This is the only major fast food chain that I know of which still allows smoking.
It would seem that these 2 positions collide.
Breastfeeding your baby while the guy in the next booth is chain smoking a pack ?
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
It would seem that these 2 positions collide.
Breastfeeding your baby while the guy in the next booth is chain smoking a pack ?
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
posted by DannyMay
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a detail, but a Burger King is not a public place. If you don't like
out or smokes up don't eat at Burger King. If enough people feel the same and act on it, you can be assured that Burger King will eventually get the hint and change the policy.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a detail, but a Burger King is not a public place. If you don't like
out or smokes up don't eat at Burger King. If enough people feel the same and act on it, you can be assured that Burger King will eventually get the hint and change the policy. Phaedrus
Without getting into an argument over the folly of drug prohibition, I would point out that smoking crack or marijuana, and masturbating in public, are already illegal activities -- no special ban on masturbating in Burger King is neccessary (although I will now never again ask for "special sauce" just to be on the safe side ...)
Also, there are many private places of business where people assemble and drink alcohol already ... in actual public places, i.e. in city parks and on the street and so forth, this behaviour is usually forbidden. Because such places are actually public and not private places of business, then public laws regarding activities there are all well and good (the public owns the property, after all.) There are numerous privately-owned business in the world where you can smoke marijuana (mostly in the Netherlands) or masturbate (many porn theaters and similar establishments) with relative impunity.
Smoking bans are the product of a stupid, short-sighted, and morally weak society. You have no natural right to eat at Burger King. If you don't like what goes on at Burger King, there is always McDonald's (and, assuming that BK's are franchise-modeled and not corporate-owned [not sure] you might even be able to find another Burger King with a different policy.)
What I have never understood is the economics behind smoking in restaurants (just to make things simple and leave the argument to this one type of place.) The percentage of people in the United States who smoke is extremely low -- so if there is so much demand for smoke-free eating environments, one would think that it would be a cinch to just open smoke-free restaurants and be done with it -- a perfect market solution to a market problem (non-smokers generally do not wish to eat in a smoking environment, which is understandable -- I myself, incidentally, do not smoke, so I am not simply arguing as a pissed off smoker here. I can understand the basic concept of not wanting to eat or hang out in a cloud of smoke.)
However, except in isolated markets, this is rarely done. Instead, non-smokers push for government dicta which force the hand of businesses to bend to the fallacy of "the will of the people" and produce a smoke-free environment regardless of whether or not they want to do so, or more importantly whether or not the customers who pay the restaurant's bills want to.
In that you see what amounts to a default on both intelligence and morality, because the advocates of smoking bans have pushed for tighter and tighter legislation against smoking over the years -- first a smoking section, then a smoking section seperated by a true barrier, then no smoking in actual public places like government facilities, then no smoking in private places of business because the "public" goes there, and in some places already there are bans on smoking within a given distance of the door of a private business, as well as attempts at legislating whether or not people can smoke in their own homes if minors are present. In all this time, some bright non-smoker could have made himself a millionaire many times over by simply providing a smoke-free alternative to restaurants with smoking sections, and the mass of restaurants would probably have followed suit -- assuming that there is enough actual demand for smoke-free restaurants as the lobbying types would have you believe.
Banding together to push your agenda via government coercion is about the lowest form of human activity possible -- even in a case as relatively innocuous as a smoking ban, you're just a short leap from criminal coercion of people who have done nothing to you and never plan to. At least real criminals have the balls to commit their offences themselves; proponents of smoking bans and all other government-enforced prohibitons on the disposal and use of private property are in the end immoral cowards who lack the courage of conviction to just try to compete with what's out there by offering their solution as a voluntary alternative.
Phaedrus
Also, there are many private places of business where people assemble and drink alcohol already ... in actual public places, i.e. in city parks and on the street and so forth, this behaviour is usually forbidden. Because such places are actually public and not private places of business, then public laws regarding activities there are all well and good (the public owns the property, after all.) There are numerous privately-owned business in the world where you can smoke marijuana (mostly in the Netherlands) or masturbate (many porn theaters and similar establishments) with relative impunity.
Smoking bans are the product of a stupid, short-sighted, and morally weak society. You have no natural right to eat at Burger King. If you don't like what goes on at Burger King, there is always McDonald's (and, assuming that BK's are franchise-modeled and not corporate-owned [not sure] you might even be able to find another Burger King with a different policy.)
What I have never understood is the economics behind smoking in restaurants (just to make things simple and leave the argument to this one type of place.) The percentage of people in the United States who smoke is extremely low -- so if there is so much demand for smoke-free eating environments, one would think that it would be a cinch to just open smoke-free restaurants and be done with it -- a perfect market solution to a market problem (non-smokers generally do not wish to eat in a smoking environment, which is understandable -- I myself, incidentally, do not smoke, so I am not simply arguing as a pissed off smoker here. I can understand the basic concept of not wanting to eat or hang out in a cloud of smoke.)
However, except in isolated markets, this is rarely done. Instead, non-smokers push for government dicta which force the hand of businesses to bend to the fallacy of "the will of the people" and produce a smoke-free environment regardless of whether or not they want to do so, or more importantly whether or not the customers who pay the restaurant's bills want to.
In that you see what amounts to a default on both intelligence and morality, because the advocates of smoking bans have pushed for tighter and tighter legislation against smoking over the years -- first a smoking section, then a smoking section seperated by a true barrier, then no smoking in actual public places like government facilities, then no smoking in private places of business because the "public" goes there, and in some places already there are bans on smoking within a given distance of the door of a private business, as well as attempts at legislating whether or not people can smoke in their own homes if minors are present. In all this time, some bright non-smoker could have made himself a millionaire many times over by simply providing a smoke-free alternative to restaurants with smoking sections, and the mass of restaurants would probably have followed suit -- assuming that there is enough actual demand for smoke-free restaurants as the lobbying types would have you believe.
Banding together to push your agenda via government coercion is about the lowest form of human activity possible -- even in a case as relatively innocuous as a smoking ban, you're just a short leap from criminal coercion of people who have done nothing to you and never plan to. At least real criminals have the balls to commit their offences themselves; proponents of smoking bans and all other government-enforced prohibitons on the disposal and use of private property are in the end immoral cowards who lack the courage of conviction to just try to compete with what's out there by offering their solution as a voluntary alternative.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
posted by DannyMay
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a detail, but a Burger King is not a public place. If you don't like out or smokes up don't eat at Burger King. If enough people feel the same and act on it, you can be assured that Burger King will eventually get the hint and change the policy.
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no they wont. what planet have you been on the last 10 years?
posted by DannyMay
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I would prefer the public breast feeding over the public smoking. I hope this new policy means the end of public smoking in BK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a detail, but a Burger King is not a public place. If you don't like
out or smokes up don't eat at Burger King. If enough people feel the same and act on it, you can be assured that Burger King will eventually get the hint and change the policy. Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no they wont. what planet have you been on the last 10 years?
Um, Planet Earth ... where businesses exist to make money, and the way to maximise the bottom line is to please your customers. If enough people want to eat in a tit-free Burger King that it makes a dent in their wallet, and this dent cannot be filled out a concomitant increase in business from nursing mothers tired of being stigmatised by the lactose intolerant, then the policy will almost certainly be changed.
And even if the owner of the BK franchise wants to run himself out of business on principle, then that too is his choice to make, not the city council's.
Phaedrus
And even if the owner of the BK franchise wants to run himself out of business on principle, then that too is his choice to make, not the city council's.
Phaedrus
Pheadrus, how far do your Libertarian ideals extend? Do you fancy that it would have been a better solution for private business to build "Blacks Allowed" retaurants in the 1950's South rather than having the government mandate equal rights? Or is that an appropriate use of governmental power?
I'm not trying to correlate this to your views on public smoking bans, just curious how strongly you feel about the private sector.
I'm not trying to correlate this to your views on public smoking bans, just curious how strongly you feel about the private sector.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
All laws prohibiting smoking while in private places of business are based on an invalid premise. It doesn't matter how many people support them or believe in them, they are wrong.
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't understand this position.
After all one is allowed to urinate only in a designated room for such purpose. The same should apply to smoking.
All laws prohibiting smoking while in private places of business are based on an invalid premise. It doesn't matter how many people support them or believe in them, they are wrong.
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't understand this position.
After all one is allowed to urinate only in a designated room for such purpose. The same should apply to smoking.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Woody0:
I don't understand this position.
After all one is allowed to urinate only in a designated room for such purpose. The same should apply to smoking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree. If I, as a private individual, wanted to start a business where you can come in and piss on my kitchen floor in exchange for $5, why should you or the government be able to step in and stop me?
I'm in complete agreement with Phaedrus on this - the key point in this arguement is that these are private businesses owned and run by private individuals. If they want to allow customers to smoke on the premises it's their business, not yours. Cigarettes aren't good for you but they are still legal. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else.
I don't understand this position.
After all one is allowed to urinate only in a designated room for such purpose. The same should apply to smoking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree. If I, as a private individual, wanted to start a business where you can come in and piss on my kitchen floor in exchange for $5, why should you or the government be able to step in and stop me?
I'm in complete agreement with Phaedrus on this - the key point in this arguement is that these are private businesses owned and run by private individuals. If they want to allow customers to smoke on the premises it's their business, not yours. Cigarettes aren't good for you but they are still legal. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else.
posted by FunkSoulBrother:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Pheadrus, how far do your Libertarian ideals extend? Do you fancy that it would have been a better solution for private business to build "Blacks Allowed" retaurants in the 1950's South rather than having the government mandate equal rights? Or is that an appropriate use of governmental power?
I'm not trying to correlate this to your views on public smoking bans, just curious how strongly you feel about the private sector.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, I am not a Libertarian.
Second, this is a subject on which many conservatives will balk, but yes, I feel that the government has no business whatsoever in attempting to "enforce equality" -- in other words, that the ERA is an utterly backwards and stupid piece of legislation that needs to be repealed.
This does not mean that I condone racism, sexism, etc. What this means, is that people have the right of association, and legislation such as the ERA (and smoking bans, which are a direct descendant of ERA) mitigates that right.
Frankly, I would love to live in a world full of signs that said "NO NIGGERS" or "JEWS NOT WELCOME" or "A.I.D.S. FROM GOD TO HELLBOUND HOMOS" because it would make it easier for me to decide which places I would patronise -- because surely in the course of my day-to-day life I am at some point lining the pockets of white supremacists, terrorist money launderers, neo-Nazis, etc. With a clear view of these people's beliefs from the outset, a staunch non-racist such as myself can make more accurate determination of where his money and other assets (such as the time and effort that I devote to charity work, which is not insubstantial) are best spent.
"Enforced equality" is an epistemologically unsound notion, better expressed by the term "egalitarianism." We can do without it, even those among us who are black, or female, or gay, or Shinto.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Pheadrus, how far do your Libertarian ideals extend? Do you fancy that it would have been a better solution for private business to build "Blacks Allowed" retaurants in the 1950's South rather than having the government mandate equal rights? Or is that an appropriate use of governmental power?
I'm not trying to correlate this to your views on public smoking bans, just curious how strongly you feel about the private sector.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, I am not a Libertarian.
Second, this is a subject on which many conservatives will balk, but yes, I feel that the government has no business whatsoever in attempting to "enforce equality" -- in other words, that the ERA is an utterly backwards and stupid piece of legislation that needs to be repealed.
This does not mean that I condone racism, sexism, etc. What this means, is that people have the right of association, and legislation such as the ERA (and smoking bans, which are a direct descendant of ERA) mitigates that right.
Frankly, I would love to live in a world full of signs that said "NO NIGGERS" or "JEWS NOT WELCOME" or "A.I.D.S. FROM GOD TO HELLBOUND HOMOS" because it would make it easier for me to decide which places I would patronise -- because surely in the course of my day-to-day life I am at some point lining the pockets of white supremacists, terrorist money launderers, neo-Nazis, etc. With a clear view of these people's beliefs from the outset, a staunch non-racist such as myself can make more accurate determination of where his money and other assets (such as the time and effort that I devote to charity work, which is not insubstantial) are best spent.
"Enforced equality" is an epistemologically unsound notion, better expressed by the term "egalitarianism." We can do without it, even those among us who are black, or female, or gay, or Shinto.
Phaedrus
IMO the idea that the government can say where a woman can breast feed her child is absolutely absurd. If anything the government should be promoting breast feeding as it would lead, long term, to better national health rates.
Does an infant decide when or where to get hungry? Should and infant go hungry because some uptight puritanical twat is offended by a breast?
This is just a silly issue.
Does an infant decide when or where to get hungry? Should and infant go hungry because some uptight puritanical twat is offended by a breast?
This is just a silly issue.
Let me get off the smoking issue and address Phaedrus's much broader argument for a minute.
Phaedrus, you're utterly wrong here, and here's why. Ideals don't normally translate well to reality due to the fickle nature of the masses combined with the rule of INERTIA, and this is one of the fundamental reasons we have governmental regulations, as incompetent as they often may be.
When you say that you would LOVE to live in a society that largely patronizes and condones racism, bigotry and other forms of EXTREME HATRED, you are arguing from the incorrect presumption that said patronization naturally entails the idealistically absurd freedom of choice regarding these very volatile matters. You are assuming that a society that, by its very CULTURE, engenders and encourages this type of IDEOLOGICAL HATRED somehow also engenders a very open-minded, tolerant environment that would allow a non-racist or a non-bigot to openly and safely live out his beliefs.
BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG.
Issues such as racism go much deeper than the pull of market forces can control. If a businessowner puts up a sign that says "NO NIGGERS" or "NO JEWS," it's NOT necessarily because he believes that doing so will help his financial bottom line; it's most likely because he simply HATES them. It is an ideological issue, and not a Darwinian market issue like you seem to propose. Where a part of a society's consciousness is rooted in a strong cultural ideology, the free market theory doesn't hold a candle. Market forces FOLLOW AFTER a cultural ideology that embraces the concept, not vice versa. Case in point, why was there no free market in Nazi Germany, former USSR or North Korea? Because the national ideology will not allow it.
Phaedrus, your entire argument is based on the incorrect premise that free market forces are somehow an inalienable right that must necessarily apply to every real or imaginary society. This premise destroys your argument that a society that encourages hatred and dissension (due to race or whatever) will simulatenously encourage tolerance and harmony only if there is enough market incentive to do so. This is because any such market incentive for change, can only be brought once an ideological overhaul occurs, not vice versa.
I could go on to address the concept of mass inertia, but it's perhaps better to wait for your response, if any.
{edited for minor addendum}
Phaedrus, you're utterly wrong here, and here's why. Ideals don't normally translate well to reality due to the fickle nature of the masses combined with the rule of INERTIA, and this is one of the fundamental reasons we have governmental regulations, as incompetent as they often may be.
When you say that you would LOVE to live in a society that largely patronizes and condones racism, bigotry and other forms of EXTREME HATRED, you are arguing from the incorrect presumption that said patronization naturally entails the idealistically absurd freedom of choice regarding these very volatile matters. You are assuming that a society that, by its very CULTURE, engenders and encourages this type of IDEOLOGICAL HATRED somehow also engenders a very open-minded, tolerant environment that would allow a non-racist or a non-bigot to openly and safely live out his beliefs.
BZZZZZZZZT! WRONG.
Issues such as racism go much deeper than the pull of market forces can control. If a businessowner puts up a sign that says "NO NIGGERS" or "NO JEWS," it's NOT necessarily because he believes that doing so will help his financial bottom line; it's most likely because he simply HATES them. It is an ideological issue, and not a Darwinian market issue like you seem to propose. Where a part of a society's consciousness is rooted in a strong cultural ideology, the free market theory doesn't hold a candle. Market forces FOLLOW AFTER a cultural ideology that embraces the concept, not vice versa. Case in point, why was there no free market in Nazi Germany, former USSR or North Korea? Because the national ideology will not allow it.
Phaedrus, your entire argument is based on the incorrect premise that free market forces are somehow an inalienable right that must necessarily apply to every real or imaginary society. This premise destroys your argument that a society that encourages hatred and dissension (due to race or whatever) will simulatenously encourage tolerance and harmony only if there is enough market incentive to do so. This is because any such market incentive for change, can only be brought once an ideological overhaul occurs, not vice versa.
I could go on to address the concept of mass inertia, but it's perhaps better to wait for your response, if any.
{edited for minor addendum}
Actually, I think you misunderstood what I said, but to address a couple of points from your post:
First off, you are extrapolating my response to be of much broader implications than it was intended.
Second, social science is a game played by collegians, not an actual science.
Third, there was no free market in Nazi Germany, the USSR or N Korea because those states were too busy taking "enforced equality" to its logical conclusion.
Additionally, market forces in abstract apply to every society since the dawn of man regardless of whether or not those societies even recognised them -- not in the common and small sense of "pcoketbook voting" as I mention above, but in the sense that all forward development in human history has been as the result of some manifestation of the profit motive. Market forces as exemplified by the choices of individuals in furtherance of their goals and fulfillment of their needs are not a "right;" they would be more appropriately coined a "force of nature."
Finally, at no point did I state or imply that people being free to speak their minds on the issue of their ethnic bias would help any particular ethnic group be free or equal, or create any particular amount of peace or harmony in the world. If people were truly free to exercise the right of association, there is a chance that groups would coalesce that would all be centered around some particular common trait, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, favourite James Bond actor, etc. but such voluntary segregation would not by neccessity lead to a more positive, productive society (look what it's done for the Amish.)
Please clarify one point: How are racism and bigotry "extreme hatred?" While certainly ill-conceived and and irrational, a racist person might well simply not care for, say, Asians, without ever wishing any harm on a single one of them.
I'm not sure anyone benefits from even the most benignly-intended "ideological overhaul," when it is done at the end of the barrel of a gun, as all government action ultimately is.
Phaedrus
First off, you are extrapolating my response to be of much broader implications than it was intended.
Second, social science is a game played by collegians, not an actual science.
Third, there was no free market in Nazi Germany, the USSR or N Korea because those states were too busy taking "enforced equality" to its logical conclusion.
Additionally, market forces in abstract apply to every society since the dawn of man regardless of whether or not those societies even recognised them -- not in the common and small sense of "pcoketbook voting" as I mention above, but in the sense that all forward development in human history has been as the result of some manifestation of the profit motive. Market forces as exemplified by the choices of individuals in furtherance of their goals and fulfillment of their needs are not a "right;" they would be more appropriately coined a "force of nature."
Finally, at no point did I state or imply that people being free to speak their minds on the issue of their ethnic bias would help any particular ethnic group be free or equal, or create any particular amount of peace or harmony in the world. If people were truly free to exercise the right of association, there is a chance that groups would coalesce that would all be centered around some particular common trait, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, favourite James Bond actor, etc. but such voluntary segregation would not by neccessity lead to a more positive, productive society (look what it's done for the Amish.)
Please clarify one point: How are racism and bigotry "extreme hatred?" While certainly ill-conceived and and irrational, a racist person might well simply not care for, say, Asians, without ever wishing any harm on a single one of them.
I'm not sure anyone benefits from even the most benignly-intended "ideological overhaul," when it is done at the end of the barrel of a gun, as all government action ultimately is.
Phaedrus
