I think you misunderstood my comment. I *love* Vertigo comics. My point is that DC trumpets their big flagship titles while Vertigo quietly works miracles in the corner.
Granted, it's not "The DCU," but a significant percentage of what's worth reading comes out under that imprint.
Actually, Hellblazer (and Sandman) are DCU, don't know about the rest. DC tries to to handwaving to make people forget it most of the time, but once in a while a good writer manages to sneak something back in...
And I'm going to start picking up Y trades once the series ends and I have some spare cash.
I didn't mean my initial rant to be so anti-DC, there are good things going on over there and they've proven several times they know what they're doing, unfortunately they keep dropping the ball right afterwards... My favorite example being Day of Vengeance, which was great. Shadowpact was an awesome idea that made good use of a bunch of second-string characters people like to forget about, which I love seeing happen (like in Iron Fist or Blade). They got the right blend of bitter comedy from Detective Chimp and a serious, gritty approach to the magical side of DCU, something very lacking. A dark, serious "fantasy" DC book (It seems they're only allowed to take "magic" seriously in Vertigo w/ Hellblazer/Sandman/Books of Magic). Then the first issue of the continuing Shadowpact series I see Blue Devil and Ragman fighting a giant snake in broad daylight on the first page... And I knew that the creative team didn't know what to do with these characters any more...
I keep coming back to Iron Fist as a counterexample to this. I mean, honestly, who gave a rat's ass about Danny Rand five years ago? Now there's a creative team who knows (and likes) enough old kung-fu and pulp stories to put together an homage to them without coming off as cheesy, and somehow they end up putting a good story and great dialogue in the middle of all the hong-kong-fanboyism.
this company just wants money.... they have stories run in multiple books to milk the cash cow even more.
Gee, DC would neverdoanything like that.
DC invented the universe-wide crossover event spanning multiple titles. Such things have become summer fixtures for both companies.
their dated characters rehash the same stories over and over to infinity.
You mean like having WWII-era superheroes fighting a multiverse-shaking battle-to-end-all-battles? Yeah, never seen that before...
This post reminds me of a DC panel at one of the Cons where a fan asked some DC execs "How's it feel to be whipping Marvel's ass?" (during the post-Infinite Crisis DC sales implosion) and was promptly laughed out of the room by the entire audience.
Seriously, besides JSA and Hellblazer (which is Vertigo, so it doesn't count), there's not much worth reading on the DC side of things. Well, except the couple times a year an All-Star Superman sneaks out...
they have forgotten about making a comic into a engaging story and relied upon art to sell the books.
Even assuming that were true, then at least they still remember the damn art, unlike most DC stuff. And to say the company that's printing Daredevil/Captain America/Hulk/New Avengers/Iron Fist/New Universal is the one which has forgotten how to write an engaging story is the same as saying "I don't (ever) read any Marvel books but I'm going to give you my opinion anyway." I'll take the company with Bendis/Brubaker/Ellis anyday.
marvel attracts kids, dc keeps the adults.
See, funny thing is, I work at a local comic shop on occasion. Spend a lot of time there when I'm not working. More adults do buy DC comics, than kids, true, but that's because no one's buying DC comics. Meanwhile both adults and kids are snatching up Marvel titles so fast I'm actually having trouble getting some of my regulars (boss stole an Iron Fist out of a customer folder for me this past week, for instance...)
the company has nothing left to offer and it has not created anything significant in decades.
At least they're not strangling under some parent company that won't let them do anything interesting with their characters out of fear of ruining the movie properties based on them (ala Warner Brothers and Batman). Give me a break.
It's stopped being a day of mourning and warning and is now just a day of honoring the soldiers.
You say that like honoring soldiers is a bad thing. It's a day of mourning AND a day of honoring soldiers. I fail to see a problem with either of those.
Yeah, except as I pointed out, 11/11 is an INTERNATIONAL holiday while Memorial Day isn't. And.com isn't international, it's American. Deal with it, or get off our Internet and go make your own.:P
1) There's separate Google sites for non-American users, so recognizing Memorial Day doesn't have to offend anyone outside of the US. 2) 11/11 isn't just an American Holiday. There were several nations involved in WWI. Most (on the winning side) recognize Armistice Day (last I checked), in some form or another. Hence the WWI style flak helmets on the logo, which are rather appropriate. In the US and most Commonwealth countries they have since extended the Holiday to honoring all Veterans, though...
All this glorification of destructive force is one of the greatest shams running
Actually Armistice Day is the glorification of an end to a bit of needless destructive force being applied across most of Europe. Thanks for playing, though.
At a high enough velocity/pressure or at the right time scale, everything is a fluid, including the atmosphere. If you fall 100 stories into a lake you'll still die. When you're moving at solar orbital velocities and you slam into a thick atmosphere (like Earth's), you'll explode.
Ehhh I can understand somewhat about bars and clubs... But it seems odd to me that anyone would want a non-smoking bar, that's just part of the ambiance. Plus nothing goes with scotch like a good cigar... I don't doubt that non-smoking bars were rare, but why should people who want to run/patronize a bar where smoking is allowed be punished?
Yeah but that's due more to Wii's sales trending downwards in the pre-holiday slump. PS3 sales hit ~10k in Sept. and again for a week in Oct. It's not really on much of an upwards trend.
Hell, if you'd just look at September you'd think that the PSP was ruling the handheld market with ease, but in October it's way behind the DSL, again... Sony's being beat by what they described as a "gimmick" and "a last generation system", I don't think they want the NPD numbers anywhere near a headline. They'd much rather tell people how many systems they shipped to their warehouses.
I find it hard to believe it's anywhere near half the sales of the Wii. Maybe the current weekly sales are close to 2:1 in the Wii's favor (it was 1.46:1 in Japan Oct 22-28), but total sales are vastly different... Wii (in Japan) was selling at 5-10x the numbers of the PS3 for most of the last year, and its sales in the US were only limited by supply. The 360 also I imagine is beating the pants off the PS3 in total sales, as they moved quite a few units in North America and the PAL regions with their one year head-start.
Well I get my numbers secondhand from media create... And PS3 hasn't broken 20k/week since August in Japan. Compared to DS Lite clearing 75k. Granted Wii's been around the 30k mark for about a month, but that's after posting almost a year of straight 150-200k numbers every week. Eventually you run out of people in Japan.
but they both degrade and berate anyone that posts Sony published numbers.
Probably because Sony publishes "numbers shipped" as "numbers sold" which are vastly different. What's interesting is the sales reported by retailers, not how many PS3s are sitting in warehouses.
The point of view you're supporting isn't ultra-libertarian, it's anarchist. Libertarians at least acknowledge the role of government in preventing people from inflicting bodily harm upon one another.
No, I'd say libertarians believe it's your own responsibility to prevent people from harming you, as the "government" can't be everywhere to protect you. The supreme court agrees with us, the police have no responsibility to protect you. As such, protect yourself and don't patronize restaurants that allow smoking if you are concerned about the harmful effects of it. Don't force others to give up something they enjoy and can't hurt you unless you involve yourself in it.
I don't mean anarchist in any pejorative sense, but I do think that most of their political suggestions are utterly ludicrous and provably ineffective.
Anarchy is the ideal, but unachievable, as it depends on everyone acting reasonably towards each other. The fact that human beings are generally unreasonable in their dealings with each other leads to a requirement for a governing body to enforce reasonable behavior. The hope is that only the minimum amount of enforcement is necessary so that people deal with their own problems wherever possible.
Beer has been proven to prolong your life (yes, beer specifically) when drunk in moderation--2-3 per day (for males) reduces your lifelong chance of having a heart attack by around 30%-35%.
I'm aware of this. But we don't restrict other things based on whether or not they're good for you (though people are starting up the drums for food...)
No amount of smoking is proven to have any positive effects that I'm aware of.
Well it seems to help deal w/ the onset of Alzheimer's. I also had a friend who claimed his doctor told him to smoke to treat his tourette's, but that's just anecdotal...
It's also kinda hard to unintentionally drink beer--again, as with cellphones, there is no secondhand effect.
I'd argue there's a lot more direct evidence for drunkenness killing innocent victims than secondhand smoke.
Seriously, I can understand arguing that secondhand smoke hasn't been proven to cause harm, but I fail to comprehend people who acknowledge (or assume for the sake of argument) that it is harmful, but take the uber-libertarian view that smokers should have to right to poison non-smoker's air supply.
No, no one has any right whatsoever to come into your home/vehicle/workplace and light up. I'd never argue otherwise. However you can't with a straight face claim that a business owner allowing smokers in his or her restaurant harms you in any way, unless you make (the completely optional) choice to enter said restaurant. You have no RIGHT to be in that restaurant, and it's the proprietor's business who he or she caters to, not yours.
Walking into a restaurant, privately owned or not, doesn't give anyone the right to harm me, and "my lungs" are definitely a part of "me".
You're the one choosing to inhale the smoke, they are not forcing you to. If you could argue you were somehow misled into believing there would not be smoke in the restaurant when there in fact was, then you'd have an argument. As I pointed out to someone else, I used to be allergic to peanuts. That's an allergy that can turn deadly overnight. Did I have a right to force Texas Roadhouse to remove all the peanut shells from their floors/tables because I might be harmed if I entered?
I'm still allergic to seafood, actually. If any cross-contamination occurs between my meal and someone else's who's ordered lobster, I could die. Should restaurants not be allowed to serve lobster?
Would you argue that "roughhouse" restaurants should exist where, by walking in, your forfeit your right to NOT be assaulted or (since lung cancer is indeed fatal) even murdered?
Fighting is already illegal. Likewise, if someone blows smoke directly into your face that's considered assault (same as spitting on you). There is no comparison between those two acts, however, and knowingly entering a restaurant that allows smoking. You don't have to go to that restaurant. Stop acting like you're being forced to be exposed to these things.
Protection from bodily harm isn't something that can magically evaporate when you step foot on private property.
Yes it can, you have no right to be on that private property except at the consent of the owner of said property. Someone performing an act on said property that is NOT a crime shouldn't be any of your business, as if it bothers you there is nothing compelling you to be there. And if you're on my property without permission, chances are you're going to be shot.
You threw in conditions like "private establishment" never previously mentioned,
The very first comment I made in this thread dealt with business owners being allowed to decide whether or not they allow smokers in their business. So either you're so wrapped up in your own hate at the moment you can't even remember why this conversation was started, or you're just making things up because you don't have a real argument.
so I ignored them and dealt with the generalities.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
I can only take that to mean that you complety agree that I'm right and you are wrong, but you are trying to come up with some situation where it seems like you are right by tossing in conditions and such.
No, I've been talking about the same situation the entire time, the idea of whether or not a private business owner should be able to decide whether smoking is allowed in his or her establishment or not. You're just realizing that there's no way someone smoking in a restaurant can inconvenience you unless you decide to go into that restaurant, so your whole argument falls apart.
Oh, I appologize, I thought you were in the USA. I live in the US. It is one-dimensional.
No, political thought is not one dimensional. The parties in power currently might be, but that doesn't mean members of the Libertarian party fit in that one-dimensional spectrum, as you have implied.
That is not the reason behind punitive awards.
Do you even read what you write, much less what I write? You complained about limits on punitive damages, and I explained why such limits were a good thing. At no point did I say they shouldn't exist, just that they should be limited to something reasonable. Please try to stay with me, here...
And if you were a libertarian, you'd be against corporations. They are entities that were created with the sole purpose of shielding people from legal responsibility for their actions. How is that adding to anyone's liberty when some people are simply allowed a shield from the law? I thought Libertarians were about personal responsibility.
Actually they generally just spread out liability, not relieve you from it. The civil liability of a corporation is spread across its employees and shareholders, where in a partnership any one partner can be held 100% liable for the actions of others. Corporations do nothing to shield you from criminal liability, however.
Oh wait, you think it's ok to blow smoke in someone's face, so I know where you stand on personal responsibility.
No, I said that was assault. Again, are you actually reading any of this?
You didn't force me to be born, either, but that doesn't mean you can end my life. What you didn't force upon me is irrelevant to what you did force. Keep up now, did you force me to breathe?
And those things are automatic processes you have no control over. You have no right to enter a private establishment, and you doing so is a conscious act of will. You're just throwing up straw men because you know I'm right.
But you did force me to be subjected to known carcinogens against my will.
Did you know vitamin C is claimed to be a carcinogen? And you have consented to being exposed to such things by entering the restaurant that caters to smokers, no one used force to make you do that.
But you are one of those hypocrites that defines force as "that which I would not like when done to me."
Actually in the context of this conversation I would say when referring to force as a noun, I mean "strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence:" or "unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property." and in the context of using force, I mean "to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something". None of which is happening when you choose to sit yourself in a restaurant that allows smokers. You are in no way compelled to be there, and have done so of your own free will.
Freedom isn't just the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, but you have to do it responsibly because your freedom to act is balanced by others' freedom to not be on the receiving end of your act.
And with freedom comes the requirement that you accept responsibility for your actions--hence in a free society you as a patron must accept the responsibility that you have knowingly entered an establishment that caters to smokers. This was a conscious and deliberate act, you were not coerced or mislead in this deed. You ARE free not to be on the receiving end of a smoker's act, you are not forced in any way to be near them. Just like you are free to walk away from a street preacher. And don't say "smoking isn't speech". Flag burning is speech, and burning a plastic fiber flag produces just as many poisons(if not more) as burning a cigarette.
But with the current neo-con Republicans filling the ranks of the Libertarians
You make less and less sense as we proceed. The "neo-cons" control the Republican party, currently. With that in mind why would any "neo-con" join the Libertarian party?
it's more like the right of corporations to pollute
No, I'd say over-polluting is harmful to society and therefore goes beyond what could be considered a "right". The question is where "over-polluting" is defined.
and caps on class-actions and punative awards
Yes because suing people into oblivion shouldn't be a big business. You can literally be sued for ANYTHING in this country, and without any reasonable limit on damages it's in the interest of a crooked attorney to just file as many cases as possible in hopes that ONE sticks (essentially spamming the legal system) because if they only succeed at 1/20 they're still rich. If damages are limited to a reasonable amount, hopefully only cases with merit will go before the legal system. I think that's a much better approach than "loser pays", personally, as I'd hate to see a case where an individual with a legitimate claim is just out-lawyered by SuperMegaCorp's 1000 lawyer team and then he is responsible for their salaries....
so that they can't even be forced to pay for direct damage they cause.
You're contradicting yourself. Punitive damages aren't designed to "make right" (ie: pay for) some transgression, they're designed to punish the perp. Hence why they're called "punitive". There's nothing wrong with forcing someone to "make right" what they'v
That's because smoking in my vicinity causes me to breathe in toxic and radioactive gases. Cell phone use is merely annoying (and "secondhand RF" is completely negligible.) Slight difference there.
So then don't go somewhere that allows smoking if it bothers you. That was the point of my comment. If a restaurant allows smoking/cell phone use in the dining area, and you don't like smoking/cell phone use, don't go there.
You know, beer is radioactive. Maybe we shouldn't allow it to be served...
So beating up someone is only a problem if you are holding them while beating them? Smoke contains many things that are hazardous. I don't want them. You approach me and exhale in a manner that I can't avoid them, and you have forced me to partake, no less than if you tied me up and held me down.
I didn't force you to enter an establishment that allows smoking, nor did I force you to be near a smoker. You made those decisions yourself.
The kind of fanatic libertarian who thinks smokers' expressed gratitude for the break in their addiction cycle is equal to people who loved slavery.
No, the kind of person who thinks that anyone who believes a loss of freedom being a good thing is at best misguided, or at worst does not have good intentions towards me and my fellow man. It would be better if no one smoked, no one ate fast food, and no one drank more than a glass of wine every day (well, except the rampant unemployment that would result), but a government has no right to tell people they are not allowed to do those things.
That rightwing talkradio is some good crack.
You do realize that the political spectrum is not one-dimensional?
With a Ron Paul chaser, how decadent!
When did I mention that crackpot, again?
Get back to me when you put your libertarianism where your cornucopia of government services and investments in your life are,
The government has never once invested in my life. And I'll happily give up all contact with the government as soon as you make it legal to do so.
and renounce them on the "principle" you're trying to force others to live by. I won't wait up.
Wait, what? I'm trying to force people to do something? I'm the one arguing that people SHOULDN'T be forced to do things! Are you even paying attention?
Goodbye.
So much easier to spew vitriol and run than argue an untenable position, neh?
So, your implication is that if I'm somewhere first, sitting there, and someone walks up smoking and their smoke blows in my face, my only response is to walk away?
Pretty much, yes. Don't visit establishments that allow smoking if you don't want to be around it. Now if someone is specifically blowing smoke INTO your face, you can probably claim assault (same as if they spit on you).
I can never go anywhere I want without the possibility of someone else going there and blowing smoke in my face.
If you're worried about it, ask the bar/restaurant owner if they allow smoking before you're seated. Really not difficult. Most places have it prominently posted on their doors.
It's too bad you aren't a Libertarian.
When did I say I wasn't?
After you've exerted force to subject me to smoke, I'd be within my rights to respond with violence to stop your aggression against me.
The only way that could be valid is if I was holding you down blowing smoke into your face, which is a crime whether or not I'm blowing smoke into your face.
so I've never met a Libertarian that was interested in the party platform
Probably because the party leadership is a bunch of unrealistic, out-of-touch, idealistic crazies for the most part. I have met plenty of libertarians who do quite happily toe the party line, however, and call me lots of names for not doing so myself.
The majority of people in NYC living under the smoking ban, including smokers, are glad it's in place - even those who oppposed it, who would never have just voluntarily stopped. Just like the vast majority who prefer living under the spitting ban.
The majority of people at one time also believed slavery was not only good, but the only viable system for dealing with things. The majority of people once believed (and the Supreme Court agreed, even) that a slave was property and NOT a person. Just because people agree on something doesn't make it Constitutional, or right.
BTW, "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease, and disability.
Wait did you just use wikipedia as a source? And you want to be taken seriously?
fanatical libertarianism.
Pledge my life and property against all enemies of liberty and all that...
Seriously, I don't think I could ever be insulted by someone claiming that I'm fanatical about protecting people's freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstood my comment. I *love* Vertigo comics. My point is that DC trumpets their big flagship titles while Vertigo quietly works miracles in the corner.
Actually, Hellblazer (and Sandman) are DCU, don't know about the rest. DC tries to to handwaving to make people forget it most of the time, but once in a while a good writer manages to sneak something back in...
And I'm going to start picking up Y trades once the series ends and I have some spare cash.
I didn't mean my initial rant to be so anti-DC, there are good things going on over there and they've proven several times they know what they're doing, unfortunately they keep dropping the ball right afterwards... My favorite example being Day of Vengeance, which was great. Shadowpact was an awesome idea that made good use of a bunch of second-string characters people like to forget about, which I love seeing happen (like in Iron Fist or Blade). They got the right blend of bitter comedy from Detective Chimp and a serious, gritty approach to the magical side of DCU, something very lacking. A dark, serious "fantasy" DC book (It seems they're only allowed to take "magic" seriously in Vertigo w/ Hellblazer/Sandman/Books of Magic). Then the first issue of the continuing Shadowpact series I see Blue Devil and Ragman fighting a giant snake in broad daylight on the first page... And I knew that the creative team didn't know what to do with these characters any more...
I keep coming back to Iron Fist as a counterexample to this. I mean, honestly, who gave a rat's ass about Danny Rand five years ago? Now there's a creative team who knows (and likes) enough old kung-fu and pulp stories to put together an homage to them without coming off as cheesy, and somehow they end up putting a good story and great dialogue in the middle of all the hong-kong-fanboyism.
This post reminds me of a DC panel at one of the Cons where a fan asked some DC execs "How's it feel to be whipping Marvel's ass?" (during the post-Infinite Crisis DC sales implosion) and was promptly laughed out of the room by the entire audience. Seriously, besides JSA and Hellblazer (which is Vertigo, so it doesn't count), there's not much worth reading on the DC side of things. Well, except the couple times a year an All-Star Superman sneaks out...
Even assuming that were true, then at least they still remember the damn art, unlike most DC stuff. And to say the company that's printing Daredevil/Captain America/Hulk/New Avengers/Iron Fist/New Universal is the one which has forgotten how to write an engaging story is the same as saying "I don't (ever) read any Marvel books but I'm going to give you my opinion anyway." I'll take the company with Bendis/Brubaker/Ellis anyday. See, funny thing is, I work at a local comic shop on occasion. Spend a lot of time there when I'm not working. More adults do buy DC comics, than kids, true, but that's because no one's buying DC comics. Meanwhile both adults and kids are snatching up Marvel titles so fast I'm actually having trouble getting some of my regulars (boss stole an Iron Fist out of a customer folder for me this past week, for instance...) At least they're not strangling under some parent company that won't let them do anything interesting with their characters out of fear of ruining the movie properties based on them (ala Warner Brothers and Batman). Give me a break.Yeah, except as I pointed out, 11/11 is an INTERNATIONAL holiday while Memorial Day isn't. And .com isn't international, it's American. Deal with it, or get off our Internet and go make your own. :P
The same reason NPR isn't, I'd guess...
1) There's separate Google sites for non-American users, so recognizing Memorial Day doesn't have to offend anyone outside of the US.
2) 11/11 isn't just an American Holiday. There were several nations involved in WWI. Most (on the winning side) recognize Armistice Day (last I checked), in some form or another. Hence the WWI style flak helmets on the logo, which are rather appropriate. In the US and most Commonwealth countries they have since extended the Holiday to honoring all Veterans, though...
Actually Armistice Day is the glorification of an end to a bit of needless destructive force being applied across most of Europe. Thanks for playing, though.
At a high enough velocity/pressure or at the right time scale, everything is a fluid, including the atmosphere. If you fall 100 stories into a lake you'll still die. When you're moving at solar orbital velocities and you slam into a thick atmosphere (like Earth's), you'll explode.
AHHH THE BRAIN
Ehhh I can understand somewhat about bars and clubs... But it seems odd to me that anyone would want a non-smoking bar, that's just part of the ambiance. Plus nothing goes with scotch like a good cigar... I don't doubt that non-smoking bars were rare, but why should people who want to run/patronize a bar where smoking is allowed be punished?
Yeah but that's due more to Wii's sales trending downwards in the pre-holiday slump. PS3 sales hit ~10k in Sept. and again for a week in Oct. It's not really on much of an upwards trend.
Hell, if you'd just look at September you'd think that the PSP was ruling the handheld market with ease, but in October it's way behind the DSL, again... Sony's being beat by what they described as a "gimmick" and "a last generation system", I don't think they want the NPD numbers anywhere near a headline. They'd much rather tell people how many systems they shipped to their warehouses.
I find it hard to believe it's anywhere near half the sales of the Wii. Maybe the current weekly sales are close to 2:1 in the Wii's favor (it was 1.46:1 in Japan Oct 22-28), but total sales are vastly different... Wii (in Japan) was selling at 5-10x the numbers of the PS3 for most of the last year, and its sales in the US were only limited by supply. The 360 also I imagine is beating the pants off the PS3 in total sales, as they moved quite a few units in North America and the PAL regions with their one year head-start.
Probably because Sony publishes "numbers shipped" as "numbers sold" which are vastly different. What's interesting is the sales reported by retailers, not how many PS3s are sitting in warehouses.
They've been under 20k units/week in Japan since August. Are we talking about the same Japan?
I'm still allergic to seafood, actually. If any cross-contamination occurs between my meal and someone else's who's ordered lobster, I could die. Should restaurants not be allowed to serve lobster?
Fighting is already illegal. Likewise, if someone blows smoke directly into your face that's considered assault (same as spitting on you). There is no comparison between those two acts, however, and knowingly entering a restaurant that allows smoking. You don't have to go to that restaurant. Stop acting like you're being forced to be exposed to these things. Yes it can, you have no right to be on that private property except at the consent of the owner of said property. Someone performing an act on said property that is NOT a crime shouldn't be any of your business, as if it bothers you there is nothing compelling you to be there. And if you're on my property without permission, chances are you're going to be shot.And those things are automatic processes you have no control over. You have no right to enter a private establishment, and you doing so is a conscious act of will. You're just throwing up straw men because you know I'm right.
Did you know vitamin C is claimed to be a carcinogen? And you have consented to being exposed to such things by entering the restaurant that caters to smokers, no one used force to make you do that.
Actually in the context of this conversation I would say when referring to force as a noun, I mean "strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence:" or "unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property." and in the context of using force, I mean "to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something". None of which is happening when you choose to sit yourself in a restaurant that allows smokers. You are in no way compelled to be there, and have done so of your own free will.
And with freedom comes the requirement that you accept responsibility for your actions--hence in a free society you as a patron must accept the responsibility that you have knowingly entered an establishment that caters to smokers. This was a conscious and deliberate act, you were not coerced or mislead in this deed. You ARE free not to be on the receiving end of a smoker's act, you are not forced in any way to be near them. Just like you are free to walk away from a street preacher. And don't say "smoking isn't speech". Flag burning is speech, and burning a plastic fiber flag produces just as many poisons(if not more) as burning a cigarette.
You make less and less sense as we proceed. The "neo-cons" control the Republican party, currently. With that in mind why would any "neo-con" join the Libertarian party?
No, I'd say over-polluting is harmful to society and therefore goes beyond what could be considered a "right". The question is where "over-polluting" is defined.
Yes because suing people into oblivion shouldn't be a big business. You can literally be sued for ANYTHING in this country, and without any reasonable limit on damages it's in the interest of a crooked attorney to just file as many cases as possible in hopes that ONE sticks (essentially spamming the legal system) because if they only succeed at 1/20 they're still rich. If damages are limited to a reasonable amount, hopefully only cases with merit will go before the legal system. I think that's a much better approach than "loser pays", personally, as I'd hate to see a case where an individual with a legitimate claim is just out-lawyered by SuperMegaCorp's 1000 lawyer team and then he is responsible for their salaries....
You're contradicting yourself. Punitive damages aren't designed to "make right" (ie: pay for) some transgression, they're designed to punish the perp. Hence why they're called "punitive". There's nothing wrong with forcing someone to "make right" what they'v
Recent science disagrees with this statement. Probably more than it agrees with "secondhand smoke is harmful", it seems...
Wait, what? Two of those things are like absolute antonyms of each other... So Doc Ruby is stupid and crazy?
So then don't go somewhere that allows smoking if it bothers you. That was the point of my comment. If a restaurant allows smoking/cell phone use in the dining area, and you don't like smoking/cell phone use, don't go there.
You know, beer is radioactive. Maybe we shouldn't allow it to be served...
I didn't force you to enter an establishment that allows smoking, nor did I force you to be near a smoker. You made those decisions yourself.
The majority of people at one time also believed slavery was not only good, but the only viable system for dealing with things. The majority of people once believed (and the Supreme Court agreed, even) that a slave was property and NOT a person. Just because people agree on something doesn't make it Constitutional, or right.
Wait did you just use wikipedia as a source? And you want to be taken seriously?
Pledge my life and property against all enemies of liberty and all that...
Seriously, I don't think I could ever be insulted by someone claiming that I'm fanatical about protecting people's freedom.