John Galt John Galt

Arrogant Idiots

Arrogant Idiots

http://www.mychoice.ca

Yes, this is a group of smokers that are upset that here in Canada we're starting to come to our senses and are banning smoking in all public places. Maybe someday we'll even get to the point of realizing that smoking in a house with a child under the age of 18 is ABUSE and charge people as such.

FACT: Second hand smoke is actually worse than the stuff you suck into your lungs with those cancer sticks. This is just as much fact as Evolution. Yes, I said Evolution. Evolution is essentially a LAW that has never been disproven (despite the best efforts of religious zealots that are prepared to call the sky green when it's blue, blue blue). But somehow people have a right to smoke and harm others in the process.

If you want to smoke, smoke in private where the only person you're killing is you. You have that right. I.e. you have the right to be a moron. Heck, if you want to do pot or cocaine or any other drug, you go right ahead, just do it in private and make sure you don't harm others in the process. That is your right. You have the right to be a moron.

What you don't have a right to do is harm someone else in the process of harming yourself. To put it another way, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your freedom does not give you the right to harm others. This is a fundamental principle of law going back to Babylonian times and before. It is the only non-contradictory structure for a legal system and for society. Any law that breaks this rule is unjust by definition.

Smoking bans in public places and in house holds with children under 18 (hasn't happened yet, but here's hoping) is just by definition because it protects people from you swing your fist and hitting them in the face.

Of course we have to like freedom of speech and take the bad with the good... so here's another example of the greatness of the concept of freedom...

But you know what? We don't have to give them a forum to speak, we only have to allow them to speak if they find a form to do so. We don't even have to listen.

You want to smoke? Fine, go smoke, but make no mistake, you're killing yourself and if you do it with others around you, you're killing them too. You have the right to kill yourself. You do not have the right to kill others. You don't even have the right to interfere with their lives so that you can harm yourself. If your action harms others, you don't have the right to do it.

If you don't like this, get over it. You're self-centered (notice not selfish, selfish is good) and arrogant (in the true sense of the word) and the height of stupidity. But we can be sure of one thing: You're going to die faster than normal so we won't have to deal with idiots like those that created www.mychoice.ca very long!

But then what do you expect from people that engage in a knowingly destructive practice? Contradiction, breeds contradiction. (spell checked this time)
14,505 views 33 replies
Reply #26 Top

Firstly, I agree that smoking should not be allowed in bars. I go to bars for its social setting. In fact, I think alcohol should be banned from bars as well.


Secondly, smoking while driving can distract a driver, but so can talking while driving, listening to music while driving, sneezing while driving, etc. Therefore, I think radios, talking, and sneezing should be forbidden while driving.


Thirdly, it's true that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. It's also true that many foods are harmful to children. Therefore, the only solution is for the benevolent government to tell families what they can and can't do.


Finally, saying something is as true as evolution does not make something as true as evolution.

Reply #27 Top

Yes, holding a cigarette in your mouth is possible. But so is setting fire to your crotch with the ashes and then running into a schoolbus while frantically trying to put the flames out (don't laugh, it's happened more than once). Shooting smoking drivers (and phone-using ones for that matter) would be freaking hilarious. I can see the signs now - "Smokers have a right to die slowly and in great pain at the public expense! A fast death should happen to someone else - like the people we run into by accident!"


I agree. It's fun to shoot smokers, but rapists, child molestors, and murderers? HELL NO!


We should also kill fat and/or old people. They die slowly at public expense.

Reply #28 Top
I agree. It's fun to shoot smokers, but rapists, child molestors, and murderers? HELL NO!


We should also kill fat and/or old people. They die slowly at public expense.


It was a joke, mate. You don't need to take everything so seriously, especially in a thread where the very name is misspelt.
Reply #29 Top


Firstly, I agree that smoking should not be allowed in bars. I go to bars for its social setting. In fact, I think alcohol should be banned from bars as well.


Secondly, smoking while driving can distract a driver, but so can talking while driving, listening to music while driving, sneezing while driving, etc. Therefore, I think radios, talking, and sneezing should be forbidden while driving.


Thirdly, it's true that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. It's also true that many foods are harmful to children. Therefore, the only solution is for the benevolent government to tell families what they can and can't do.


Finally, saying something is as true as evolution does not make something as true as evolution.


Haha, very nice. At first I thought you were serious when I started reading the first point. Nice post, though. I'd have to agree.
Reply #30 Top
Hey Buu?

They already have those. They're called RESTARUANTS!

And thanks for the clarifications on your position John.
Reply #31 Top
It was a joke, mate. You don't need to take everything so seriously, especially in a thread where the very name is misspelt.


Thanks for the clarification! I honestly wasn't sure whether or not you were serious. Some people really do hate smokers!
Reply #32 Top
Sorry to be completely off topic, but I really had to post to tell John Galt that I love the name. I'm almost done with Atlas Shrugged right now, and it's amazing. I'm hoping this means you're libertarian. Because if you are, you rock.

I am an objectivist. There are many things that I don't like about the libertarian movement, but if I was going to vote in an election and there were actually libertarian candiates, I would vote for them, because at least they stand for freedom. As an objectivist I stand for non-contradiction. Libertarians tend to get just as contradictory as republicans and democrates just for different reasons, and often (unless they happen to be objectivists too) don't know why something is contradictory, or worse, don't know that being contradictory means that you're wrong. I'm for people to lead both Canada and the US that understand philosophy in a scolarly way. that is, they understand the basics, they know what it means on a high level, and they understand the whys and the way to test if something is true or not on a low level. It's the same as being a particle physicist. It's really bad to have a teacher teaching physics in high school when they don't know anything in more detail than the text book. The best teachers are those that can bring the concepts to the children, and yet have the knowledge that allows them to understand the entire building blocks of what they hare teaching, not only the concept that they are teaching at the time.

Politicians have the same obligation. They must know philosophy, they must understand non-contradiction, and they must understand how to test everything that is put before them against these concepts. Further they must have the guts to stand up and say "no, this isn't right" regardless of popular opinion. Libertarians generally are "accidental objectivists". That is, people that instincutally know that the objectivist way is the right way, but don't know WHY, and thus accidently are contradictory a lot.


Anyway, get back to your meaningful discussion. I haven't decided how I feel about this issue. I think right now, I'm leaning towards people being allowed to smoke anywhere they want to, though. Why should we take away that right? I guess it's a question how limiting rights to protect the rights of others, and how much we can limit them.

You're allowed to swing your fist so long as you don't hit someone else in the face. You're even allowed to hit yourself in the face if you want. But the moment you cross that line and physically harm another, your freedom ceases. (unless it's in self-defence, preemptive or otherwise) It's a very simple test of law that tells you exactly where the law has to be. And to be clear: Private property is private property. The owner of said property can do whatever they want and make whatever rules they want. You just have the right to not go in there if you don't like the rules. Thus smoking in bars and other private establishments is a guarenteed right. Smoking in public places is not, because everyone has the right to be there. Houses with children under 18 is not, because that child must be there and doesn't have a choice.

Very simple, non-contradictory logic.