DU Group Suggestion: Ban Everything Group

[name not needed]

This group is for those of us who are obviously better than the rest of you, and you filth must be held up to our standards of morality. Whether you want to see cigarettes, video games, fast food, ugly people, minorities or other unpleasant aspects of life banned, this is the group for you.

[Debi]

1. What about tacky dressers? n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

2. Wow! A "flypaper theory"

Not bad!

Maybe the forum could be called "Sneeches" for short.

:spray:

[bammertheblue]

3. I don't like

pizza, so no one else can be allowed to eat it! You're infringing on my non-pizza eater's rights! Not eating pizza is my religion, you are offending me!



:crazy:

[slackmaster]

4. "Spinner" wheel covers

[Debi]

6. There ought to be a law! n/t

[Bluzmann57]

5. I want something banned.

I want dirty toilets banned. Does that count?

[davidinalameda]

13. only if you come and clean mine

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Hear Hear.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. I want to ban ban banners.

or something.

[3days]

9. If we could ban "Ban"

it would be appreciated

[efhmc]

10. But if we ban everything. wouldn't that mean banning our own group?

[Inland]

11. Being moderate, I just want those things banned from public places.

People may still smoke or be ugly in their own homes.

[porphyrian]

12. What about private businesses that cater to things banned...?

...that are open to consenting adults, like bars?

[Cats Against Frist]

15. What a WEIRD idea.

Then people could like choose to go there, or not. Maybe that would cut back on those gangs of armed thugs that kidnap non-smokers from their homes and force them into smoky bars! We could stop random, senseless crime, at THE SAME TIME.

:spank:

[Inland]

16. You mean, seriously? I don't know.

I don't know about the whole smoking ban thing. I assume nobody is really talking about anything else. I would leave it up to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and me avoiding bars altoghether, except that the health risk to workers in bars and smoking sections gives me pause. It may be a workplace safety issue.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. How about this?

A bar owner tells the applicant that he allows smoking in his bar. They will be exposed to cigarette smoke during an 8 hour shift, 5-6 days a week. They can accept the job or not? What's wrong with that? OR he can run an ad to hire SMOKERS ONLY. How about that?

[Inland]

25. As with all workplaces, there's a lack of choice.

Sometimes people don't have a choice. It's the same with a factory or what not: the government should be able to guarantee a safe workplace. It's really only that aspect of it that gives me pause. If waitrons were paid as much as, say, someone who repairs the plumbing on a nuke plant (affectionately called a "glowboy") I might think differently.

I suppose hiring smokers is just another way to have an unsafe workplace: it doesn't help those who don't want to take the risk and would rather starve.

By the way, here in Illinois and in many states it's illegal to discriminate against someone for smoking at home, and I wonder if the statute would be considered to include discrimination against NON smokers. Yes, it's true. Workplace discrimination banned includes race, gender, creed.......and smoke.

[porphyrian]

31. Sorry, bullshit.

Nobody is forced to work in a smoking bar. That same skillset can get you a number of other thankless jobs for the same shitty pay in a smoke-free environment. Really, where is it that the only available job in town is Bud's Pool Hall? Don't help the control freaks rationalize their obsessive issues with the behavior of other consenting adults on private property.

[Inland]

33. All the *slightly* less shitty jobs are already taken. That's my concern.

That's my only point. In fact, given the labor situation facing that skillset, working in smoking is going to be forced on somebody. Otherwise, one could say the same thing about dangerous unskilled factory jobs, and we don't: we have OSHA.

If not for the working there, I'd be right with you. It's the only thing that gives me pause. I've gotten used to staying out of bars and looking for non-smoking sections in restaurants, and the status quo would be fine for me and fair for all, except for that issue..

I wonder if cigarette smoke is probably explicitly excluded from e carcinogens that OSHA can regulate in workplaces.

[porphyrian]

34. Where are all the other jobs taken?

You're just making that up. In places where there are no jobs, you can't get one in a smoking bar either. There are enough adults willing to accept the risks of working in a smoking environment voluntarily without need of your idealistic protection that legislation is entirely unnecessary. Non-smokers never have to work there. You aren't helping anyone.

[Inland]

38. They accept the risk because they need the job.

Same reason why people accepted the risk of machines that would tear their arms off. Of course, they would rather have a job and their arms.

So saying it wouldn't help is simply not true. Of course it would. Any degree of safety added helps. All you are saying is that the workers would rather not be helped, because you assume that they, like the actual smokers, are making a free and uninhibited choice to inhale carcinogens, that they like it, or don't care.

I can make the assumption of choice for a person who is lighting up, but I'm not going to make the same assumption for someone in the same room. Given the of workers in chicago who backed the ban, I think that it's pretty clear THEY think it helps them.

[porphyrian]

30. Nobody takes a job at a smoking bar without accepting the risk...

...just as nobody agrees to work in a toxic waste dump or as a policeman without accepting the risks. No one is forced to a bar that allows smoking, and only the most isolated hermit or total dumbass could be ignorant enough not to have some idea as to the dangers of exposure to cigarette smoke in a bar where smoking is permitted. We're talking about a private business open to consenting adults who agree to be there knowing what they're getting into. I can't stand people who insist that we ban certain legal behaviors in places like this "for their own good." Fuck you crusaders, mind your own goddamn business.

I don't have a problem with banning smoking in public buildings or where developing children and people with allergies might reasonably be expected to go, such as grocery stores, government buildings and non-adult movie theaters. Beyond that, we're talking bullshit control issues, though.

[Inland]

41. But they accept the risk after a huge amount of gov. intervention

making those jobs as safe as possible. Nobody, for example, allows toxic waste companies to force its workers to handle waste without protective gear on the grounds that they know the stuff is toxic. Nobody allows cities to send cops out onto the street without training because they knew that being a cop is dangerous.

In every case, steps are taken to make the job reasonably safe.

And nobody is forced into a bar that allows smoking. All they are doing is being forced to choose between a risk in a work environment and working, and unlike anywhere else, nobody is going to take any steps to make it any safer. Why?

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Much too RADICAL...you...you

you wacko leftwinger! People should NEVER have a CHOICE. sheesh. Waaaay too radical.

:sarcasm:

[porphyrian]

32. Freedom isn't smoke-free! - n/t

[name not needed]

26. Ok. But they can't be ugly in their cars or around their kids.

[Inland]

28. Being ugly in a car is a traffic hazard.

And being ugly around one's own kids...well, my dad gave me that particular family heirloom of appearances, so we could hang together.

[Cats Against Frist]

14. I'd like to ban people taking their pets outside of their own house

I don't like being barked at by snarling dogs. I don't like to step in dog poop. And for god's sake, make those people change their clothes, before they go anywhere. Animal hair and dander is DISGUSTING. I'm allergic to it. My nose gets watery and my throat closes up when I'm within 25 feet of a pet owner.

Hey -- I'm not against people owning pets in their own home. I just think it's a damn disgusting way to live. Might as well live in the fucking barn, IMHO.


:sarcasm:

[Inland]

17. Your allergies are that bad?

Seriously? I often find that the cats have managed to leave a fistful of hair during the two seconds I set my clothes on the bed. And it ends up on my car seat. If you are getting sick from the owners, you must be constantly sick.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Can we start a band? We could be the DU2

[Redstone]

20. And there will have to be an "opposite group" where anyone can do

whatever the fuck they feel like doing, and nobody will give a rat's ass.

That "opposite group" is where you'll find me.

Redstone

[name not needed]

27. Oh, I'm sorry. That's banned.

We can't have people running around all willy nilly doing whatever they please! Think of the children!

[Solly Mack]

21. This reminds me of my school days. There was a "house"

that prided itself on not being "greek" and not being a sorority. In fact, the members of this "house" were against the greek system.

They participated in pledge week (you had to be invited to join) - complete with activities addressing why they were just as good and just as fun as the greek houses - without all that "greek need to conform and greek attitude" ....complete with sweatshirts and t-shirts with the "house" logo on them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Ban oxygen.

It's dangerous. One could overdose or blow themselves up. The elderly shouldn't have access to oxygen machines. "I" could die being in the same room with them. For real...oxygen tanks are dangerous. Where's the outrage?:eyes:

Ban gas. My stove could blow up, or if I have a leak, I could die. OR a guest could die.

Ban ice. I could slip and fall, hit my head and die OR my fellow citizen could slip on my ice and die. It's a MAJOR danger to other people!

Ban cars. The exhaust is TOXIC and I could hit someone and kill them...it's dangerous to other people's health and well being.

Ban bicycles. I could fall, hit my head and die or get hit by a car and die.

Ban electricity. I could electrocute someone with bad wiring. OR, I could die by throwing my hair dryer in my bath tub!

Ban microwaves! They could give my guests CANCER. :scared:


Ban LIGHT! People who are photosensitive are extremely sensitive to it and it makes them very ill.

Ban hot dog vendors! They're a choking hazard.

Ban red meat! It can eat our skin off!

Ban Chickens! We could die from the flu!:scared:

Ban Perfume! Many are sensitive to it and it makes their eyes water, their skin itch, their throat can swell and they can die!

Ban fat people, like you stated...they are costing ME $$$$$$ with health care costs! Why should "I" have to pay for their McDonalds?

Ban EVERYTHING! Then the fasists will be content.

OK, time to go have a CIGARETTE! :smoke:

[CatWoman]

23. HEZBOLLAH!!!!!!!

Where the fuck have you been?

:hi:

[name not needed]

29. Pretty much stopped posting

after Catholic Sensation got the axe. That and the Kleeb threads, even he hates them.

[tyedyeto]

35. I'm in...

I suggested last night that we should ban everything harmful

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5542975&mesg_id=5543684

[leeroysphitz]

36. Won't SOMEBODY think of the CHILDREN?????

Actually when it comes to free expression I do think of my children. I think how I'd like them to be free to choose for themselves when they are old enough.

[mondo joe]

37. I'd like sexual harassment banned. And asbestos in homes and the

workplace too.

Some say I'm a fascist. They say women can choose whether or not to work for a boss who grabs them. They say in a private establishment it's up to the owner to decide if it's an asbestos lined factory or an asbestos free factory.

[antigone382]

39. What about banning David Hasselhof? (or however you spell his name)

:evilgrin:

[name not needed]

42. Nein!

[WindRavenX]

40. omg, marry me

:loveya: