Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
First Cellphones, Now Smokes
Topic Started: Jan 9 2007, 09:21 AM (1,073 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:04 PM
Okay. Fine. I'm a shallow asshole and I should just sit back and toe the party line, and not bother anyone with thoughts about over-legislation, government interfering entirely too much with our personal lives, the huge number of laws being enacted every month and year, and how my thoughts on personal responsibility make me a f*cking dinosaur an hopelessly out of fashion.

Big f*cking deal.

I've got news for you: The more laws the government enacts and the more the government has their hands right in your personal life, the more of a SUBJECT you become, and the less of a citizen you are. Freedom and personal, individual responsibility for one's actions go hand in hand.

I am against the legislation of smoking in vehicles, however, as a responsible and reasonable adult, I choose not to do it around my child. If my child is going somewhere where adults will be smoking in an enclosed environment and I am concerned about it, then I don't have to allow my child to go to that place, or else I can take it up with the adult who chooses to light up in such a venue.

I see that you've chosen not to answer the questions that I asked.

However, you do say that

Quote:
 
If my child is going somewhere where adults will be smoking in an enclosed environment and I am concerned about it, then I don't have to allow my child to go to that place, or else I can take it up with the adult who chooses to light up in such a venue.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:10 PM
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions. :no:

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
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... :shrug: There: Happy now?
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
QuirtEvans
Jan 9 2007, 12:14 PM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:10 PM
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions.  :no:

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.

Yeah.... If someone doesn't give you the answer you want, keep boorishly DEMANDING an answer, Quirt. :clap: 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!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:15 PM
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, and maybe they prefer to live like cattle. Whatever... :shrug: There: Happy now?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:16 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 9 2007, 12:14 PM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:10 PM
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions.  :no:

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.

Yeah.... If someone doesn't give you the answer you want, keep boorishly DEMANDING an answer, Quirt. :clap: Bravo. What a wonderful gentleman you are. What beautiful manners, sir.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 12:10 PM
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions.  :no:

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:10 PM
It's crazy.... I know I'm typing in English, and I feel like my points aren't that difficult to comprehend. Pffft....WhatEVER. This is exactly why, 90% of the time, I stay out of these sorts of discussions. :no:

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:12 AM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 01:41 PM
John, that's not even a valid argument. Driving while intoxicated is something that carries a very real risk of flat-out killing, INSTANTLY, passengers, drivers, and people who are hit by the drunken driver. That's like saying, "Why is it illegal to have your very own nuclear bomb?"

Whatever.... Your argument, in this case, is a little asinine, IMO.

When DUI laws were tightened up, there was resistance from people who claimed that this was a nanny state mentality, and that there should be less intrusion into people's lives. That is asinine.

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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
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! :shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 12:26 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

Exactly, Tom! This is exactly what I'm saying. No one's listening, though. I'm done here.

:rolleyes2:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 12:26 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

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?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
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!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 03:26 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

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 :D ) 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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 12:28 PM
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 12:26 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

Exactly, Tom! This is exactly what I'm saying. No one's listening, though. I'm done here.

:rolleyes2:

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. :gum:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 12:33 PM
At what point do we draw the line, though?

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!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 12:35 PM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 12:28 PM
TomK
Jan 9 2007, 12:26 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

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.

Exactly, Tom! This is exactly what I'm saying. No one's listening, though. I'm done here.

:rolleyes2:

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. :gum:

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!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 03:35 PM
People I DO think you all should cut Frank and me some slack. :gum:

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 12:39 PM
Daniel
Jan 9 2007, 03:35 PM
People I DO think you all should cut Frank and me some slack. :gum:

I can't say I've noticed anything out of the ordinary. :lol:

:lol2: "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?" :lol2:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
AlbertaCrude
Jan 9 2007, 12:02 PM
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 11:57 AM
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 02:32 PM
John, I'll keep it very simple: I have NO problem with the concept of not smoking around kids. I DO have a problem with it being LEGISLATED. See? I don't suppose this is getting through to you, is it?  :yelling:  :no:

Oh well...  :shrug: I tried. I honestly tried.

I fully understand. Even my feeble powers of comprehension managed to figure out what you were saying. I just didn't happen to agree with you. In particular, your statement that my comparison between drink-driving and passive smoking was asinine struck me as shallow.

Isn't drunk (blood alcohol .08% or greater) or impaired driving a felony in the US?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
No, it's not a felony.


Well it damn well should be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
John D'Oh
Jan 9 2007, 01:06 PM
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.

*snicker* Why do I hear that in the tones of Benny Hill, Faulty Towers, Mr. Bean, or Monty Python? :lol2:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 03:24 PM
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! :shrug:

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply