Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]

Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

[The Raven]

There's a lot to think about this week--the rise of Nancy Pelosi, the meaning of the Republican triumph--but my thoughts keep tugging toward a group of people who are abused, ostracized and facing a cold winter. It's not right what we do to them, and we should pay attention.

[Republic of Texas]

" No. Black is the color of your lungs. "

A. How is this statement relevant to this "discussion"? (If you haven't figured it out, it's about freedom, not cigarettes)

B. I don't smoke, work out 4-6 times per week, my lungs aren't black and I disagree with you. That shreds your retort. Black IS NOT the color of my lungs.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be a bit overweight would you. As someone who keeps himself is shape, I find fat people offensive and dangerous. I'm sure you agree, and you think we should have government enforcement of forcing fat people to lose weight, not eat at McDonalds and to pay for TWO seats on airline flights, right?

You wouldn't be a hypocrite on those points, would you?

[Republic of Texas]

You see, you just LOGICALLY destroyed cinFla in post 359. Unfortunately, this is a "person" who is immune to logic. They just want what they want, when they want it. You know, like a two year old.

[cinFLA]

BTW, you wouldn't happen to be a bit overweight would you. As someone who keeps himself is shape, I find fat people offensive and dangerous. I'm sure you agree, and you think we should have government enforcement of forcing fat people to lose weight, not eat at McDonalds and to pay for TWO seats on airline flights, right?

Are you asking if I agree with you?

You wouldn't be a hypocrite on those points, would you?

No. I still have my 32" waist from 35 years ago.

[cinFLA]

(If you haven't figured it out, it's about freedom, not cigarettes)

It is about the freedom to breathe smoke-free air.

[cinFLA]

No.

[laredo44]

Science does hold that second hand smoke provides some level of immunization against lung cancer.

Is this what you tell your kids everytime they ask you to stop blowing smoke in their faces?

As a non-smoker, I have no personal experience. However, I continue to inform them that intelligent people basis decisions on fact, and that tyrannts cower a populace by alleging a bogeyman under the bed.

[cinFLA]

As a non-smoker, I have no personal experience. However, I continue to inform them that intelligent people basis decisions on fact,

Do you also inform them that smoking stinks, is socially unacceptable to most in the US, kills with various cancers?

[Gabz]

Tell your kids that!

You obviously did not read the WHO/IARC study that showed childhood exposure might possibly have a protective effect against lung cancer.

But of course you didn't - your mind is made up and no one should attempt to confuse you with facts.

While I will attempt to not confuse you, I will try to infuse you with some facts. Fact is that the largest ever done study on the effects of second hand smoke exposure on non-smokers was done by the Cancer Research branch (IARC) of the World health Organization (WHO).

Lots of statistics were derived from this study regarding SHS - but the most important derived from it is that there is relatively littlle statistical risk of getting lung cancer from being around smokers.

In fact the only statistically significant number they came up with was that children exposed to SHS have a less likely chance of contractracting lung cancer than those that didn't.

Your next lesson will be on the meaning of statistical significance and relative risk. But I will give you a hint - according to the US government there is a relative risk of 1.65 (65%) chance of getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk - that is not considered statistically significant. According to the same US government there is a relative risk of 1.19 (19%) of getting lung cancer from exposure to second hand smoke - that they consider statistically significant.

You tell me what is wrong with that picture.

But you're an anti - so I expect nothing less than typical doublespeak from you. - Please prove me wrong.

I'll even give you a bit of help - in statistical analysis in epidemiology ( where all of the above is from) an RR of less than 2.00 (100%) is considered to be insignificant. Many in the medical reasearch fields consider anything below 3.0 to be insignificant.

[Republic of Texas]

I don't like cigarette smoke either. Mostly, if a bar or restuarant is filled with smoke, I don't go there. In fact, many years ago, I quit bartending largely because I didn't like coming home smelling like cigarette smoke. However, we still live in a FREE country don't we? Property rights are the CORNERSTONE of that freedom, aren't they? Those restaurant and bar owners have the right to decide for themselves if they want THEIR business to be smoking or non-smoking don't they. The employess and customers have the right to decide whether to go there or not, right? Because if we can tell them what to do with THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, based on what WE WANT, then we can tell YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY, right? That's called mob rule, not freedom.

[Republic of Texas]

As you might have already surmised, facts and logic are wasted on cinFla.

[cinFLA]

Now there are two of you purporting that exposing kids to smoke is beneficial! Unbelievable!

[cinFLA]

Those restaurant and bar owners have the right to decide for themselves if they want THEIR business to be smoking or non-smoking don't they.

The right is second to the state's right to control the smoking in their establishment.

[cinFLA]

That's called mob rule, not freedom.

Not mob rule; representative government. i.e., a republic.

[Republic of Texas]

You must be kidding? Without private property rights, we have NO rights. If the state can tell you what to do with your property, then they CONTROL your property! Your ignorance on this issue is breathtaking. Or, you are just a fan of totalinarianism. Either way, you don't deserve the freedom you take for granted.

BTW, in countries like Irag or Zimbabwe for instance, all rights are secondary to the STATE'S rights. THAT is what you are supporting.

[Republic of Texas]

Our Republic guarantees our personal FREEDOM, rights given to us by GOD, not the STATE. Mbb rule is Democracy, where a majority can enslave a minority whenever they want. You don't have the first clue what a Republic is.

[jslade]

I decided many years ago to not work for anyone else. I have a homne-based business that I make 6 figures at. I work in gym shorts. I have no commute. I work on the Internet. I smoke at my desk! F**k the tobacco Nazis.

[Gabz]

Thank you. If all smokers were so courteous, I would find it hard to be so vocal against smoking.

You have a problem telling the truth, don't you??????

Numerous people have told you similar things, yet you refuse to believe them, why is that?????

[Gabz]

But then again, it is easy for you to call someone else a coward from behind your keyboard.

And you find it easy to call others liars from behind your keyboard, so your point is........???????

[Republic of Texas]

So your opinion on limiting freedom is based on certain people being COURTEOUS? Good God! Do you have a logical REASON why we should limit freedom in this country, other than you don't like it and the people that do it aren't courteous to you? Those aren't good enough for me. Perhaps I could string together a majority of people who hate stupidity, and we could limit your FREEDOM on the grounds that we don't like you. Would you get it then?

[GYPSY286]

Are'nt the smokers making SPECIAL concessions for the non-smokers by having to go outside? I'm a smoker and to hear non-smokers complain about the wasted time for smoke breaks makes me laugh since they were the ones who complained and sent us "outside". Can't have it both ways.