Around the Dome v3.0 - Flames news & notes

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,602
6,639
I wouldn't be opposed stopping alcohol sales in the Dome... except perhaps in the restaurant with a meal.
I have no problem whatsoever going 3 hours without drinking alcohol.
Of course it would never happen as the Flames make way too much money off of booze sales... but just saying if it did I wouldn't raise a stink.

Personally. I’m against limiting people’s freedoms as long as they don’t hurt me.

Does a smoker hurt me when they go outside to smoke? No. So why should I be a giant stick in the mud and not let them do their thing?

As long as they smoke in a designated smoking area and pay their consumption taxes for their impending health problems, I could really care less.

Same goes for drunks. They aren’t really hurting me, and while there’s always a few bad apples, we can’t allow them to ruin it for everyone else.

Just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bounces R Way

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
Personally. I’m against limiting people’s freedoms as long as they don’t hurt me.

Does a smoker hurt me when they go outside to smoke? No. So why should I be a giant stick in the mud and not let them do their thing?

As long as they smoke in a designated smoking area and pay their consumption taxes for their impending health problems, I could really care less.

Same goes for drunks. They aren’t really hurting me, and while there’s always a few bad apples, we can’t allow them to ruin it for everyone else.

Just my two cents.
I understand where you're coming from but with that kind of logic people shouldn't be forced to wear seatbelts in cars, motorcycle riders shouldn't have to wear helmets, children shouldn't have to go to school, I should be able to walk around naked outdoors in public, gun owners should be able to shoot their guns anywhere they want to... providing they aren't hurting anyone..
You get where I'm going?
 

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,602
6,639
I understand where you're coming from but with that kind of logic people shouldn't be forced to wear seatbelts in cars, motorcycle riders shouldn't have to wear helmets, children shouldn't have to go to school, I should be able to walk around naked outdoors in public, gun owners should be able to shoot their guns anywhere they want to... providing they aren't hurting anyone..
You get where I'm going?

I think the motorcycle and seatbelt examples are fine.

But really? You are going to compare people smoking outside to people shooting guns in public or people walking around naked. Or children not going to school. Those are terrible examples, sorry.

Should we all walk around in bubble suits? Should our cars be made of marshmallows? Should plastics be illegal? Should carbon based forms of energy be illegal? There are several extremely harmful acts toward society that are still completely acceptable, actually, in Alberta, encouraged.

Where do you draw the line? For me, people smoking outside is not something that I care about in the slightest. Naked people. Guns going off in public. Kids not going to school. That I would care about.
 

Lunatik

Normal is an illusion.
Oct 12, 2012
56,185
8,337
Padded Room
I think the motorcycle and seatbelt examples are fine.

But really? You are going to compare people smoking outside to people shooting guns in public or people walking around naked. Or children not going to school. Those are terrible examples, sorry.

Should we all walk around in bubble suits? Should our cars be made of marshmallows? Should plastics be illegal? Should carbon based forms of energy be illegal? There are several extremely harmful acts toward society that are still completely acceptable, actually, in Alberta, encouraged.

Where do you draw the line? For me, people smoking outside is not something that I care about in the slightest. Naked people. Guns going off in public. Kids not going to school. That I would care about.
This whole talking about smoking thing is just stupid because it is irrelevant. It's a no re-entry policy, not a no smoking policy. It's a policy in place in every NHL rink and the majority of major arenas and stadiums throughout North America. It's done for security purposes.
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
I think the motorcycle and seatbelt examples are fine.

But really? You are going to compare people smoking outside to people shooting guns in public or people walking around naked. Or children not going to school. Those are terrible examples, sorry.

Should we all walk around in bubble suits? Should our cars be made of marshmallows? Should plastics be illegal? Should carbon based forms of energy be illegal? There are several extremely harmful acts toward society that are still completely acceptable, actually, in Alberta, encouraged.

Where do you draw the line? For me, people smoking outside is not something that I care about in the slightest. Naked people. Guns going off in public. Kids not going to school. That I would care about.
I guess it all comes down to where we draw the line.
I'd be completely for SOME people walking around naked in public. I'm a gun owner and former hunter so I'd be all in favour of being able to fire my rifle in my back yard or basement, providing I had a safe shooting range setup to do so, as far as children going to school... well there we are in agreement.

And back to drawing the line bit... the Dome is the last NHL arena to enact these rules so the line has already been drawn. We're just the last ones to step up to it.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,717
Victoria
I mean.. of course it is. Wouldn't really make sense to take a stance presuming a moral low ground would it :laugh:? 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.

Sure. If you cut my post before the part where I address specific points, it appears that I haven't addressed specific posts. That's just disingenuous.

Okay, I'm glad you get that assuming moral high ground in a moral discussion is kind of inevitable. The statement you make here is frankly extremely vacuous. I think everyone participating in this discussion is providing their own thoughts. Trying to cop out with the concept that you are a free-thinking intellectual while no one who opposes could possibly be is not going to get you anywhere.

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.

No. Again, no. You're missing the point if you compare "smokers" as a group to actual groups of people who belong to a group beyond their control. "Smokers" aren't really a defined group because anyone, at any time, can be a smoker if they chose to be. It is a choice made every time someone smokes (or doesn't smoke). Think of every example you can of actual discrimination, and you'll find groups of people being treated a certain way because of who they are and specifically not because of what they do (the big grey area here is religion and ethical choices, because it is often treated as not being a choice for whatever reason. There is a specific right for religion in the constitution at any rate).

The ban is not on a group of people. The ban is on an action. Just like a ban on alcohol wouldn't be a ban on people who drink, it would be a ban on drinking. There is not one person who is ineligible to come to games at the Dome because of this rule.


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?

There is no question that it is lessening what a person can do. But to not allow that rule to be made would also be lessening what a person can do (in terms of controlling their own space). Think of the countless other examples this could apply to. No shoplifting rules lessen what a person can do. No smoking on airplanes lessens what a person can do. All traffic rules lessen what a person can do. But all of these enhance the quality of life of people in the country. So is this really an argument for or against the rule?

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 **** em and I doubt I'm the only one.

Sure, and that last bit is exactly the right way to feel. If they ban smoking, and you're a smoker, you absolutely have a right to stop going to the games and giving them your money. It's a choice they've made, and that is a potential repercussion. If they banned alcohol, it would not be discrimination, but a choice with repercussions.

The issue is when you tried to make these wild, outlandish claims about this being discrimination or an issue of freedom. Clearly this goes beyond those actual terms, and it seems like your debate isn't over whether this is an example of those words, but that the definition of those words should be changed to include stuff like this. Regardless, I think you got a bit carried away
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,503
52,711
Weegartown
Sure. If you cut my post before the part where I address specific points, it appears that I haven't addressed specific posts. That's just disingenuous.

Okay, I'm glad you get that assuming moral high ground in a moral discussion is kind of inevitable. The statement you make here is frankly extremely vacuous. I think everyone participating in this discussion is providing their own thoughts. Trying to cop out with the concept that you are a free-thinking intellectual while no one who opposes could possibly be is not going to get you anywhere.

Didn't assert that, don't know why you're putting words in my mouth. If that's what you've inferred then you've inferred wrongly. I also included your whole post, very little of which was actually addressing my prior ones, so I don't know what you're getting at here. It's largely a tangent on why freedom and discrimination don't apply here, because those refer to concepts with more gravitas and because the CSEC said so.

No. Again, no. You're missing the point if you compare "smokers" as a group to actual groups of people who belong to a group beyond their control. "Smokers" aren't really a defined group because anyone, at any time, can be a smoker if they chose to be. It is a choice made every time someone smokes (or doesn't smoke). Think of every example you can of actual discrimination, and you'll find groups of people being treated a certain way because of who they are and specifically not because of what they do (the big grey area here is religion and ethical choices, because it is often treated as not being a choice for whatever reason. There is a specific right for religion in the constitution at any rate).

The ban is not on a group of people. The ban is on an action. Just like a ban on alcohol wouldn't be a ban on people who drink, it would be a ban on drinking. There is not one person who is ineligible to come to games at the Dome because of this rule.

Yeesh, talk about vacuous. Are Bronies not a defined group because they choose to watch a children's TV show? Can you not identify what a hockey player is because anyone at anytime can pick up a hockey stick? There are people who smoke cigarettes and there's those that don't. Pretty easy to establish who a ban on smoking affects.

There is no question that it is lessening what a person can do. But to not allow that rule to be made would also be lessening what a person can do (in terms of controlling their own space). Think of the countless other examples this could apply to. No shoplifting rules lessen what a person can do. No smoking on airplanes lessens what a person can do. All traffic rules lessen what a person can do. But all of these enhance the quality of life of people in the country. So is this really an argument for or against the rule?

Sure, and that last bit is exactly the right way to feel. If they ban smoking, and you're a smoker, you absolutely have a right to stop going to the games and giving them your money. It's a choice they've made, and that is a potential repercussion. If they banned alcohol, it would not be discrimination, but a choice with repercussions.The issue is when you tried to make these wild, outlandish claims about this being discrimination or an issue of freedom. Clearly this goes beyond those actual terms, and it seems like your debate isn't over whether this is an example of those words, but that the definition of those words should be changed to include stuff like this.

I get it, you like rules. But this is not what I'm arguing. Said previously private business is wont to do what they will. My quarrel is not with their right to make a rule and run their business the way they see fit. It's with the rule itself. You're absolutely right it's a choice, no different than choosing to get circumcised, have the veal, or to pay for a 20 dollar hooker. What's happening here is the elimination of that ability to make that choice when taking in a concert or game. If you can't see that as an issue of personal freedom and discrimination, even a small mostly insignificant one, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Regardless, I think you got a bit carried away

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That we can certainly agree on. Hockey cannot come back soon enough.
 

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
I understand where you're coming from but with that kind of logic people shouldn't be forced to wear seatbelts in cars, motorcycle riders shouldn't have to wear helmets, children shouldn't have to go to school, I should be able to walk around naked outdoors in public, gun owners should be able to shoot their guns anywhere they want to... providing they aren't hurting anyone..
You get where I'm going?
1. You're forced to wear seatbelts and helmets because your stupidity for not wearing them causes my taxes (for healthcare) to statistically go up.

2. Children should go to school because we need to live in a society where everyone has a minimum educational standard, otherwise they could become a drain, not a benefit, to the greater public good. Although I'm convinced there are many for whom it wouldn't make a difference...

3. You shouldn't walk naked outdoors in public, because nobody wants to see that. :P (honestly I couldn't care less if someone wants to go around with their bits out, give 'er)

4. Gun owners actually can shoot their guns anywhere they want to - on public land. Municipal bylaws will prohibit you from firing them down a city street, for safety reasons (see point #1) and your bullet is much more likely to end on private property.
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
I find the sound of a crying baby annoying, the government should ban babies.
Oh yeah... This we agree on. Particularly if they're in a nice restaurant... Or even worse - on an airplane!

Gawd... What a stupid argument this is. Can't wait for hockey to start so we can actually argue about something that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Hoxville

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
1. You're forced to wear seatbelts and helmets because your stupidity for not wearing them causes my taxes (for healthcare) to statistically go up.

2. Children should go to school because we need to live in a society where everyone has a minimum educational standard, otherwise they could become a drain, not a benefit, to the greater public good. Although I'm convinced there are many for whom it wouldn't make a difference...

3. You shouldn't walk naked outdoors in public, because nobody wants to see that. :P (honestly I couldn't care less if someone wants to go around with their bits out, give 'er)

4. Gun owners actually can shoot their guns anywhere they want to - on public land. Municipal bylaws will prohibit you from firing them down a city street, for safety reasons (see point #1) and your bullet is much more likely to end on private property.

I care, because you know it'd just be the grossest people in Calgary doing it.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,442
14,717
Victoria
Yeesh, talk about vacuous. Are Bronies not a defined group because they choose to watch a children's TV show? Can you not identify what a hockey player is because anyone at anytime can pick up a hockey stick? There are people who smoke cigarettes and there's those that don't. Pretty easy to establish who a ban on smoking affects.

All other potential misunderstandings aside, this seems to be the basic point of disagreement. Of course you can refer to "smokers" as a group in common parlance, but in terms of discrimination, it's not the type of group that you can really apply to, because people can opt in and out of the group at any time.

But beyond that, I guess the more simple point is this. Discrimination by definition requires treating different groups of people differently. By instituting a no-reentry policy against every person in the Dome, there can't be discrimination, because the rule applies equally to everyone. Even if the rule was "no smoking," which we've been treating it as, that again applies equally to "smokers" and "non-smokers." If you don't have different sets of rules for different people, you don't have discrimination.

I find the sound of a crying baby annoying, the government should ban babies.

Simpsons did it.

latest


But you do realize that businesses are allowed to ban minors from the premises, right?
 
May 27, 2012
17,070
856
Earth
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.

Oh man. You're really grasping here. Did you compare the Civil Rights Movement to smoking? The difference here is that those people didn't have the choice to be black/coloured, unlike how you have the choice to smoke or not. No one is going to come to beat you and attack you for smoking.

I don't care if you smoke or not. You're choice, as is it's the Calgary Flames to ban smoking at events on private property. If you can't go a few hours without smoking or whatever, then maybe you should do something about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DominikBokkFan

Corpus X

Wearing Stanley's cup.
May 24, 2014
3,777
3,102
Calgary
The Saddledome was built with Public funds by The City of Calgary and is owned by "The City of Calgary". If the Flames or NHL are legitimately claiming the Saddledome to be private property then there's some shady poo going on!
 

Flames Fanatic

Mediocre
Aug 14, 2008
13,329
2,888
Cochrane
The Saddledome was built with Public funds by The City of Calgary and is owned by "The City of Calgary". If the Flames or NHL are legitimately claiming the Saddledome to be private property then there's some shady poo going on!

To put a hole in your argument, I believe it is under lease ( I could be wrong) at which point, it does again become private property under the lease.
 

Corpus X

Wearing Stanley's cup.
May 24, 2014
3,777
3,102
Calgary
To put a hole in your argument, I believe it is under lease ( I could be wrong) at which point, it does again become private property under the lease.

True. I'll varify that with the landlord and tenant act! hahaha

It can certainly be written in a contract as well. My post was more posturing against private vs public and raising a needless stink...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flames Fanatic

Ace Rimmer

Stoke me a clipper.
The Saddledome was built with Public funds by The City of Calgary and is owned by "The City of Calgary". If the Flames or NHL are legitimately claiming the Saddledome to be private property then there's some shady poo going on!
So what you're saying is I can spark up a cigar in the library?
 

Bounces R Way

Registered User
Nov 18, 2013
33,503
52,711
Weegartown
All other potential misunderstandings aside, this seems to be the basic point of disagreement. Of course you can refer to "smokers" as a group in common parlance, but in terms of discrimination, it's not the type of group that you can really apply to, because people can opt in and out of the group at any time.

But beyond that, I guess the more simple point is this. Discrimination by definition requires treating different groups of people differently. By instituting a no-reentry policy against every person in the Dome, there can't be discrimination, because the rule applies equally to everyone. Even if the rule was "no smoking," which we've been treating it as, that again applies equally to "smokers" and "non-smokers." If you don't have different sets of rules for different people, you don't have discrimination.

I'm starting to better understand where you're coming from, but again if we're critically thinking it's fairly easy to interpret who this rule is affecting and why it's worded the way it is. With your understanding of what discrimination is, would having a rule of "No Turbans allowed" not qualify as it applies equally to all people? What about "Anybody with a tattoo won't be served here" because getting tattooed is a choice that anyone can make? Really don't think these concepts exist or are meant to exist in such black and white terms.

Oh man. You're really grasping here. Did you compare the Civil Rights Movement to smoking? The difference here is that those people didn't have the choice to be black/coloured, unlike how you have the choice to smoke or not. No one is going to come to beat you and attack you for smoking.

Well, strictly speaking in the post you quoted, no I did not. That portion was in response to an assertion made that since the said group has been allowed access, they can't be said to have been discriminated against. The civil rights example is meant to illustrate that that is faulty reasoning.

I'm well aware no one is going to come beat me for smoking and that I have a choice to smoke or not. What I'm taking issue with is that my ability to make that choice(poor as it may be) as a legally aged adult is being taken away from me by a private business.
 
Last edited:

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
A turban falls under religion and thus is a facet covered in our Charter of Rights. Smoking is not.

Tattoo is similar to smoking, and while I am not aware of anyone given restrictions in North America, it is a common thing in Japan that anyone with a tattoo is not allowed in public bath and springs.

If we go that far, what about the "No shoes, no shorts, no service" set ups that some places have? What about dress codes? No pets? No food or drink? Businesses do have the ability to enforce certain "minimum standards" to aid them running an efficient business as long as it applies to all individuals that visit their premises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flames Fanatic

1989

Registered User
Aug 3, 2010
10,361
3,865
This whole talking about smoking thing is just stupid because it is irrelevant. It's a no re-entry policy, not a no smoking policy. It's a policy in place in every NHL rink and the majority of major arenas and stadiums throughout North America. It's done for security purposes.
How many times does this need to be repeated? People can't go out to their vehicles and retrieve a forgotten item. Why not argue that, instead?
 

Rubi

Photographer
Sponsor
Jan 9, 2009
15,674
10,233
I care, because you know it'd just be the grossest people in Calgary doing it.
Actually I chose to believe that it would be the opposite. ;)

Who's more likely to flaunt their bod... a 50 year old mother who's 25 lbs overweight with stretch marks and wrinkles everywhere... or a 22 year old babe that's in the prime of her life?


…. and please don't reply to this post. For the love of God let me be in peace with my dreams and fantasies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->