Iin both those cases a regular public space interaction happened with a person approaching another for a benign conversation, wherein one party responded by freaking out. Both cases the same thing applies. Dad has every right to ask a person to smoke elsewhere, with no justification needed. Vaper has every right to tell him to fuck off if he is within his right to be there. You seem to be confusing "has every right to ask" with "is in the right by asking and you must listen."
But I guess on top of thinking you need permission first to do every little thing, you are also so bad at defending that point you go trudging through profiles looking for gotchas to do it for you. So let me do it in turn:
I mean the presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of the American judicial system.
That was you, in response to Pelosi saying someone has to prove their innocence first, instead of being innocent until proven otherwise. The same kind of thinking where you are inherently in the wrong by simply talking to someone in a public space, instead of being allowed to do so (because its you know, public) until you cross some moral or legal line.
And my entire point is that this is a dumb question, the fact that you even are caught up on him doing it is a bigger problem with you than anyone else.
But this really just seems to be your own personal bias towards vapes. It doesn't matter if its perfectly harmless (I doubt that, but I'll concede on it), our instinctual reaction to smoke is that its bad and you don't want it around, especially around children. Someone not knowing that this special one is totes kosher and wanting it to not be around, is a very valid reaction. Especially as the entire purpose of this relatively new device is to both emulate and replace cigarettes, in which people's schema will naturally move right over until they get used to them.
And just to add this happened in Canada not America
I assume you think "freedom of speech" only exists in America too because its written in our Constitution instead of a general idea and principle held across many.
I didn't say him asking was a problem to begin with
You didn't need to. Because even asking why he did in the first place as you did says you think he needs a reason why. And as I explained in many different ways, he has numerous reasons why he would do it that are reflexively obvious.
I assume you think Freedom ends when it comes to freedom of expression
Probably shouldn't start making wild assumptions about someone's beliefs right after whining about thinking you were strawmanned. And then whining about "I was not hypocritical, its not truuu."
The America adjective of your previous statement wasn't relevant, unless you think "innocent until proven guilty" is uniquely American, which is why your cheap defense was worth pointing out as laughable. That entire bit was to point out that trawling through someone's comment history when you don't have a good defense is dumb, gay, and pathetic.
Iin both those cases a regular public space interaction happened with a person approaching another for a benign conversation, wherein one party responded by freaking out. Both cases the same thing applies. Dad has every right to ask a person to smoke elsewhere, with no justification needed. Vaper has every right to tell him to fuck off if he is within his right to be there. You seem to be confusing "has every right to ask" with "is in the right by asking and you must listen."
But I guess on top of thinking you need permission first to do every little thing, you are also so bad at defending that point you go trudging through profiles looking for gotchas to do it for you. So let me do it in turn:
That was you, in response to Pelosi saying someone has to prove their innocence first, instead of being innocent until proven otherwise. The same kind of thinking where you are inherently in the wrong by simply talking to someone in a public space, instead of being allowed to do so (because its you know, public) until you cross some moral or legal line.
I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy.
And my entire point is that this is a dumb question, the fact that you even are caught up on him doing it is a bigger problem with you than anyone else.
But this really just seems to be your own personal bias towards vapes. It doesn't matter if its perfectly harmless (I doubt that, but I'll concede on it), our instinctual reaction to smoke is that its bad and you don't want it around, especially around children. Someone not knowing that this special one is totes kosher and wanting it to not be around, is a very valid reaction. Especially as the entire purpose of this relatively new device is to both emulate and replace cigarettes, in which people's schema will naturally move right over until they get used to them.
I assume you think "freedom of speech" only exists in America too because its written in our Constitution instead of a general idea and principle held across many.
You didn't need to. Because even asking why he did in the first place as you did says you think he needs a reason why. And as I explained in many different ways, he has numerous reasons why he would do it that are reflexively obvious.
Probably shouldn't start making wild assumptions about someone's beliefs right after whining about thinking you were strawmanned. And then whining about "I was not hypocritical, its not truuu."
The America adjective of your previous statement wasn't relevant, unless you think "innocent until proven guilty" is uniquely American, which is why your cheap defense was worth pointing out as laughable. That entire bit was to point out that trawling through someone's comment history when you don't have a good defense is dumb, gay, and pathetic.