And that is the same thing as 'actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon' when you take into account the bigger picture that broader 'benefit' essentially all comes down to enjoyment in one way or another. Yet, you said that wasn't your argument.
You're making a number of equivocations and generalizations, at least one of which (the nature of benefit) is a highly contentious question in moral philosophy. I'm not concerned with the bigger picture here. I'm speaking quite concretely and literally. When you do something for your own fun, like smoking, that has a real and immediate negative effect on the experiences of people around you, like irritating their noses and lungs... that's bad. You shouldn't do that. It's rude.
So you are saying society at large has no idea how to follow it's own rules? Or perhaps you are saying society at large has yet to realize how its own principles apply to this subject matter?
The portion of society that does not smoke realizes fully that the principle applies to this subject matter. And many smokers do too -- some absolutely limit their cigarettes to their own homes and other private areas. It's just a matter of a few smokers who don't realize or don't care about this principle and light up where anyone can inhale. For those who do not realize, hopefully some of them are reading this thread and are duly informed. For those who don't care, they're just jerks. There are also jerks who talk in the theater, but you wouldn't argue that society doesn't think people who talk in the theater are jerks.
We generally frown on taking enjoyment at the expense of others' enjoyment (to say nothing of others' health).
remains a mystery to me.
We[society]generally frown on[evaluate negatively]taking enjoyment at the expense of others' enjoyment[doing something for fun that ruins the fun of other people].
And that is the same thing as 'actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon' when you take into account the bigger picture that broader 'benefit' essentially all comes down to enjoyment in one way or another.
Actually, your statement is more general; it includes the null case, of benefiting oneself and not doing anything to others, which Blinking Spirit's argument did not.
Most actions that benefit an individual use up some resource, denying it to someone else.
And that is the same thing as 'actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon' when you take into account the bigger picture that broader 'benefit' essentially all comes down to enjoyment in one way or another. Yet, you said that wasn't your argument.
You're making a number of equivocations and generalizations, at least one of which (the nature of benefit) is a highly contentious question in moral philosophy. I'm not concerned with the bigger picture here. I'm speaking quite concretely and literally. When you do something for your own fun, like smoking, that has a real and immediate negative effect on the experiences of people around you, like irritating their noses and lungs... that's bad. You shouldn't do that. It's rude.
Very little of philosophy is not highly contentious.
Smoking in an open public space doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it, it depends on the circumstances. Is that it can often be negative sufficient justification to ban it altogether?
So you are saying society at large has no idea how to follow it's own rules? Or perhaps you are saying society at large has yet to realize how its own principles apply to this subject matter?
The portion of society that does not smoke realizes fully that the principle applies to this subject matter. And many smokers do too -- some absolutely limit their cigarettes to their own homes and other private areas. It's just a matter of a few smokers who don't realize or don't care about this principle and light up where anyone can inhale. For those who do not realize, hopefully some of them are reading this thread and are duly informed. For those who don't care, they're just jerks. There are also jerks who talk in the theater, but you wouldn't argue that society doesn't think people who talk in the theater are jerks.
But we aren't talking about whether smoking in random peoples faces is a nice thing to do- we arguing about whether generally smoking in open public spaces should be legally allowed. The consensus has been that this should be allowed, not that it shouldn't.
Smoking in an open public space doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it, it depends on the circumstances. Is that it can often be negative sufficient justification to ban it altogether?
Driving drunk doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it. But we still ban that.
But we aren't talking about whether smoking in random peoples faces is a nice thing to do- we arguing about whether generally smoking in open public spaces should be legally allowed.
Take another gander at the OP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Smoking in an open public space doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it, it depends on the circumstances. Is that it can often be negative sufficient justification to ban it altogether?
Driving drunk doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it. But we still ban that.
Driving drunk isn't a controlled risk, whether or not someone is hurt is circumstantial, not conscious- the risk will always be high.
Whether or not someone exposes others to tobacco smoke is a controlled risk- they can move away to be not be next to people who don't want to be next to them, while still being in an open public space. They aren't comparable in this way.
But we aren't talking about whether smoking in random peoples faces is a nice thing to do- we arguing about whether generally smoking in open public spaces should be legally allowed.
Take another gander at the OP.
Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location?
So you're implying that that's not talking about whether it should be legally allowed?
But we aren't talking about whether smoking in random peoples faces is a nice thing to do- we arguing about whether generally smoking in open public spaces should be legally allowed.
Take another gander at the OP.
No, DJK's right about that.
But the comparison between alcohol and tobacco seems reasonable.
Whether or not someone exposes others to tobacco smoke is a controlled risk- they can move away to be not be next to people who don't want to be next to them, while still being in an open public space. They aren't comparable in this way.
Someone could drive using roads that are not as frequently traveled by other people? It's a bit of a stretch, but I definitely feel like the alcohol comparison is almost always a good one.
Whether or not someone exposes others to tobacco smoke is a controlled risk- they can move away to be not be next to people who don't want to be next to them, while still being in an open public space. They aren't comparable in this way.
Someone could drive using roads that are not as frequently traveled by other people?
But that's not really reducing much risk because you could still easily hit someone- there doesn't need to be many people for it to happen, in some ways there being less could make it worse by causing you to drop your guard more- and there's no reduction to the risk of causing damage to property.
And yet, it remains legal.
The center point for this discussion is about legality- etiquette is not very important.
The OP asks whether it should be "acceptable" to smoke in public, and whether it is "appropriate" in public, in addition to the legality questions. I think most people would agree that spraying strangers with water is neither acceptable or appropriate activity.
And yet, it remains legal.
The center point for this discussion is about legality- etiquette is not very important.
The OP asks whether it should be "acceptable" to smoke in public, and whether it is "appropriate" in public, in addition to the legality questions.
I think the legality question is more important because it's simply more significant of a question.
I think most people would agree that spraying strangers with water is neither acceptable or appropriate activity.
And I think most people, at least in western countries, would agree that smoking in some random person's face is not really acceptable or appropriate either.
But we aren't just talking about doing it right next to people, the question is about doing it open public spaces altogether.
Is it okay for someone to spray water out in public if you aren't spraying it at people? I think so. There could be various reasons for doing so. Same deal for smoking I think.
And I think most people, at least in western countries, would agree that smoking in some random person's face is not really acceptable or appropriate either.
But we aren't just talking about doing it right next to people, the question is about doing it open public spaces altogether.
Is it okay for someone to spray water out in public if you aren't spraying it at people? I think so. There could be various reasons for doing so. Same deal for smoking I think.
Many people smoke while walking down crowded streets, or standing at busy bus stops. In places where it's permitted, people smoke in crowded bars and clubs. I don't think it's at all true that most people, at least not most smokers, consider that sort of behavior unacceptable or inappropriate.
If you think that smoking in public near other people is so widely considered unacceptable, then what harm would there be in banning it altogether? Would you support banning smoking with, say, ten feet of another person?
Maybe if people are allowed to blow smoke at me, I should be allowed to spray water at them. If the water happens to put out the cigarette, so be it.
Ok, but what do I do if instead of a smoker I am dealing with a Vapist? I swear it's 10x more obnoxious than smoking is because they think its cool to blow their smoke everywhere. Absolutely disgusting. At last most smokers have the common decency to not aim it at you.
And I think most people, at least in western countries, would agree that smoking in some random person's face is not really acceptable or appropriate either.
But we aren't just talking about doing it right next to people, the question is about doing it open public spaces altogether.
Is it okay for someone to spray water out in public if you aren't spraying it at people? I think so. There could be various reasons for doing so. Same deal for smoking I think.
Many people smoke while walking down crowded streets, or standing at busy bus stops. In places where it's permitted, people smoke in crowded bars and clubs. I don't think it's at all true that most people, at least not most smokers, consider that sort of behavior unacceptable or inappropriate.
The examples you give here aren't always problematic, depending on where exactly you draw the line for things like 'crowded' and 'busy'.
I didn't say most smokers.
If you think that smoking in public near other people is so widely considered unacceptable
That's kind of exaggerating what I said.
then what harm would there be in banning it altogether? Would you support banning smoking with, say, ten feet of another person?
The costs and difficulties of enforcing it fairly EASILY outweigh the minor benefit for something as small as this.
The law isn't the only way of society determining what is allowed.
Smokers or not, no one seems to consider being sprayed with water something they should have to put up with.
And yet, it remains legal.
Battery, dude.
It's only battery if there's some kind of intent to cause harm or offense. Under that same prerequisite, I'd think blowing smoke into someone's face would also qualify for the charge.
This whole comparison is only relevant if spraying water at people is actually treated differently- otherwise how we currently treat that issue cannot provide a reason for action with regards to smoking issue- and I see no reason to think that's the case.
The examples you give here aren't always problematic, depending on where exactly you draw the line for things like 'crowded' and 'busy'.
I didn't say most smokers.
Do you think most people, smokers or not, consider this unacceptable? Do they consider it equally unacceptable as if the smokers instead had waterguns and were spraying the people around them?
The costs and difficulties of enforcing it fairly EASILY outweigh the minor benefit for something as small as this.
The law isn't the only way of society determining what is allowed.
So you would support such a law in principle, but for the technical difficulties of enforcement?
The examples you give here aren't always problematic, depending on where exactly you draw the line for things like 'crowded' and 'busy'.
I didn't say most smokers.
Do you think most people, smokers or not, consider this unacceptable? Do they consider it equally unacceptable as if the smokers instead had waterguns and were spraying the people around them?
And most bars don't allow that. Though that situation could well be acceptable if that area of the bar designated for that, as plenty of bars have.
The primary circumstance I am defending is open public spaces, which is to say, outdoors in the free air. Out on the streets and such.
The costs and difficulties of enforcing it fairly EASILY outweigh the minor benefit for something as small as this.
The law isn't the only way of society determining what is allowed.
So you would support such a law in principle, but for the technical difficulties of enforcement?
If you are worried about a few dudes smoking a few cigs in the park or walking down the sidewalk sure hope you don't live in a city. All those evil exhaust fumes are not doing you much good either.
If you are worried about a few dudes smoking a few cigs in the park or walking down the sidewalk sure hope you don't live in a city. All those evil exhaust fumes are not doing you much good either.
Not sure of the point here, they aren't doing any good really. People aren't typically smoking for health benefits, they're smoking typically because they're addicted. Nor are exhaust fumes any good for the environment or people either. Sounds like you're trying to be snarky but doing a poor job. They're prevalent and accepted more because of tradition. It's pretty easy to look at how well they'd be accepted if this was something totally new, marijuana is having a hard time gaining ground and it actually does do positive things for people.
If you are worried about a few dudes smoking a few cigs in the park or walking down the sidewalk sure hope you don't live in a city. All those evil exhaust fumes are not doing you much good either.
Not sure of the point here, they aren't doing any good really. People aren't typically smoking for health benefits, they're smoking typically because they're addicted. Nor are exhaust fumes any good for the environment or people either. Sounds like you're trying to be snarky but doing a poor job. They're prevalent and accepted more because of tradition. It's pretty easy to look at how well they'd be accepted if this was something totally new, marijuana is having a hard time gaining ground and it actually does do positive things for people.
My point was both are legal and harmful for your health. One is looked at like you are a felon and the other is a nuisance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I dream of beer head armies.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The portion of society that does not smoke realizes fully that the principle applies to this subject matter. And many smokers do too -- some absolutely limit their cigarettes to their own homes and other private areas. It's just a matter of a few smokers who don't realize or don't care about this principle and light up where anyone can inhale. For those who do not realize, hopefully some of them are reading this thread and are duly informed. For those who don't care, they're just jerks. There are also jerks who talk in the theater, but you wouldn't argue that society doesn't think people who talk in the theater are jerks.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Most actions that benefit an individual use up some resource, denying it to someone else.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Very little of philosophy is not highly contentious.
Smoking in an open public space doesn't have to necessitate that others will actually be affected by it, it depends on the circumstances. Is that it can often be negative sufficient justification to ban it altogether?
But we aren't talking about whether smoking in random peoples faces is a nice thing to do- we arguing about whether generally smoking in open public spaces should be legally allowed. The consensus has been that this should be allowed, not that it shouldn't.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Take another gander at the OP.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Driving drunk isn't a controlled risk, whether or not someone is hurt is circumstantial, not conscious- the risk will always be high.
Whether or not someone exposes others to tobacco smoke is a controlled risk- they can move away to be not be next to people who don't want to be next to them, while still being in an open public space. They aren't comparable in this way.
So you're implying that that's not talking about whether it should be legally allowed?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No, DJK's right about that.
But the comparison between alcohol and tobacco seems reasonable.
Someone could drive using roads that are not as frequently traveled by other people? It's a bit of a stretch, but I definitely feel like the alcohol comparison is almost always a good one.
But that's not really reducing much risk because you could still easily hit someone- there doesn't need to be many people for it to happen, in some ways there being less could make it worse by causing you to drop your guard more- and there's no reduction to the risk of causing damage to property.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't think either of them would get you arrested, so you can already do this.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
And yet somehow I doubt I'd receive the polite toleration of my water spraying that smokers expect for their smoke blowing.
Yes, shockingly, some smokers are not very nice.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Smokers or not, no one seems to consider being sprayed with water something they should have to put up with.
And yet, it remains legal.
The center point for this discussion is about legality- etiquette is not very important.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The OP asks whether it should be "acceptable" to smoke in public, and whether it is "appropriate" in public, in addition to the legality questions. I think most people would agree that spraying strangers with water is neither acceptable or appropriate activity.
I think the legality question is more important because it's simply more significant of a question.
And I think most people, at least in western countries, would agree that smoking in some random person's face is not really acceptable or appropriate either.
But we aren't just talking about doing it right next to people, the question is about doing it open public spaces altogether.
Is it okay for someone to spray water out in public if you aren't spraying it at people? I think so. There could be various reasons for doing so. Same deal for smoking I think.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Many people smoke while walking down crowded streets, or standing at busy bus stops. In places where it's permitted, people smoke in crowded bars and clubs. I don't think it's at all true that most people, at least not most smokers, consider that sort of behavior unacceptable or inappropriate.
If you think that smoking in public near other people is so widely considered unacceptable, then what harm would there be in banning it altogether? Would you support banning smoking with, say, ten feet of another person?
Ok, but what do I do if instead of a smoker I am dealing with a Vapist? I swear it's 10x more obnoxious than smoking is because they think its cool to blow their smoke everywhere. Absolutely disgusting. At last most smokers have the common decency to not aim it at you.
The examples you give here aren't always problematic, depending on where exactly you draw the line for things like 'crowded' and 'busy'.
I didn't say most smokers.
That's kind of exaggerating what I said.
The costs and difficulties of enforcing it fairly EASILY outweigh the minor benefit for something as small as this.
The law isn't the only way of society determining what is allowed.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's only battery if there's some kind of intent to cause harm or offense. Under that same prerequisite, I'd think blowing smoke into someone's face would also qualify for the charge.
This whole comparison is only relevant if spraying water at people is actually treated differently- otherwise how we currently treat that issue cannot provide a reason for action with regards to smoking issue- and I see no reason to think that's the case.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Consider this image of people smoking in a bar:
http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SmokingBan1.jpg
Do you think most people, smokers or not, consider this unacceptable? Do they consider it equally unacceptable as if the smokers instead had waterguns and were spraying the people around them?
So you would support such a law in principle, but for the technical difficulties of enforcement?
And most bars don't allow that. Though that situation could well be acceptable if that area of the bar designated for that, as plenty of bars have.
The primary circumstance I am defending is open public spaces, which is to say, outdoors in the free air. Out on the streets and such.
Perhaps. It would depend on more specifics.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Not sure of the point here, they aren't doing any good really. People aren't typically smoking for health benefits, they're smoking typically because they're addicted. Nor are exhaust fumes any good for the environment or people either. Sounds like you're trying to be snarky but doing a poor job. They're prevalent and accepted more because of tradition. It's pretty easy to look at how well they'd be accepted if this was something totally new, marijuana is having a hard time gaining ground and it actually does do positive things for people.
My point was both are legal and harmful for your health. One is looked at like you are a felon and the other is a nuisance.