"zion wall" stupidity (insurance, taxes, live)

[stycotl]

hey look! i just found out that this forum offers spoiler tags! this must be relatively new, because i am pretty sure that i tried those when i first joined and they didn't work back then.

anyway, for those of you that are offended by long responses, skip past the spoiler.

Spoiler

Originally Posted by easternerDC

I also do not buy into the argument about needing to protect the children. I remember a few years ago when this law first came about. There were some discussion comments on the article that made me scratch my head. One poster talked about how when her children saw beer or other caramel colored alcohol was seen by them she told them it was apple juice so when they saw it they would not be concerned. So she said that if they can't see it, she does not have to explain to them. Why not just use being in a restaurant and seeing that as a learning experience. Why not tell your children that there are lots of different families with different attitudes towards alcohol and while others choose to drink, your family does not?

too true. parents should be parents, and should cease to expect the government to do their parenting. meanwhile, the government should stop telling parents to "quit worrying. i'll take care of this one." government should back off and stay within the very small area where it is effective and needed.

besides, there is no way that a parent can successfully keep their kids 100% away from alcohol or other dangers. that parent in your example might have done a bang-up job of keeping her kids ignorant to the realities of alcohol––but she's not going to be there all of the time. her kids will be exposed to it by their peers in high school, or even junior high, and since she did nothing to prepare them for that inevitability except hide it from them, they will be more or less defenseless, and probably very curious.

I also do not understand the attitude that if you (as a business) do not like the laws, go somewhere else? Is that the attitude the state wants to have? How does that help economic development.

it doesn't. if all that everyone ever did that felt dissatisfied with the norm was to suck it up and take it in the rear, we'd still be in the stone age. it is specifically the people that refuse to accept mediocrity and that try to make things better that have given us so many wonderful things in life: science, medicine, philosophy, arts, etc.

Originally Posted by SouthernBelleInUtah

IMO, we should be tougher with the existing laws; there have been several caes in the past year or two of guys with 8-10 DUIs still driving.

precisely. that is a no-brainer. the wall is not doing anything to fix the real problems with alcohol, like drunk driving.

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

You are the one who reads like a politician,

nice. how so?

my thoughts and expressions come less from theory or what "could be" without the laws and more from maybe a little more time on the planet

bull crap. i know that you like to boil this down to a fanciful world where i simply don't know what i'm talking about because i'm not as old or wise as you. but that is called a logical fallacy, and shows a bit of defensiveness to boot.

(if you an Iraq vet, unless the military is your career, probably places you younger than I) and probably ALOT more time in a "Sanctuary State" that has already had it's growing problems and beyond, has no quirky population tied in to a predominant religion, or non-traditional laws in some arena's. Fair enough without being semi condescending?

condescending or not, you are still reaching for comfort and security simply in the fact that you are probably older than I, rather than actually addressing the issues.

It may not be the most credible linkpin, but IMO a linkpin just the same. It's elimination could effect other beneficial areas of present Utah liquor law and enforcement.

only one paragraph above this one, you claim that your thoughts come less from theory or what "could be," and yet here you are using your opinion as your argument.

you are saying that, in your opinion, the laws *could* be beneficial. in your opinion. evidence, research, scientific method be damned. your opinion trumps all.

But it could be acting as a filter regarding the type of people who are willing to make the move considering present conditions. Again, I do not think you would necessarily want the type of resident I see here on my end that the realised or perceived view of the population and laws is holding back.

i'm not at all concerned with what type of people will choose not to move to utah because of a stupid law involving a wall that separates the dining area from the bar of a restaurant. no deal.

You won't know how ineffective, dishonest or unintelligent the are/where until they are gone and something else is placed in their stead.

bull crap. i don't need to smoke for 20 years, and then quit in order to finally understand that smoking is going to be bad for my health.

similarly, i don't need to experience a stupid law, and then finally replace it with something else, in order to understand how stupid the law was. this law does not uphold any of the ideals that qualify a good law.

1––it takes away liberties that are not inherently stepping on the rights of other people in any way. this completely flies in the face of governmental philosophy and social contract at all levels––UNLESS it is a tyrannical government model that is being emulated. doesn't sound like what we should be aiming for.
2––it is promoted and motivated by the moral-philosophical ideals of a few people, rather than the basic tenets of a fair and free society. further, it uses religious doctrine as its impetus, which denies a separation of church and state.
3––it shrouds itself in lies in an attempt at palatability while being crammed down the throats of the citizens (dishonesty in the case of a law championed for moral reasons––ironic, eh?).
4––it is not supported by science, research, history, or statistics of any kind. in fact, there is not even a gray area here; the numbers all speak against the law.

i could probably come up with much more if i put my mind to it. but these four will suffice for now. if you have any chance of convincing me of the law's usefulness, it will be upon successfully explaining how those four principles of fair government are unimportant, or are not really being violated. good luck.

Again, and not trying to be condescending, but your above passage may be borne of youthfulness and just having lived through and seen less, at least stateside, Marine.

you have no clue how much i have lived or experienced, and to start placing bets on that respect is a deflection from the topic at hand. logical fallacies will not do anything to increase the credibility of your argument.

Bold words and sentiments, and your opinion of course (should put IMO in your passages more often)

there was no opinion spoken there, only fact. i said that if it is a well-meaning law that kills you, it is no better than if a mean-spirited law killed you––you're still dead. if a law makes no sense and ends up hurting businesses and the local economy, it doesn't matter how well-meaning its originators were. they still hurt the economy.

There was a study done a short time ago that listed New York as one of the least free states (I think only one less free that us, us at #49). Utah came in at 22, under the half way point I think. Alot more free tha New York. They use a "collective" of all laws and restrictions large and small, throw them into the wash and come up with an overall calculation of freedom.

IMO, you are taking a sensational law that is very controversial, wrapping iit in the flag, sprinking some Ben Fanklin on it, getting all worked up about it and making a blanket calculation of Utah freedom based on it.

again, in your opinion. your opinion is wrong. i have never said one iota about the rest of utah's freedoms except to once before tell you that you are wrong about this. quit barking up this tree; it has nothing to do at all with the conversation except to make you feel better about not having a credible argument.

Again, nonsensical in your opinion, and you are in very good company by the way, and you might be right, but you also might be wrong. and whatever Utah is doing liquor wise presently seems to be working.

Stop latching on to the word Keystone, putting words in MY mouth that I present it as "THE" keystone or the most improtant one, that stance serves your argument very well and is not at all what I meant. It is a part of a collective, and it's elimination will have undetermined, but IMO dertimental effects.

...?

you were the one to use the word keystone. i merely asked in incredulity that this is one of those laws that you would see as a keystone. if you don't see it as a keystone, then you brought it up for nothing, except again as a possible deflection.

And even though you are Mormon, is there not the possibility you are more angry with the source of the laws than the laws themselves?

the source of the laws being a few politicians that mistakenly think they are representing their religion (when they should not be doing so to begin with)?

i am more than capable of separating my disdain for corrupt politicians from disdain for corrupt legislations. i have given you multiple reasons for the unacceptability of both of them; if you continue to misunderstand my irritation with the pair of them, then there is nothing to be gained further from my trying to explain it to you.

And blinded to any benefits they may have singularly or in a collective, and ignoring present benficial liquor related statisitics in favor of what may be in their absence?

i don't believe you understand what it is you are asking me about. it sounds similar to the people that claim that we should give up our first amendment rights because it will cause fewer hurt feelings and offensive words to happen.

there is no functional benefit that has been gained by the wall's existence. there are no studies period that support its premise. there are no research teams or historical documents at all, anywhere, that show that the wall has an ounce of a chance of affecting either the change that it pretends to focus on (helping us poor confused utahns that can't tell the difference between a bar and a restaurant), or the change that it is really, secretly, dishonestly trying to focus on (enforcing the moral standards of a couple of crusading politicians).

therefore, there is no benefit that is to be gained by giving up yet more liberties that the government should not be tampering with.

ineffective, abusive laws are not the answer to the problem you pose.

The United States is a Grand Experiment, it is ongoing since the founding fathers formulated the Constitution. It is increasingly difficult for government to apply the Constitution as population, technology, social mores and values evolve.

therefore we should stop trying?

Can't you see Utah as a Micro-Grand Experiment? Or an experiment within an experiment?

yes, but your proposition that we abandon constitutional values for the sake of kids not having to see a bar is ludicrous and does not in any way appeal to me.

Don't you realise that there are States in the Union that are much more oppressive and less free than Utah, they just split the laws up finer and do a more covert job of applying them? Why don't you come to New York and apply this passion to fettering out a multitude of convoluted, arcane, covert micro-laws that add up to alot more oppression than the Zion Curtain ever dreamed of.

more logical fallacies. i have not once compared utah to any other state in order to justify my feelings regarding the zion wall laws. nor do intend to. in fact, i do not need to; my argument stands on its own. further, i have explained to you (in your previously failed attempts to explain to me my nonexistent resentment of the state of utah) that i enjoy living in this state, and its laws are generally speaking part of the reason i like it here.

i am fully aware that there are more tyrannical states than utah out there, but that has nothing to do with the credibility of my argument.

i don't need to love all of the laws in order to love utah. i hope you are catching on so i don't need to explain that to you any further.

IMO, you are not posting from the experience you claim to have.

if that fallacious tactic helps you feel better about your argument, then stick to it to the end.

I bow to you and honor you for your service to this country, the military similie was of course meant metphorically. But I still contend you might need to experience more of the live rounds of the different avenues life and laws can take here stateside.

but since you have no way of knowing how much or how little real-world experience i have, you have no way of quantifying what you mean with that statement, unless you intend on sticking your logically fallacious foot even deeper in your mouth.

and so, in that regard, i tell you that you might need to experience more of the metaphorical live rounds of stateside life.

i have not in any way communicated that i am all-wise or all-powerful, or that my wisdom is greater than yours. what i have said is that this law does not need to be argued subjectively, basing your experiences against my own. this law doesn't even get to that stage of an argument because it fails in even the most basic analysis of logic and reason.

you can keep arguing the what-ifs and coulda-shoulda-woulda's all you want, but you still haven't even touched the fact that this law unconstitutionally strips liberties from people and businesses, without a valid reason, and it does so in a way that combines political legislation with religious doctrine.

there is no subjectivity about that unless you just don't support the 1st amendment of the bill of rights.

And that my friend is FULLY condescending.....

"OOH RAH" Marine....

i called you "sarge." that was condescending? you were the one that metaphorically gave yourself that rank earlier. i was just humoring you.

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

This is one of my main points of contention with you Belle, and one I have mentioned in the past. You feel people who live in a location have a superior view on issues and should be taken more seriously than non-residents.

have a superior view, yes. in the sense that the residents have more experience with the area, its idiosyncrasies, its laws, etc. definitely. it is very rare that an outsider has better info on the area than the locals.

should be taken more serously? not necessarily. but i don't think that is what southernbelle is arguing for.

even in the military, we often rely on locals to clue us in to where the bad guys are hiding. and when it is a local we are hunting, it is amazing how sometimes they get away despite our night optics, aerial recon, long-range snipers, etc. simply because they know the area and we don't.

I have more than enough life experience, intelligence, age, education, practical knowldege and ability to combine research with "shoes on the ground" visitation of an area to hold my own with any opinion here.

your oodles of wisdom and your internet skills don't equal the experience of the locals that have lived here for decades. otherwise, my oodles of wisdom and my google fu equals however many years of experience you have living in new york. it's a two-way road, you know.

further, weren't you the one that was just trying to discredit my arguments based on the idea that i was not as old, wise or experienced as you? but now you're more than willing to bend the experience rules in order to support your own agenda.

"IMO, you are not posting from the experience you claim to have."

I further contend that people residing there lifelong, or at least long term, may not be able to see the forest for the trees. The well prepared non-resident can provide a valuable "stereo view" or view from the outside looking in that can be invaluable.

i agree with that. however, don't presume that this makes for an outsider's view of the state to be generally "superior" to that of the locals. in almost all ways, in almost all occasions, it is not.

either way, we are getting sidetracked again, since it wouldn't matter what state these laws are enacted in. they are still ineffective, corrupt, unconstitutional, and therefore need to go.

to summarize my responses, the zion wall laws have no evidence backing them that they effectively curb any problems (either the ones that they claim to focus on, or the religious ones that they really focus on); they unnecessarily strip liberties from responsible citizens in responsible establishments without benefitting or supporting the rights of anyone in the end, which makes them unconstitutional and philosophically unsound; and they directly promote a religious doctrine as state legislation.

there is no subjectivity to any of that unless you contend that the constitution and the first amendment of the bill of rights should be meaningless in today's political world.

[ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?]

O.K. Aaron, I surrender-you win.

As if it wasn't enough of an uphill climb beiing seemingly the only one defending status quo, with everyone else seemingly either neutral or agreeing with you, I have the added burden of doing so as a non-resident. Admiral Belle's vote of non-confidence painting me as a disillusioned New Yorker with an uninformed grandiose ideal of Utah was like a cannonful of chainshot taking out both my masts, shredding my sails and cutting the Ship's Doctor clear in half (had to do a burial at sea in two parts)

Now there's the issue that Admiral Belle and other SLC residents don't even know where the Avenues Hostel is, or ANY SLC hostel for that reason and me along with another poster have to counsel MoneyMoney1 regading same. (Yea, I know..self serving and off topic)

I am helplessly adrift in this thread with no support, and having to administer first aid to the men, and dole out their rations of grog. At this point I'm hoping a favorable wind will blow me to a friendly port and not to a remote section of New Guinea coastline where they still practice cannibalism and headhunting.

I feel like the ship with the crumbling masts in the following image..




At this point I don't think I have enough perceived or actual (depending on one's viewpoints) credibility to be taken seriously going forward so unless someone else wants to hoist sails and take their own "H.M.S Zion Curtain" into the fray I believe you have the last word.

Now you can of course rip this post to shreds, quote it back to me in most unflattering terms, I leave myself wide open. But I hope you will accept it for what it is, bowing in deference to a remarkable effort and admitting I am at least outgunned if not my argument faulty and inferior.

Now if it's all the same to everyone I think I need a drink, I have this bottle of Single Malt Highland Scotch here in my Captain's Quarters. Now let's see what it says here on the back label...

"Distilled from the finest Isaly barley smoked slowly over peat fires and malted with crystal clear Highland stream water and filtered through the bra's and bloomers of buxom and bonnie Highland lassies"

Oh, this should be good!!.....

[skibarbie]

Well, this East Millcreek Lassie is going to tip one back in your honor to a topic well discussed....

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

....................................
Now there's the issue that Admiral Belle and other SLC residents don't even know where the Avenues Hostel is, or ANY SLC hostel for that reason and me along with another poster have to counsel MoneyMoney1 regading same. (Yea, I know..self serving and off topic)

..............................

What in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand - or anything else mentioned in this thread? So we live here and don't know where a hostel is - big whoop.

[ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?]

Originally Posted by SouthernBelleInUtah

What in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand - or anything else mentioned in this thread? So we live here and don't know where a hostel is - big whoop.

Well here's the link the the thread "Why Is It? that you started expressing your opinion, and the followup opinions of many including my own, regarding non-residents posting opinions and advice on the Utah boards.


https://www.city-data.com/forum/salt-...81629-why.html


Now on MoneyMoney1's query on Utah hostels these are the two responses from SLC locals....

DelaneyRudd: What place, a website?

SouthernBelleInUtah: Clearly no one on here knows anything about either of them.

You are our moderator Belle! You or Delaney could of at least sought out and provided the links. Now I am no Utah hostel expert, but have been to the Avenues hostel, am a regular at the Snowpine Lodge dorm at Alta, have been to Chateau Apres lodge in Park City, Goldminer's Daughter and Alta Peruvian in Alta, and Brighton Lodge in Brighton which all have hostel/dorm accommodations, and have done research on the computer for many others.

So clearly, when I am confident and posess the knowledge, I can post and provide quality information as a non-resident.

And there have been more than one incidents where I have jumped in with useful knowledge in your or another locals stead.

So do you think you might want to revisit your opinion on the "Why Is It?" thread?

As far as I'm concerned it's a Big Whoop...

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

Now you can of course rip this post to shreds, quote it back to me in most unflattering terms, I leave myself wide open. But I hope you will accept it for what it is, bowing in deference to a remarkable effort and admitting I am at least outgunned if not my argument faulty and inferior.

i don't think anyone has that intent. if you think that this was my intent in other posts, i apologize. my intent wasn't to rip you to shreds, but simply to disagree. my habit is to dissect the argument of those that i'm conversing, whether i am arguing in favor or opposed to their argument.

i also expect other people to do the same, and find it frustrating when people don't respond to the points that i feel i legitimately bring to the discussion and then have them wait forlornly in the corner because no one cares about those points.

in the case of this issue, those points are fairly large and important: constitutional rights, separation of church and state, social contract, bounds of the government, etc.

Now if it's all the same to everyone I think I need a drink, I have this bottle of Single Malt Highland Scotch here in my Captain's Quarters. Now let's see what it says here on the back label...

"Distilled from the finest Isaly barley smoked slowly over peat fires and malted with crystal clear Highland stream water and filtered through the bra's and bloomers of buxom and bonnie Highland lassies"

Oh, this should be good!!.....

just make sure you drink it behind a wall so that you don't confuse anyone about whether you are in a bar or a restaurant, and don't brainwash the minors into underage drunkenness.

ion all seriousness, enjoy it.

[BuckeyezRule]

Haven't read it all. Against the Zion Wall. I will parent my kids w/ hubby the way WE see fit. =) I LOL'ed at the tail end of my kids' b-day party (last guest to leave) , her 2yo son asked me 'Is that a beer?' of my caffeine free gold topped coke can. It was funny to me. I don't drink beer & hubby doesn't in a can, mostly. Don't freak, it was funny to hear a 2, close to 3yo say that. lol My own kids hate 'pop'/soda even. Not our doing, they don't like the 'bubbles'. lol

[eggalegga]

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

But in restaurants there will be families with young chidren, the adults may well be responsible imbibers, but children will view this activity and be too young and not intellectually or emotionally able to absorb and process the experience properly.....

Originally Posted by stycotl

i think that this is a ridiculous cop-out. that is where parenting comes into play.

what are you going to do about all of the "bad examples" in the streets, at school, etc? what do you do when your kids see people smoking at the bus stop? what do you do when your kids see tattoos and belly piercings and stuff? in order to be consistent here, your children had better not watch TV, listen to the radio, go to movies, socialize with friends, or have anything to do with the internet.

you can't protect your child from everything, and you really can't protect them at all by trying to make sure that they never come in contact with any influence that you don't agree with. having children be exposed to responsible drinking is not going to turn them into drug abusers.

at best, getting rid of the zion wall will …God-forbid, encourage parents to talk with their children about alcohol consumption and the problems with underage drinking.

first, parents need to do their job. if they don't want their kids in an establishment that serves alcohol (or visibly serves it), then for crying out loud, DON'T GO THERE WITH THEM.

...do something other than expecting government to legislate it so that others have to live by your personal whims. parents need to do their own parenting, and politicians need to stop making excuses for them to give up their parental duties to other institutions––especially the government.

second, we haven't even touched the issue which the zion wall supporters officially present as their motivation for the law in the first place. we are supposedly too ignorant to be able to tell the difference between a restaurant and a bar. that is the official reason given as to the wall's existence. not just children, but adults. we're all too stupid.

unfortunately for them, there is no evidence whatsoever that their premise is even valid. and even if it were, hiding the bar from the dining room in no way fixes that "problem," especially since people would have to enter the building in order to figure it out in the first place.

third, the suspected reasons for the zion wall's existence––the one that the politicians deny––that the state's religious majority don't want their children exposed to alcoholic beverages in any form or any situation, has nothing to do with rational thought at all. it solely has to do with an emotional reaction to a situation that goes contrary to someone's religious beliefs.

lastly, i find it very telling that all of your arguments as to why we should keep the wall revolve around "children not seeing alcoholic consumption," which is a reason that the politicians won't admit to, rather than the official reason, "we're too dumb to tell the difference between a bar and a restaurant."

I agree. Parents need to educate their children as to what choices they deem to be harmful/inappropriate to/for their kids. I said educate because simply trying to block anything "bad" from their children's view isn't helping them learn anything. Parents can't be everywhere at all times shielding their childrens' eyes from what they deem as bad behavior. They need to teach their children why these behaviors/decisions/choices are not right for their family.

[henry1]

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

Well, placing issues like licensing favoritism, etc. aside for a moment, I would advise Utahn's as someone from the outside looking in to heed the following....


"Don't be in such a rush to be like everyone else"

"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"


Remember, you have to take the good with the bad, you can't say "We'll take all the addtitional revenue liberal liquor laws create and leave all the bad parts at the State border"

The liberal liquor laws may very well suffer from favoritism and other problems, so no gain there.

Yes, there are people who pass over Utah as a business conference location, vacation spot, place to move to, etc. due to the laws. But do you really want them...? Are you prepared to greet them at the airport with the Utah version of a Hawaiian Lei, hand them a bottle of Gin and give them a big kiss...?

Utah is unique to an extent by zigging when others zag, it's quirkiness is made up by the sum of it's parts.

Just some things to think about.....

You bring up a very good points in the way some people veiw the socalled area before moving there .The one biggest influx of people into the Los Vegas Area at one time in the history of Los Vegas was people from the state of Utah to work there because of the living wage the area paid and beening able to get away from the socalled mass way of thinking when it came to earning a living in a place that had both liguor & gaming in there place's .

Also remember that there is one group no matter what want's to think for you because they know what is best for you in all thing's in one life from the food that you eat to how to handle your money in one life .So you have a head think for yourself in those area's of one life .

Like you i can think for myself and make my own way when it come's to going into a place that sale's liguor and yes i'm LDS and i work in a business that sale's liguor & we have gambling in those place's it my work and nothing more and i leave it at the door when i clock out and go home from the place .

[henry1]

Originally Posted by eggalegga

I agree. Parents need to educate their children as to what choices they deem to be harmful/inappropriate to/for their kids. I said educate because simply trying to block anything "bad" from their children's view isn't helping them learn anything. Parents can't be everywhere at all times shielding their childrens' eyes from what they deem as bad behavior. They need to teach their children why these behaviors/decisions/choices are not right for their family.

Like you i belive in those style of teaching our childern about life and how it work's as one get older .My childern knew what i did for a living and had been inside a casino by the age of 12 because of them having the need for them to be picked up from school and bought to me at work by the casino party van and that is a normal thing for we used to take the party van down and pick up about 10 to 15 kid's a day when school was in session because of the single mom or dad's where working at the time and could not get off to pick them up .

So they would go into the worker's lounge through the outside entance and do homework or get something to eat from the worker's snack bar and wait for the family member to get off from there shift . Was it stange to a person who saw it for the first time yes but to the old timer's is was just part of the business because of alot of people where working to make a living and everyone did there part to help out .

Most of the time my kids where in the lounge with the other kids or they sat in my office and did there homework and saw what was going on the big screen tv i had the floor video feed coming into the office to see what was going on at the time when i was at my desk doing paperwork .

They have seen thing's that i would have not liked for them to see but in life you can not shield them from everything.