| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| First Cellphones, Now Smokes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 9 2007, 09:21 AM (1,073 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 12:12 PM Post #76 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I see that you've chosen not to answer the questions that I asked. However, you do say that
From that, is it reasonable to assume that, if someone else chooses to blow smoke in the face of their own child or someone else's child (as long as it isn't yours), you don't feel that you should stop them from doing that? Again, you've said not to assume. I asked you the basic question, and then some questions that would flow from your answer, whether it's yes or no. You don't seem to want to answer. Apparently, you don't like the logical implications of where that question leads you, regardless of whether you answer it yes or no. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 12:14 PM Post #77 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I've asked you a straightforward, yes or no question, with some follow-up. I understand exactly what you're saying. But it seems that you don't care to examine the logical underpinnings of what you're saying, or the logical inferences of that position. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:15 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Quirt.... You're being annoying. I did answer your question. Of course I don't want anyone blowing smoke in childrens' faces. The only child I am responsible for though, is my own. I don't feel any particular need to tell anyone else what to do. I generally mind my own business and tend to my own responsibilities. I don't need the government telling how to conduct my life. Maybe other people feel this need, and maybe they prefer to live like cattle. Whatever... There: Happy now?
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:16 PM Post #79 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Yeah.... If someone doesn't give you the answer you want, keep boorishly DEMANDING an answer, Quirt. Bravo. What a wonderful gentleman you are. What beautiful manners, sir.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 12:19 PM Post #80 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I understand. So, if someone chooses to endanger their own child, you don't have a problem with that. Does that mean you favor repeal of all child endangerment laws, where the parents are concerned? There was a follow-up ... if it's OK for a parent to blow smoke in their own child's face, is it OK for them to beat them with a baseball bat? If the answer is no, how do you distinguish which types of child endangerment are OK to legislate against from those that are not? I understand that you think I'm being annoying. I'm simply trying to get you to see the illogic of your own position. You don't want to see it, because it conflicts with deeply-seated beliefs, but your position is inherently illogical. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 12:20 PM Post #81 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You can call it boorish, I call it persistent. And I point out that you, who have criticized me for insulting others, just tossed out the first personal insult here. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 9 2007, 12:20 PM Post #82 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Is drunk driving a felony or not? Legislating or attempting to legislate smoking bylaws that affect what you do in your private residence or in your vehicle is another matter. I think legislating such to be beyond the pale of acceptablility, but many, if not a majority, of US citizens think otherwise. Quirt one such example. All D'Oh and I are pointing out is that this nanny state legislation more often than originates in the and is exported abroad like pop culture. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 12:20 PM Post #83 |
|
MAMIL
|
Don't confuse disagreement with incomprehension. I believe that dissenting opinion is permitted, maybe even welcomed, in some quarters. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 12:22 PM Post #84 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I was one of them until my 16 year old brother was not wearing his seatbelt and hit his head on a tree going 40 miles an hours and was in a coma for three months. This is the day I started wearing my seatbelt and stopped complaining about it being the law. I wonder how government can enforce so many laws when it has so much too worry about already and I think people should know better than to smoke around children but regulating behavior in a car seems pretty common. I can't think of one right not to be told what to do or not have your car or your person seached when you're in your car. Since TNCR is the boss of everything and it's critical that this decision gets made and gets made today I'll give my vote to Quirt on this one even though I'm not crazy about people needing to be told not to smoke around children. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:24 PM Post #85 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I called your behavior boorish. Do you deny that it is? If I wanted to be insulting, trust me: I would have been INSULTING. Instead, I commented on your BEHAVIOR. NOT on YOU, the individual. Having reading comprehension problems today, are we? Newsflash for you: You aren't going to MAKE anyone see anything, Quirt. You keep making these sweeping statements and assumptions that just aren't true. You are incapable of discussing anything and sticking to the matter at hand. Do you, then, desire a complete Nanny State, or should we go back to the sweathouses and work environments of pre-1900? This IS what you're saying, right? That there's no room for middle ground? That it always has to be one or the other, and you will use any extreme example as long as you feel that it supports your self-righteous and self-important opinion, right? Yes: Your behavior IS boorish. This is a fact. If you don't like it, change it!
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jan 9 2007, 12:26 PM Post #86 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No. TELL people what the problem is--explain to them the consequences and let them decide for themselves. Personal freedom is better than socialistic slavery. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:28 PM Post #87 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Exactly, Tom! This is exactly what I'm saying. No one's listening, though. I'm done here.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 12:29 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
If people have no moral right to smoke in a car with children then why should I care if the law says they can't? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:32 PM Post #89 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
No reason to care. Until the creeping, increasing interference of the the government suddenly curtails something in your life and causes you personal discomfort. Until then, why care if the government is taking over more and more of peoples' freedom and digging its talons more and more into our personal lives? No big deal, right? |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 12:33 PM Post #90 |
|
MAMIL
|
At what point do we draw the line, though? I agree with you that empowerment is a good thing, if you'll excuse the awful word. However, most would agree that drink driving should be illegal, and many would say that the use of a seat-belt should be mandated. Why is passive smoking any different? I'm a little biased, as I smoked for 20 years, before giving up in 2000 (which is why I'm not as grumpy as certain other posters ) so I can't stand smoking, but even so, I don't see a huge difference between smoking while pregnant and criminal negligence in the workplace.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Jan 9 2007, 12:35 PM Post #91 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Frank, I just thought I'd give my opinion. It's based on my experience of my brother's accident and me deciding not to care whether I'm told what to do in my car. I didn't like to be told to wear a seatbelt for a long time. I just thought I'd made a decision one way or the other. People I DO think you all should cut Frank and me some slack. ![]() |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:36 PM Post #92 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
There's the $64,000 Question!! And that's where the crux of the disagreement seems to be. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:38 PM Post #93 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Thanks, Daniel. I'm very sorry about your brother's accident. I was overseas, in the Army, when seatbelt laws went through. The Army is/was way ahead of the United States with seatbelt laws, so that when I finally returned to the US, it was a non-issue. It wasn't anything I even thought twice about. If I was seated in a vehicle, I was wearing a seatbelt. Deep down, especially now that I've quit smoking, I wouldn't mind if cigarettes were made completely illegal, but I also recognize peoples' choices and freedom. I don't drink, either. It would make no difference to me if Prohibition were brought back. Again: I recognize the freedom and choices of others. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 12:39 PM Post #94 |
|
MAMIL
|
I can't say I've noticed anything out of the ordinary. :lol: |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 12:48 PM Post #95 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
"Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Jan 9 2007, 12:59 PM Post #96 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
No, it's not a felony. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 9 2007, 01:06 PM Post #97 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's still considered pretty naughty by the Old Bill, isn't it? 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, who's been a naughty boy, then? Do I smell somefink' slightly medicinal in the car, sir? Would you mind awfully blowing into this bag.....? Well OK, I anglicised it a bit, but you get the general drift. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 9 2007, 01:08 PM Post #98 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Well it damn well should be. |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 9 2007, 01:08 PM Post #99 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
*snicker* Why do I hear that in the tones of Benny Hill, Faulty Towers, Mr. Bean, or Monty Python?
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 01:10 PM Post #100 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Talking about the inability to distinguish fact from opinion ... As to your point, of course there is room for a middle ground. Not, of course, when you want to make a cartoon character of the issue. You're the one who started from the proposition that this was the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it. A nanny state. Boiling a frog. To find a middle ground, you have to find reasonable bases to distinguish the things you wish to outlaw (which you refuse to discuss) from the things you don't want to outlaw. But you don't want to discuss reasonable bases either. You just want to say, at the top of your lungs, "NANNY STATE!!!" You don't want to think. It's OK to call your behavior names, is that your personal rule? Fine. Your behavior in this thread is ostrich-like. You refuse to see the consequences of your own positions. Your behavior is that you refuse to think. You refuse to think about why things you don't want to prohibit might be the same, or different, from things you do want to prohibit. You just don't want to think. Oh, and what's that someone said? Oh yeah, it's a fact, and if you don't like it, change it. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







There: Happy now?
Bravo. What a wonderful gentleman you are. What beautiful manners, sir.

) so I can't stand smoking, but even so, I don't see a huge difference between smoking while pregnant and criminal negligence in the workplace.

"Thank you, Sir. May I have another?" 

6:40 AM Jul 11