|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 22:32:34 GMT 1
I'm sorry, comparing a child being starved to death, with smoking is an extremely poor analogy. It's quite simple children, pregnant women and smoke shouldn't mix. If people regard this as an infringement of their liberties tough. Smoking whilst children are in the car or when pregnant, surely infringement on their liberties.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 5, 2014 22:35:55 GMT 1
I've asked before, but not received an answer; if an adult is fined for smoking while a child was in the car, why would people be against that? What possible negative consequences could there be for such a fine being given?
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 5, 2014 23:04:36 GMT 1
I wasn't comparing them. I was making a point that kids like Daniel end up dead and all we ever hear is "we will learn from this" and they never do because they're busy protecting those who don't need protecting.
The negative consequences of that is our country will turn (even more) into a totalitarian, do-gooding nation of greedy bastards where no one has the ability to make their own decisions anymore because the good old nanny state has done it for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Feb 5, 2014 23:08:39 GMT 1
Im with Corrina on this one. The nanny state truly is taking over now. The so called smoking ban has been taken to the realms of ridiculousness-so a difference of six foot say outside Washington galleries makes a difference does it in the open air ? I dont think so. Id also like to see the evidence that smoking in cars harms children-can some-one please post the data on here because as yet Ive seen none. Ive seen plenty of evidence that drinking causes some problems tho-can the next stop possibly be barring all those parents with underage children from imbibing alcohol-divorce also harms kids-shall we ban it ? Feeding the child the wrong food has been proven to have detrimental affects-shall we shut down all the takeaways and fast food restaurants-actually we should shut down the supermarkets too cos weve been feeding our kids contaminated dubious sourced meat pumped full of chemicals sold through them. I have to add I have never ever heard of an accident caused by smoke in a drivers eyes. You know we could go on forever like this-ban young/old drivers-ban games because the kids might fall over-ban sugar/salt-Hey why not just take the kiddies off the parents-give them to the nanny state and we'll have a country full of good citizens who eat what theyre told,drink what theyre told and do what theyre told and then we can all be smug  |
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 5, 2014 23:14:34 GMT 1
The negative consequences of that is our country will turn (even more) into a totalitarian, do-gooding nation of greedy bastards where no one has the ability to make their own decisions anymore because the good old nanny state has done it for them. All of those 'consequences' are just your opinions, that other people may (and do) disagree with you about. You so far haven't given any negative consequences that are factual.
I'm waiting for some factual consequences of the fining of an adult as a punishment for smoking while in a car with a child. I'm not demanding that you come up with a consequence which EVERYONE finds negative - it's enough that it's a consequence that you find negative - but it has to be a factual consequence. Otherwise, my question hasn't been answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Feb 5, 2014 23:19:20 GMT 1
Yes but Nick Im waiting for some factual stuff as well-where is the evidence that smoking in a car has harmed a child ?
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 5, 2014 23:19:51 GMT 1
Yeah but expecting an answer based on statistics is ridiculous as it hasn't even been implemented.
Look, what's wrong with having a government that stays out of your business? - seriously? What's really wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Feb 5, 2014 23:21:33 GMT 1
In fact Id also like to see some statistics or facts regarding passive smoking.
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 5, 2014 23:21:38 GMT 1
The negative consequences of that is our country will turn (even more) into a totalitarian, do-gooding nation of greedy bastards where no one has the ability to make their own decisions anymore because the good old nanny state has done it for them. All of those 'consequences' are just your opinions, that other people may (and do) disagree with you about. You so far haven't given any negative consequences that are factual.
I'm waiting for some factual consequences of the fining of an adult as a punishment for smoking while in a car with a child. I'm not demanding that you come up with a consequence which EVERYONE finds negative - it's enough that it's a consequence that you find negative - but it has to be a factual consequence. Otherwise, my question hasn't been answered.
And Nick don't patronise me, okay? They haven't even implemented the bloody law.
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 5, 2014 23:25:21 GMT 1
Like I said before Carbon Monoxide is a deadly poison but no one's starting a campaign to ban cars .... Nothing gets my back up more than do gooders telling everyone how to live.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 5, 2014 23:52:34 GMT 1
Yeah but expecting an answer based on statistics is ridiculous as it hasn't even been implemented. Look, what's wrong with having a government that stays out of your business? - seriously? What's really wrong with that? I'm not going to play tennis - "What's wrong with a government that stays out of your business?" versus "What's wrong with a government that protects children against selfish adults --- "Why don't we have cameras in every car?" vs "Why don't we legalise stealing radioes from cars instead of this nanny state which bans it." blablabla tennis blablabla.
No, what I'd like is a sensible, and calm discussion, where people answer each other's questions, or, politely say "I'm not going to answer that question." I've just asked a relevant question, can someone give me a negative consequence of fining an adult for smoking with a child in the car." and all people can come up with is the same old 'nanny state' which is all simply opinion without any backup. Yes, we know you don't want a nanny state, but now I'd like to hear the actual consequence of fining an adult for smoking when a child is in the car.
Shadow, I must confess that I don't have proof that it would be harmful. My argument hinges entirely on it being harmful, for which I don't have proof. I'm conducting my discussion on the basis of it's being harmful, and if you or Corinna don't agree with my belief that it's harmful, then there isn't more to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 0:07:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 6, 2014 0:09:09 GMT 1
"I'd like to hear the actual consequence of fining an adult for smoking when a child is in the car"
There probably will be no "consequences" as the British people seem to just lie down and take it. However it will leave parents out of pocket. It will require more police officers on the road. The police being cut to the bone that means less police actually investigating crimes and protecting people.
"My argument hinges entirely on it being harmful, for which I don't have proof" .... Then what's the point of having the debate. I never said it wasn't harmful. I simply stood up for civil liberties and common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickkielcepoland on Feb 6, 2014 0:14:28 GMT 1
"I'd like to hear the actual consequence of fining an adult for smoking when a child is in the car" There probably will be no "consequences" as the British people seem to just lie down and take it. However it will leave parents out of pocket. It will require more police officers on the road. The police being cut to the bone that means less police actually investigating crimes and protecting people. "My argument hinges entirely on it being harmful, for which I don't have proof" .... Then what's the point of having the debate. I never said it wasn't harmful. I simply stood up for civil liberties and common sense. Thank you - now I've got the answer to the question I asked.
I know you never said it wasn't harmful. If you had said it wasn't harmful then I wouldn't have asked for a negative consequence - punishing someone for not causing harm would have been a negative consequence in itself, would it not.
I think you think it's harmful, and I think Shadow thinks it's harmful - that is why I have been asking for negative consequences. But if I'm wrong then it will be easy for people to correct my erroneous beliefs.
However, I've got the answer to the question I was asking, and I'm perfectly happy with that. I've said all I have to say, unless anyone asks me anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 0:17:27 GMT 1
Maybe the driver would receive 3 points on their licence, that would ensure no one smoked. If that means more policemen, that's not a bad thing.
|
|
