Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by Sifmole (3409) on 2002.12.06 16:13 (#15241)
    All your talk about how enlightened you are and 90% of the rest are dolts because they can't see the many sides to things and then you come up with this gem (emphasis added)...

    Nevertheless, I only see one issue here[1]: property rights. As long as smoking is legal[2], the only person to decide whether or not you should be allowed to smoke on a piece of property is the owner of the property. But woe to those who try to explain this to the non-smokers of Dallas!

    [1] With such a wonderfully enlightened mind one might expect that you could see there are a myriad of issues tangential and coincident with property rights and that such rights are not so simple, or black and white.

    [2] The obvious and simple thing here is that the passing of a law is an attempt to change the legality of smoking in such a way that it is constrained by location. Such constraints exist in many ways in our legal systems in relation to many activities, so there are reams of precedent for them. Example: We (supposedly) have freedom of speech and it is legal to yell "Fire!", just not in a crowded theatre.

    You might want to step back from the top of the mount you placed yourself on and re-evaluate your enlightenment.

    • Guilty as charged; I stand corrected, and I thank you.

      My big gripe is that I understand why other people are guided by those other issues, but they refuse to listen when I try to say there's more involved.

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers