Home › Forums › Blue Pill Hell › Smoking Laws and The Unconstrained View
This topic contains 19 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
Klaus Windamier 4 years, 1 month ago.
- AuthorPosts
In case you’re not familiar with Thomas Sowell’s _A Conflict of Visions_ there are two basic world views at the heart of every discussion: The Constrained View in which we see humans as products of biology, driven by instincts and inclined to explain, rationalize and understand their actions after the fact, and the Unconstrained View in which we believe that people are intellectual and moral beings capable of transcending our base nature,
As a Biological Determinist, I believe in the constrained view and would argue that any plan for life must take into account people’s instinctual drives and natural capabilities if it is to have any chance of success. My blue pill mangina friend, of whom I have spoken here on a number of occasions, believes in the unconstrained view in which people are “perfectable” and will do the right thing if lead to it (with the right carrot or stick) or simply forced to through socially conscientious legislation.
Out at a bar together last night he asked me how I feel about smoking bans. I told him I am against them. He argued, primarily, that if society allows smoking to occur, it is essentially sanctioning it and, thereby, encouraging it,.. so in order to send the right message to people, this immoral and unethical behavior must be banned,
My argument was that this approach is essentially the same as banning offensive speech, gun ownership, racism, teen pregnancy, sugary sodas and plastic bags. None of these things needs sanctioning by society… people are going to do them anyway… and wouldn’t it be better to let people do what they want so long as they are not directly harming someone else and then let the free market of ideas sort them out?
In other words, let each private business owner decide for themselves if they want smoking or not in their establishment. Anyone who doesn’t want to work there will choose not to and anyone who does not want to eat or drink or shop there will choose not to as well. Left to itself, the free market will decide if allowing smoking is better or worse for a business.
Things started to get loud and he got uncomfortable… probably because he couldn’t argue against my point. “But if we let these things go on, we’re telling people they are good.” He said. I replied that giving people the freedom to choose is not the same as endorsing their choices. Tell people that smoking is bad, tell a shop keeper that you’d prefer they banned it, vote against it with your feet and your dollars… but do not take away someone else’s right to do what they want.
He wouldn’t have any of it. He insisted that society has a responsibility to ban bad things and promote good things… and I asked “Who would you propose has the judgement and right to tell everyone what is good and what is bad? Today they ban smoking, tomorrow they ban ‘hateful thoughts’ and next week they ban disagreement. Soon you live in a fascist state where one group of people have the ability to declare anything they dislike to be socially unacceptable, illegal and, eventually punishable by death. I don’t know about you but I’d rather live in a world where there are restaurants where people can smoke if they want to, racists can wear white sheets and burn crosses and people can fight in the streets over which pronouns we should address each other with. At least that way we know who all the self-destructive racist idiots are and can avoid them rather than forcing them underground.”
What do you guys think? Let people do what they want and make our laws so that they recognize this reality or force people to do the right things for the right reasons?
I have mixed feelings about smoking bans in particular. In a bar or casino or outside I don’t care. In restaurants I think it’s great because it stinks. I would also like to ban coming into a restaurant with a big wad of dogs~~~ on your shoe, or covered in vomit. I was a little upset when smoking got banned in virtually all indoor workplaces in California, but I quickly learned to like it for the same reason. Cigarettes stink, and they make everything else stink worse than the smoke itself.
By the way, I spent 30+ years of my life as a smoker, but even when I smoked I hated it in restaurants. I don’t care about the second-hand smoke bulls~~~ or whether the government thinks it needs to wet-nurse everyone, but I just got rid of a car and spent thousands of dollars trying to get the lingering stink out of my house. The smell is real, and it is completely obnoxious to non (and especially, it seems, former) smokers. Not so much the smoke, the dank, clinging stink it leaves on everything.
At a ball game? Spark them up! In the park or at the beach or walking down the street? Please dispose of the butts properly. I have told total strangers to flat f~~~ off for doing the f~~gy little phony cough at me when I was outside having a smoke. In a restaurant or on a plane? Put that f~~~ing thing out. Oh, and please not in the bathroom! Only tobacco smoke can actually make feces smell worse."I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
One of the most annoying things about living in San Francisco, is being told by some jackass to move 15 feet down the sidewalk anytime I want to just stop and enjoy a smoke. Going to a heavy metal bar, trying to enjoy a crown and coke and…”hey, man, you gotta go out back to smoke”. F~~~ the nanny state.
Anonymous18I’d side with your mangina friend here. Going by the definition you provided “the Unconstrained View in which we believe that people are intellectual and moral beings capable of transcending our base nature”. There is a lot of room for the moral relativism. From how I see MGTOW it fits right in the definition of the Unconstrained View. Transcending our base nature based on intellectual awareness of female nature.
My argument was that this approach is essentially the same as banning offensive speech, gun ownership, racism, teen pregnancy, sugary sodas and plastic bags.
WRT smoking, I am considering 2nd hand smoke as a health concern for people that are paying price for their own health so another individual can practice their right to smoke and celebrate his/her addiction to nicotine. All given my choice to not be a smoker only to pay the same price as a person who is a smoker over the long term. I shouldn’t need to avoid people who are smoking freely just anymore than someone who is yielding a 10-inch knife walking around. There should be rules in place to avoid such risks in first place. It’s not my responsibility to be extra careful/cautious/aware of someone else’s actions where it will be too stressful for me to avoid/change my daily routine to prevent potential cancer. If it were simply like driving where I’d have to be somewhat careful about erratic drivers, I’d support public smoking. But avoiding smokers is more akin to avoiding drunk truck drivers on freeway. A lot of them.
In other words, let each private business owner decide for themselves if they want smoking or not in their establishment. Anyone who doesn’t want to work there will choose not to and anyone who does not want to eat or drink or shop there will choose not to as well.
People will work if it pays them well. Even if their health was at risk due to second-hand smoke. It is not a necessary risk, nor is it moral for 1 person’s addiction to affect 20 others in his/her vicinity. Another option would be to take majority vote within the workplace. If majority is against it then it should be banned.
Today they ban smoking, tomorrow they ban ‘hateful thoughts’ and next week they ban disagreement.
Smoking has direct correlation with lung/kidney/pancreatic cancers. It is not a matter of mere tolerance.
is there a law against smoking while f~~~ing ? i like putting an ashtray on the bitches ass while smoking and banging her doggy style , and she BETTER not tip that s~~~ or a severe spanking and forced c~~~ choking will follow . the ladies LOVE that ! sick t~~~s begging to be HUMAN FURNITURE ..nothing like a 30 year old masochist foot rest for her LORD and natural MASTER ..( ball-gagged , of course ! ) ..GOOD GIRL ! ..know your place woman . ( naturally submissive ! ) ..
Sorry Doc but I’ve got no sympathy for smokers. Giving yourself cancer to make Big Tobacco rich? And as you say, it stinks everything up. I remember coming home from seeing bands in my younger days and having to hang my clothes outside so they didn’t stink the house up. Good riddance to that. What people do in their own home is their business but in public that affects everyone around you.
Its about choice and consequences.
If the owner of a business decides to allow smoking then that’s fine. They must post a notice that the business allows smoking on premises. People who do not smoke can choose not to do business with them if they do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. That is 100% their choice. If they enter the business they are agreeing to enter and breath the 2nd hand smoke their choice.
On the other hand, insurance companies should also have the right to not cover people who smoke as it is detrimental to their health and these people have made a choice to ignore future consequences. That’s on them. The health insurer should not be forced to cover people who are killing themselves. If a person quits smoking the health insurer shouldn’t be required to cover them for 7 years. Also, any health insurer should not be required to cover any companies employees where smoking is allowed. Health insurers could offer healthcare coverage but at a huge markup over a non-smoker because of the almost certain risk to the health insurer that the smoker will get any number of diseases due to their smoking choice.Some SWJ’s will scream that would allow health insurers to throw anyone with per-existing conditions off of health insurance. No, people with genetic issues would still be mandated to not be refused coverage. Landwhales? Well lets be honest. Unless they have a genetic reason why they are “BOSHUUUDAAA” like Jabba the Hutt’s little cousin, THE FOOD WAS LIFTED TO THEIR MOUTHS BY THEIR HANDS. Their choice, their responsibility their consequences. In fact, health insurers should DISCOUNT the policies of people who are healthy and auto insurers should DISCOUNT the policies of drivers who have had no accidents due to their fault. (not likely that that would f~~~ing happen though.)
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
@chir makes my point. You have a choice as to whether or not to enter a private place of business. I don’t like smoking either and I agree it is disgusting… but when I go into a bar where smoking is allowed, I do so of my own free will… and I can avoid those places as well if I so desire.
Now, should smoking be banned in public buildings? I say that should be put to a vote. Given that non-smokers significantly outnumber smokers, it seems obvious that these places will be smoke-free. But it’s outside of my point anyway… I’m talking about giving business owners the right to choose for themselves and to let the free market of ideas judge them.
As for the Unconstrained view being the MGTOW perspective, you could just as easily say that it would apply to females as well as men and that, therefore, females can transcend their nature. In other words, it implies that females can become NAWALTS. Do MGTOW believe that? I don’t think so. Now you could argue that females are constrained by their base nature but men are not… I’m not sure how you’d justify that but it might be an interesting discussion,
I say we are all constrained by our base natures. We can act to mitigate the worst abuses of our natures against our understanding of our own health, happiness and welfare… but it’s mitigation. We can no more halt our desires to f~~~, produce for, protect and defend females than they can stop trading their youth and beauty for our provision and protection. We can go against those desires inasmuch as we believe we can improve our lives by not pursuing them, but we can’t cut them out of our existence like removing a kidney.
Men are disposable. It’s our nature. We are builders and providers and protectors. It’s our nature. We are drawn to the youth and beauty of females and will work to produce value to give them in exchange for their sex. It’s our nature. We can choose to go against our nature, but that doesn’t change that nature. The constrained view says that the more you accept your truth, the greater power you have to effect your results.
Pretending that we can, by fiat, change the nature of females or our own nature is ludicrous. MGTOW is not about changing anyone’s nature. It’s about understanding the nature of females and our our nature and then learning how to get the best results for ourselves that we can within the constraints of those facts.
Smoking is a bizarre and unique activity, not really comparable to any other. For what other reason would someone walk around with something sticking out of their face that is actually burning, as in ON FIRE? I can see the logic of requesting that, in some venues, a “no open fires” rule might be a sane idea. What if people were walking around with incense burning all the time. Even smokers would vote to end that.
I tried to smoke politely where practical, but I did play a game in restaurants where I would take a smoke out and hang it in my mouth and sit there holding a lighter. I could usually spot someone who would get all wound up, ready to pounce on the heinous act that was about to happen. Talking and almost lighting it… hahaha! It drives some people crazy to see you with an unlit cigarette in a non-smoking area, as if its very presence would taint the area like plutonium,"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin
I take the “self-sovereign” approach. If everybody involved or affected agrees to it, you can do whatever the hell you want. Smoking, unless done in an isolated environment, involves everyone around you, many, indeed most, of which have not chosen to get involved. By involving them against their will, you infringe upon their rights as individuals – their right to self-sovereignty. Indeed, not involving people in this manner becomes very hard indeed when you take into account that, after smoking, you will continue to exude harmful particles from your hair, skin and clothes for several hours after partaking…
Some might argue this doesn’t do much damage. Allow me to drop some numbers – smoking kills over six million people a year, and that number steadily rises with each year. Over 500,000 of these deaths result from second-hand smoking. Most of those who die from second-hand smoking do so due to getting involuntarily exposed to it as children by their so-called “loved ones” (in my experience chiefly single mothers).
Economically, smoking costs the individual and society ridiculous sums…before taking into account the actual health and environmental damages incurred, which of course raise the economical costs even more.Whether looking at it from a moral, health or economic perspective, smoking just comes off as one of the stupidest – if not necessarily worst – things you can do with your life.
There lies serenity in Chaos. Seek ye the eye of the hurricane.
What people do in their own home is their business but in public that affects everyone around you.
I’m talking about inside of privately owned businesses. I believe a business owner should be able to treat their business as thought it were their home. That includes allowing smoking, banning bare feet, throwing out anyone who they don’t like, not letting black people in… whatever they want.
So if there was a bar where the owner required everyone to be naked and they were able to make a profit, they should have that right and you don’t have to go there if you don’t want. Same for smoking bars, racist bars, asshole bars… whatever. Let the market decide what it wants and needs.
I Whether looking at it from a moral, health or economic perspective, smoking just comes off as one of the stupidest – if not necessarily worst – things you can do with your life
I agree completely. Anyone who pays money to smoke tobacco is a fool. But I do not believe I have the right to prevent them from doing it or from letting other people do it on their private property. I simply do not believe in banning bad choices, unpopular ideas or obnoxious behavior. If I can force you not to smoke, someone else can force me not to drink and someone else can force them not to swear and someone else again can force those people not to disagree and so forth,
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/10/article-2555756-0CD35220000005DC-925_634x421.jpg
What do you think about this?
Don’t take this personally, but I have to respond to some of the points you guys made.
From how I see MGTOW it fits right in the definition of the Unconstrained View.
On the contrary, man’s nature is to be free and in charge of his actions. It’s our nature to try to go our own way and to create and improve both ourselves and the world in general. It is by ‘intellectual’ and moral ‘standards’ that men became slaves to the vagina and just puppets that produce resources for their wives, children, government and their corporate bosses. It is called “The moral thing to do” for a reason. It is NOT natural for men to live like slaves, but you could intellectualize it and moralize it to convince men to do it.
Sorry Doc but I’ve got no sympathy for smokers. Giving yourself cancer to make Big Tobacco rich? And as you say, it stinks everything up.
Then I am sure you have no sympathy for car drivers and public transportation users either, who put themselves and others at risk just to enrich ‘Big Oil’ and the auto Unions. There are thousands who get killed by cars and buses and trains every year. Not to mention the damn noise and pollution those things make. “They stink everything up”. Ever stood in a bus terminal? Man, it took a few hours to get the smell of diesel out of my shirt… But I’m sure you have sympathy for yourself and your liberty.
Smoking, unless done in an isolated environment, involves everyone around you, many, indeed most, of which have not chosen to get involved. By involving them against their will, you infringe upon their rights as individuals – their right to self-sovereignty. Indeed, not involving people in this manner becomes very hard indeed when you take into account that, after smoking, you will continue to exude harmful particles from your hair, skin and clothes for several hours after partaking…
Some might argue this doesn’t do much damage. Allow me to drop some numbers – smoking kills over six million people a year, and that number steadily rises with each year.If you have an infectious disease you are a carrier of dangerous and probably deadly pathogens. Also, and I quote, “you will continue to exude harmful particles from your hair, skin and clothes for several” hours,days,weeks or even years, depending on the disease you have/had. “Some might argue this doesn’t do much damage. Allow me to drop some numbers” : infectious diseases kill over fifteen million people a year. So, should everyone who has a cold be FORCED to stay in the hospital or at home until ZERO trace of any pathogen is removed from his “hair, skin and clothes”? Do you think that anyone who sneezes should be fined or put in jail?
Freedom and responsibility people.
The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!
Doc, I’m with you on this one.
Snake, good point.The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!
What do you think about this?
I think that is not OK. I despise parents who harm/neglect their children, but unfortunately they will always exist and it’s almost impossible to stop.
One can choose to try and educate/inform others and improve their behavior and society in general. I do that myself almost every day.
I hear people saying that they have no power almost every day. While that may be true in the sense that they have no real power to influence society, they can still influence individuals. And those individuals can influence others and so on. And enough individual might actually influence society, for better or worse.
I was always a responsible smoker, drinker, gun owner, driver, etc. Some of the stuff I found to be too dangerous for me and others, I gave up. Other stuff, while still somewhat dangerous, I keep doing/using/having, because I LIKE IT. But most if not all the stuff that can hurt others as well I gave up on my own.
No laws required. Just common sense and respect for others.The answer is NO. “I could but I won’t”. Memini murum!
Smoking, unless done in an isolated environment, involves everyone around you, many, indeed most, of which have not chosen to get involved. By involving them against their will, you infringe upon their rights as individuals – their right to self-sovereignty. Indeed, not involving people in this manner becomes very hard indeed when you take into account that, after smoking, you will continue to exude harmful particles from your hair, skin and clothes for several hours after partaking…
Some might argue this doesn’t do much damage. Allow me to drop some numbers – smoking kills over six million people a year, and that number steadily rises with each year.If you have an infectious disease you are a carrier of dangerous and probably deadly pathogens. Also, and I quote, “you will continue to exude harmful particles from your hair, skin and clothes for several” hours,days,weeks or even years, depending on the disease you have/had. “Some might argue this doesn’t do much damage. Allow me to drop some numbers” : infectious diseases kill over fifteen million people a year. So, should everyone who has a cold be FORCED to stay in the hospital or at home until ZERO trace of any pathogen is removed from his “hair, skin and clothes”? Do you think that anyone who sneezes should be fined or put in jail?
Infectious diseases, my good man. Note the plural. Smoking constitutes a single cause that kills in a myriad ways, for a total of over six million deaths per year and rising. Infectious diseases, meanwhile, constitutes literally millions of different causes, a tiny percentage of which potentially kills, for a total of, as you say, over fifteen million deaths per year. Looking at a statistical average per disease, infectious diseases kill less than one millionth (or 1/1,000,000) as many people as smoking does. You may as well compare a baby’s kick to the detonation of a nuclear warhead.
As for singular diseases with a high kill count, yes, people should – and do – get isolated until the disease has zero or virtually zero risk of spreading. Medical people call it “medical isolation”, or, in layman’s (and technically incorrect) terms, “quarantine”.
Just something to consider 🙂There lies serenity in Chaos. Seek ye the eye of the hurricane.
What do you think about this?
i
Please refer to my earlier post titled “I Don’t Care About Your Baby”. Keeping your children safe from you is not my job, it’s your job. If you fail at it, your kids are going to turn out s~~~ty. It’s your right to make your kids as s~~~ty as your ego and narcissism allows. When their s~~~tyness becomes my problem, I will deal with it in my own way.
Having said that, both my mother and father smoked in the house, I did not grow up a smoker nor am I addicted to second hand smoke or develop any sort of physiological problem as a result. In fact, I was so grossed out by it I never did it myself. So let’s not assume action A always leads to result B.
Keeping your children safe from you is not my job
This point, i strongly agree,
But how about respect and common sense?
Let me share a story.
Someone and his friends go to a eatery to have a bite to eat.
They pick this eatery because they having policy of not accepting smokers.
So, one time here is a douchebag, came in.
One of his friend, bring his baby with him, as usual.
This douchebag, start smoking, where it is not supposed to be a smoking place.
The man, asking politely to the douche, by telling him, in this eatery, smoking is not allowed.
The douche, without provocation, put the fire of the cigarette in the man’s hand.
The man skin is burned.
The man is pain of the burned skin, screaming, and kick the table that the douche sit, and the douche is laughing, as he burn more cigarette, and he going deliberately to my friend’s baby, and blow the smoke to the baby, directly, the baby cried.
The man asking why this man allowed to enter, the eatery owner and staff, cannot do anything, as he can see, the douche is a trouble maker around the area.
So, the man and his friends, decided to leave the eatery, with burned skin, and the baby that inhaled a smoke from cigarette directly.
The man also already paid for the food (the system of the eatery is, pay first) and the food is already served but not yet eaten.
The man and his friends loosing money, and got a burned skin from a smoker.Conclusion : Your point of view is right, but only in a country that have a civilized people, good security, and a law that working.
The man, is me, and still have the burned mark on my hand.
How do you think about that?
The man, is me, and still have the burned mark on my hand. How do you think about that?
It reminds me of this place I went to in Monkok. The seats were crates, each table had a roll of toilet paper on it and my companion took a glass of tea, used it to rinse off the bowl and chopsticks we’d been given then threw the dirty tea out the open door into the street.
If you live in a place where there is no civility and no rule of law and the person with money or political connections can do whatever they want, you’d better learn to be light on your toes.
I believe there is an old Chinese proverb that goes something like: “Of the 88 ways to avoid trouble, the best is to simply leave.”
You mean, Mong Kok, Hongkong? I was there too for holiday at 2014.
Yes, i understand, the eating place there is somewhat unhygiene, except in some high class restaurant, but the food there is amazing, did you tried the food? The best one i ate there was hair noodle with beef brisket with beef soup, simply the best.
Exactly, that is the kind of place i live in, it’s not like in somalia which is total chaos, the law still there but only working about 25% to 50% top.
I’m trying to be light, that’s why i’m asking politely like this “Sir, you cannot smoke in this place, and my friend is having a baby here, can you please?”
I even use ‘Sir’ there, because i do not want to cause a trouble, but still, that happen.
Of the 88 ways to avoid trouble, the best is to simply leave In the end we are leaving, because the douche started his will to use violence, not to mention that he blowing the smoke directly to a baby, and that is evil.
Majority of smoker in my country is like that.
And i suggest my friend that we chose eatery with no-smoking policy because i know that he have a baby, and that still happen.
So, this is the situation i’m living in and why i don’t like smoker.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
