s not okay.

Re-defining persuasion to include force is a matter of double-speak, i.e., a word or phrase with a previous “special” meaning, being “hi-jacked” to take on a new meaning, while keeping the previous “feeling” that was attached to it. It is done surreptitiously to advance a political agenda.

Over at this interview, which The Philosopher Princess highly recommends your reading, author, William Lutz wrote:
Double-speak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistaken use of language, it's exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent and very sophisticated in the use of language, and know that you can do an awful lot with language.

Example: Citizens of a country are forced to obtain a national I.D. number in order to obtain necessities of life, and the government department where they must get those numbers is called “services”. (Rolling Eyes)

Example: People are put in jail if they don’t show up for their government-assigned jury duty, and jury duty is called a “privilege”. (Rolling Eyes)

Example: An unprovoked country invades another country, continues to occupy it, and calls it “liberalizing” or “liberating” or “freeing”. (Rolling Eyes)

Example: A school system trains children to stand in line, blindly follow authority, and give the right answers on system-wide tests, while they aren’t taught cognitive thinking skills, and this is called “education”. (Rolling Eyes)

Example: A guy laughs with his buddies: “She didn’t want to get in the car with me, but when I pulled out my revolver, she was finally ‘persuaded’ -- ha ha!” (Rolling Eyes)

Example: A state enacts full anti-smoking laws and starts imprisoning people caught smoking in their own homes. As prisons get too full, they start letting rapists out on probation ahead of schedule. Some of the public complains. The Governor defends “The Law”, saying it’s the best way to “convince” people that smoking is bad.
~~~~~~~~~~
Many people, of course, do understand the difference between the concept behind persuasion and the (very different) concept behind force.

Merely by coincidence, last night I watched some of 1492: The Conquest of Paradise, a movie about Christopher Columbus “discovering” America. Soon after meeting the scantily-clad and non-God-fearing natives, he wrote the following in his diary.

“Columbus” wrote:
I think we have returned to Eden. Surely, this is how the world once was, in the beginning of time. If the natives are to be converted to our ways, then it will be by persuasion and not by force.

The character knew the difference, and respected the former. Of course, the religious monopoly and the state monopoly in power had other intentions -- as they always do.

Who is to keep the monopolies in check, if not for us “regular” people?

Who is to reject the double-speak of those in power, if not for us “regular” people who have a little more sense than the sheeple followers?
~~~~~~~~~~
I can see, Montressor, that you are thoughtful and you do have sense. (I’m not being patronizing, because I’ve checked out a few of your other posts.) Possibly you will be a good one to carry on some of the anti-force, anti-monopoly, pro-persuasion ideas that I have attempted to champion in my Frihost posts.

The smoking issue is a great one with which to showcase the principles of rejecting the use of force as a way to achieve one’s way. But every other social issue/problem can also be dealt with either by force or by persuasion. People do have a choice as to what they support.

Also, if you’re interested, I previously discussed double-speak more over at this post.
Montressor
Sorry to see an apparently semi-kindred spirit leaving (though I haven't seen enough posts to judge, nor will I say that my posts always accurately reflect my opinions) Crying or Very sad

Back to the topic at hand, mainly the allegations concerning the people-who-don't-know-better "clause". Personally I feel that the government had neither the right, nor the ability to truly "protect" those who do know "better". Using the burning you own house down analogy. The government's main objection (or at least admitted main objection) to you deciding to burn your house down is that it at least holds the potential to harm your neighbor's house, or causing a forest fire that damages public land. If you know the consequences of your action (loss of the home) there's no reason to stop you except for the harm that might be done to others (cost of fighting the fire, replacing damaged property...). Similarly the law in question will not protect the smokers themselves, but the non-smokers who do (apparently) know "better" or have at least chosen to not smoke themselves.
Note: the above comments serve to reinforce the statements of my previous posts, not to offer an new perspective. In other words, I still do not support the government restricting the rights of citizens in order to protect them in this case since I do not believe that the added minimal protection (that as the Princess pointed out could be better done by individuals) justifies the restriction of liberty.

As for the force/persuasion choice, I recently was debating with friends about what California should do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (global warming is not a significant factor of this topic and as such this is only to serve as an example). My first, and foremost point was that the state (if action is to take place on the state level at all) should not enact mandates, but provide incentives. Mandating reduced emissions not only fails to reduce emissions, but causes polluting industries to move to the next state (see Mohave Generating Station), while giving incentives to reduce emissions "persuades" or allows industries to remain in-state and invest in "cleaner" alternatives... On one hand the force... the other the persuasion. Unfortunately they didn't understand, or refused to understand (they were still advocating restrictions, taxes and fees) what I was saying and eventually the topic lost its interest

Perhaps it would be better stated the force can be very persuasive in that it causes those who have the force acting on them to resist, in other words, force is anti-persuasive
Related topics
What do you think about WAR of the WORLD?
Chinese Gov't: Smoking is great for Health
FOR WAR OR NOT
Star War lol
God of War
God Of War
War World
Google Earth War
War in iraq
Demonstrating against the war/president/etc etc etc = FRAUD
war never solves anything.. except
Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War: Winter Assault Demo
Quit smoking
12 Official Guidelines for the Israeli Spokesman @ War
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.