• Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

    Thats the one same difference

    Who’s we and when was this decided?

    We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

    Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.

    Thats what i think it should be but yeah definatly a different conversation.

    Original crackdown which i though was fair. Restricting you to a section of the place ur already at not restricting your ability to drink a beer and socialise symulationiously while also allowing people to not be exposed to carsinagens throught the entire premises. Net increase of liberty.

    Is this the only universal right that exists ?

    What do u think?

    To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.

    U cant just proclaim something to be true. You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

    A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

    Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

    Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

    • Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thats the one same difference

      Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn’t.

      We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

      My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

      What do u think?

      I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else’s right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

      U cant just proclaim something to be true.

      That’s fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I’ll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

      You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

      This is true for all.

      In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying “well they can just smoke when they get home”, technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

      Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

      That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren’t exactly as “outside” as they could be.

      I’m not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i’d imagine its heavily subjective.

      Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

      Oh absolutely, even if it wasn’t bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it’s a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the “huge burden” on the NHS.

      • Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match. You wouldnt see this on the internet anywhere but lemmy.

        And yeah it is all just bullshit posturing and political grandstanding.

        From what ive heard the nhs has devolved into a complete clusterfuck and everyone is too scared to touch it in fear of backlash. Not sure whats worse that or how us aussies are going getting more simmillar to the american system by the day.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match.