I have a mild allergy of sorts to tobacco smoke. It's unpleasant regardless, but it got much worse since this developed. I never was a smoker, and many people I know, including myself, hate the habit.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
You may not smoke, you may not know anyone that smokes, but that doesn't mean there aren't still a lot of smokers in the country. The argument you present is about your own comfort, so why is your comfort more important than the smokers? What do you expect? Everyone doing something you don't care for should do it in secret?
I have a mild allergy of sorts to tobacco smoke. It's unpleasant regardless, but it got much worse since this developed. I never was a smoker, and many people I know, including myself, hate the habit.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
I think really, as long as it's legal, it should be allowed in most open public spaces and not usually indoors. If you're going so far as to inconvenience the people who do it over those who don't, you should really be at a point where you see it as justified to ban recreational use altogether.
I could see a time in which it's no longer allowed in public generally, but only because I could see a time in which it's illegal.
All in all, I can think this can be summarised as 'society is full of compromises'.
I have a mild allergy of sorts to tobacco smoke. It's unpleasant regardless, but it got much worse since this developed. I never was a smoker, and many people I know, including myself, hate the habit.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
Probably because smokers are people. I dislike unempathetic people, but I don't want them banned from public places.
The argument you present is about your own comfort, so why is your comfort more important than the smokers?
Actually, the argument myself and many others present is for one's own health, rather than one's own comfort. I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but I'm not forcing people to let me carve runes in their flesh, why should I be forced to have my lungs tarred up from second-hand smoke and potentially my breathing stopped due to allergies?
I have a mild allergy of sorts to tobacco smoke. It's unpleasant regardless, but it got much worse since this developed. I never was a smoker, and many people I know, including myself, hate the habit.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
I think really, as long as it's legal, it should be allowed in most open public spaces and not usually indoors. If you're going so far as to inconvenience the people who do it over those who don't, you should really be at a point where you see it as justified to ban recreational use altogether.
I could see a time in which it's no longer allowed in public generally, but only because I could see a time in which it's illegal.
All in all, I can think this can be summarised as 'society is full of compromises'.
I'm totally fine with people smoking, as long as I personally am not being forced to inhale it. I don't want it banned; I just want courtesy to my own health to be shown. I don't see anything wrong with having smoking / non smoking designated areas to accommodate both groups.
And open outdoor areas are one of those smoking areas. Yes, that means sometimes people will inhale a little bit of others smoke. But you constantly encounter risks and discomforts as a result of others actions- that's life, you do the same to them. Smokers could just as easily that they shouldn't be so inconvenienced to only be able to smoke in specifically designated areas for it just so some people can avoid very small amounts of passive smoke, and that they already have plenty of places they aren't allowed to smoke in and this inconveniences them. We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
There needs to be a reasonable balance and in my opinion it is an acceptable compromise to have open outdoor areas and specific indoor rooms be allowed, while most indoor environment not be allowed.
To be clear, I am speaking largely from the position of assuming the laws in America are mostly the same as the laws in Australia, so someone correct me if they are quite different.
We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
But again, it's a question of whether this inconvenience isn't, well, self-earned, or reasonable for the sake of the health and liberty of others. If I'm drinking alcohol, I'm not going to be told that it is okay to drive drunk because I'm fine with spending the additional money on incurred costs. If someone is smoking, should they be told that it is okay to endanger themselves and others because they are okay with spending the money on incurred costs? Like, discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives and few, if arguably any, positives of tobacco smoking, much worse than in the case of alcohol.
The argument you present is about your own comfort, so why is your comfort more important than the smokers?
Actually, the argument myself and many others present is for one's own health, rather than one's own comfort. I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but I'm not forcing people to let me carve runes in their flesh, why should I be forced to have my lungs tarred up from second-hand smoke and potentially my breathing stopped due to allergies?
I don't see anything wrong with having smoking / non smoking designated areas to accommodate both groups.
Yeah, I don't have any issue with designated smoking areas, as long as people specifically smoke there and not anywhere else.
Your mild allergy has suddenly escalated to a life threatening allergy? I won't deny the risks of second hand smoke, though i haven't seen a report that accounted for being outside.
When this happens and we ban smoking outside, where will we put these smoking areas? Who will pay for it? How many does there need to be? How far should smokers have to go from their home or work to get to a designated area before it becomes an unreasonable inconvenience?
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country?
Which public places?
Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location?
I mean, there largely are. You pretty much can't smoke anywhere except outside in most places.
One of the best things about the US really. Most bars and clubs in Asia are horrid for that very reason. You come out smelling like an ashtray.
We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
"Discriminating against them"? Asking someone to not pump carcinogens around is not discriminating against them, it's asking people not to endanger the health of the people around them. You know, what the law is for.
But having people smoke outside is, in my opinion, within that parameter.
We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
But again, it's a question of whether this inconvenience isn't, well, self-earned, or reasonable for the sake of the health and liberty of others. If I'm drinking alcohol, I'm not going to be told that it is okay to drive drunk because I'm fine with spending the additional money on incurred costs. If someone is smoking, should they be told that it is okay to endanger themselves and others because they are okay with spending the money on incurred costs? Like, discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives and few, if arguably any, positives of tobacco smoking, much worse than in the case of alcohol.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
Your mild allergy has suddenly escalated to a life threatening allergy?
No. But if I was around someone smoking for long enough, it could be. I've (thankfully) never had to test it. And there certainly are people who have life-threatening allergies, or asthma, which can end up equivalent.
When this happens and we ban smoking outside, where will we put these smoking areas? Who will pay for it? How many does there need to be? How far should smokers have to go from their home or work to get to a designated area before it becomes an unreasonable inconvenience?
I see no reason why people can't specifically smoke in their own home.
I mean, there largely are. You pretty much can't smoke anywhere except outside in most places.
It depends on the part of the country, to be fair. Smoking outside the exit to an establishment in a manner that foot traffic will walk by you doesn't exactly help, though. That said, few places in the US allow for drinking an open bottle of alcohol outside in public, so the comparison is there.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
We generally frown on taking enjoyment at the expense of others' enjoyment (to say nothing of others' health).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
So if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it? What if I really enjoy running around throwing handfuls of asbestos fibres in the air? 1. I enjoy it, 2. exercise has positive psychological benefits. Is it discrimination to make me stop?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
So if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it?
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
We generally frown on taking enjoyment at the expense of others' enjoyment (to say nothing of others' health).
No we don't.
Essentially everything we do revolves around allowing us to live long enjoyable lives. The resources we value are valued precisely because they help us to do this. But resources are finite. Hence, society is constantly involved in the exercise of distributing the resources necessary for people to enjoy themselves- food, tools, power, space, ect.
We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
But again, it's a question of whether this inconvenience isn't, well, self-earned, or reasonable for the sake of the health and liberty of others. If I'm drinking alcohol, I'm not going to be told that it is okay to drive drunk because I'm fine with spending the additional money on incurred costs. If someone is smoking, should they be told that it is okay to endanger themselves and others because they are okay with spending the money on incurred costs? Like, discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives and few, if arguably any, positives of tobacco smoking, much worse than in the case of alcohol.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
So if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it?
No, that's not what I said.
I misinterpreted you, then. You said that you can only inconvenience smokers so much before it's discrimination. Osieorb replied to you and said that discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives, and few positives of smoking, so when you replied with the benefits of smoking, I thought you were arguing that discrimination was indeed a valid argument because smoking has these positives.
I wonder if, if a new hobby turned up today with equal health issues and benefits to smoking, it would be made illegal immediately. It seems to me that smoking is 'grandfathered' in, because so many people do it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
That's generally my thoughts on it as well. I'm decently certain that it's tradition more than anything else that keeps smoking where it is right now. Unfortunately I have a hard time thinking of a generally good solution. Smoking is a bit more invasive in that you're generally going to be exposed to the negative aspects of it even if you don't want to be. Albeit it may not be anything worse than smell (I'm not sure how easily one could measure second-hand smoke just from strangers), it still isn't quite as comfortable. And while we definitely don't legally mandate some things based on comfort, it still isn't unheard of.
As said though, smokers are people too. Just would be nice if smoke wasn't so easily spread.
We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
But again, it's a question of whether this inconvenience isn't, well, self-earned, or reasonable for the sake of the health and liberty of others. If I'm drinking alcohol, I'm not going to be told that it is okay to drive drunk because I'm fine with spending the additional money on incurred costs. If someone is smoking, should they be told that it is okay to endanger themselves and others because they are okay with spending the money on incurred costs? Like, discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives and few, if arguably any, positives of tobacco smoking, much worse than in the case of alcohol.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
So if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it?
No, that's not what I said.
I misinterpreted you, then. You said that you can only inconvenience smokers so much before it's discrimination. Osieorb replied to you and said that discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives, and few positives of smoking, so when you replied with the benefits of smoking, I thought you were arguing that discrimination was indeed a valid argument because smoking has these positives.
What you claimed my argument was was that 'if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it'. The problem is I never said that. What I said was that at a certain point, inconveniencing those who do it becomes a kind of discrimination, and I reasoned that if it is justified to get to that point, it should really be illegal for recreational use generally. There's only so narrow it makes sense to go, based on how variable in consequences the act in question is.
My argument is that going narrower than it is now is getting very close to that point.
No we don't.
Essentially everything we do revolves around allowing us to live long enjoyable lives. The resources we value are valued precisely because they help us to do this. But resources are finite. Hence, society is constantly involved in the exercise of distributing the resources necessary for people to enjoy themselves- food, tools, power, space, ect.
We frown on uneven distribution of resources.
Unless you're trying to argue that smoking in public places allows smokers to distribute carcinogenic ash more evenly to everybody's lungs rather than hogging it all for themselves, I'm at a loss as to the relevance of what you say here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No we don't.
Essentially everything we do revolves around allowing us to live long enjoyable lives. The resources we value are valued precisely because they help us to do this. But resources are finite. Hence, society is constantly involved in the exercise of distributing the resources necessary for people to enjoy themselves- food, tools, power, space, ect.
We frown on uneven distribution of resources.
Unless you're trying to argue that smoking in public places allows smokers to distribute carcinogenic ash more evenly to everybody's lungs rather than hogging it all for themselves, I'm at a loss as to the relevance of what you say here.
The significance is that I am directly contradicting your argument that actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon and saying that pretty much everything we do is involved in that kind of exchange.
In this case, the exchange between this
benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
and this
the health and liberty of others
.
EDIT: To expand upon this, we cannot say the former is unimportant just because of the existence of the latter- that's what I mean by discrimination.
The significance is that I am directly contradicting your argument that actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon...
That was not my argument. My argument was that when we look at the tradeoff you're describing, between the smoker's enjoyment and the public's enjoyment, this is a solved problem. We as a society have long since weighed that kind of tradeoff and come down firmly on the side of the public's enjoyment. Like, not even close. If I enjoy talking during movies or blasting music at two in the morning or peeing in the swimming pool, I'm not a victim of "discrimination", I'm just a jerk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The significance is that I am directly contradicting your argument that actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon...
That was not my argument. My argument was that when we look at the tradeoff you're describing, between the smoker's enjoyment and the public's enjoyment, this is a solved problem. We as a society have long since weighed that kind of tradeoff and come down firmly on the side of the public's enjoyment. Like, not even close. If I enjoy talking during movies or blasting music at two in the morning or peeing in the swimming pool, I'm not a victim of "discrimination", I'm just a jerk.
Where exactly you got this from
We generally frown on taking enjoyment at the expense of others' enjoyment (to say nothing of others' health).
remains a mystery to me.
And also, how is this being a solved problem for society counter to my argument that the current rules are acceptable? Does the former not support the latter?
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]. What exactly do you find so confusing about the concept? I really didn't expect to be challenged on a basic point of etiquette that we normally internalize before we've mastered the delicate art of tying shoes. Are you telling me that I shouldn't go swimming with you?
And also, how is this being a solved problem for society counter to my argument that the current rules are acceptable? Does the former not support the latter?
No, the fact that we understand the principle "Be considerate of others" does not support instances where people are inconsiderate of others.
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. Yet, you said that wasn't your argument.
And the only way in which this
My argument was that when we look at the tradeoff you're describing, between the smoker's enjoyment and the public's enjoyment, this is a solved problem. We as a society have long since weighed that kind of tradeoff and come down firmly on the side of the public's enjoyment.
is what you said earlier is if by 'that kind of tradeoff' you mean something that ultimately covers almost everything we do.
And also, how is this being a solved problem for society counter to my argument that the current rules are acceptable? Does the former not support the latter?
No, the fact that we understand the principle "Be considerate of others" does not support instances where people are inconsiderate of others.
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? Because you're going against the current state of affairs with the argument that this issue is a 'solved problem'. You are arguing as if you have the consensus when the consensus so far has given us what you are arguing against.
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.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
I think really, as long as it's legal, it should be allowed in most open public spaces and not usually indoors. If you're going so far as to inconvenience the people who do it over those who don't, you should really be at a point where you see it as justified to ban recreational use altogether.
I could see a time in which it's no longer allowed in public generally, but only because I could see a time in which it's illegal.
All in all, I can think this can be summarised as 'society is full of compromises'.
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
Probably because smokers are people. I dislike unempathetic people, but I don't want them banned from public places.
Actually, the argument myself and many others present is for one's own health, rather than one's own comfort. I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but I'm not forcing people to let me carve runes in their flesh, why should I be forced to have my lungs tarred up from second-hand smoke and potentially my breathing stopped due to allergies?
Yeah, I don't have any issue with designated smoking areas, as long as people specifically smoke there and not anywhere else.
And open outdoor areas are one of those smoking areas. Yes, that means sometimes people will inhale a little bit of others smoke. But you constantly encounter risks and discomforts as a result of others actions- that's life, you do the same to them. Smokers could just as easily that they shouldn't be so inconvenienced to only be able to smoke in specifically designated areas for it just so some people can avoid very small amounts of passive smoke, and that they already have plenty of places they aren't allowed to smoke in and this inconveniences them. We can only inconvenience smokers to reduce risks so much before it's basically discriminating against them.
There needs to be a reasonable balance and in my opinion it is an acceptable compromise to have open outdoor areas and specific indoor rooms be allowed, while most indoor environment not be allowed.
To be clear, I am speaking largely from the position of assuming the laws in America are mostly the same as the laws in Australia, so someone correct me if they are quite different.
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
But again, it's a question of whether this inconvenience isn't, well, self-earned, or reasonable for the sake of the health and liberty of others. If I'm drinking alcohol, I'm not going to be told that it is okay to drive drunk because I'm fine with spending the additional money on incurred costs. If someone is smoking, should they be told that it is okay to endanger themselves and others because they are okay with spending the money on incurred costs? Like, discrimination doesn't appear to be a valid argument given the high negatives and few, if arguably any, positives of tobacco smoking, much worse than in the case of alcohol.
Your mild allergy has suddenly escalated to a life threatening allergy? I won't deny the risks of second hand smoke, though i haven't seen a report that accounted for being outside.
When this happens and we ban smoking outside, where will we put these smoking areas? Who will pay for it? How many does there need to be? How far should smokers have to go from their home or work to get to a designated area before it becomes an unreasonable inconvenience?
I mean, there largely are. You pretty much can't smoke anywhere except outside in most places.
One of the best things about the US really. Most bars and clubs in Asia are horrid for that very reason. You come out smelling like an ashtray.
"Discriminating against them"? Asking someone to not pump carcinogens around is not discriminating against them, it's asking people not to endanger the health of the people around them. You know, what the law is for.
But having people smoke outside is, in my opinion, within that parameter.
Tobacco smoking has obvious benefits in terms of enjoyable experience just as junk food has, and does have some broader positive psychological effects.
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. But if I was around someone smoking for long enough, it could be. I've (thankfully) never had to test it. And there certainly are people who have life-threatening allergies, or asthma, which can end up equivalent.
I see no reason why people can't specifically smoke in their own home.
On the sidewalk, in public parks, in front of public buildings (now and then)...
It depends on the part of the country, to be fair. Smoking outside the exit to an establishment in a manner that foot traffic will walk by you doesn't exactly help, though. That said, few places in the US allow for drinking an open bottle of alcohol outside in public, so the comparison is there.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, that's not what I said.
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 we don't.
Essentially everything we do revolves around allowing us to live long enjoyable lives. The resources we value are valued precisely because they help us to do this. But resources are finite. Hence, society is constantly involved in the exercise of distributing the resources necessary for people to enjoy themselves- food, tools, power, space, ect.
We frown on uneven distribution of resources.
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 wonder if, if a new hobby turned up today with equal health issues and benefits to smoking, it would be made illegal immediately. It seems to me that smoking is 'grandfathered' in, because so many people do it.
As said though, smokers are people too. Just would be nice if smoke wasn't so easily spread.
What you claimed my argument was was that 'if something's an 'enjoyable experience' and has 'positive effects' then it's discrimination to prevent it'. The problem is I never said that. What I said was that at a certain point, inconveniencing those who do it becomes a kind of discrimination, and I reasoned that if it is justified to get to that point, it should really be illegal for recreational use generally. There's only so narrow it makes sense to go, based on how variable in consequences the act in question is.
My argument is that going narrower than it is now is getting very close to that point.
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.
The significance is that I am directly contradicting your argument that actions that benefit oneself over others are frowned upon and saying that pretty much everything we do is involved in that kind of exchange.
In this case, the exchange between this
and this
.
EDIT: To expand upon this, we cannot say the former is unimportant just because of the existence of the latter- that's what I mean by discrimination.
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.
Where exactly you got this from
remains a mystery to me.
And also, how is this being a solved problem for society counter to my argument that the current rules are acceptable? Does the former not support the latter?
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, the fact that we understand the principle "Be considerate of others" does not support instances where people are inconsiderate of others.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
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.
And the only way in which this
is what you said earlier is if by 'that kind of tradeoff' you mean something that ultimately covers almost everything we do.
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? Because you're going against the current state of affairs with the argument that this issue is a 'solved problem'. You are arguing as if you have the consensus when the consensus so far has given us what you are arguing against.
Or is this not a solved problem after all?
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
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.