Kerry Tobin wrote:If you don't want to get shot on the street don't leave your house. If you want safe food to eat make it yourself. If you want a fair wage for reasonable hours employ yourself.
They all sound like pretty stupid arguments don't they?
In my opinion, they sound like melodramatic, inaccurate comparisons being used inadequately to justify your own point of view, more so than they sound like relevant examples that help you prove your point.
Put them into context without the partisan hyperbole, and it does exactly the opposite of what you intended for your argument.
- If it were both lawful and approved by the business owners for patrons to shoot one another in certain establishments, then yes.. people should not go to said establishment if they do not want to be shot.
- If it were lawful for business owners to choose to encourage the serving of tainted food in their establishment and they advertised as such, then yes.. people who did not wish to be served tainted food should choose not go to these establishments.
- And if an employer openly advertised that they offered unfair compensation to their employees, job-seekers could look elsewhere if they did not agree with these business practices.
And to add my own comparison to the mix:
If one is offended by or feels that their well-being (moral as opposed to physical in this case) is damaged by their being exposed to exotic entertainers if they want go out to a bar, what makes more sense?; For the malcontent individual to go on a crusade to get laws passed outlawing any establishment from having such entertainment... or for the dissident to simply avoid such places and go to an establishment that doesn't advocate such an environment?
Your free to do what you want, until it has a detrimental effect on others...
In this case, I agree with you if it has a detrimental effect on others, and if
they are being exposed to it against their will. But the situation you are referring to is people willingly going somewhere where they know they will be exposed to something, and then complaining about it. The two are completely different, in my opinion.
Even as a smoke-free business owner, "Goodfood4you" seems to think that it is more important for consumers and business owners to keep their 'right to choose' intact, as opposed to eliminating the choice of one faction to placate another.
I believe that this model is a slippery societal slope, and unfortunately many of the people who support this small change in precedent may not identify with the 'big picture' implications that some of us are worried about, until they themselves are on the other side of an (almost certainly impending) elimination of their own choice in order to pacify an opposition.
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....