Demand enforcement

Have the pitcher announce he refuses to throw the ball until city regulation enforcers have checked every patron.

You cant be fined for refusing to play or failing to show up.

How would that play in the media, player fined for supporting anti cancer law

Can the opposing teams simply refuse to play Chicago teams in Chicago?

==============================

The nanny state writ large. I get the smoking ban; the smoke really does affect everyone around the smoker. When I started working in the late '80s, the office had a haze of cigarette smoke hanging over the interior as everyone chain smoked at their desks. That ban made some sense; the chew ban, however, strikes me as a demand for a ban on something that other find "icky" and unpleasant, for no reason other than it's "icky" and unpleasant.

I've never understood the habit. I tried it once with disastrous results, I couldn't keep the "little pinch" together and the little granules of whatever that stuff is scattered throughout my mouth necessitating a thorough washing with mouthwash.

I had a boss a while back who chewed at his desk. He always had a spit cup nearby. It was pretty nasty. Despite numerous comments to him about how nasty it was, no one suggested the company ban his chewing. We were adults and so was he - and we all behaved that way. If it really offended someone, he would spit it out before meeting with them and hide the spit cup.

...the chew ban, however, strikes me as a demand for a ban on something that other find "icky" and unpleasant, for no reason other than it's "icky" and unpleasant.

That seems about right. And it doesn't seem to me a giant leap from "icky and unpleasant" to "offensive" in some arbitrary but flavor-of-the-month way. Now, I can kind of understand not wanting to clean up tobacco spit or provide cuspidors, but some of the anti-tobacco efforts struck me as being less about controlling tobacco than about controlling the types of people who want to use it.

"nanny state writ large. I get the smoking ban; the smoke really does affect everyone around the smoker. When I started working in the late '80s, the office had a haze of cigarette smoke hanging over the interior as everyone chain smoked at their desks. That ban made some sense; the chew ban, however, strikes me as a demand for a ban on something that other find "icky" and unpleasant, for no reason other than it's "icky" and unpleasant."

Smoking was never going to be the end of it. If it was, they would have only banned it in public places, and let the business owner decide if he was going to allow smoking or have a seperate smoking room.

A lot of people on this board have scoffed at the idea of a slippery slope of government regulation and intrusion.

Ironic, that is it playing out, right before our eyes.

Also, this will just become another opportunity for *selective enforecemt* further eroding our constitutional rights.

Doesn't chewing tobacco involve spitting? I am
Ok with no release of body fluids in arenas

Here's what I wrote elsewhere, in 2001:

As a non-smoker, I hate to say it, but I'm willing to bet that if it weren't for the anti-tobacco zealots, pot would be legal by now and we would be reaping lots of benefits, no pun intended. The police would find they still had plenty of serious work to do, and tons of new jobs would open up for those who would rather support a substance that causes far less intoxication-related violence - and traffic deaths - than alcohol.

It was pretty nasty. Despite numerous comments to him about how nasty it was, no one suggested the company ban his chewing. We were adults and so was he - and we all behaved that way. If it really offended someone, he would spit it out before meeting with them and hide the spit cup.

You could argue that not only is it unsightly, it's unsanitary. Saliva is still body fluid and your mouth carries some 20 billion microbes at one time. (Saliva contains around 100,000,000 microbes per mL, representing over 190 species.) And a human bite can induce sepsis. If the spit cup is ever knocked over, you now have to treat it like biohazardous waste. A spitoon is, in effect, an open petri dish.

Generally, in an in indoor environment, I prefer people keep their fluids to themselves.

I used to read Marilyn Vos Savant's columns in Parade Magazine (though these days, I very rarely pick up the Sunday paper). At the end of one year, she posted all the questions that she just couldn't find within herself to actually answer.

One such question was, "If not for ground seepage and evaporation, how deep in spit would Yankee Stadium be by the end of a season?"

I'm sure I could probably figure that out if I set my mind to it. You just find out how much fluid an average tobacco-chewer spits at one time, how many times the players spit during a given game, how many games Yankee Stadium hosts during a season, assume that Yankee stadium is a closed basin that won't allow fluids to run off, and then calculate the surface area of Yankee stadium, and you have your answer.

But I just don't want to think about it, so I don't fault Savant for not answering.

I am Ok with no release of body fluids in arenas

So were gonna outlaw sweating then?

Generally, in an in indoor environment, I prefer people keep their fluids to themselves. ~ Patrick at March 19, 2016 1:26 PM

So, outdoor toilets at your house?

So were gonna outlaw sweating then? ~ lujlp at March 19, 2016 3:56 PM

When some precious snowflake is microagressed by having to sit next to a sweaty person or see someone's sweat stains, probably.

Conan: So, outdoor toilets at your house?

Knew that was coming. If nothing else, you're predictable. Note, I said, generally.

No, Conan. Unlike a spitoon, an indoor toilet is designed to receive and remove the waste and can do so within seconds.

A spitoon, by contrast, just sits there for hours, letting the bacteria and microbes multiply over time, and still within the facility.

So, if your office employed chamberpots or bedpans to be used whenever and emptied at the end of the day, you'd be just fine with that?

Conan: When some precious snowflake is microagressed by having to sit next to a sweaty person or see someone's sweat stains, probably.

Any day now.

Ideally, I'd like to say that we don't need "regulations." People would just know how to behave themselves.

But, the awful truth is some people are just pigs. Actually, that isn't a truthful statement; pigs are by they nature clean animals - it is just the pigsty we stick them in that they cannot keep themselves clean. But, I digress.

Yes, some regulations are needed because some folks just don't give a crap about their neighbors.

Ever been stuck in the middle seat of a plane with someone the size of Chris Christie wearing shorts so that their sweaty thighs are pushing up against you? Ever been next to someone who thinks their right to smoke, despite being in a crowd, is more important than your right to breath? Ever been in a movie theater where someone thinks they right to chat with their friend or check their phone all throughout the movie isn't a bother to your enjoyment of the same movie?

Yea, some times the regulations go overboard; but, sometimes they are needed to keep the selfish assholes from annoying the rest of us.

Patrick, you'd be a lot more interesting to have a conversation with if you'd drop the condescension. You're simply not the smartest person in the room.

I know you have an issue with spit cups and bodily discharges, and I don't blame you, they're often disgusting. However, people secrete, expel, and discharge disgusting fluids throughout the day in the workplace naturally. Sitting in close proximity cubicles in a modern office gives you a direct window into how disgusting your coworkers (and fellow human beings) really are, even when they're not spitting tobacco juice into a cup in front of you.

No, Conan. Unlike a spitoon, an indoor toilet is designed to receive and remove the waste and can do so within seconds.

An indoor toilet, when used properly (i.e., flushed or hit squarely), is quite effective at receiving and removing waste. However, to perform its designed function, the toilet has to be successfully hit by the user (and not the floor next to it) and then flushed.

A spitoon, by contrast, just sits there for hours, letting the bacteria and microbes multiply over time, and still within the facility.

When spittoons were common in most establishments, they were also emptied regularly.

Spit cups are generally thrown out by the user after the day's use. As a result, they're not left sitting around the building with orgiastic microbes inside.

So, if your office employed chamberpots or bedpans to be used whenever and emptied at the end of the day, you'd be just fine with that?

If I were laboring in a Dickensian workhouse or living in a Jane Austen novel, sure. But I live in an advanced industrialized country in the 21st century. I use toilets (and flush them as needed).

Any day now

Seriously? "Sweat shaming" is not the latest assault by the patriarchy on American womanhood, no matter how much she wants it to be so she can lead the charge against it and, by doing so, validate herself and receive the adulation of thousands of adoring fans.

Yea, some times the regulations go overboard; but, sometimes they are needed to keep the selfish assholes from annoying the rest of us. ~ charles at March 19, 2016 7:08 PM

Or sometimes you write a letter to the airline telling them you won't fly them anymore because you were stuck next to a sweaty Chris Christie in shorts. Or you complain to the movie theater manager and demand his ushers police cell phone users.

Having the government protect you from life's "selfish assholes" invites them to protect other "selfish assholes" from you and to dictate your daily behavior, dress, and thoughts.

Next thing you know, the government has the ability to sentence you to 15 years hard labor for a prank, to be served in a prison in which eating corn picked from cow's dung or catching a mouse to eat is your only chance for survival.

Maybe people are thinking, well, I don't chew tobacco; it's gross; so...whatever.

Wrong thinking. It's a slippery slope, all this regulatin'.

Your thingie is next. Or soon.

Martin Niemoller said it best. . .

Conan:

Patrick, you'd be a lot more interesting to have a conversation with if you'd drop the condescension. You're simply not the smartest person in the room.

Whether I "interest" you to the point of wanting to engage me in conversation could not concern me less. Simply put, you're not the smartest person in the room, either. Not even close.

Fluids? How about second-hand mary jane smoke.

Just saw a FB post from a friend sitting at a bar (Austin I think) and commenting on this. I guess since it's not tobacco it's cool.

Not even close.

Oooh, someone got their feelings hurt.

Patrick, even if you are the smartest guy in the room, you're never the smartest guy in the room. And you're not. Even Stephen Hawking takes a back seat on some subjects. You refuse to take a back seat on any subject, making you not the smartest guy in the room.

And then you compound your errors by dripping scorn and condescension on people who disagree with you or point out errors in your arguments. You want everyone to recognize you as a genius and you get butt-hurt when they don't.

That said, yes, I agree with you that spitting tobacco is disgusting. You left yourself open to criticism (and ribbing) when you said you wanted a ban on bodily fluids indoors (forgetting about indoor toilets, sweating, etc.).

Conan,

As far as I can tell, Patrick remained completely on topic until you took a sharp turn and veered the conversation into a completely irrelevant direction regarding whether or not Patrick was the "smartest guy in the room".

Who cares?

You always seem to pull this nonsense when you realize that you don't have the goods when it comes to logic or reason (which unfortunately happens quite often).

Why is it that whenever you can't seem to piece together a decent logical argument you focus upon whether or not the person you are talking to is smarter than you are?

That is not a sign of intelligence... it is a sign of your own insecurity and lack of personal accomplishment.

Patrick's argument is completely reasonable insofar as we can distinguish between sanitary health practices and insanitary ones (i.e., modern plumbing vs. defecating in the corner of the room).

If your argument amounts to a "gotcha" that Patrick didn't explicitly talk about this distinguishing feature then perhaps he is the smartest guy participating in the conversation because you apparently needed this spelled out for you in advance.

It isn't condescension for Patrick to have a reasonable expectation that you would understand the difference between shitting in a toilet and shitting on the floor in the living room.

Would you rank the posters here by "special snowflake" status?

Who's #1?

No, Artemis/Orion.

Patrick made the comment about banning the discharge of bodily fluids indoors and both lujip and I commented about indoor toilets and sweating being releases of bodily fluids typically done indoors. From there Patrick petulantly replied, "Knew that was coming. If nothing else, you're predictable. Note, I said, generally." He always relies on that "generally" when called out on a comment.

To which I commented that he should leave the scorn and attempts to sound superior out of his posts. Doing so would make him a much more interesting person. And, I pointed out that he is not always the smartest person in the room; which, like you, he seems to think he is, but is not.

Nor, before you say I am, am I claiming to be.

By the way, Artie (and Patrick), my only complaint was with Patrick's scornful commentary, not with the substance of what he was arguing. If he can't take a little good-natured ribbing about having overlooked something in his comments, then that's on him.

Ordinarily, I enjoy reading his comments and sometimes agree with him. But he has a bad habit of dumping vitriol on people who disagree with him or post something he doesn't like.

Hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet makes people a little ruder, because it's safe to dump scorn on people who disagree with them. It's a bad habit.

Conan Says:

"Patrick made the comment about banning the discharge of bodily fluids indoors and both lujip and I commented about indoor toilets and sweating being releases of bodily fluids typically done indoors."

I fully understand what transpired Conan.

Only an imbecile or someone pretending to be so for the purposes of being difficult would have concluded that Patrick was talking about banishing sweat and defecation to the outdoors as opposed to understanding that he was talking about sanitary practices.

You are being quite two faced here because on the one hand you are either demonstrating that you have the cognitive capacity of a child or that you are intent to behave like a child... and then have the audacity to complain that Patrick was condescending to you.

Quite frankly, if you are going to behave like a child you deserve to be treated like one.

All of the adults in the room knew exactly what Patrick was getting at without requiring further clarification.

Conan,

Just out of curiosity... did you truly not understand that Patrick was talking about sanitary practices or were you just playing dumb to pick a fight with him?

Artemis/Orion, I'm not getting sucked into one of your endless arguments in which you use denser and denser [il]logic trying to weave a word trap to show how smart you are. I have nothing to say to you until you tell us who you are. Play this game with one of your ward handlers.

Oh, dear. Did someone else besides me point out that Conan is a sanctimonious hypocrite?

I appreciate the support.

Conan, on the off-chance that you're actually willing to listen to what I am trying to communicate as constructive criticism, let me just share my observations with you.

First the concise version: You may choose to engage me. Or you may choose not to engage me. Either way is your prerogative. You don't get to tell me (or anyone) how I should post.

And the ironic part is that you accuse me of being condescending. Does it get any more condescending than setting yourself up as the blog mother, making sure every observes good manners? Would you like a wooden spoon to hit people with, or will you just be twisting people's ears if they don't behave like little ladies and gentlemen?

Do I go off on people? Hell, yeah, I do! You right now, for instance. Crid and I have had our dynamic of mutual antagonism since before you even started posting here; it's not going away.

I recently told someone on this board that she's (doesn't matter who; I will not confirm or deny whom I'm referring to) is the most self-righteous individual I have ever encountered. She purports to be a Christian (as do I), but with every response she makes to me is this barely contained smugness, like the Pharisee in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14). An attitude that says, "Well, thank God at least I'm not gay!"

I didn't choose my inclinations, and it's not what I would have chosen for myself. But I am stuck with what I have. All I can do is make the best of it.

I don't tell her to lose the smugness, the way you (in your staggering lack of self-awareness) tell me to lose my supposed condescension. I simply tell her to shove it up her ass. Whether she wants to take my response as a prompting to examine herself and decide, "Gee, maybe I do sound like a Pharisee," is not my concern.

Unlike you, I don't make it my life's work to correct people of their faults. My business is correcting my own faults and no one else's.

To be blunt, I don't consider you especially wise or insightful, and your humor is almost non-existent. Your use to me is that you occasionally provide factual and interesting information that I hadn't heard before. And that's about it.

That said, Conan, shove it up your ass.

Sorry Patrick. If you are on Artemis's side you immediately lose. It's like argumentum ad hitlerum.

If I thought you were the referee, Ben, I'm certain I'd actually care.

Ben Says:

"Sorry Patrick. If you are on Artemis's side you immediately lose."

Ben, it is this kind of attitude that is why this blog has become infested by idiots.

An argument doesn't stand or fall on the basis of who made the argument.

An argument stands or falls on the basis of the merits of the argument.

The individual making the claim is completely irrelevant.

That people like you and some others believe that the person making the argument matters is the reason why logical and rational discussion here is so very difficult to achieve.

Ben,

Just to further my point... what would happen to your argument if I agreed with it?

Presumably it would create a logical paradox and the universe would implode.

Or maybe... just maybe... your argument is stupid.

Oh, dear. Did someone else besides me point out that Conan is a sanctimonious hypocrite?

Sanctimonious? Never. I've made no pretense of being morally superior to anyone. I just took exception to your condescension toward me when I disagreed with you. That's not sanctimony.

Hypocrite? No. At least never intentionally.

But the way, Ben's right, you don't want Artemis/Orion on your side. Having him on our side makes my argument for me.

Unlike you, I don't make it my life's work to correct people of their faults. My business is correcting my own faults and no one else's.

I didn't set out to correct your faults, it was thrown upon me when you chose to insult me. And in response, I merely pointed it out that you'd be more interesting if you didn't go around insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

You don't correct faults, yours or anyone else. You just heap derision upon anyone who points out the least fault with any statement you make (e.g., "If I thought you were the referee, Ben, I'm certain I'd actually care."). And then you hide behind insults and quibbles like, "I said 'generally.' You're an idiot."

You can disagree with me all you want. Unlike you, I recognize that I'm not always right - just often enough that that's the way to bet. I won't insult you for it (unless you're Artemis/Orion who actually is an idiot and deserves all the condign derision anyone can heap upon him.

To be blunt, I don't consider you especially wise or insightful, and your humor is almost non-existent. Your use to me is that you occasionally provide factual and interesting information that I hadn't heard before. And that's about it.

Well, I'll just go into the corner and pout because Patrick dismissed me. Because that's all that matters in my life.

I've stated before that your posts have a certain naive quality to them, as if posted by someone who has some intellect but no real experience of the world. And your hypersensitivity to anyone who doesn't immediately post "I agree with Patrick" or who dares to point out a flaw with anything you post demonstrates that. Which is surprising, given the level of life experience you claim to have, including PTSD and the US Army.

You're like Kipling's cub:
In August the cub was born
The rains came in September
"Now such a fearsome flood as this," said he,
"I can scarce remember."

That said, Conan, shove it up your ass.

Thanks, no.

Have a nice day, though.

This has degenerated into a fight for the last word and has gotten pointless (and I've contributed to that, for which I apologize).

Bye.

But the way, Ben's right, you don't want Artemis/Orion on your side. Having him on our side makes my argument for me.

No, it doesn't. You cannot dismiss anything out of hand merely because of the person saying it.

You would be quite reasonable, for instance, to view the statements of a pathological liar with suspicion. However, you cannot automatically dismiss everything a pathological liar says out of hand, because even pathological liars are capable of telling the truth.

I had this discussion recently on YouTube and wasted precious time arguing with an imbecile over whether or not a mutual acquaintance of ours was a racist.

My opponent argued that his sentiments sounded like something similar he had heard from the KKK. So, I pointed out that you cannot dismiss everything ever said by the KKK as purely racist merely because of the fact that the KKK is saying it. Is a lot of what the KKK says racist? Of course. Does that mean that they are utterly incapable of making a statement about black people that is not racist? Obviously not. It took me days to drive what should have been an obvious point home, so I'm wasting no more time with it.

I don't know what you have against Artemis. I don't even know Artemis or why you think he should tell us who he is. Everyone on this board is anonymous, to some extent at least (except for Amy). Even you, unless your given name really is Conan the Grammarian, which I doubt.

But regardless of who or what Artemis is, you cannot dismiss his statements out of hand merely because of who/what he is.

Would you rank the posters here by "special snowflake" status?

Who's #1? - Radwaste

If were making leader boards can we add dick length? I'm in the 95th percentile nationally

Conan Says:

"Hypocrite? No. At least never intentionally."

I cannot say what you do or do not do intentionally... but I can provide 2 instances within this very thread where you have demonstrated the behavior of a hypocrite.

Now if this is accidental then you display a serious lack self awareness as some of it should be plainly obvious to you.

Example 1:

"And, I pointed out that he is not always the smartest person in the room; which, like you, he seems to think he is, but is not.

Nor, before you say I am, am I claiming to be."

In other words, you believe it is reasonable to claim that both Patrick and I believe ourselves to be the "smartest person in the room"... based not upon an actual claim that you can reference, but based upon what you perceive as being reality.

Yet in the very next sentence you preemptively rebuke a counter claim against yourself using the defense that someone would need to provide a quote where you actually made the claim.

That is a double standard Conan in case you weren't aware.

Neither Patrick nor I have actually claimed to be the "smartest person in the room". That is an accusation you made based entirely upon your subjective feelings.

If you are entitled to make such a claim based upon nothing more than how you feel, then why would you require evidence for such a claim to be made against you unless you were acting hypocritical?

Example 2:

"I have nothing to say to you until you tell us who you are."

It is hypocritical of you to require documentation of who I am in order to interact with me when you refuse to provide one shred of documentation saying who you are.

We have been through this before Conan. No one here is obligated to share who they are.

All this demonstrates is once again you have a double standard that you are unfairly applying to others that you do not apply to yourself.

If you weren't a hypocrite you would first explain to everyone who you are BEFORE requiring that they do the same to interact with you.

That is 2 examples of your hypocrisy just within this thread within the last 24 hours... and yet you are apparently oblivious to all of this.

Maybe you actually aren't playing dumb and you really are as stupid as all of this evidence suggests.

Patrick,

Just to keep you in the loop, Conan only breaks out this "I won't talk to you until you send me your cv" garbage when he has clearly lost the intellectual argument and has no room to pivot.

I can show you many examples where I am not even talking to him and he immediately jumps in to the discussion to engage specifically with me when I wasn't even conversing with him.

If only he would refuse to interact with me unless I told him who I was... but that isn't hoe he operates.

He only pulls this out after it is clear he doesn't know what he is talking about (which happens more frequently than I can count).

lujlp: Who's #1? - Radwaste

I agree.

Sorry Arty you've built a reputation for poor logic and sanctimonious preaching.

Why waste the time reading pages of drivel?

Ben,

Just because you keep repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

I also love how you accuse me of "poor logic" as you keep using the poisoning the well fallacy over and over and over:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

The problem here isn't with my ability to reason... the problem is the people I am conversing with here often don't have the slightest clue about what constitutes a valid argument.

Kudos Artemis you got your response down to an acceptable length. Sadly you still feel that anyone other than you is a moron. Yes, you are the great communicator. It is just that no one else is smart enough to understand your wisdom. Ah, but that is the cross you must bear. Soldier on brave priest. Some day you will convert those heathens.

Patrick,

Do you have any evidence of second hand damage from dipping?

I'll admit I didn't put too much effort into searching, but I couldn't find any. I'll agree it is a repulsive habit. But claiming a public health hazard is a bit of a stretch considering all the other avenues for cross contamination.

Banning the practice just because it is repulsive is a bad decision. And while not quite as bad banning it because it harms the user is also a bad decision.

"I agree."

I knew that would wad some panties. It would seem that to qualify, one would have to offer emotional outrage absent reference to the topic (like the exchange above!), and/or hide from unpleasant subjects.

Andrew M. Garland still wins the content/syllable contest, hands down. NOT a special snowflake.

How do you think you rate next to him, and how?

Back to the topic: Don't get tobacco juice on your screen.

Was that part petty enough?

Ben Says:

"Sadly you still feel that anyone other than you is a moron."

No Ben... I think *SOME* people here are behaving like idiots.

You happen to be one of the people I place into that category.

I for example have seen no evidence that Patrick behaves this way, when he writes what he says is logically coherent and makes sense within the context of the conversation.

You on the other hand see me accuse YOU of acting like an illogical imbecile and conclude that I feel that EVERYONE is an illogical imbecile.

This is an example of what I mean when it comes to you. It isn't logical or rational to expand my position when it comes to just a few select individuals and apply it universally across the board.

Pretty much every argument you make is a classical logical fallacy... and yet you presume to lecture on logic and reason as you make one asinine after another.

Rational conversation clearly is too advanced for you Ben. It all just seems to go over your head.