4 ms·

> The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. A Fine, I don't want to smell it because I find the smell gross. Same concept.

by vdnkh 4y ago

augstein 4y ago
This is getting ridiculous imo. I‘m sure some people find your breath and/or your body odor/perfume gross. So should they be able to force you to wear a mask or keep a distance of say at least 6ft at all times?
noirbot 4y ago
Sure, but in general we don't ban products because they smell gross. I can buy a durian fruit, or put rotten eggs in a dumpster, or be homeless and unable to bathe and that's not illegal on its own. There's a lot of stuff that's gross and obnoxious that isn't banned by the FTC or FDA.
webkike 4y ago
Then farting outside should be illegal
- 0des 4y ago
  This is one of the few joys I have left in life, don't take this from me.
  - webkike 4y ago
    Don’t worry, I will defend your right to dealt it to death
0des 4y ago
I find a lot of body odor or perfume and how heavily it is applied just as offensive, but I don't think people should be told to change because of that.
s__s 4y ago
It’s not clear to me what you mean when you say it’s the same concept. Your position is based on your own subjective preference rather than any objective fact. We’ve gone from “your actions are having a direct negative impact on my health”, to “I’m not particularly fond of what you’re doing.” Far from being the same, your position is actually very different conceptually. The personal preferences of some aren’t valid reasons to ban things in public places for all. In most cases that would be a gross violation of human rights. In my city the vast majority have a strong preference against pan handling. But it’s been made clear time and time again the pans handlers have every right to sit in public and ask for money, whether people like it or not. Moreover if they like they can also smoke a cigarette or bang a drum.
lostgame 4y ago
>> same concept Completely different concept. That's personal preference vs. a potential health hazard. Great example - masks. You may have had a personal preference not to wear a mask during the height of the pandemic, but that 'personal preference' puts others at a proven health hazard. In this case, your 'personal preference' is irrelevant. If second hand outdoor smoke really did have the affects you initially used to back up your point, then that would be a 'health hazard', and therefore important to the greater whole, and something to be considered taking legal action on. Since you reduced your argument to 'I don't want to smell it', the underlying concept completely changes, and your statement is completely irrelevant.
tintedfireglass 4y ago
I don't want homeless people sleeping on the bench cuz it feels gross I change a couple of words and suddenly your reasoning sounds absurd.

> The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. A Fine, I don't want to smell it because I find the smell gross. Same concept.

by vdnkh 4y ago

> The second hand smoke you’d encounter on a sidewalk is completely harmless. A Fine, I don't want to smell it because I find the smell gross. Same concept.

augstein 4y ago

This is getting ridiculous imo. I‘m sure some people find your breath and/or your body odor/perfume gross. So should they be able to force you to wear a mask or keep a distance of say at least 6ft at all times?

noirbot 4y ago

Sure, but in general we don't ban products because they smell gross. I can buy a durian fruit, or put rotten eggs in a dumpster, or be homeless and unable to bathe and that's not illegal on its own. There's a lot of stuff that's gross and obnoxious that isn't banned by the FTC or FDA.

webkike 4y ago

Then farting outside should be illegal

0des 4y ago
This is one of the few joys I have left in life, don't take this from me.
- webkike 4y ago
  Don’t worry, I will defend your right to dealt it to death

0des 4y ago

I find a lot of body odor or perfume and how heavily it is applied just as offensive, but I don't think people should be told to change because of that.

s__s 4y ago

It’s not clear to me what you mean when you say it’s the same concept. Your position is based on your own subjective preference rather than any objective fact. We’ve gone from “your actions are having a direct negative impact on my health”, to “I’m not particularly fond of what you’re doing.” Far from being the same, your position is actually very different conceptually. The personal preferences of some aren’t valid reasons to ban things in public places for all. In most cases that would be a gross violation of human rights. In my city the vast majority have a strong preference against pan handling. But it’s been made clear time and time again the pans handlers have every right to sit in public and ask for money, whether people like it or not. Moreover if they like they can also smoke a cigarette or bang a drum.

lostgame 4y ago

>> same concept Completely different concept. That's personal preference vs. a potential health hazard. Great example - masks. You may have had a personal preference not to wear a mask during the height of the pandemic, but that 'personal preference' puts others at a proven health hazard. In this case, your 'personal preference' is irrelevant. If second hand outdoor smoke really did have the affects you initially used to back up your point, then that would be a 'health hazard', and therefore important to the greater whole, and something to be considered taking legal action on. Since you reduced your argument to 'I don't want to smell it', the underlying concept completely changes, and your statement is completely irrelevant.

tintedfireglass 4y ago

I don't want homeless people sleeping on the bench cuz it feels gross I change a couple of words and suddenly your reasoning sounds absurd.