Saying "critical thinking vs. discrimination" is itself an act of assuming moral high ground. It's like you can't stop yourself!
And statements like that couple with clear logical errors and posts filled with edgy buzz-words are just the height of cringiness.
I mean.. of course it is. Wouldn't really make sense to take a stance presuming a moral
low ground would it
? That doesn't make what I said contradictory as in the post you originally quoted the statement I made also includes the notion that these people are coming to that imagined high ground because an established authority has reaffirmed their beliefs for them.
But sure, allude to some apparent clear logical errors and those dreaded edgy buzz words as a reason my argument is invalid. You'd think if they were so clear you would of addressed them directly instead of arguing against something I never presented in the first place.
But no, the issue that ends up coming up over and over again is a pretty simple one: freedom does not include freedom to infringe on others' freedom. If certain people had to smoke, it would be discrimination to not allow them to do so in your building, and thereby not allow them in your building because of circumstances outside of their control. But smoking is a choice, and it is a choice that affects others in a negative way. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to allow businesses the freedom to not allow that within their private property. No one is being discriminated against, because there is no group of people who are point blank being disallowed from entering the premises because of who they are. It is only choices that are being restricted.
Well that's a very loose definition of what infringing on others' freedoms is and an incredibly narrow and frankly incorrect view of what discrimination is. Don't remember seeing the right to a totally pollution free existence in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but if it is in there this country has been failing bad at it for a long time. So should airlines outlaw the obese as they spill into their fellow passengers seats and infringe on their freedoms? Did discrimination stop in America when segregation was adopted? Were those African Americans forced to sit at the back of the bus and use a special bathroom not facing discrimination anymore because they had gained admittance?
Don't be ridiculous. This is a segment of the population being told they can't live how they like because of a special rule made explicitly for them. I'm not saying we should abhor these things on the same level, or even abhor them at all necessarily, just that this is textbook discrimination.
Time and time again, people try to distort the topic of discrimination and the topic of freedom to attempt to apply it to things that are, at the end of the day, choices. But addiction is a hell of a thing, I'm sure. I understand the desperation to a certain extent, and why people are motivated to attempt appeals like this. But desperation doesn't make the logic right. This is an issue of freedom on exactly one level: businesses have the freedom to make rules for behaviour on their premises. Take that away and we have anarchy.
Time and time again people try to hand wave away the topics of discrimination and personal freedom, postulating that those can't be real issues anymore because we're better than we were and they don't see it in their personal lives. Those people are wrong. Discrimination and persecution persist in all manner of forms. Private business can do as it likes, as it has for 100's of years. Never assumed they couldn't. Personally don't subscribe to the notion that private business has the public's best interests in mind; and considering the numerous examples of capitalism run rampant to the detriment of the populace, probably never will. It's more than that issue of freedom because the rule was specifically enacted to infringe on an individual's experience. What about "No longer allowed to exit and re-enter" isn't lessening what a person can do?
Listen, I'm at best an occasional smoker, usually only when I drink more than I should. I understand people don't like it and I understand why they don't like it. It's gross, it's bad for you, it's a drain on our society(having said that you wonder who's paying the lion's share of your universal healthcare), and it stinks. That's why for over a decade they've penned up smokers in their own area, away from the rest of the public. In taking away that area by citing such obvious misnomers like "Security Concerns", the establishment is alienating 15% of the population for one reason and one reason only. Greed. They don't want you outside participating in something they don't make money off of, they want you inside drinking more of their overpriced swill and buying more of their lukewarm food. You can applaud it all you want if you don't like smoking, you're well within your rights to do so, just don't presume it to be some long awaited righteous judgement on those awful smokers. It's corporate greed, nothing else, they think they can improve their bottom line and that's really the only reason these organizations do anything. If they want to take away from my experience of how I enjoy the night out I'm likely paying several hundred dollars for to do so, I say f*** em and I doubt I'm the only one.