| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/22/2007 03:31:49 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by mk:
So your right to smoke trumps your child's right to be in a healthy environment. |
Did you see on the news today that California is trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a parent to whip his/her OWN child?
Parenting by legislation is NOT the answer.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:32:26 PM · #77 |
| Look, to those of you who have proven time and again that you will immediately latch onto a bit of poetic license, interpret it as literally as possible and then attempt to twist it into the feeblest of diversionary attacks - piss off. You'll get no response beyond this. If you can't intelligently address the point being made, that government does not need to be legislating its way into the role of Ultimate Parent, then go drool in the corner or something. |
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:35:09 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by mk:
So your right to smoke trumps your child's right to be in a healthy environment. |
Did you see on the news today that California is trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a parent to whip his/her OWN child?
Parenting by legislation is NOT the answer. |
Should I be outraged that it could be illegal to whip your children? Does a lack of right to beat others somehow impinge upon my own rights?
|
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:36:52 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I will end with this: how far does big brother have to go before he interferes with YOUR rights? What if, government agents visit you weekly to MAKE SURE you are a good parent? What if you and your children are required to wear surveillance devices? These are not out of the question. And recent history shows, that putting "for the children" in front of almost any legislation almost guarantees it's success. |
This law would interfere with MY rights... as I said earlier, I smoked for YEARS before having my son. I agree that it is dangerous territory, but EVERY law infringes on SOMEONE's rights.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
How is it a big leap? In the case of smoking in a car and in the case of enrolling your kid in a church program there is a chance, not a certainty, that the child will be harmed. In both cases one group of people has decided that another group of people is not to be trusted with the welfare of their own children.
Requiring the registration of sex offenders educates the public and gives the public choices as oppossed to the public's choices being made for them by Uncle Sam.
If anything, it's a good example of just how far the government's concern for your children truly does extend - why aren't they passing laws requiring sex felons to live in segregated areas where no children live at all? On the map at my local police station, there are half a dozen sex offenders living within a mile or so of my home. My home which is in walking distance of a high school, two middle schools, and three or four grade schools. |
The obscure chance (to use your words) that a child may be molested if he or she participates in religious groups is light years away from proven scientific fact that second-hand cigarette smoke causes health problems. Asthma is a severe childhood condition that can and does kill.
[devil's advocate]Hypothetically, let's say I've been out drinking at a bar and have had just a little too much, but being a responsible adult, decide to walk home rather than endanger lives. On my way home, I really have to take a leak so I find an area off the beaten track and high-tail it into the woods to get rid of a few beers. While I'm tending to nature's call, Mr. Joe Shmoe cop comes along and BAM!!! I'm busted for indecent exposure... It's on my record... I have to be listed as a sex offender now. My credibility in the community is shattered. My son's friends are no longer allowed to play with him because anyone with internet access can pull up MY name as a registered sex offender. The MAN got me... Big Brother is sitting squarely on my shoulder.[/devil's advocate]
Now I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T register known sex offenders, I'm just pointing out that there can be many sides to every story. Where do YOU draw the line???? You're saying that I should be cut off from society because I was trying to protect other drivers on the road, but it's OK if my child gets lung cancer because his baby sitter is a closet smoker and only does it in the car when she won't get "busted"????
Merely food for thought.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:37:10 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by mk:
So your right to smoke trumps your child's right to be in a healthy environment. |
Did you see on the news today that California is trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a parent to whip his/her OWN child?
Parenting by legislation is NOT the answer. |
Should I be outraged that it could be illegal to whip your children? Does a lack of right to beat others somehow impinge upon my own rights? |
Whipping does seem harsh/cruel. I thought they were trying to ban spanking. |
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:41:51 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by mk:
Should I be outraged that it could be illegal to whip your children? Does a lack of right to beat others somehow impinge upon my own rights? |
Once again, just my opinion, but some kids need a good ass-whippin'. It might be that I'm from the South where ass-whippin' was very efective for me. I took a good number of them.
Never was I harmed, though. My feelings were probably hurt more than my sore bottom. But, I never took a gun to school and shot my classmates either.
I can't name one person I know personally that has never had a spanking. And, I don't know of any of them that think it harmed them in any way.
Yes, there are some that take it to the point of beating. I know that, you know that... everyone knows that. But, this sort of law isn't going to change that in any way. To the contrary, good parents will end up in jail or fined, while those that beat their children will continue to beat their children.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2007 03:41:56 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Look, to those of you who have proven time and again that you will immediately latch onto a bit of poetic license, interpret it as literally as possible and then attempt to twist it into the feeblest of diversionary attacks - piss off. You'll get no response beyond this. If you can't intelligently address the point being made, that government does not need to be legislating its way into the role of Ultimate Parent, then go drool in the corner or something. |
If your point showed any evidence of intelligent thought, it would be worthy of the effort to come up with a meaningful reply, but posting nonsense like your statement below isn't going to going to generate thoughtful debate.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The government needs to worry about collecting taxes and keeping missiles from raining down upon us. That's it. |
|
|
|
|
01/22/2007 11:51:37 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by mk:
Why do the rights of smokers trump the rights of everyone else? |
I cannot make any comments relative to the rights of smokers in the USA, but I can assure you that in Canada, smokers essentially have no rights. Smoking is not allowed in any establishment (Except the government run Casinos), nor can smokers form "Smokers Clubs" where they might socialize and *gasp* smoke.
The days of smoke filled restaurants, lounges, bus and train stations are long gone, and hotels and car rentals agencies provide smoke free environments.
I do not smoke and have very few friends that do smoke, but truly believe that as a society we have gone overboard in our zeal to eradicate this problem.
TO reiterate a previous comment I have made, I would must prefer seeing a process whereby we actually try to help smokers to quit, through structured programs that would assist people in ridding themselves of this addiction.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/23/2007 12:10:01 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by mk:
Why do the rights of smokers trump the rights of everyone else? |
I cannot make any comments relative to the rights of smokers in the USA, but I can assure you that in Canada, smokers essentially have no rights. Smoking is not allowed in any establishment (Except the government run Casinos), nor can smokers form "Smokers Clubs" where they might socialize and *gasp* smoke. |
I'm OK with separate, contained smoking areas or dedicated smoking clubs. I think banning those is ludicrous.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The days of smoke filled restaurants, lounges, bus and train stations are long gone, and hotels and car rentals agencies provide smoke free environments. |
I hope you don't see that as a bad thing.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do not smoke and have very few friends that do smoke, but truly believe that as a society we have gone overboard in our zeal to eradicate this problem.
TO reiterate a previous comment I have made, I would must prefer seeing a process whereby we actually try to help smokers to quit, through structured programs that would assist people in ridding themselves of this addiction.
|
What about those who smoke and have no desire to quit?
|
|
|
|
01/23/2007 12:13:13 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What about those who smoke and have no desire to quit? |
They are hopeless, just like the other addicts of the world and no amount of legislation is going to stop them anyway - even outlawing the product.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 03:05:04 AM EDT.
