[atraub]

Oh Geeze, you really like to get confrontational with me. -Sigh-

jon.kiparsky, on 28 July 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

atraub, on 28 July 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Although, I have no idea how you draw your conclusions from what I said.

It's pretty straightforward economics, unless you think that non-smoking bars are a perfect substitute for smoking bars, which they aren't. If you allow both, you have more smokers out drinking, meaning more butts looking for seats. This means more jobs all told, which means that the market is better for all workers, smokers and nonsmokers alike.
If you're actually interested in the well-being of job-seekers, you'd want to see more economic activity, not less.

If you allow only non-smoking ones, the problem is?

Quote

Quote

I already said all I have to say on the Florida v. Zimmerman.

You've said enough to show you don't find the Rose case convincing, assuming you're consistent in your thinking and not in the business of cherry-picking arguments that support your preferred position.

Not at all. I gave 1 single example just to add some real-world relevancy. I was not trying to hinge everything on 1 single case. Would it make you happy if I linked 5 others? Would that get you to calm down a bit and stop with the personal attacks? It seems like a waste of time to me.

This post has been edited by atraub: 28 July 2013 - 03:24 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

atraub, on 28 July 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Oh Geeze, you really like to get confrontational with me. -Sigh-

And here I thought I was taking your arguments seriously and responding to them.

Quote

If you allow only non-smoking ones, the problem is?

Two problems - one is the problem of baavgai's friend and other nonsmokers having to walk through crowds of smokers, the other is that many smokers choose to stay home, reducing the total number of job opportunities for smokers and nonsmokers alike.

Quote

Would it make you happy if I linked 10 others? Would that get you to calm down a bit and stop with the personal attacks?

Settle down, it's not a personal attack - it's just that you don't actually believe that this is a convincing case, which is fine. I agree. Ten more anecdotes wouldn't amount to data.

[BenignDesign]

farrell2k, on 28 July 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Nope. Had nothing to do with your post. I haven't even read it. Just pointing out that there are plenty of stupid claims that deserve no response other than "that's stupid".

Again, I disagree. The examples you cited included smoking, religion, and global warming. I am a smoker-turned nonsmoker-turned smoker again. I'm also an atheist and I believe global warming is bullshit. These are my opinions, my choices, my beliefs. To respond to any or all of them with "that's stupid" is to display your own ignorance. I fully accept that not everyone feels the same as me. I respect that we all have differing viewpoints. I do not spend my time try to convert to religious, convince those who've never had an addiction, or force my beliefs or lifestyle down the throats of others. However, I am a firm believer in the power of a logical argument. Don't spew forth cries of "that's stupid" if you're not willing to state your counter argument. Faith, belief, and addiction are very deeply personal subjects and we are all entitled to our own feelings about them, but don't dismiss other's points of view as stupid because they don't match your own.

[atraub]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 July 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

atraub, on 28 July 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If you allow only non-smoking ones, the problem is?

Two problems - one is the problem of baavgai's friend and other nonsmokers having to walk through crowds of smokers

Sounds like a second ordinance needs to be enacted and enforced.

Quote

the other is that many smokers choose to stay home, reducing the total number of job opportunities for smokers and nonsmokers alike.

Statistics, please.

Quote

Quote

Would it make you happy if I linked 10 others? Would that get you to calm down a bit and stop with the personal attacks?

Settle down, it's not a personal attack - it's just that you don't actually believe that this is a convincing case, which is fine. I agree. Ten more anecdotes wouldn't amount to data.

How petty. It would be like me saying that you don't believe in gun control because none of your arguments convince me. Grow up dude.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

How petty. It would be like me saying that you don't believe in gun control because none of your arguments convince me. Grow up dude.

Well, no, it would be like saying I don't believe that one anecdote makes a convincing case - and neither do you.

Quote

Statistics, please.

Do you actually want to tell me you believe that smokers find non-smoking bars to be a perfect substitute for non-smoking bars? Seriously?
Why are you talking about bars if you've never been in one?

Quote

Sounds like a second ordinance needs to be enacted and enforced.

So you're saying everything you don't happen to like should be banned? What's the penalty for offending your royal sensibilities?

[atraub]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 July 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Quote

How petty. It would be like me saying that you don't believe in gun control because none of your arguments convince me. Grow up dude.

Well, no, it would be like saying I don't believe that one anecdote makes a convincing case - and neither do you.

Then you clearly only read what you want to believe as oppose to reality considering I already said I gave 1 single example just to add some real-world relevancy. I was not trying to hinge everything on 1 single case.The 1 example that you seem to be balls deep in was not meant to be the entire argument. If you'd like, I can re-quote the other things I said if you've forgotten.

Quote

Quote

Statistics, please.

Do you actually want to tell me you believe that smokers find non-smoking bars to be a perfect substitute for non-smoking bars? Seriously?

Unless you have some actual data to prove otherwise

Quote

Why are you talking about bars if you've never been in one?

Classic ad hominem. I'd expect nothing else.

Quote

Quote

Sounds like a second ordinance needs to be enacted and enforced.

So you're saying everything you don't happen to like should be banned?

Are you suggesting I claimed that smoking should be banned?

Quote

What's the penalty for offending your royal sensibilities?

You're a small, petty person.

This post has been edited by atraub: 28 July 2013 - 04:45 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

This is too pathetic. If you want to pick a fight, go find someone who cares. Come back if you come up with an argument that you're not ashamed of.

[atraub]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 July 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

This is too pathetic. If you want to pick a fight, go find someone who cares. Come back if you come up with an argument that you're not ashamed of.

You're adorable.

[BenignDesign]

Seriously? Name calling and personal attacks? I think this thread has officially run its course.