Why isn't parents who smoke a form of child abuse?

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about protecting children, the same way we protect them from abuse and make them go to school regardless of what their parents want. Minors ARE citizens, and sometimes need the government to protect them from their parents.

Should we repeal child molestation laws, because the government has no business protecting children?

Child molestation is illegal. Your comparison fails flat on it's face.

Dude.. what? 😕

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: sao123
people need to stop replacing
designated personal freedom in america with the concept of pure anarchy

Who, exactly, is advocating pure anarchy in this discussion?

Everyone who advocates:
1)their own personal freedoms above that of the people around them
b)everyone who advocates that there should be zero tolerance for government intereference in personal life.

Or I would argue, should even be given the benfit of the doubt. I prefer to start from the assumption that liberty is the superior condition, and that it should not be reduced lightly.

and yet I would argue...
every man should consider the desires of those around them before they consider their own.

I don't think you know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is the state of having lawlessness. The way of life that is 100% self serving, where you are the only higher authority you have to answer to. the freedoms of one should not be over ridden by the desires of society


Face it... if every man could police himself and solve every conflict, there would be no need for government or police. The very existence of unresolved conflict makes the intrusion of a governing body a necessary evil.

 

[xboxist]

Kids don't necessarily grow up and rush out of their parents' house the second they turn 18 because they want to live on their own and be responsible and stuff. They rush out because they want to get out of their a**hole-ish parent's smoke-filled sh*thouse.

I grew up in a smoking household and I HATED it. I only was ever home to sleep and shower. The stench followed you everwhere, and it was socially embarassing. Living constantly under a canopy of air rot made my all of my days a little less nice. I wish a life like that upon no child, and all parents who insist on smoking in the presence of their children should seriously be sentenced to take a dragon punch to the neck. Hopefully fatal. Their kids would be better off.

I realize that most of the smokers in this thread are level-headed and claim that they would only smoke outside of their houses. That's cool. But I'm sure there's someone lurking here who blows their toxic stench into their infant's eyes, so my thoughts about you are posted above.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
It's no more child abuse than parents who stuff their kids with McDonalds greaseburgers five times per week.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't smoke, and i can't stand being around smokers..

but, we've already made WAY to many compromises of our freedom, in the name of safety and/or health.

A voice of reason speaks up only to soon be shouted down.

Thats because ATOT, dispite what many claim, is a bunch of nannies. Heaven forbid personal freedom ever exist in the ATOT world.

your personal freedom stops when it affects someone else.

Which is why you should shut up.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Tom
quote:
"Or I would argue, should even be given the benfit of the doubt. I prefer to start from the assumption that liberty is the superior condition, and that it should not be reduced lightly."

_________________________

and yet I would argue...
every man should consider the desires of those around them before they consider their own.
____________________________________________________________________________________________


I completely agree with you, but that is a point about personal responsibility, not the rights of the individual versus the authority of the state.

If personal responsibility was actually upheld by every man on an honor system, there would be no need for an authoritative state. History has shown tho that this will (can) never be accomplished.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: sao123


Anarchy is the state of having lawlessness. The way of life that is 100% self serving, where you are the only higher authority you have to answer to. the freedoms of one should not be over ridden by the desires of society


Face it... if every man could police himself and solve every conflict, there would be no need for government or police. The very existence of unresolved conflict makes the intrusion of a governing body a necessary evil.

That is completely wrong for a proper definition of anarchy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: phantom309
They think this is about smoking, and it's not. It's about a really unsettling attitude towards our government. The government's job is to defend the borders, perform public works and maintain a very basic rule of law. It's not there to protect people from every little thing they find the least bit offensive. We're supposed grow a pair and deal with that ourselves, not scream for the Great White Daddy to come and make all the bad bad smokers go away.

Or deal with it the way my generation did - shut the fvck up, mind your own business, and spend your time and energy raising your own damn family the way you think is right. Once you do that, you'll be surprised at how little time you have left to bitch about how other people entertain themselves.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The saddest thing about the "bitchers" is that that is what they do to entertain themselves. They're the Mrs. Grundys of our culture, always pointing fingers of blame and scorn at everyone else. They are quite possibly the most harmful persons of all.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about protecting children, the same way we protect them from abuse and make them go to school regardless of what their parents want. Minors ARE citizens, and sometimes need the government to protect them from their parents.

Should we repeal child molestation laws, because the government has no business protecting children?

Child molestation is illegal. Your comparison fails flat on it's face.

Dude.. what? 😕

Smoking is a legal act for adults. Molestation is not legal, regardless of age. Sorry, I guess I didn't clearly state the reason why it's a horrible comparison. It's a HORRIBLE comparison

If you want a valid comparison, try my car exhaust example. Driving is legal for adults, but harms children via air pollution. The same argument against smoking apply to engine exhaust.

Should we restrict cars in the same way, and for the same reasons we restrict smoking?

I'll take it since no anti-smokers are replying to this comparison that you drive, but you only think smoking should be restricted because you don't smoke.

Hypocrites.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about protecting children, the same way we protect them from abuse and make them go to school regardless of what their parents want. Minors ARE citizens, and sometimes need the government to protect them from their parents.

Should we repeal child molestation laws, because the government has no business protecting children?

Child molestation is illegal. Your comparison fails flat on it's face.

Dude.. what? 😕

Smoking is a legal act for adults. Molestation is not legal, regardless of age. Sorry, I guess I didn't clearly state the reason why it's a horrible comparison. It's a HORRIBLE comparison

If you want a valid comparison, try my car exhaust example. Driving is legal for adults, but harms children via air pollution. The same argument against smoking apply to engine exhaust.

Should we restrict cars in the same way, and for the same reasons we restrict smoking?

I'll take it since no anti-smokers are replying to this comparison that you drive, but you only think smoking should be restricted because you don't smoke.

Hypocrites.

I call it "Screw Your Neighbor" politics. You abuse the democratic process to punish your neighbor for his sins while making sure to protect your own sins.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: sao123
people need to stop replacing
designated personal freedom in america with the concept of pure anarchy

Who, exactly, is advocating pure anarchy in this discussion?

Everyone who advocates:
1)their own personal freedoms above that of the people around them
b)everyone who advocates that there should be zero tolerance for government intereference in personal life.

Or I would argue, should even be given the benfit of the doubt. I prefer to start from the assumption that liberty is the superior condition, and that it should not be reduced lightly.

and yet I would argue...
every man should consider the desires of those around them before they consider their own.

I don't think you know what anarchy is.

Anarchy is the state of having lawlessness. The way of life that is 100% self serving, where you are the only higher authority you have to answer to. the freedoms of one should not be over ridden by the desires of society

Who, exactly, is advocating that in this discussion?

Face it... if every man could police himself and solve every conflict, there would be no need for government or police. The very existence of unresolved conflict makes the intrusion of a governing body a necessary evil.

Who, exactly, is denying that in this discussion?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Vic
I call it "Screw Your Neighbor" politics. You abuse the democratic process to punish your neighbor for his sins while making sure to protect your own sins.

Yep, trying to follow a logical comparison like I provided ended the last thread about smoking. I have yet to see anyone argue the car exhaust example with any success.

 

[oddyager]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about protecting children, the same way we protect them from abuse and make them go to school regardless of what their parents want. Minors ARE citizens, and sometimes need the government to protect them from their parents.

Should we repeal child molestation laws, because the government has no business protecting children?

Child molestation is illegal. Your comparison fails flat on it's face.

Dude.. what? 😕

Smoking is a legal act for adults. Molestation is not legal, regardless of age. Sorry, I guess I didn't clearly state the reason why it's a horrible comparison. It's a HORRIBLE comparison

If you want a valid comparison, try my car exhaust example. Driving is legal for adults, but harms children via air pollution. The same argument against smoking apply to engine exhaust.

Should we restrict cars in the same way, and for the same reasons we restrict smoking?

I'll take it since no anti-smokers are replying to this comparison that you drive, but you only think smoking should be restricted because you don't smoke.

Hypocrites.

No tthat extreme but we certainly wouldn't lock our kids in the car while the engine is running for extended periods of time. In anycase, I still find anyone who smoke around children a vile scumbag.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, a bunch of sanctimonious wankers. Like most of them give a fsck about anything except their stupid computers and broadband connections.

:thumbsup:

Seriously. Who here actually has kids? How many more double standards can one society make for them to actually stfu? Who here actually believes that 2nd hand smoke is actually scientifically proven to be dangerous? And please, don't you dare use kids as an excuse for your own petty complaints. You guys running for president?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: oddyager

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Smoking is a legal act for adults. Molestation is not legal, regardless of age. Sorry, I guess I didn't clearly state the reason why it's a horrible comparison. It's a HORRIBLE comparison

If you want a valid comparison, try my car exhaust example. Driving is legal for adults, but harms children via air pollution. The same argument against smoking apply to engine exhaust.

Should we restrict cars in the same way, and for the same reasons we restrict smoking?

I'll take it since no anti-smokers are replying to this comparison that you drive, but you only think smoking should be restricted because you don't smoke.

Hypocrites.

Not that extreme but we certainly wouldn't lock our kids in the car while the engine is running for extended periods of time. In anycase, I still find anyone who smoke around children a vile scumbag.

Why not? Did you read my link above (it's a JAMA sourced article).

I'm guessing you drive a car, but don't smoke. amirite?

Also, your example, like most people trying to restrict smoking is HORRIBLE. Being locked in a room with smokers for 24 hours will not kill you. Being locked in a room with a running vehicle will kill you in minutes.

In fact... You just showed that we need to restrice cars MORE than cigarettes because it's more lethal. Thanks.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mjuszczak

Originally posted by: snoopdoug1
IMO, That'd be sweet if it was. I can't stand smoke.

And why exactly do you fools think that your personal likes and dislikes should feed into laws that affect other people? 😕

Why does the fact that you like smoke mean that the law should allow you push your smoke on me??

I don't like smoke in the least. Pay attention. 😀