Smoking Ban Targets Cars Carrying Children

[Athena]

State lawmakers may ban smoking in cars with children

08:23 AM PST on Thursday, February 7, 2008
Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington lawmakers may ban smoking in cars with children inside.

A bill moving through the Legislature would make smoking in a vehicle with children a secondary offense. That would mean police couldn't stop a driver for smoking, but could write the ticket if the driver is pulled over for another violation.

-----

WTF? Okay, so, we supposedly do these things because we care about the health of the child...

...But not enough to make it a primary offense? Seems kind of contradictory, to me.

So? What say you? Should parents lose their right to smoke within their property when children are present?

[TXChris]

Secondary offense they say? Is that like when they set up checkpoints to "check" for insurance, alcohol, etc?

So, one rolls up with the smell of smoke in their car and the next thing they know they're being carted off to jail? If it passes, what happens when someone has a car that smells like smoke, but no one is smoking? Do they then suggest that the person threw out the cigarrette before they got stopped? I mean, seriously, they need to get a life. Too much government intrusion is never good for ANYONE.

[Morbid]

I could care less. It's unfortunate that some people do not have common sense and feel that it is perfectly acceptable to subject infants, children in a enclosed environment wit concentrated cigarette smoke. Personally, even when I was a smoker, I did not do that with my kids.

I didn't need a law to tell me it was a shithead thing to do and I could be harming my kids. Other people do not think that way. They are the same ones that almost kill me while they happily chit-chat about their festering boils on the cell-phone, oblivious to the fact that they almost sent me into the path on an 18-wheeler. Thankfully, there are now laws to stop those assholes too.

Just because you are in a car, does not mean that you can do anything you want in it.

As for it being a secondary law, I would assume this is just a blatant move to get it passed.

I may change my mind on this one if someone is able to give me reasons too, but as it stands...my thoughts after reading it...I just don't care. It's not like the seatbelt law, or helmet laws (both of which I choose to violate at my discretion...I don't like those laws as they are laws that make me obey safety steps to protect myself) this is a law that seems to want to protect the rights of passengers in a vehicle.

Hell, come to think of it, I wouldn't have an issue if pregnant women got ticketed for smoking. But now I am just rambling...and tired...and just watched a gerat movie everyone talked about, King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. Great movie, btw.

[Athena]

Hell, come to think of it, I wouldn't have an issue if pregnant women got ticketed for smoking.

@_@

Seriously? So...is it safe to assume you're anti-abortion?

I simply cannot agree that the "rights" of a fetus (which has none, technically) trump the rights of the woman.

[TXChris]

@_@

Seriously? So...is it safe to assume you're anti-abortion?

I simply cannot agree that the "rights" of a fetus (which has none, technically) trump the rights of the woman.

They don't. Let's face it, people are trying to attach the concept of rights upon something that is not even able to live on its own outside another human's body. Fundamentally, we are talking about a parasite which needs a host to live and grow until it is able to continue on its own. (That comment oughta catch some flack.) Realistically, who is to say that any particular fetus will continue to be? There is no guarantee the fetus will make it through the pregnancy all the way to birth. And then, we run into another situation. Technology allows a fetus to have the possibility of living if born premature. For everyone that talks about what is moral and right, under God, how is technology that is used to artificially keep a premature fetus alive any different than cloning? When you break it down, we are talking, in both cases, about using technology to make something happen that normally would not.

I just do not believe that something, which only has the possibility of being, has say over something that already is.

[Morbid]

@_@

Seriously? So...is it safe to assume you're anti-abortion?

I simply cannot agree that the "rights" of a fetus (which has none, technically) trump the rights of the woman.

Well, when I typed that, I was thinking along the lines of someone who was carrying something that could live outside of the human body...whatever stage of pregnancy that is nowadays. Also, in a some ways...and bare with me...I've not put much thought into this...I think my stance has a lot more to do with me possibly having to foot part of the bill with my insurance to cover possible smoking related illnesses the baby may inherit because the mother is a self-serving, selfish, dumbass. *shrug*

Sorry if that offends any of you self-serving, selfish, dumbass women who smoked while pregnant at any time after the '80s. Just seems like such a stupid thing to do to something you love to satisfy a habit.

But again, a different topic entirely that I have not put much thought into aside from seeing pregnant women smoking and feeling my stomach churn with a twinge of disgust. But as always, my mind is can be changed if someone presents me with any good reasons why my current thinking is wrong. I'm all ears.

[Rotten Apple]

I think my stance has a lot more to do with me possibly having to foot part of the bill with my insurance to cover possible smoking related illnesses the baby may inherit because the mother is a self-serving, selfish, dumbass. *shrug*


My daughter's birth mother was a smoker. She abstained from various other pharmaceuticals because of her pregnancy and her plan to carry it to term even though she had no plans on keeping the baby.

I was very grateful for this, however there were complications during the birth directly related to the smoking.

My daughter almost died and spent 10 days in the NICU. The birth mother required extra days in the hospital and blood transfusions. Birth mother's bill (which we were responsible for) was over $25,000. My daughter's was over $60,000. Fortunately for us, the hospital was willing to negotiate since we were paying cash and my daughter was covered by our health insurance.

However, had she decided to parent this child, the taxpayers would definitely had been responsible for the cost. She was uninsured and jobless.

[Athena]

Well, when I typed that, I was thinking along the lines of someone who was carrying something that could live outside of the human body...whatever stage of pregnancy that is nowadays. Also, in a some ways...and bare with me...I've not put much thought into this...I think my stance has a lot more to do with me possibly having to foot part of the bill with my insurance to cover possible smoking related illnesses the baby may inherit because the mother is a self-serving, selfish, dumbass. *shrug*

Sorry if that offends any of you self-serving, selfish, dumbass women who smoked while pregnant at any time after the '80s. Just seems like such a stupid thing to do to something you love to satisfy a habit.

But again, a different topic entirely that I have not put much thought into aside from seeing pregnant women smoking and feeling my stomach churn with a twinge of disgust. But as always, my mind is can be changed if someone presents me with any good reasons why my current thinking is wrong. I'm all ears.

How 'bout this:

Quit making their business your business. Vote against welfare increases. Vote against represenatives who support ideas like universal health care.

You see, by your logic, because we pay into a system that pays for people's health care, we should have a say in their lifestyle. It's easy for you to focus on the smoking mother (seeing as how you're neither a smoker or a mother). What about the individual who eats too much junk food, for example? Should we have a right to dictate their diet because their health care might come out of taxes?

This is why I am fundamentally against ideas like publically funded welfare and health care. It's because, suddenly, people like you think you deserve a say. Instead of the 300,000,000 Americans all having a say, why don't we quit giving ourselves a reason to think we deserve one and cut off funding?

Sound harsh? It's much better than individual liberty being secondary to some relative idea of "the greater good".

After all, how will saving people from their own stupidy bode for, say, evolution in the long term? I say we give people every means available to do themselves in. It'll eventually result in a stronger gene pool. ;)

Edit: Also, legally, the viability of a fetus only pertains to abortion regulation. Even if a child is due a week from now, it has no more rights, legally, than a fetus in the first trimester. It is upon birth, that rights are granted. Further yet, those rights remain limited until a person turns 18. Trying to extend the concept of rights into pre-birth is a bad idea, if only because the range during which a fetus is potentially viable creates a great deal of ambiguity. Just look at the controversy regarding abortion limitations. 24 weeks is still a heavily contested standard.

[Morbid]

@_@

Seriously? So...is it safe to assume you're anti-abortion?


Oh, forgot to add. No it is not safe to assume that at all. I think abortions are fine, and in the case of low-income breeders, I wish they were mandatory. However, I do believe that there is a certain stage in the development of a human in which an abortion is basically murder.

At what stage that would be, I don't know...but I don't think there is a magic line that a human crosses, right outside a woman's vagina, that makes a baby safe from being dropped kicked by the doctor, with no repercussions, once it crosses over it.

[swivel]

Athena, the reason you can be anti-pregnant-women-smoking, and still pro-abortion is because the woman getting the abortion is not planning on having the kid. The lady smoking needs to get an abortion, and THEN fire one up.

But, if you are smoking, and pregnant, and planning on having the kid, you are a fucking piece of shit moron slack-ass weak-kneed redneck/ghetto dumb fucking bitch.

Same goes for smoking with kids in the car. They can't drive their own car, so they are prisoners of circumstance. It is akin to torture.

What I don't get about you and TXChris is that you guys pretend to be Libertarians, and then take the wrong side of liberty again and again. I suppose you think a rapist has rights, eh?

[Athena]

Athena, the reason you can be anti-pregnant-women-smoking, and still pro-abortion is because the woman getting the abortion is not planning on having the kid. The lady smoking needs to get an abortion, and THEN fire one up.

But, if you are smoking, and pregnant, and planning on having the kid, you are a fucking piece of shit moron slack-ass weak-kneed redneck/ghetto dumb fucking bitch.

Same goes for smoking with kids in the car. They can't drive their own car, so they are prisoners of circumstance. It is akin to torture.

What I don't get about you and TXChris is that you guys pretend to be Libertarians, and then take the wrong side of liberty again and again. I suppose you think a rapist has rights, eh?

Yes, the law does make allowances when a woman plans to carry a pregnancy to term. It's the difference between one count of murder or two. But the logic behind it is not intended to apply rights to a fetus; it is much more like property damage, than anything. It is that fine line we walk with the abortion issue - a man who shoots a woman who is 8 months pregnant in the belly can be charged with murder. A woman who shoots herself in the belly with the intent to abort is not. The fetus doesn't mean a damn thing, legally, unless the woman wants it.

We struggle to make the law fair and right for those who are living. We simply cannot do the same for the unborn when it directly conflicts with the rights of the mother.

As for the legislation I posted the article about, I remain on the fence. On one hand, a parent's rights trump a child's in many, many circumstances. However, if smoking in the car can be reasonably likened to abuse, then there is legal precedent. Either way, I don't recall posting an opinion about it.

Regarding the rapist, it depends. According to the law, he has several rights. Care to be specific? Eh...probably not, right. You do love those appeals to emotion. I rarely see them carried beyond their intent to make people gasp. :rolleyes:

[swivel]

Regarding the rapist, it depends. According to the law, he has several rights. Care to be specific? Eh...probably not, right. You do love those appeals to emotion. I rarely see them carried beyond their intent to make people gasp. :rolleyes:

My point is that when a man is in the act of raping a woman, I would be arguing for her right to have the man stop at once. You obviously would argue that the man really seems to be enjoying the act of rape, and we should take his liberties into account.

In every situation with conflict, you have the wishes of two parties at opposition. Less-than-intelligent Libertarians invariably pick the wrong side to support (gun ownership, drug use, criminal rights, smoking, etc...)

It isn't enough to support everyone's rights to do whatever the hell they want. You have to make the tough call: Whose rights align with the morally objective truth? In this case, the rights of the kids in the car, and the rights of the unborn children are being trampled. Which is why I assume you wouldn't give two shits about the lady who is being pinned down and fucked raw.

[Athena]

My point is that when a man is in the act of raping a woman, I would be arguing for her right to have the man stop at once. You obviously would argue that the man really seems to be enjoying the act of rape, and we should take his liberties into account.


Cheap shot. Another thing you rely on quite often, it appears. ;)

As a libertarian, I believe that one individual's right stop where another's begins. In this case, the rapist is clearly in the wrong, as he is forcefully violating the rights of the woman.

However, as you and I both know, circumstance is not always so black and white. Children are a prime example. Spanking is not considered to be assault, for example.

This is why I remain undecided about this particular piece of legislation.

[swivel]

Spanking doesn't cause lung cancer. Smoke does.

And smoking while you are pregnant is the same as rigging a bomb that is tied to the weak nuclear force of a radioactive element. The bomb goes off if the element (a hypothetical, single atom) discharges energy and reverts to a more stable state. You strap this bomb to your kid's chest, knowing that with a half-life of thousands of years, there is a very good chance that the kid will grow old and die before the bomb goes off.

The authorities naturally have a problem with the construction of the bomb, but you show them the math, there is only a .05% chance that the bomb is triggered in the next 76 years. Nothing has happened yet, it is just a potentiality! How can they arrest you for doing something so harmless?

I hope you can see how shredded your argument is here. And I am flattered that you attack my arguing style, it means that you can't think of anything substantive to counter my brilliant rationale. I'll keep slaying your stance, you keep insulting me, we can BOTH be happy!

[TXChris]

My point is that when a man is in the act of raping a woman, I would be arguing for her right to have the man stop at once. You obviously would argue that the man really seems to be enjoying the act of rape, and we should take his liberties into account.

In every situation with conflict, you have the wishes of two parties at opposition. Less-than-intelligent Libertarians invariably pick the wrong side to support (gun ownership, drug use, criminal rights, smoking, etc...)

It isn't enough to support everyone's rights to do whatever the hell they want. You have to make the tough call: Whose rights align with the morally objective truth? In this case, the rights of the kids in the car, and the rights of the unborn children are being trampled. Which is why I assume you wouldn't give two shits about the lady who is being pinned down and fucked raw.

I'm curious to know how you would assume that either of us feel rape is okay? I am pretty sure I can speak for Athena, also, on this point, as we have very similar views. Obviously, if a person (man or woman) is forcing themselves upon another then they are violating that other person's rights. That is clearly against what we stand for, which is the observation of every individual's rights until they clearly impose upon the rights of another.

As far as your morally objective truth goes, I believe we've been round and round on this before, so I do not think we will ever agree. But, for the sake of those who have not followed our discussions, I will say that truth is relative to every individual in every situation. The truth is subjective to the environment of the individual. Sure, we might agree that murder is wrong, but how far can we actually agree on that? Self defense? What defines self defense? Who gets to define it? What responsibility does the person being violated have to exhaust every possible alternative, even if in doing so, causes them their life? Whereas had they killed the other, without exhausting all alternatives, they would have lived. It's all about personal responsibility.

[TXChris]

Spanking doesn't cause lung cancer. Smoke does.

And smoking while you are pregnant is the same as rigging a bomb that is tied to the weak nuclear force of a radioactive element. The bomb goes off if the element (a hypothetical, single atom) discharges energy and reverts to a more stable state. You strap this bomb to your kid's chest, knowing that with a half-life of thousands of years, there is a very good chance that the kid will grow old and die before the bomb goes off.

The authorities naturally have a problem with the construction of the bomb, but you show them the math, there is only a .05% chance that the bomb is triggered in the next 76 years. Nothing has happened yet, it is just a potentiality! How can they arrest you for doing something so harmless?

I hope you can see how shredded your argument is here. And I am flattered that you attack my arguing style, it means that you can't think of anything substantive to counter my brilliant rationale. I'll keep slaying your stance, you keep insulting me, we can BOTH be happy!

I also feel the need to point out that you are assuming, once again, that the smoking will cause cancer in the kids. What if it's only a few times? What if it's a few years, and then no more? Both of my parents smoked while I was growing up, yet I suffer no ill effects at all. No asthma (I run 4-5 miles every day). No cancer. Nothing. So, my parents should, if done in this day and time, be punished for doing something that did not harm me at all? Ridiculous, I say.

[swivel]

I also feel the need to point out that you are assuming, once again, that the smoking will cause cancer in the kids. What if it's only a few times? What if it's a few years, and then no more? Both of my parents smoked while I was growing up, yet I suffer no ill effects at all. No asthma (I run 4-5 miles every day). No cancer. Nothing. So, my parents should, if done in this day and time, be punished for doing something that did not harm me at all? Ridiculous, I say.

Guess you skipped my analogy with the bomb that has only a .05% chance of going off in 76 years? Or do you think that the building of such a bomb, and permanently strapping it to one's child should be legal?

Other things you must support, since you only care about outcomes, and not probabilities:

You support drinking as much as someone wants and driving (as long as the driver does not get into an accident, or violate any other driving laws)
You support people building pools in neighborhoods and not having to erect a fence around the pool.
You do not support building codes, but we should only prosecute someone AFTER something bad happens.
People should be allowed to take whatever they want onto a plane. Even a bomb, if it is related to the person's profession (demolitions expert, rocket hobbyist)

[Athena]

Spanking doesn't cause lung cancer. Smoke does.

And smoking while you are pregnant is the same as rigging a bomb that is tied to the weak nuclear force of a radioactive element. The bomb goes off if the element (a hypothetical, single atom) discharges energy and reverts to a more stable state. You strap this bomb to your kid's chest, knowing that with a half-life of thousands of years, there is a very good chance that the kid will grow old and die before the bomb goes off.

The authorities naturally have a problem with the construction of the bomb, but you show them the math, there is only a .05% chance that the bomb is triggered in the next 76 years. Nothing has happened yet, it is just a potentiality! How can they arrest you for doing something so harmless?

I hope you can see how shredded your argument is here. And I am flattered that you attack my arguing style, it means that you can't think of anything substantive to counter my brilliant rationale. I'll keep slaying your stance, you keep insulting me, we can BOTH be happy!

I'm not insulting YOU, sweetheart, just insulting posts that consistantly rely heavily on gimmicks. I must say, it is spectacularly ironic that you accuse me of the same thing that I insinuate by pointing these gimmicks out. :D

Your argument, if I may take a moment to strip all the bullshit away -

If the behavior of a parent poses a reasonable risk to the health of a child, we should be free to criminalise such behavior.

I look at things from a legal standpoint, specifically, in terms of precedence. I think about what circumstances "logic" like yours might eventually be applied to. Feeding kids too much junk food or allowing them to play too many hours of video games could easily qualify, by your logic, as offenses worthy of criminalisation, as both have been linked to legitimate health problems down the road. Some might argue that childhood obesity, specifically, is more of a threat to long term health than is living in a smoking household.

I'm curious, swivel, just how far you'd be willing to take such reasoning? Furthermore, who decides what constitutes a legitimate threat to the health of a child?

[swivel]

If the behavior of a parent poses a reasonable risk to the health of a child, we should be free to criminalise such behavior.

I'm curious, swivel, just how far you'd be willing to take such reasoning? Furthermore, who decides what constitutes a legitimate threat to the health of a child?

Glad you asked.

A parent should be able to take their kid rock-climbing. But, if only if they are obeying certain, logical safety guidelines. If they are top-roping or lead-climbing and the kid is on belay and the harness is doubled back. Fine.

But, if a parent was taking their non-adult child free-climbing up 100 ft. faces, they should be put in jail. Criminal endangerment.

We don't let parents drive without their kids being properly restrained. We don't let them leave their kids in the car on a hot day while we run inside to make a purchase. Society has to protect kids from their evil and ignorant parents (and the evil and ignorant libertarians who enable them)

Should we care what a parent feeds their child? Of course. But, just like with the rock-climbing, the point of danger is so obvious it is never crossed. It would be something like a parent force-feeding their child to the point of stomach-rupture, or inability to move. The fact that healthy eaters live statistically longer than shit-eaters does not prove your point, and it is actually you who seems to engage in poor analogies that add nothing to the discussion.

TXChris would obviously argue that it is OK to leave the kid in the sweltering car while you shop. After all, it is only going to be for a little while. And only once a year for a few years, and then never again. How about I keep the kid in the car-seat until we are a mile from home, and then I let them bounce around while I drive?

C'mon, you guys can do better than this. Surely.

[Athena]

Glad you asked.

A parent should be able to take their kid rock-climbing. But, if only if they are obeying certain, logical safety guidelines. If they are top-roping or lead-climbing and the kid is on belay and the harness is doubled back. Fine.

But, if a parent was taking their non-adult child free-climbing up 100 ft. faces, they should be put in jail. Criminal endangerment.

We don't let parents drive without their kids being properly restrained. We don't let them leave their kids in the car on a hot day while we run inside to make a purchase. Society has to protect kids from their evil and ignorant parents (and the evil and ignorant libertarians who enable them)

Should we care what a parent feeds their child? Of course. But, just like with the rock-climbing, the point of danger is so obvious it is never crossed. It would be something like a parent force-feeding their child to the point of stomach-rupture, or inability to move. The fact that healthy eaters live statistically longer than shit-eaters does not prove your point, and it is actually you who seems to engage in poor analogies that add nothing to the discussion.

TXChris would obviously argue that it is OK to leave the kid in the sweltering car while you shop. After all, it is only going to be for a little while. And only once a year for a few years, and then never again. How about I keep the kid in the car-seat until we are a mile from home, and then I let them bounce around while I drive?

C'mon, you guys can do better than this. Surely.

Your response is clear contradiction.

Your argument against parents smoking in cars is that, although the risk of future health problems is minimal, it still exists.

Yet, the parent who takes their kid rock climbing is okay, simply because they took steps to limit the risk (although, I might point out, they never completely eliminate the risk)?

The relativity of your argument is so excessive, it's beginning to look like you're simply playing favorites with the examples you use. There's no clear determination of what LEVEL of risk qualifies an activity for criminalisation. What if rock climbing, with all the safety harnesses money can buy, is still, on average, more potentially detrimental to a child than a parent who smokes in the car with the windows rolled down? On what grounds, specifically, are you determining which is acceptable?

Also - I have to take issue with your comparison of actions with obvious, tangible risks (to use your words, circumstances with an obvious point of danger) to those with much more ambiguous points of danger. That's the whole point, here - Are we judging these things by their level of risk, or by their popularity?

[swivel]

On what grounds, specifically, are you determining which is acceptable?

Of course it is a thick line. Are you saying you can't tell when it has been crossed? 'Cause that is OK. That is what our court systems determine on a daily basis.

Surely your argument isn't that since we can't calculate the odds, any risky endeavor is legal? That potentialities don't matter, only outcomes?

Once again, are you for or against leaving kids in the car on hot days while parents shop?

[Athena]

Of course it is a thick line. Are you saying you can't tell when it has been crossed? 'Cause that is OK. That is what our court systems determine on a daily basis.

Surely your argument isn't that since we can't calculate the odds, any risky endeavor is legal? That potentialities don't matter, only outcomes?

Once again, are you for or against leaving kids in the car on hot days while parents shop?

My point is, the potentialities absolutely matter. The level of risk should be the primary consideration, when it comes to children. It is how we determine the difference between acceptable behavior and abuse.

Leaving a child in a car on a hot day while the parent does whatever carries with it a clear and high level of risk. Kids because of it every year, and we are clear on exactly what killed them. If you leave your child in a car on a hot day for an extended period of time, you WILL cause them damage. Even if you get lucky somehow, the "might" is so high, it justifies criminalisation. That is simply not the case with things like smoking in the car with kids or feeding them poorly. Is there risk? Sure. But there are risks involved in lots of things we do with our kids. The argument simply must rely on the level of risk. Any other reasoning is arbitrary.

[swivel]

The argument simply must rely on the level of risk. Any other reasoning is arbitrary.

Ah, you are coming around and saving face nicely by pretending that this was your stance all-along. I applaud you for doing so. I really don't care how you get here, as long as you start talking sense.

Study finds that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-08-smoking-breastcancer_x.htm

From the National Cancer Institute: (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-secondhand-smoke)

Tobacco use, including cigarette smoking, dramatically increases not only one’s own risk of developing cancer but also endangers the health of others. Exposure to secondhand smoke, (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)), significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk of developing lung and other cancers in addition to other health problems like decreased respiratory function and other respiratory diseases, eye and nasal irritation, heart disease and stroke. Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year, which includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease, and is responsible for lower respiratory tract infections in an estimated 300,000 children each year.

Sooo. I'm glad that we agree on this issue. I consider the argument won, and would like to do whatever I can to help you save face by telling you how pretty you are, and how well you did at limiting your spelling errors.



Edit: Added link to NCI.

[Athena]

Ah, you are coming around and saving face nicely by pretending that this was your stance all-along. I applaud you for doing so. I really don't care how you get here, as long as you start talking sense.

Study finds that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-08-smoking-breastcancer_x.htm

From the National Cancer Institute:


Sooo. I'm glad that we agree on this issue. I consider the argument won, and would like to do whatever I can to help you save face by telling you how pretty you are, and how well you did at limiting your spelling errors.

Awww...You think I'm pretty? Well, that makes everything all better. :o

But, since you failed to note - I was never arguing that smoking in cars with children should remain legal. I stated QUITE clearly, more than once, that I was undecided. Apparently, that didn't tip you off, though. I was simply arguing all along that the level of risk should be the only consideration, that it must be significant to justify criminalising behavior, and that it be applied consistantly. I don't need to save face - that fact is upheld in the text of this very thread, and would be quite clear to those who are less interested in consistantly vilifying me.

[swivel]

Again, I am quite pleased that you have taken my side.

And I am very aware that your position was neutral. That does not make it less heinous or incorrect. You might as well feel indifferent about the act of rape.

This is such an obvious, objective, moral wrong that anything other than my position is indefensible, inarguable, and evil. And I am glad that you now share it.

[TXChris]

Where, exactly, does government intervention into parenting cease?

What about the sun? It, too, causes cancer. Should parents have to face the law for not making sure their children have sunblock on every minute they are outside and that they are wearing long-sleeves, hats, long pants, and sunglasses? Anybody with children knows that kids don't listen to everything they are told, and I would be willing to bet that many kids would let the sunblock wear off, or like I would have as a child, wipe it off. I, personally, could never stand the feel of it as a child.

How about a child's weight? Overeating can lead to a person becoming overweight which could lead to diabetes, among other health problems. It's not guaranteed, but the possibility is there. Should the parents be charged with an offense if their children are found to be overweight? At what point is one considered overweight? The government used to use BMI tests, but this is highly ineffective as those with increased muscle mass can be labeled as overweight by the test. So, now they have gone into other methods of deciding where one's weight should reside. But, if the law was using BMI results at the time to punish parents, which they later found out was incorrect, what recourse would these parents have? How could the government possibly make up for punishing parents based on false claims?

Following this line of thought, how would the government propose to keep the child's weight in check? Will the government have a mandated menu that all must eat from? Also, different metabolisms process food differently. For instance, my body responds extremely well to a higher protein, lower carb "diet." But, I also run a lot more than most people. Should I be forced to follow the government's plan even though I obviously take care of myself pretty well? If not, why should I get special treatment from the government? After all, my body is just that...my body. If I were to choose to eat and become morbidly obese, then all the more to me. Get the government out of healthcare and there is no more incentive to control the menu of the populace.

Even today, we see how bad this problem is. Parents in many communities face prison time for their children skipping school. These parents have to work to be able to afford a place to live, clothing, food, etc. Yet, somehow, they also have to be in constant control of where their children are during school hours. WTF? Very few kids have not skipped school at one time or another. I, myself, enjoyed the hell out of school. Took all advanced courses. Never studied. Made straight A's. And, yes, I skipped school on occassion. It's part of growing up. It happens. I am no worse off for anything that I did during my high school years. But these poor parents find themselves jailed and fined because of it? Once again, they are being punished before any crime takes place, merely because the possibility is there that a crime could be committed. If the child skips school and commits a crime, by all means, punish the kid. But basing law on the assumption that simply because a child skips school they will be unproductive to society, as adults, or that they will commit a crime, is ludicrous.

Emotion in law is a bitch. The problem you seem to commonly have, Swivel, is finding one precise example from which to base your claim. But, without considering the whole effect of what you are proposing, you will always hurt more than you will help. I understand your intentions, which, in this case, are to keep children healthy. That really is a noble gesture. The problem arises when you say that government should have the final say in how a parent raises their child. These are children of the parents, not of the state. Instead of forcing government regulations upon parents, the money would be better spent teaching parents to be more responsible. But, even that, I will admit is only a compromise on my part.

[swivel]

Yes, if parents keep their kids in the sun until they contract skin cancer, they should be liable for the pain and damages caused. That would be abuse. You and Athena keep coming up with benign examples, never taking them to the point of abuse, and pretending that you are showing how these examples are not abusive. Can't you see how circular and self-fulfilling these arguments are?

I never found any example? I've been doing nothing BUT giving examples. Then I cited a study which found over 300,000 cases of intestinal infection in children due to secondhand smoke.

You are a bit rusty for a knight in shining armor. Your damsel is already on my arm, dude. She agrees with me and doesn't need defending anymore.

[TXChris]

Ah, you are coming around and saving face nicely by pretending that this was your stance all-along. I applaud you for doing so. I really don't care how you get here, as long as you start talking sense.

Study finds that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-08-smoking-breastcancer_x.htm

From the National Cancer Institute: (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-secondhand-smoke)

In relation to your quote, it clearly states "....significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk...." but the key word here is "risk." In other words, not everyone gets lung cancer, etc. As a matter of fact, the quote supposedly shows how many people have an "increased risk" but it fails to mention how many people, exposed to that same smoke, did not contract cancer, heart disease, etc. and die. So, while the number seems high, it is relatively small in comparison, to say, 3.8 million. One cannot throw out numbers without showing the full story. You, my friend, are falling into the fallacy that many social scientists use to "prove" their theories. You are only considering half of the argument...the half that makes your argument look good.

[swivel]

In relation to your quote, it clearly states "....significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk...." but the key word here is "risk." In other words, not everyone gets lung cancer, etc. As a matter of fact, the quote supposedly shows how many people have an "increased risk" but it fails to mention how many people, exposed to that same smoke, did not contract cancer, heart disease, etc. and die. So, while the number seems high, it is relatively small in comparison, to say, 3.8 million. One cannot throw out numbers without showing the full story. You, my friend, are falling into the fallacy that many social scientists use to "prove" their theories. You are only considering half of the argument...the half that makes your argument look good.

Right, and you are considering the half that makes your point look good. So... please show me the studies that show that secondhand smoke poses no health risks to children and we can start the debate. Or tell me how 300,000 cases is not enough to start considering legislation.

Are you really so anarchic that you think all probabilistic harms should be allowed? That we shouldn't examine each case for its specific merits and pitfalls and make intelligent recommendations? I couldn't quite get Athena to out-right say that she was this insane, but you seem almost on the cusp...

People like you, and the ACLU are so reactionary. Any limiting of rights results in the knee-jerk condemnation. No time to study each case and make a rational decision. A right is curtailed? Drop the hammer. It is startling, and as much as you and Athena seem to take pride in your Libertarian bent, it is misguided and hypocritical.

I promise to read your study on the safety of secondhand smoke. As with all things scientific, the more recent the better.

[TXChris]

Yes, if parents keep their kids in the sun until they contract skin cancer, they should be liable for the pain and damages caused. That would be abuse. You and Athena keep coming up with benign examples, never taking them to the point of abuse, and pretending that you are showing how these examples are not abusive. Can't you see how circular and self-fulfilling these arguments are?

I never found any example? I've been doing nothing BUT giving examples. Then I cited a study which found over 300,000 cases of intestinal infection in children due to secondhand smoke.

You are a bit rusty for a knight in shining armor. Your damsel is already on my arm, dude. She agrees with me and doesn't need defending anymore.

So, you say that parents should be held by law for smoking in the car with the kids, in the event that the kids may, one day, possibly contract cancer. Yet, when talking about sun cancer, you say they should be held by law ONLY if the kids contract skin cancer. In one breath you are saying the fact that it might happen is grounds enough to allow government intrusion, even though there is no study that shows everyone inhaling second-hand smoke, or staying out in the sun, gets cancer. In other words, according to your logic, it is okay to punish people for not committing a crime. Then, in the next breath, you say that only if the kid gets cancer because the parent "kept" them out in the sun, can the government intrude.

My point is that they are both one-in-the-same. You either have government intrusion, and a subsequent loss of rights, or you don't. There is no gray area. Power corrupts, plain and simple. The more power you give them the more they take, and the easier it becomes for them to take it.

You have failed to prove anything other than your continued insistence of relying on only one side of an argument without properly taking into account all variables and results.

[swivel]

So, parents should be able to leave their kids in the car on hot days while they shop? As long as the kid doesn't die?

[TXChris]

No, what I am doing is attempting to show you that you must take into consideration all relevant information concerning the argument. And my argument is not that there is no possibility of risk with the second-had smoke, rather it is the clear and distinct point that risk does not equate a guarantee. Swivel, you really must pay attention better. See, you are so intent on wanting me to show you that second-hand smoke poses no risk that you are failing to realize that my position is simply: risk merely correlates to a possibility. However, there is the possibility that one could get cancer from some freak abnormality inherited from the parents. Speaking of which, are you saying that parents which show a risk of their child being less than perfect in health when they are born should not be allowed to procreate? But, I digress...

I keep trying to show you that your inference to "intelligent decisions" are based upon what you consider intelligent. Once again, it is subjective based upon one's reality and environment. That is not necessarily a good thing. The guarantee of personal rights, however, is objective. If those three rights are guaranteed then everything else can easily be defined. THAT is why they were seen as so important to many of the Founding Fathers.

As far as the ACLU goes, they are far different than what you seem to think. You really need to study up a bit on those idiots before bringing them into a dicussion. Contrary to what you seem to believe, they are far from protecting idividual rights.

And, just so you don't think I'm ignoring your question about kids being left in hot cars. Death, in this case, is not something that might happen. It is something that will happen. If it came down to some law needing to be enacted, how about setting a temperature limit? Beyond a certain temp. you know there is going to be a problem. Bringing this back around to the car smoking example, there is no study that says everybody introduced to second hand smoke get cancer, heart disease, etc. Period.

[swivel]

Ah, so you are arguing against the validity of at least 4 scientific studies detailing the risks of secondhand smoke published within the last 5 years.

So, your argument is with them, not me. I understand. Well, after you work out the mistakes in their scientific methodology, please report back here so we can see if the debate between ourselves needs to carry on, or if you just need to adopt the position that Athena and I have settled on.


Edit: When you verbalize your punctuation it doesn't make your argument any sounder. It just makes you look like you ran out of things to say. Please get back to us once you find the problems with the latest medical studies on secondhand smoke.

[TXChris]

It really is amazing that you are not able to comprehend what I am saying. I am pretty sure you are the only one who isn't able to. The keyword is "risk." I honestly do not know how much more clear of a way I can say that. Risk does not equate to a guarantee. It simply means there is a possibility. Further, this means that one may, or may not, contract cancer or heart disease. I have yet to argue the merits of any studies. You are arguing the merits of the studies. What I am arguing is the passing of legislation based upon a possibility of something happening, by the way of which we cannot quantify because we do not know how many people are not affected by second hand smoke, AND where a precedent like this leads. Please, Swivel, do yourself a favor and try to comprehend those few simple sentences above.

[swivel]

It really is amazing that you are not able to comprehend what I am saying. I am pretty sure you are the only one who isn't able to. The keyword is "risk." I honestly do not know how much more clear of a way I can say that. Risk does not equate to a guarantee. It simply means there is a possibility. Further, this means that one may, or may not, contract cancer or heart disease. I have yet to argue the merits of any studies. You are arguing the merits of the studies. What I am arguing is the passing of legislation based upon a possibility of something happening, by the way of which we cannot quantify because we do not know how many people are not affected by second hand smoke, AND where a precedent like this leads. Please, Swivel, do yourself a favor and try to comprehend those few simple sentences above.

So... am I allowed to fire a gun into a crowd, as long as I aim as carefully as possible in order to not hit anyone? Let's go one further, and say that I am a crack shot, and it would almost take a gun malfunction for me to hit anyone with a well-placed bullet right through a crowd. Any law broken here?

I'm not trying to hurt anyone. As a matter-of-fact, I'm taking pains to ensure that nobody is hurt. Indeed, nobody is hurt. Did I break any laws? Should the cops shrug and move on?

Of course not. Why? Because the wish of the crowd is to not be fired into. Despite the claim of safety, the other people involved do not want it. And, since it is an easily avoidable scenario, it is wrong to put the "wishes" of the sniper over that of the however-slightly-endangered crowd.


Same goes for the kids in the cars. They do not want to be left in a sweltering car, even if you have to let them grow up enough to understand that decision. They do not want to breathe the smoke that could hurt them, even if they are too young to understand what an intestinal infection is. You called the ACLU "morons" somewhere. Well, friend, I lump you right in with those guys. You are repeatedly, in every thread I see you in, choosing the wrong person's rights to champion. Objectively wrong.

[TXChris]

So now you choose to bring into a rational discussion the irrationality of one violating another's rights (sniper killing someone)? Get real. You fail without going any further, but you know me, I just have to go further...

In this riduculous case you have concocted, in an attempt to justify your position, the sniper cannot guarantee that someone will not walk into the line of fire. All he can control is himself and the gun. Also, your assumption that the "hit" is guaranteed is way off mark. Any sniper will tell you that, though they can tell you with rather correct accuracy that they will or will not hit a target, they cannot guarantee it in the situation you chose to employ.

All that being said, your view of morality as objective easily explains your flaw in thoughts on the many subjects we disagree on.

[swivel]

Ahh, exactly! My point is made, if only you could see it along with everyone else. You are right, the sniper can not guarantee the safety of the crowd. Which is why I tasked you with refuting the work of hundreds of doctors who have conducted longitudinal studies of over a dozen years which show that children and pregnant women are MOST AT RISK from secondhand smoke. Once you do that, you will have one leg to stand on again, and I can chop it out from underneath you. Again.



Edit: From the study you need to refute:


Pregnant women and children are considered to be at an even higher risk for the development of disease. For pregnant women, exposure may result in babies of low birth weight or who are small for gestational age. In some cases, secondhand smoke exposure can even result in miscarriage. Secondhand smoke exposure contributes to many respiratory conditions among children, including increased respiratory tract infections, decreased lung function, asthma and middle ear infections. For very young children and infants, exposure raises the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

[TXChris]

Swivel, you have yet to show me how anything I am saying is wrong. You continue to defend a position I haven't even taken to task. Unbelievable.

Your little quote continues to support my case. The verbage "risk," "may result," and "can" only show a possibility. None of that verbage suggests in any way, shape, or form that second hand smoke will definitely result in diseases for everyone, or even a larger group. Once again, you are failing to quantify your support. The only way to refute what I have said is to quanity it, showing that the mentioned number is a large percentage of the overall group, and at the same time presenting evidence that everyone faces the diseases mentioned because of second hand smoke.

While you're at it, make sure the studies you use to support your claims are based on causation and not correlation. Once again, a huge mistake many scientists make when desperate to prove their theory.

[swivel]

You keep saying the wrong thing over and over again. It isn't going to change anything.

I have proven you wrong. You say that "risk" shouldn't matter. I asked if you should be able to leave kids in sweltering cars, or if we should get rid of building codes, or not have to put fences around pools. Each of these cases proves you wrong.

The sniper example proves you wrong. The Cancer Institute findings prove you wrong. There isn't just a "might" in there, there are 300,000 annual cases of just one type of sickness.

What you are left saying is, "Well, this one particular kid right here might not be one of those 300,000". How dumb can you get, dude? It doesn't matter about one anecdotal kid. What matters is that 300,000 ARE getting sick. No "maybe" about it. It happens. Does the fact that we can't tell IN ADVANCE which ones are affected mean that we don't take the simpre precaution that can save all of them? Only a lunatic would make this argument.

Once again, you are arguing that people should be allowed to drink as much as they like before driving, as long as they don't break any traffic laws. You are promoting anarchy. You are saying that no crimes are preventable, nor should we even strive to reduce them, just wait until they happen, and punish accordingly.

Athena. Please. Go find a better attack dog than this one. I am getting too much done on other sites. I want a real distraction. Please.

[Athena]

Goddamn, Swivel...You sure know how to make me feel cheap. Less like a damsel on your arm and more like a paid escort. You had to know that, if you continued with the ridiculous comparisons, it would never last between us, darling...

So, I was begining to think that, perhaps, it was all some misunderstanding. Perhaps we really were arguing the same point. Fortunately, a little time away from the Cheshire Cat that you've become in this argument, and I am again able to see the inconsistency.

If I may, I'll like to establish some clear parameters. Reading back through, it's hard to tell if,

A.) You're arguing that, because risk is inherent, criminalisation is justifiable and the level of risk is a non-issue, or...

B.) That the level of risk is the key factor in justifying criminalisation, and that smoking in the car with kids presents a significant enough risk to satisfy such the requirements for criminalisation.

If you would be so kind, please clarify this for me. I'm leaning toward B, but there are some apparent contradictions.


*A note to the Peanut Gallery - Do you remember the comparison and ratio questions on aptitude testing when you were a kid? For example, "X is to Y as A is to B". I've got one for you. Strictly in terms of the level of risk assumed:

Firing a gun into a crowd is to smoking in the car with kids as Russian Roulette is to ________

a.) A game of chicken.

b.) Base jumping.

C.) Swimming.

d.) Crabbing in Alaska.

Answer during next reply.

[Dark Star]

"But, if you are smoking, and pregnant, and planning on having the kid, you are a fucking piece of shit moron slack-ass weak-kneed redneck/ghetto dumb fucking bitch."

Well fuck. You are just jumping on people's shit right and left here. Pot-smokers. Women who smoke whilst pregnant. Jesus Fucking Christ I am glad you do not make the laws, man. I smoked with both my kids. They're healthy children. I quit smoking cigarettes when my son was around a year old, because I wanted to.

Damn....a piece of shit moron slack ass weak kneed redneck/ghetto dumb fucking bitch. Man, that is a lot of name calling. :)

[Athena]

lol, Hippie. I'm not sure if mom smoked when she was pregnant with me, but my parents did smoke in both the house and the car, our entire lives.

My sister and I have never had so much as a mild case of bronchitis. Shit...I played volleyball, basketball AND ran track in high school. Perhaps we're genetic freaks?

And, while I would never use my personal experience as "evidence" in a discussion regarding odds, I'll take this off moment to also mention that, although nearly my entire family either has or does smoke, the only person I know to have died from cancer was my non-smoking, non-drinking, organics-consuming, jogging aunt. No, correlation does not equal causation and, of course I'm not trying to suggest that healthy lifestyle will lead to worse health...But it's a hell of a coincidence, no?

[swivel]

Wow ladies. Thanks for your anecdotal comments. I wish we could generalize for the rest of the world from your little sample here.


My mom is a big smoker, 3-4 packs a day. My children often stay at her house, but she refuses to quit smoking around them, she acts like she doesn't even care. My son has had many respiratory problems since he was born and the more I think about it, the more I relate it to her smoking, even though he only sees her once a week or so. I am thinking about telling her that the children will not be allowed to come over to her house unless she quits smoking around them. But I know she'll get all huffy and puffy and mad at me. But I know this is something I have to do for their sake. Why do some people act like they don't even care about these kids' health??
~ Amber, IA



My 14 year old son's mother (we're divorced) smokes in the car and home around my son. My son has asthma, and when he is with me he is healthy. When he's with his Mom he has asthma, bronchitis and frequent infections. I had a "smoke free home" clause put in our custody order for our son in the divorce court oder, but she persists in smoking around him anyway. As a final step before taking her back to court on this, I am sending my son to her home with a gas mask that he intends to wear when he is around her. She has tried to quit before, but failed. My son supports her quitting. I'm hoping these nudges will help her quit for good (or at least get her to use nicotine gum/patch when my son is with her).
~ Patrick, CA


My ex-husband and I divorced when our son was 1 years old. At that time, smoking was not allowed in our home and my son's health was fine. Once we divorced, his father resumed smoking and that's when the trouble with my son's ears started. My son is 3 years old now and on his second set of ear tubes and has had his annoides removed. My son gets sick whenever he goes to his dad's- he always comes back with ear infections. (Besides his dad who smokes, there are also 3 other people living in the home who smoke too) My son has mild hearing loss in the left ear. I know it is the smoking. The solid proof that proved it, was this past October. Oct. 23 my son had a hearing test and the tubes were open and clear, then on November 2nd he went to his dad's for a week. On Nov. 13 was his next hearing test and it came back saying that both ears were flat and his next test said he had fluid in his ears again. His dad won't stop- I need help! I don't know what to do!
~ Stephanie, OH


My mom has smoked forever - even when she was pregnant with me, and just recently my Dad has started smoking. I can't stand it! I can't breathe, it makes my nose hurt, I cough and I smell terrible. I play soccer and I have to stop constantly because I can't breathe. It doesn't just effect me, it hurts my brother too. Why would they smoke when they know it hurts us? How can she tell us not to smoke while she sits there blowing the smoke in our face? And why won't she smoke in her room, but will smoke in the living room?
~ Jessica, North Carolina

If you guys really think that individual, anecdotal accounts prove a point, you are crazier than I had imagined. We need a large sample size and repeatable experimentation. When we do that, the studies ALL come out on my side, and none of them agree with you.

I can't believe you guys aren't intelligent or moral enough to be ashamed of yourselves.

[Dark Star]

"I can't believe you guys aren't intelligent or moral enough to be ashamed of yourselves."


Me neither, damn I am so ashamed, Swivel. :p :D I lack intelligence and morality. Holy shit. I knew there was something wrong with me, and I just could not put my finger on it until now. You big smarty.;)

[swivel]

"I can't believe you guys aren't intelligent or moral enough to be ashamed of yourselves."


Me neither, damn I am so ashamed, Swivel. :p :D I lack intelligence and morality. Holy shit. I knew there was something wrong with me, and I just could not put my finger on it until now. You big smarty.;)

It's OK. Even though everyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong (even sociopaths understand the rules, which is why they are so adept at blending in). But not everyone is born with a practical understanding of those rules. It takes long, honest thought to deduce the answers in some tricky moral dilemmas.

I'm just glad that I was here to help you, and that you are open enough to re-think some of the ideas that were just handed to you, or that you haven't dwelt on long enough for yourself. It is never too late to become a better person. Or to admit when our misguided concepts of right and wrong are just the excuses we use to feel better about being bad people.

I have a lot of hope for you Hippie. You make me proud.

[Athena]

If you guys really think that individual, anecdotal accounts prove a point, you are crazier than I had imagined. We need a large sample size and repeatable experimentation. When we do that, the studies ALL come out on my side, and none of them agree with you.

I can't believe you guys aren't intelligent or moral enough to be ashamed of yourselves.

So, did you choose to simply ignore this statement...



And, while I would never use my personal experience as "evidence" in a discussion regarding odds...

...like you decided to skim by my very clearly stated questions on the previous page?

Gosh. You make intellectual dishonesty look so easy.

[CPL CHUD]

What age set are we refering to when we speak of children? Is it the infant stage when the brain hasn't even fully developed? Are we refering to minors?

Did they say in the article Athena?

Off the bat I don't have a problem with this law. It only protects children from something that can cause them harm and that they have no control over but I can see how this could fall down a slippery slope.

[Dark Star]

It's OK. Even though everyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong (even sociopaths understand the rules, which is why they are so adept at blending in). But not everyone is born with a practical understanding of those rules. It takes long, honest thought to deduce the answers in some tricky moral dilemmas.

I'm just glad that I was here to help you, and that you are open enough to re-think some of the ideas that were just handed to you, or that you haven't dwelt on long enough for yourself. It is never too late to become a better person. Or to admit when our misguided concepts of right and wrong are just the excuses we use to feel better about being bad people.

I have a lot of hope for you Hippie. You make me proud.

OMFG Swivel, do you actually believe all this shit you type? You totally crack me up. :D

I am honored, Swivel, that I, the low-life hippie, would make some one as rich in wisdom as you are, proud. *hugs you tightly, pressing my patchouli smelling boobies into your god-like chest*:p

*puts on my old hog sloppin' boots cause the shit is getting deep*;)

[swivel]

So, did you choose to simply ignore this statement...



...like you decided to skim by my very clearly stated questions on the previous page?

Gosh. You make intellectual dishonesty look so easy.

Frankly, I didn't even notice the posts. Was it anything new?

Or are you just jealous because I preferred to have a bit of a chat with Hippiepoet?

If so, wait your turn.

[Athena]

Frankly, I didn't even notice the posts. Was it anything new?

Or are you just jealous because I preferred to have a bit of a chat with Hippiepoet?

If so, wait your turn.

Well, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be any more thorough in keeping up with the thread than you are in structuring your arguments...

If interested, please see the last reply on page 4. If not, don't worry about it. I'm quite convinced that your judgment here is arbitrary. I'd imagine it would be difficult to deliver straightforward answers to straightforward questions when your perspective is swimming in ambiguity and, if you can't address my questions directly, we've really not nothing else to discuss.

[swivel]

A.) You're arguing that, because risk is inherent, criminalisation is justifiable and the level of risk is a non-issue, or...

B.) That the level of risk is the key factor in justifying criminalisation, and that smoking in the car with kids presents a significant enough risk to satisfy such the requirements for criminalisation.

If you would be so kind, please clarify this for me. I'm leaning toward B, but there are some apparent contradictions.


*A note to the Peanut Gallery - Do you remember the comparison and ratio questions on aptitude testing when you were a kid? For example, "X is to Y as A is to B". I've got one for you. Strictly in terms of the level of risk assumed:

Firing a gun into a crowd is to smoking in the car with kids as Russian Roulette is to ________

a.) A game of chicken.

b.) Base jumping.

C.) Swimming.

d.) Crabbing in Alaska.

Answer during next reply.

Don't blame me for putting a post on the very end of the last page. That's just a dumb place to put a post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

(B)

(D)


Edit: See where I put my posts? Write these lessons down.

[Athena]

Don't blame me for putting a post on the very end of the last page. That's just a dumb place to put a post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

(B)

(D)


Edit: See where I put my posts? Write these lessons down.

You uber-liberals. Always with the displaced responsibility. YOU missed a post, yet it's somehow MY fault. Could you be any more typical?

I do, however, appreciate your straight answers, though. That must have been hard for you, kitty.

Now, if we can break this down further - Level of risk is not the only component, here. It can't be. If it were, we'd criminalise owning a pool when you've got kids or storing poisons unlocked and under the kitchen sink if you've got kids. What is the other factor in your reasoning?

Oh, and the answer is C. You're obviously no underwriter. If you're arguing about levels of risk, it's more honest to compare things with similar levels of risk. Shooting into a crowd carries an exponentially higher level of risk than dying as the result of second-hand smoke inhaled in a car as a minor. Just like russian roulette carries an exponentially higher level of risk than drowning while swimming.

[swivel]

Now, if we can break this down further - Level of risk is not the only component, here. It can't be. If it were, we'd criminalise owning a pool when you've got kids or storing poisons unlocked and under the kitchen sink if you've got kids. What is the other factor in your reasoning?

I hope you mean "What ARE the other factorS in your reasoning?"

Reward - Personal Freedoms/Tastes - Culpability

Pools are legal, but there are laws to minimize the danger. Fences around neighborhood pools. Lifeguards at public pools. Parents not leaving their kids unattended at private pools, etc...

All things have some risk, and obviously we can't get rid of all things. I have no problem stating the obvious on one extreme, but you still cling to the ridiculous on the other - that no regulation is required, just personal freedom and common sense.

gprime doesn't think we need speed limits, do you?

[Athena]

I hope you mean "What ARE the other factorS in your reasoning?"

Reward - Personal Freedoms/Tastes - Culpability

Pools are legal, but there are laws to minimize the danger. Fences around neighborhood pools. Lifeguards at public pools. Parents not leaving their kids unattended at private pools, etc...

All things have some risk, and obviously we can't get rid of all things. I have no problem stating the obvious on one extreme, but you still cling to the ridiculous on the other - that no regulation is required, just personal freedom and common sense.

gprime doesn't think we need speed limits, do you?

gprime is more hardcore than I am. I can get down with limiting risk. I can't, however, get down with subjective reasoning behind legislation. If we are going to infringe on one's freedoms in an attempt to limit risk, there's got to be solid evidence and formulaic reasoning that can be applied consistently. There's a clear science behind speed limits. There's a clear science behind lots of risk limitation legislation. However, limitations that impact individual liberty but do not have clear science behind them should be avoided, as arbitrary legislation and enforcement damages a society and lends itself to tyranny.

[swivel]

If we are going to infringe on one's freedoms in an attempt to limit risk, there's got to be solid evidence and formulaic reasoning that can be applied consistently.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-secondhand-smoke


Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year, which includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease, and is responsible for lower respiratory tract infections in an estimated 300,000 children each year.


Anyone who is exposed to secondhand smoke is at an increased risk for developing cancer or other related health problems. Pregnant women and children are considered to be at an even higher risk for the development of disease.

http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html


Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.
Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.


Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.
Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries.


Cool. Let's finish up in another thread. This one is up in smoke.

[Athena]

Christ.

...and you ask ME if I posted anything new? :rolleyes:

No one disputed that there is a risk to second-hand smoke.

You're making a case to outlaw smoking completely, or at least anywhere indoors, including homes. These stats do not speak to the potential benefit to be gained from outlawing smoking in cars with kids, as those children are likely to be exposed to even more second-hand smoke at home.

[swivel]

Christ.

...and you ask ME if I posted anything new? :rolleyes:

No one disputed that there is a risk to second-hand smoke.

You're making a case to outlaw smoking completely, or at least anywhere indoors, including homes. These stats do not speak to the potential benefit to be gained from outlawing smoking in cars with kids, as those children are likely to be exposed to even more second-hand smoke at home.

You are still in here? Sigh.

So... since kids get extra smoke at home, smoke which kills them, it is OK in the car because they get less smoke. Which kills them?

BWWWHAAHAHHAAAHHAAAHAHHAAHHAAAAHHAAHAHHAAHHAA!!!!

You accuse me of setting rules based on arbitrariness, and subjectivism?

BBBWWWAHHAAAHAHHAHHAAHHAHHAA!!!

Fuck-An-A Athena, you are out of your gourd. You admitted that rules should be set if there is are scientifically-proven, and statistically-significant levels, or risk in a behavior that affects others. Smoking fits this description. Yes, it should be banned from all enclosed areas (even homes). The risk factor for death DOUBLES you heartless nazi! The risk for SIDS is THREE TIMES in pregnant women you evil drone.

They got rid of asbestos for LESS RISK FACTORS.

They got rid of lead paint for LESS RISK FACTORS.

You are an evil psycho if you can't see that smoking around other people is the same fucking nonsense. Go read some of the studies I linked, because you obviously haven't. This is iron-clad.

And, if you haven't noticed, we are gradually phasing out secondhand smoke for these very reasons. We learned during Prohibition that you can't just take the cookie from the kiddie, you have to move slowly, sneak up behind the tot. And that is what we are doing, and the reasons I list are the same factors in these decisions. Supporting this is placing yourself on the wrong side of history, my friend. You look like a brainless, heartless savage.

Give it up. Admit you were wrong. Meet me in the DUI thread.

[Athena]

You are still in here? Sigh.

So... since kids get extra smoke at home, smoke which kills them, it is OK in the car because they get less smoke. Which kills them?

BWWWHAAHAHHAAAHHAAAHAHHAAHHAAAAHHAAHAHHAAHHAA!!!!

You accuse me of setting rules based on arbitrariness, and subjectivism?

BBBWWWAHHAAAHAHHAHHAAHHAHHAA!!!

Fuck-An-A Athena, you are out of your gourd. You admitted that rules should be set if there is are scientifically-proven, and statistically-significant levels, or risk in a behavior that affects others. Smoking fits this description. Yes, it should be banned from all enclosed areas (even homes). The risk factor for death DOUBLES you heartless nazi! The risk for SIDS is THREE TIMES in pregnant women you evil drone.

They got rid of asbestos for LESS RISK FACTORS.

They got rid of lead paint for LESS RISK FACTORS.

You are an evil psycho if you can't see that smoking around other people is the same fucking nonsense. Go read some of the studies I linked, because you obviously haven't. This is iron-clad.

And, if you haven't noticed, we are gradually phasing out secondhand smoke for these very reasons. We learned during Prohibition that you can't just take the cookie from the kiddie, you have to move slowly, sneak up behind the tot. And that is what we are doing, and the reasons I list are the same factors in these decisions. Supporting this is placing yourself on the wrong side of history, my friend. You look like a brainless, heartless savage.

Give it up. Admit you were wrong. Meet me in the DUI thread.

*Sigh*...So quick to vilify that you jump to unfounded conclusions about my perspective. This was a discussion about your reasoning tactics more than it ever was about banning smoking in cars.

As you ought to be aware, I am all for criminalising behavior that imposes on the rights of others. It is for this reason that I oppose smoking bans in privately-owned establishments but am in full agreement with the bans in publically-owned establishments. When it comes to damaging those who are unconsenting, you will find me in agreement every time. Patronising a particular bar or club is not a right; by doing so, you are consenting to the circumstances and environment of that place. I do, however, support the right to an informed decision and believe that establishments who allow smoking, asbestos, lead paint or engage in any other potentially damaging activity should have to make such information available to the public so that they can make an educated decision regarding the hazards they are exposing themselves to.

Now, if we're banning smoking to get people to quit, that is wrong. If we're legitimately banning smoking to protect the rights (actual rights, not convenience) of others, that's got merit. Still, kids don't have a full set of rights, legally speaking, when greys things a bit. If you are going to remove the right of one individual to protect another, you should have to prove that you are actually protecting them from something. None of the statistics you posted proves that measurable damage is done when kids are in cars with smokers. Are we doing this because there will be a tangible and significant benefit, or because smoking is unpopular and we want everyone to quit?

[swivel]

Man. By your argument, you are saying that asbestos and lead-based paint should be brought back, as long as the buildings that we use them in are privately-owned and get a warning label.

What part of "Secondhand Smoke Kills" do you not get? The shit is hundreds of times more dangerous than these other two banned substances. You are really suggesting that we use whatever dangerous shit we want to, as long as we tell the occupants that they are there, and they are free to leave if they don't like it?

I keep bringing slavery up in these threads because the analogies are so apt, but you sound like the slave-holder who kinda saw something wrong with owning people, but figured nothing was ever going to change, so just resigned themselves to the status quo. Smoking is just like slavery. Something that will be gone one day, and looked back on as a barbaric and ignorant practice. You really want to be Jefferson in this debate?

Sheesh.

[Athena]

Man. By your argument, you are saying that asbestos and lead-based paint should be brought back, as long as the buildings that we use them in are privately-owned and get a warning label.

What part of "Secondhand Smoke Kills" do you not get? The shit is hundreds of times more dangerous than these other two banned substances. You are really suggesting that we use whatever dangerous shit we want to, as long as we tell the occupants that they are there, and they are free to leave if they don't like it?

I keep bringing slavery up in these threads because the analogies are so apt, but you sound like the slave-holder who kinda saw something wrong with owning people, but figured nothing was ever going to change, so just resigned themselves to the status quo. Smoking is just like slavery. Something that will be gone one day, and looked back on as a barbaric and ignorant practice. You really want to be Jefferson in this debate?

Sheesh.

Actually, yeah. So long as people are able to make an informed decision as to whether or not they will subject themselves to harmful substances, I think business owners should be able to allow or employ whatever they want.

LMAO. You bring slavery up in every goddamn thread for the same reason liberals try to compare Bush to Hitler. The frequency with which you make a comparison doesn't enhance its legitimacy, I'm afraid.

[swivel]

Actually, yeah. So long as people are able to make an informed decision as to whether or not they will subject themselves to harmful substances, I think business owners should be able to allow or employ whatever they want.

LMAO. You bring slavery up in every goddamn thread for the same reason liberals try to compare Bush to Hitler. The frequency with which you make a comparison doesn't enhance its legitimacy, I'm afraid.

Oh, well since you say so. With no reason other than I do it often. Without debunking the analogy in any of my hundreds of examples wherein I use it. I suppose we should just take your word for it?

But isn't that what you do in every thread? Just say I'm wrong and not give us any argument that makes sense? Who do you think looks stupid here?

[Athena]

Who do you think looks stupid here?

The cat with the lime helmet. You look emotionally-driven and I look callous. Seems accurate enough. Let's be honest - the grammar's too on point to convey stupidity.

Oh, and I don't bother debunking this comparison because its failure would be quite obvious to anyone in the audience with at least half a brain in their head. When I talk to you, it's only to address them. When I think they probably get it already, I see no need to engage you.

[TXChris]

You keep saying the wrong thing over and over again. It isn't going to change anything.

I have proven you wrong. You say that "risk" shouldn't matter. I asked if you should be able to leave kids in sweltering cars, or if we should get rid of building codes, or not have to put fences around pools. Each of these cases proves you wrong.

The sniper example proves you wrong. The Cancer Institute findings prove you wrong. There isn't just a "might" in there, there are 300,000 annual cases of just one type of sickness.

What you are left saying is, "Well, this one particular kid right here might not be one of those 300,000". How dumb can you get, dude? It doesn't matter about one anecdotal kid. What matters is that 300,000 ARE getting sick. No "maybe" about it. It happens. Does the fact that we can't tell IN ADVANCE which ones are affected mean that we don't take the simpre precaution that can save all of them? Only a lunatic would make this argument.

Once again, you are arguing that people should be allowed to drink as much as they like before driving, as long as they don't break any traffic laws. You are promoting anarchy. You are saying that no crimes are preventable, nor should we even strive to reduce them, just wait until they happen, and punish accordingly.

Athena. Please. Go find a better attack dog than this one. I am getting too much done on other sites. I want a real distraction. Please.

Quantify your numbers, man. Seriously. 300,000 is hardly a big number when compared to 300,000,000. You keep going on about how risk should be considered, yet fail to quantify your numbers. 300,000 of 3,000,000 is 10 percent. 300,000 of 30,000,000 is only 1 percent. 300,000 of 300,000,000 is just 1/10 percent. QUANTIFY. Sitting there in your easy chair espousing the greatness of using risk to determine policy and then refusing to quantify the numbers you use to support your claim is asinine. You cannot sit here and use this bullshit example of yours, complete with numbers, WITHOUT quantifying it, and expect anyone to take you seriously. The funny thing is, when it's all said and done, regardless of the risk level (with quantification) you are so hung up on your righteousness that you expect everyone to accept whatever amount of risk you deem is too much, for truth. Once again, morality (right and wrong) IS subjective.

You fail. That's all there is to it. You can continue to spew your righteousness bullshit from high-atop your pedestal, but that is all it is at the end of the day. Thread after thread you rally behind the one thing you say makes organized religion evil...their self-conceived righteousness. As long as you justify an individual's loss of his or her most basic freedoms under the guise of "protecting the greater good" you continue to fail. What you seem to have some great problem realizing is that you are giving government the right to run roughshod over everyone's freedom as long as they say it's to protect us from ourselves. What a bunch of crap. It's amazing you can be as blind as you are and still lead a productive life. It comes down to the fact that you are okay with laws limiting other's freedoms until the day you happen run into one that really affects you personally, and not in a way that merely inconveniences you.

So, you can sit there, keyboard warrior sticker shining brightly in the gleam of your monitor, and claim everyone that disagrees with you is evil but the fact is you are truly the evil one; no better than any religious zealot out there. What you claim as logic, to support your various points, I have continued to show you is bullshit. You can choose to ignore what I say and try to continue your arguments through the use of emotion. Once again, though, that is simply where you fail. But, hey, at least you're good at it. :)

[swivel]

Quantify your numbers, man. Seriously. 300,000 is hardly a big number when compared to 300,000,000. You keep going on about how risk should be considered, yet fail to quantify your numbers. 300,000 of 3,000,000 is 10 percent.

You fail.

BWWAAHAHAAAAAHAAA

Dude. You are such a moron. I've been taking you seriously for awhile, but c'mon, try and give me a reason to continue doing so.

Why don't you quantify YOUR numbers? 300,000,000? Kids? In the United States?

Why not compare my number of sick children to the number of grains of sand on a beach, that will make your argument look even better!

Try harder or I am going to just start ignoring you. You are making yourself look like an idiot, friend. Athena's hypocrisy was to bitch about a dozen incidents after telling me that 300,000 incidents could be waved off as "not convincing". Taking her side after that ridiculous display makes you look pussy-whipped. As if you can't reason logically, and just have to follow whatever your favorite author wrote, or some flirty girl said.

It's pathetic, really.

[Sea Hag]

As a smoker I'd never smoke in a house with a child close by let alone a car. I'm all for this.

[TXChris]

BWWAAHAHAAAAAHAAA

Dude. You are such a moron. I've been taking you seriously for awhile, but c'mon, try and give me a reason to continue doing so.

Why don't you quantify YOUR numbers? 300,000,000? Kids? In the United States?

Why not compare my number of sick children to the number of grains of sand on a beach, that will make your argument look even better!

Try harder or I am going to just start ignoring you. You are making yourself look like an idiot, friend. Athena's hypocrisy was to bitch about a dozen incidents after telling me that 300,000 incidents could be waved off as "not convincing". Taking her side after that ridiculous display makes you look pussy-whipped. As if you can't reason logically, and just have to follow whatever your favorite author wrote, or some flirty girl said.

It's pathetic, really.

Perfect. Just as I thought. You are not even going to attempt to quantify it because you know it'll prove you wrong. You absolutely cannot talk about risk without quantification. Any risk assessor knows this, and is exactly what insurance companies base their decisions on. But, Lord knows, you've been trying...and failing miserably. You can continue acting the fool and attempt to take the focus off the real subject by falling back to childish name-calling, but it shows you for what you are...an emotionally-driven closet fanatic. LOL

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Perfect. Just as I thought. You are not even going to attempt to quantify it because you know it'll prove you wrong. You absolutely cannot talk about risk without quantification.

Wait, why? Risk is risk, isn't it, regardless? And how does it prove anyone wrong? This is about smoking in cars. There IS risk there, regardless of the size of it. So how is it that there is PROOF that he is wrong?


Any risk assessor knows this, and is exactly what insurance companies base their decisions on.

But no one is having a conversation about costs of insurances. The discussion was a law, and the FACT remains, and it is FACT that there IS risk, regardless of how low or high.


But, Lord knows, you've been trying...and failing miserably. You can continue acting the fool and attempt to take the focus off the real subject by falling back to childish name-calling, but it shows you for what you are...an emotionally-driven closet fanatic. LOL

Oh, the hypocrisy. :D

In all seriousness, I don't condone this law, but I'm not necessarily against it, either. But your real motive here is clear, bro. ;)

[TXChris]

Actually, Swivel has used the risk argument to prove his points countless times. He has been known to state that because something is a greater risk it should be taken more seriously. My point is simple. Quantify those 300,000 kids. Period. It's not a difficult thing to do at all. After that, he can then quantify the impact of that disease versus more serious diseases and show me that the risk is worth it. See where I am going with this? Simply saying something is right or wrong based on immediate gratification is a bunch of horse shit. One has to always look at the complete picture, not just pick the points that support one's case.

BTW, I'm glad you noticed my irony at the end of the post. It is purely for Swivel's benefit. As anyone who has followed my posts has noticed I am usually very clinical and leave that shit to people like Swivel. In this case, I figured why not join in. :)

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Actually, Swivel has used the risk argument to prove his points countless times. He has been known to state that because something is a greater risk it should be taken more seriously. My point is simple. Quantify those 300,000 kids. Period. It's not a difficult thing to do at all. After that, he can then quantify the impact of that disease versus more serious diseases and show me that the risk is worth it. See where I am going with this? Simply saying something is right or wrong based on immediate gratification is a bunch of horse shit. One has to always look at the complete picture, not just pick the points that support one's case.

BTW, I'm glad you noticed my irony at the end of the post. It is purely for Swivel's benefit. As anyone who has followed my posts has noticed I am usually very clinical and leave that shit to people like Swivel. In this case, I figured why not join in. :)


Lol, Fair enough, fair enough.

[swivel]

Actually, Swivel has used the risk argument to prove his points countless times. He has been known to state that because something is a greater risk it should be taken more seriously. My point is simple. Quantify those 300,000 kids. Period. It's not a difficult thing to do at all. After that, he can then quantify the impact of that disease versus more serious diseases and show me that the risk is worth it. See where I am going with this? Simply saying something is right or wrong based on immediate gratification is a bunch of horse shit. One has to always look at the complete picture, not just pick the points that support one's case.

BTW, I'm glad you noticed my irony at the end of the post. It is purely for Swivel's benefit. As anyone who has followed my posts has noticed I am usually very clinical and leave that shit to people like Swivel. In this case, I figured why not join in. :)

Yo moron, I already quantified it in posts with Athena. Go read some of those posts, and the links I provided.

My point to you, and my demonstration of how fucking stupid you are, is that you threw out the 300,000,000 as if there are that many total kids in the ratio. It is VERY OBVIOUS that you used that number because it is the population of the United States. My point (I can't believe I'm having to spell this out), is that if your reasoning abilities are this poor, it is no wonder you believe everything you read in your selective reading list. The 300,000 with intestinal infections are kids. Look at the title of this thread, you imbecile.

There's about 7 million smoking households with children in them. 300,000 kids get sick each year. That is 5,400,000 cases over an 18-year lifespan. That is about 2/3 of all households getting a kid sick (granted some of these poor tots are getting it multiple times).

And, to be fair to the subject, this is one of the most innocuous stats I posted. You also have double the chance of heart disease for a non-smoking spouse in a smoking home, you have 1,700 cases of lung cancer each year attributed to childhood exposure of secondhand smoke.

So, keep sticking up for your woman, who thinks that this is not a problem, but a dozen cases of SWAT abuse are.

[Athena]

So, keep sticking up for your woman, who thinks that this is not a problem, but a dozen cases of SWAT abuse are.

*Sigh*...Do you think people don't notice just how dramatically you twist shit? I never said the risk associated with smoking was "not a problem". Also, it's easy to see that SWAT abuses number significantly past a dozen.

But, you've made it clear that your only way to prove me wrong is to misrepresent my position and then prove that wrong. For as often as you tout your allegedly superior morality, these tactics are awfully underhanded.

[swivel]

*Sigh*...Do you think people don't notice just how dramatically you twist shit? I never said the risk associated with smoking was "not a problem". Also, it's easy to see that SWAT abuses number significantly past a dozen.

But, you've made it clear that your only way to prove me wrong is to misrepresent my position and then prove that wrong. For as often as you tout your allegedly superior morality, these tactics are awfully underhanded.

You already admitted defeat on this topic, didn't you? Didn't you agree that secondhand smoke should be abolished for children?

I'm playing with your boyfriend now. He is more fun than you, anyway. You sometimes made sense, which gave me pause. He is a "Lost Cause" Southerner, my favorite kind of toy.

[TXChris]

So, your "proof" of quantification then is the 7 million households? Seems to me that would be a bit arbitrary. After all, it's not just households with children where children run the risk of complications attributed to second-hand smoke. There are any multitude of instances where children are subjected to it; not just in their own home or around their own parents. There are public areas, friends of the parents who somke around the kids, houses of the kids' friends whose parents smoke, etc.

Then, you actually multiply the number of yearly cases of this particular complication by 18 years. Let's talk about everything you are missing, in addition to what I have already mentioned. There is the fact that 300,000 cases/yr is based on the data of the year it was created. I don't see you making any concessions for the possibility of more or less cases during the 17 years surrounding the year of that study, as obviously there are not always 300,000 cases/yr. Secondly, and even worse, (I can't believe you do this and intend on having people take you seriously lol) you take the final number of 300,000 cases/yr multiplied by 18 and compare it to...wait...here it comes...the number of smoking households with children in only one year. Wow! You refuse to take into consideration the fact that those 7 million households do not all continue smoking for the 18 years. By doing that you fail to take into consideration those households that no longer smoke and those that start smoking. Man, quantification is a bitch, isn't it, Swivel?

What I'm saying, Swivel, is that your quantification sucks just about as bad as your emotionally-laden "logic." Catch a reality check and either provide something worth posting or go back to reading your comic books. The adults are discussing important issues here.

[swivel]

You failed at math in middle-school, didn't you?

The studies results were not over a single year. That is the average. You keep critiquing studies you haven't read. How is that ever going to work?

Longitudinal studies account for fluctuations in use, and they have small margins of error. It could be 77% of kids in smoking households that get sick, or 74%. Again, you look like an evil ass who doesn't care about liberty to quibble over something that is known. Secondhand smoke is now the THIRD LARGEST PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES. Good luck sticking up for the killers this time, you asshole.

[Athena]

You already admitted defeat on this topic, didn't you? Didn't you agree that secondhand smoke should be abolished for children?

I'm playing with your boyfriend now. He is more fun than you, anyway. You sometimes made sense, which gave me pause. He is a "Lost Cause" Southerner, my favorite kind of toy.

Not exactly. First of all, it's hard to defeat someone who never took a position to begin with. You berated me for my neutrality, but that's the only reasonable position for someone who is not yet done considering all the aspects.

I've essentially said that, based solely on the risk and my basic belief regarding legislation protecting against imposing on the rights of those who do not consent, I would argue your case for you (although quite differently, obviously). However, there's more to it than that. I'd just rather not open the can of worms until I've formulated my thoughts.

By the way, the jealousy you continually display is making me uncomfortable. Aren't you married? I really should quit posting pictures of myself.

[TXChris]

LOL Asshole. That's seems to be a bit less than what you've been directing my way lately. Maybe you're busy. I'll forgive you, once more. I'm pretty cool like that. :)

That being said, let me try ONCE MORE to make some headway into your narrow mind. When you are talking about an average over years, you are talking about the past years. Period. That does not take into account any changes made in the future, as they are not known. What effect is the current tax on tabacco products and information propoganda going to have over the course of the next 17 years (obviously that is this year plus the next 17. Just wanted to help you connect the dots as you seem to be having such a difficult time with it.) along with non-smoking policies implented across the country. Will this decrease the number of smoking households? Will they stay the same? How about increase? By outlawing smoking in certain areas, does this increase the likelyhood that children will be subjected to even more smoke inhalation? Which brings us to my next point, which you so conveniently skipped by.

When quantifying you must take into consideration ALL possible scenarios. If not, your study and stats are flawed. Forget middle school math, you need to take some stat and risk analysis classes. Smoking households does NOT mean that the parents smoke around the kids. There are many people who choose to smoke outside. See how easily your "quantification" is already skewed? That also does not take into consideration every smoking household, which I have pointed out, means there are others who smoke but do not have children. These people, no doubt, smoke around other's children. Well, lookie there, more skewing of your data.

You seem to continually miss where I am coming from in my discussions. In this case, the point I am trying to make is that you are narrow-minded. You equate immediate gratification with being correct, failing to realize the full impact of the conclusions you have come to. So, as I said, either post something that makes sense, or go read your comic books and leave the important discussions to the adults.

[swivel]

LOL Asshole. That's seems to be a bit less than what you've been directing my way lately. Maybe you're busy. I'll forgive you, once more. I'm pretty cool like that. :)

That being said, let me try ONCE MORE to make some headway into your narrow mind. When you are talking about an average over years, you are talking about the past years. Period. That does not take into account any changes made in the future, as they are not known. What effect is the current tax on tabacco products and information propoganda going to have over the course of the next 17 years (obviously that is this year plus the next 17. Just wanted to help you connect the dots as you seem to be having such a difficult time with it.) along with non-smoking policies implented across the country. Will this decrease the number of smoking households? Will they stay the same? How about increase? By outlawing smoking in certain areas, does this increase the likelyhood that children will be subjected to even more smoke inhalation? Which brings us to my next point, which you so conveniently skipped by.

When quantifying you must take into consideration ALL possible scenarios. If not, your study and stats are flawed. Forget middle school math, you need to take some stat and risk analysis classes. Smoking households does NOT mean that the parents smoke around the kids. There are many people who choose to smoke outside. See how easily your "quantification" is already skewed? That also does not take into consideration every smoking household, which I have pointed out, means there are others who smoke but do not have children. These people, no doubt, smoke around other's children. Well, lookie there, more skewing of your data.

You seem to continually miss where I am coming from in my discussions. In this case, the point I am trying to make is that you are narrow-minded. You equate immediate gratification with being correct, failing to realize the full impact of the conclusions you have come to. So, as I said, either post something that makes sense, or go read your comic books and leave the important discussions to the adults.

You list stats which make your point even worse. If many households are smoking outside, it makes the percentages who are getting sick and dying even worse than expected.

At every turn I fudge the numbers and round up or down to make my case as weak as possible. It is so strong that it can handle such slashings without so much as a pause.

You are failing massively here. Almost everything you are attempting to say is 180 degrees from the truth.



To Athena: Nice try, but you are the one that keeps flirting with me and trying to make up via PM. I am the one that keeps urging you to continue arguing with me and telling you to "Fuck Off". I am happily married and I keep her abreast of the women here that develop their little crushes on me. I have assured her that you are currently obsessed with TXChris, enough so to harden your views on almost every topic in an attempt to woo the dude. Not only am I not attracted to you physically (which is not what I look for in a woman), but intellectually, for you to side with a racist pig who thinks the Civil War was not about slavery... well, it certainly makes it easier for me to smack you around in the forums after I have lost so much respect for your ability to think for yourself. I guess you are done arguing the issue if this is where you are taking our discussion, eh?

[swivel]

Damn, even my comics are smarter than TXChris:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9523/rbems3p32zd6.jpg

[Morbid]

In all seriousness, I don't condone this law, but I'm not necessarily against it, either. But your real motive here is clear, bro. ;)

lol!

[TXChris]

You list stats which make your point even worse. If many households are smoking outside, it makes the percentages who are getting sick and dying even worse than expected.

At every turn I fudge the numbers and round up or down to make my case as weak as possible. It is so strong that it can handle such slashings without so much as a pause.

You are failing massively here. Almost everything you are attempting to say is 180 degrees from the truth.

Wow! You continue to amaze me with your blatant tunnel vision. You always assume that one is either against you or with you. I'm not attempting to make your argument more or less valid emotionally, as obviously emotion is the only thing you use to reason. Rather, what I have been showing you, time and time again, is that you fail in the proper use of logic. I asked you to quantify the 300,000 children, but you failed in doing so. I showed you how by suggesting all possible pertinent information you are failing to consider. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you attack a position I am not even taking. By failing to look beyond the immediate gratification of your position, and without considering all pertinent information, you already fail. Nobody, with half a brain, can take you seriously.

You can throw your little fit and do all the name-calling you want, but that doesn't make your position any more valid. It just makes you look childish.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Wow! You continue to amaze me with your blatant tunnel vision. You always assume that one is either against you or with you. I'm not attempting to make your argument more or less valid emotionally, as obviously emotion is the only thing you use to reason. Rather, what I have been showing you, time and time again, is that you fail in the proper use of logic. I asked you to quantify the 300,000 children, but you failed in doing so. I showed you how by suggesting all possible pertinent information you are failing to consider. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you attack a position I am not even taking. By failing to look beyond the immediate gratification of your position, and without considering all pertinent information

See, here's my thing. If I'm a third party, or even a lawmaker here, listening to you two...I keep hearing about quantification, and that's perfectly valid, ok?

But I think to myself....why?

Isn't 300,000 children too many? Three...hundred...thousand...kids. Am I being emotional because I think thats too much?

It's still a factual number, a statistical analysis, regardless of how it's reasoned by quantification. I'm not trying to pile up on you here, just playing along with this. I would say your logic follows that of a cigarette company's.

I've been accused of being emotionally driven before, in disputes regarding children, because I have two. Personally, I think it's a cop out. It's an easy way to dismiss one's rationale, and a pussy ploy. At first, you see, when I heard about the ban, I thought it was silly. But I think 300,000 tots? Because of selfish addictions? Eh....ya know?

Fuck that.

[swivel]

Wow! You continue to amaze me with your blatant tunnel vision. You always assume that one is either against you or with you. I'm not attempting to make your argument more or less valid emotionally, as obviously emotion is the only thing you use to reason. Rather, what I have been showing you, time and time again, is that you fail in the proper use of logic. I asked you to quantify the 300,000 children, but you failed in doing so. I showed you how by suggesting all possible pertinent information you are failing to consider. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you attack a position I am not even taking. By failing to look beyond the immediate gratification of your position, and without considering all pertinent information, you already fail. Nobody, with half a brain, can take you seriously.

You can throw your little fit and do all the name-calling you want, but that doesn't make your position any more valid. It just makes you look childish.

Do you even know what the word "quantify" means? I'm starting to think you don't.

When I quantify the suffering of secondhand smoke, I say that 300,000 kids suffer from intestinal infections a year. That is QUANTIFYING the effects of secondhand smoke. So is the 97% increase in the chance of heart failure in non-smokers due to secondhand smoke. That is a quantification of the problem.

You keep bitching about me doing it, and in every post I do it some more. I'm starting to suspect that you aren't even aware of the meanings of the words you use.

Seriously, you are putting on an act, right? You aren't really this stupid, are you? Anyway, thanks for starting the backpeddle in that last post. You don't ever have to come out and say "I was wrong" with me, I really don't give a shit. As long as you will walk away from our discussion with a new perspective. Hopefully stop spreading your poison around elsewhere.

[TXChris]

See, here's my thing. If I'm a third party, or even a lawmaker here, listening to you two...I keep hearing about quantification, and that's perfectly valid, ok?

But I think to myself....why?

Isn't 300,000 children too many? Three...hundred...thousand...kids. Am I being emotional because I think thats too much?

It's still a factual number, a statistical analysis, regardless of how it's reasoned by quantification. I'm not trying to pile up on you here, just playing along with this. I would say your logic follows that of a cigarette company's.

I've been accused of being emotionally driven before, in disputes regarding children, because I have two. Personally, I think it's a cop out. It's an easy way to dismiss one's rationale, and a pussy ploy. At first, you see, when I heard about the ban, I thought it was silly. But I think 300,000 tots? Because of selfish addictions? Eh....ya know?

Fuck that.

It's not about just 300,000 kids. As I explained to you last time, Swivel has espoused using risk analysis as a determination in what should be done in most every thread he has participated in. I will tell you, as I have told Swivel (but he is obviously too dense to understand), my position on whether the smoking ban is a good idea or not is irrelevant as my assertion has been for quite some while now that Swivel uses emotion to come to his conclusions, but tries to say it's logic. This is in addition to the risk analysis he talks about, and then fails to use properly. The funny thing is, it is the same position I have taken against Swivel at some point in every thread we have been involved in. I've proven it time and time again. I expect more from Swivel than most because he tries to make himself seem smarter than everyone else while at the same time acting like a spoiled child...a keyboard warrior, if you will, personally attacking all who do not agree with his emotionally-laden arguments devoid of any logic. At the end of the day, though, he just proves continually that the does not have the ability to reason. He lets emotion get in the way. And all that does is create problems, which is shown throughout history. Those who cannot detach themselves emotionally from an issue will always hurt more than they help.

[TXChris]

Do you even know what the word "quantify" means? I'm starting to think you don't.

When I quantify the suffering of secondhand smoke, I say that 300,000 kids suffer from intestinal infections a year. That is QUANTIFYING the effects of secondhand smoke. So is the 97% increase in the chance of heart failure in non-smokers due to secondhand smoke. That is a quantification of the problem.

You keep bitching about me doing it, and in every post I do it some more. I'm starting to suspect that you aren't even aware of the meanings of the words you use.

Seriously, you are putting on an act, right? You aren't really this stupid, are you? Anyway, thanks for starting the backpeddle in that last post. You don't ever have to come out and say "I was wrong" with me, I really don't give a shit. As long as you will walk away from our discussion with a new perspective. Hopefully stop spreading your poison around elsewhere.

I happen to know exactly what quantify means, but using 300,000 as your "quantification" is a bullshit cop out and you know it. It's far from the full story. You fail to quantify the number against the risk. Maybe I've gotten a bit frustrated with your lack of anything useful to society and have expected you to understand the whole of what I am saying. I can admit that. Obviously, though, that was a mistake, so from now on I will spell it all our for you so that you don't have to think.

I've said it time and time again in this post, but you conveniently skip over it and start attacking some minuscule point. Face it, you've been shown for what you are, absolutely devoid of reason. You are emotionally driven and you are no better than the religious zealots you hate so much. Both of y'all are driven by the exact same thing...self-righteousness. Just admit it and we can move on. If not, then you continue to show yourself as the ass you are.

[swivel]

I happen to know exactly what quantify means, but using 300,000 as your "quantification" is a bullshit cop out and you know it. It's far from the full story. You fail to quantify the number against the risk. Maybe I've gotten a bit frustrated with your lack of anything useful to society and have expected you to understand the whole of what I am saying. I can admit that. Obviously, though, that was a mistake, so from now on I will spell it all our for you so that you don't have to think.

I've said it time and time again in this post, but you conveniently skip over it and start attacking some minuscule point. Face it, you've been shown for what you are, absolutely devoid of reason. You are emotionally driven and you are no better than the religious zealots you hate so much. Both of y'all are driven by the exact same thing...self-righteousness. Just admit it and we can move on. If not, then you continue to show yourself as the ass you are.

Hypocrite. My posts keep making fun of your positions. Your posts keep centering around your little psychological profile of me. When I call you a "dumbass", I am making an observation, and I keep backing that up by proving you wrong in every little topic we cover.

You just keep whining about how "mean" I am. Why don't you get out of the "Three Things" forum and see what the rest of the site is about? This is the smackdown section. Stop crying because you keep getting beat up.

You have some decent starting principles, you just don't know how to reason them out for yourself. You keep sniffing about smaller government, but if you read my posts, I am a very big fan of small government. You just take shit to the extreme and start arguing for no government, which is crazy. You are an anarchist posing as a conservative.

I don't know why you think I'm so emotional about this stuff. I promise, I am not worked up at all. Other members of the site keep contacting me about your antics... they seem to care more about your little displays than I do. I just love a good debate, and am trying to motivate you to do better.

Stop obsessing over me and try to counter some of my ideas and points. You keep making a fool of yourself. Why don't you tell me about how the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery? I would love to hear Dilorenzo's, I mean, your opinions on the matter...

[TXChris]

Personally, I think that you are the one feeling the ill effects of what you do as you are taking this so personally. When you call someone a dumbass all it means is that you lack the ability to articulate. I've shown you how silly it is by doing it in return for a day. It's ridiculous really. You run purely on emotion. My "little psychological profile" of you, as you call it, has shown time and time again just how correct I am. You absolutely cannot see anything from any view other than your emotion-driven self-righteousness. What you fail to see is that if you agree this is the way to do things then, at some point, someone will come along and not value things as you do and, as such, will hurt you just as the things you suggest will end up hurting a lot of others. But, you just cannot see it. You've got too much emotion involved and it blinds you to the truth of the failings of all your positions. Screaming louder and personally attacking a person does not make your position any more valid. It only makes you look like a child who is not able to function in a world of adults.

The thing that REALLY gets me, though, is how you continually come to the conclusion I am supporting no government. Honestly, if it were viable, no government would be the greatest thing in the world. However, we know that is not possible. That being said, very limited government is the next best thing. You say that you are all about smaller government yet you continually talk about all the laws that should be created. Well, just how do you think those laws will be inacted and policed without a larger government? See, it is you who does not think things all the way through. You absolutely cannot see beyond the immediate result of a position. You fail to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Things don't end just where you want them to, but you are not able to see that.

First of all it was a war of northern aggression, or even a war between the states, but it was most certainly not a civil war. Both sides in a civil war are fighting for control over the other. The South, in this case had no intention of ruling over the North. They only wanted to seceed which was guaranteed for them to do to begin with. The end never justifies the end. Period. Second of all, as I have shown, you are so screwed up with your emotion and self-righteousness (just as any organized religion) that you cannot see the forest for the trees. I have told you multiple times why it was not about slavery. The root of the South's secession, the most basic reason why they seceeded, was because the federal government did not recognize their rights. By making it about slavery, the North was able to build up support for its attack on the South. The North could not very well admit the federal government was ignoring the South's rights, could they? By doing that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and very little support for their attack. For someone that is supposed to be so intelligent, you sure do have a hard time understanding the most basic of concepts.

You can claim that you are not emotional but obviously, as everyone can see, you are. You stoop to name-calling and other childish behavior whenever you are proven to be wrong, which is quite often. My daughter doesn't even do that. But, do as you do, and I will continue to do as I do. Thank God there are those like me who believe in the rights of everyone over the subjective morality of one and who understand that the more government is involved in our lives the less we can be assured of the most basic of rights. You want to say that you are for smaller government, yet you consistently talk about more and more ways for the government to become involved in our daily lives. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing, me thinks.