Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

> On 6/5/07 2:55 PM, "Cristóbal Palmer" <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/5/07, David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The difference, is the "black person" can't check his blackness at the door
>> of an establishment, while a smoker can (we hope) not smoke long enough to
>> enter and complete business at the establishment. The question is about
>> limiting smoking (an activity) not smokers (people).
> 
> Good call, though, as Greg Brown notes, nicotine is rather addictive
> and smoking is clearly harmful, so that muddies the waters.
> 
> But let's throw any number of people/activities into the same
> argument. Why do some seem ridiculous and others not? Try substituting
> "homosexuals" for "black people" and how do opinions shift? Does the
> argument get any better or worse?

I think you missed the point again. The discussion is about limiting an
activity (smoking) not an "identity" (for lack of a better word). A
non-smoking bar doesn't car if a smoker comes in to drink, as long as he/she
doesn't take part in the activity of smoking. How can that be the same as a
bar that would not serve someone based on the color of their skin? In this
case, a "smoker" is only limited while they are smoking.I guess a smoker
could claim they are being repressed, but I don't buy it--then again, I'm
not a smoker. 

David