Just a thought: Do we have too much freedom? is there such a thing?

[GreenFish66]

Damned youngin's....forbid fun ! ......I do hear ya JLM ...If I remember only 1 thing my pops told me it was..." 2 Things son...1. Obey the (House)Rules and; 2. Respect ..Obey these two rules we''ll all get along just fine "

Wise man my pops is ..Too bad it took so long for me to understand what the hell he was talkin about... Fatherhood made me Wise up ..Lord help me now..

 

[Chiliagon]

Now there is a real problem that you just spoke yourself into. You don't smoke pot(presumably or do you want it illegal so you can make a profit?)and don't like sex so you want to prohibit anyone else from enjoying themselves. I personally don't have a problem with loud cars either but then I like any thing with pistons. But there are bylaws against excessive noise in most areas and his right to have a loud car ends at the door of his garage or on the track. This is not curbing freedom, it is ensuring that we all coexist in overpopulated areas. Otherwise you would also have the right to eliminate the source of the noise. This also has been known to happen.

huh? I don't agree with smoking of any kind.. and I don't think Prostitution should be legal, cause you're paying for it.

 

[JLM]

huh? I don't agree with smoking of any kind.. and I don't think Prostitution should be legal, cause you're paying for it.

Maybe you could use a course in Logic 7. Are you suggesting smoking should be banned because YOU disagree with it? Maybe hair cuts shouldn't be legal because "you are paying for them".

 

[lone wolf]

huh? I don't agree with smoking of any kind.. and I don't think Prostitution should be legal, cause you're paying for it.

How about dating ... or do you do Dutch?

 

[Chiliagon]

Maybe you could use a course in Logic 7. Are you suggesting smoking should be banned because YOU disagree with it? Maybe hair cuts shouldn't be legal because "you are paying for them".

well actually I do. I have absolutely zero tolerance for Smoking.

what does Dating have to do with it.

 

[damngrumpy]

To start with, no law can be successful in a free society unless
it has the consensus of the people. Prohibition failed for that very
reason. There are several laws on the books that remain simply
because no on has taken the law to court to contest it. There
are laws on the books, that are there because a minority or at
best a powerful lobby has maintained control, that will eventually
fall by the wayside. It is call the evolution of an open society.
yes this sound idealistic, and it is supposed to, but reality the
idealistic rules and laws of a couple of centuries ago are now
part of the norm. Government, laws and reaction never outdo
the concept of evolution in the order of society. What was then
shocking even forty years ago does not raise an eyebrow in
the world of today in some cases. Gay marriage is likely to be
the next one to gain real acceptance. It will have less reaction
than women in the workforce did seventy years ago.
Social ill cannot be eventually controlled by law, they become
the norm and people forget moving on to the next perceived
evil befalling us. The problem is some groups can't leave others
alone we must all be saved like it or not.
Everyone should be equal, except some believe they are a little
more equal than others and that is where the problems of life
begin. No we do not have to much freedom, we just in many
cases lack the ability to control our own excesses and that is
the real problem, a lack of self control and consideration for
others

 

[Liberalman]

there are two ways of fighting a bylaw throught the courts or through the politician that represents you.

 

[Curiosity]

Use the power of the public putdown

If an attention getting device such as used by unevolved "challenged" individuals letting the world know they are driving by through needless noise is the best they can do - start a pitiful picture of the people who need these attention getters because they are such lamers.

You can only get laughed at so many times before you realize if isn't positive feedback.

The worst thing you can do is get angry and try to get "laws passed or the law enforcement group on your side to do the enforcement thing" - which gains more "adult" attention.

Just circulate their failure to evolve into cool people....I mean honking horns and gunning engines
doesn't require an astrophysically scientific mentality. Give em balloons to blow up and pop.

 

[Praxius]

well I don't care for smoking of any kind, pot or cigarettes. both filthy habits and dangerous.

I only drink Alcohol on occasional times. maybe once or twice a month if that.

Well that's still more then what I drink, and I think drinking is a dirty and much much more dangerous habit then pot or tobacco..... due to the degradation in reasoning skills, coordination, communication, vomiting and getting sick, to alcohol poisoning..... and possibly death if you drink too much. Not to mention the damage done over time to not only your stomach but your liver as well.

^ None of that happens with tobacco or weed...... and if you don't believe me, then perhaps you and I need a game of Tetris to prove it..... cuz I'll lay the smack down all over that game sch'nit.

The point being, since I can prove alcohol is worse then tobacco or pot.... and because I personally think it's a dirty and dangerous habit..... would you like the idea of me waltzing into the government and demanding that the remove your freedom to drink alcohol...... even though you might actually be responsible and safe with it?

After all, I don't care how responsible you are with your drinking...... it's a dirty and dangerous habit, simply because I say so and I don't think you deserve the freedom to touch the stuff.

Oh wait...... Because I can actually provide evidence to back up my arguments against alcohol....... I have more justification to ban alcohol then you have justification to ban smoking, especially considering any evidence you provide against tobacco or pot can easily be used by me to further express how alcohol is still far worse.

-------------------------------

You originally avoided my question and gave very little for a response, so I'll ask again:

What makes you more right to ban my freedom to smoke tobacco or pot then me banning your alcohol?

Forget about the logistics of it all on whether or not it's possible..... just focus on the reasons why you'd be more right.

 

[Cliffy]

I think a shoulder mounted Sidewinder missile launcher would be Chili's solution. And some fine Lebanese hash might set his mind at ease. Ah heck, throw in a couple of high priced hookers to round things out.

 

[Praxius]

huh? I don't agree with smoking of any kind.. and I don't think Prostitution should be legal, cause you're paying for it.

So what if you're paying for it?

You pay someone to mow your lawn or dig a ditch..... you're paying someone for the service of their body and expertise in any case..... the only difference here is that one is sexual in nature...... but again, so what?

It's not your money being spent so what do you care?

If it's not you selling your body or doing the buying, once again, what do you care?

What do you care if someone likes feet, is into S&M, bondage, threesomes, orgies, gangbangs, gay or bi sexual encounters or simple money for sex?

And before you ask how any of that relates, keep in mind that these are all personal interests of individuals in regards to what they do with their own bodies and who they share their bodies with.... not to mention how.

Why is it suddenly wrong when someone tosses in money into the equation?

Are strippers bad?

Where's the line?

It's the same as the freedom to choose abortion...... I may never choose that option, but I also believe others should have the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to choose.

Why?

Because it's not my life, they are not my responsibility and it's none of my business.

 

[ironsides]

"Just a thought: Do we have too much freedom? is there such a thing?"


No

 

[Chiliagon]

Well that's still more then what I drink, and I think drinking is a dirty and much much more dangerous habit then pot or tobacco..... due to the degradation in reasoning skills, coordination, communication, vomiting and getting sick, to alcohol poisoning..... and possibly death if you drink too much. Not to mention the damage done over time to not only your stomach but your liver as well.

^ None of that happens with tobacco or weed...... and if you don't believe me, then perhaps you and I need a game of Tetris to prove it..... cuz I'll lay the smack down all over that game sch'nit.

The point being, since I can prove alcohol is worse then tobacco or pot.... and because I personally think it's a dirty and dangerous habit..... would you like the idea of me waltzing into the government and demanding that the remove your freedom to drink alcohol...... even though you might actually be responsible and safe with it?

After all, I don't care how responsible you are with your drinking...... it's a dirty and dangerous habit, simply because I say so and I don't think you deserve the freedom to touch the stuff.

Oh wait...... Because I can actually provide evidence to back up my arguments against alcohol....... I have more justification to ban alcohol then you have justification to ban smoking, especially considering any evidence you provide against tobacco or pot can easily be used by me to further express how alcohol is still far worse.

-------------------------------

You originally avoided my question and gave very little for a response, so I'll ask again:

What makes you more right to ban my freedom to smoke tobacco or pot then me banning your alcohol?

Forget about the logistics of it all on whether or not it's possible..... just focus on the reasons why you'd be more right.

umm jee, they have proven that smoking tobacco causes Cancer?? shortens your life? creates 2nd hand smoke that can kill loved ones?

Smoking is evil and dangerous and should be banned from everything.

 

[mentalfloss]

umm jee, they have proven that smoking tobacco causes Cancer?? shortens your life? creates 2nd hand smoke that can kill loved ones?

Smoking is evil and dangerous and should be banned from everything.

Well, you can smoke in an isolated area and harm no one but yourself. I have no problem with taking the chance with cancer, but I also ensure that no one else has to suffer as well. I think it's more important that we all educate ourselves on good smoking habits rather than ban it outright. That seems a bit excessive and unreasonable - especially to those of us that make a legitimate effort not to harm others.

We can't always rely on laws to keep ourselves in check.

 

[Chiliagon]

Well, you can smoke in an isolated area and harm no one but yourself. I have no problem with taking the chance with cancer, but I also ensure that no one else has to suffer as well. I think it's more important that we all educate ourselves on good smoking habits rather than ban it outright. That seems a bit excessive and unreasonable - especially to those of us that make a legitimate effort not to harm others.

We can't always rely on laws to keep ourselves in check.

yup you wanna go kill yourself from smoking go on... but remember, it's not just the smoke that turns people off.

it's how you smell, your house smells, your furniture smells, your clothes.. it all smells like smoke and it can be a turn off.

 

[mentalfloss]

yup you wanna go kill yourself from smoking go on... but remember, it's not just the smoke that turns people off.

it's how you smell, your house smells, your furniture smells, your clothes.. it all smells like smoke and it can be a turn off.

I think your priority pyramid should start at unethical treatment of others and work its way down from there. The smell as being a 'nuissance' should be on the lower end of the spectrum. Whether or not smokers are deliberately and legitimately harming others should be on the high end of priority.

In fact, why don't you use that motto for whether an act should be free or not. Filter it through how much discord it causes to others - beginning with death, and ending with a minor annoyance. First priority regulations should be put on reducing unwarranted deaths and work your way down to minor annoyance as the lowest priority.

That seems like a nice rationale, I think. In hindsight, banning cigarettes simply because of odor seems a bit silly. It would be like banning ethnic foods. And no one is taking away my stinky cheese.

 

[JLM]

umm jee, they have proven that smoking tobacco causes Cancer?? shortens your life? creates 2nd hand smoke that can kill loved ones?

Smoking is evil and dangerous and should be banned from everything.

Evil?????????????????????????? Dangerous!- so is water skiing, river rafting, stock car racing, investing in the stock market! :smile:

 

[Chiliagon]

well ya, but there are some people out there that are very allergic to smoke from cigarettes and they cannot be in a room that smells of smoke. or around people that smell of smoke.

 

[petros]

Get one of these:

 

[karrie]

umm jee, they have proven that smoking tobacco causes Cancer?? shortens your life? creates 2nd hand smoke that can kill loved ones?

Smoking is evil and dangerous and should be banned from everything.

Aside from being a secnod hand risk to loved ones (which one could argue as well since alcohol tends to be largely involved in domestic disputes), alcohol does everything you just listed there too.... it's a carcinogen, and can shorten your life, damage your organs, etc.