This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 399400401 402403 ... 1001
12001
« on: May 07, 2016, 12:47:47 PM »
Chinatown
Heathers
Moonrise Kingdom
Clueless
The Crucible
True Romance
Big Eyes
12002
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:21:11 PM »
The broad social consequences cease to matter when they're derived from the reasonable exercise of a human right. If even the idea of a society imposes upon the right to consume whatever you substance you want to, then the idea is wrong.
12003
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:11:45 PM »
Everyone is directly burdened by flourinated tap water because they are unknowingly forced to consume it (it's not labeled). Only smokers are directly burdened by cigarettes, because only they are consuming them. Are you beginning to see the difference?
12004
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:03:10 PM »
You demonstrated they hurt society in a broad sense, I'm talking about immediate effects that an individual smoker creates while he's smoking a cigarette. If healthcare is effected because of that private execution of his right, that's a problem with healthcare.
You claim it's wrong for the government to allow water companies to fluoridate public water because it hurts society in a broad sense (disclaimer for all: it doesn't, and no research supports that it does). Then that must be a problem with healthcare, too.
Holy shit, you cannot grasp the simpliest ideas I'm setting out. People don't consent to flourinated water, and the government adds it without the say of every person who uses tap water. That's why it's wrong. And yes, external fluoride is bad for you.
12005
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:40:18 PM »
With that in mind, to answer your question, the same thing would happen if someone broke the regulation you mentioned as would happen to someone who broke the regulation I just mentioned. It would be a broken law, same as any other.
Well I've already demonstrated that smoking cigarettes actually does hurt others, so should they all be punished? I didn't ask about a regulation; I'm asking what should happen, in your moral framework, when someone harms someone else in the execution of their right to do whatever they want to their body.
And there seems to be a pretty huge distinction between banning the production or import of cigarettes, and banning the use of cigarettes. Maybe you have the right to do whatever you want, but companies certainly don't have the right to sell whatever they want; this isn't a completely free market, after all.
You demonstrated they hurt society in a broad sense, I'm talking about immediate effects that an individual smoker creates while he's smoking a cigarette. If healthcare is effected because of that private execution of his right, that's a problem with healthcare. And of course, it's not a right to sell cigarettes, it's a right to smoke them. The government needs to allow some legal access to them, though.
12006
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:18:46 PM »
Wouldn't you consider having sex a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in public? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
Wouldn't you consider doing whatever the fuck you want to yourself a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in a way that tangibly, physically harms other people? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
You have an obligation to exercise that right in a way that only immediately affects yourself.
I keep answering your questions, and you don't answer mine. Very telling.
Those were the first two questions you've asked me, and they were rhetorical.
What should be done if somebody doesn't exercise their rights in a way that only immediately affects themselves?
A regulation isn't the same thing as a restriction. Just like taxes are an imposition from the government in exchange for government services, a refutation are an imposition in exchange for order. They're a way to make sure the right is still accessible, but in a way that interferes as little as possible with the fabric of society. In an ideal world where something like heroin is legal, heroin isn't manufactured and handed out by anyone. You need to have permits, registration, etc, to ensure it's pure and customers are getting what they know they're getting. With that in mind, to answer your question, the same thing would happen if someone broke the regulation you mentioned as would happen to someone who broke the regulation I just mentioned. It would be a broken law, same as any other.
12007
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:11:22 PM »
Wouldn't you consider having sex a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in public? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
Wouldn't you consider doing whatever the fuck you want to yourself a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in a way that tangibly, physically harms other people? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
You have an obligation to exercise that right in a way that only immediately affects yourself. I keep answering your questions, and you don't answer mine. Very telling.
12008
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:09:35 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck to their own body on a park bench?
Same reason you're not allowed to fuck someone on a park bench. You're doing something unpleasant in the direct public eye.
There is a massive difference between public eye and public health. I don't want some cuck smoking at my backyard period.
If I choose to fuck up my health, that's my choice. The government has zero rights to dictate what you can and can't ingest.
So if some cuck at my backyard decides to smoke and the smoke seeps into my bedroom, I have no right but to accept that? No I fucking close the window.
No, because he's taking the indecent act into the public sphere. It's no different if a couple had sex in a brightly lit room with open windows where everyone can see, you call the police and report a disturbance. I'm talking about responsible personal usage behind closed doors.
12009
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:07:46 PM »
Because the right to ingest whatever you want is more direct and immediate than any detriment it causes. If a fancy new study came out tomorrow that said segregated schools led to a better society, would you segregate schools? Any negative outcome that comes from an inherent right is the fault of the society's structure, not the right. If even the idea of a society imposes upon the right to consume whatever you substance you want to, then the idea is wrong.
12010
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:02:46 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck they want to their own body on a park bench? Does location even matter in regards to smoking since its negative effects on others are cumulative rather than immediate, like a drunken car crash?
You don't need anything bigger than a pistol or a hunting rifle.
Why shouldn't anybody be able to own anything they want? It's only when they harm someone else that they've done something wrong, right? Isn't the potential to harm someone never a justification for prohibiting somebody's expression of choice?
A possession isn't the same as an ingestion. I already said that possessions don't mean shit.
12011
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:01:54 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck to their own body on a park bench?
Same reason you're not allowed to fuck someone on a park bench. You're doing something unpleasant in the direct public eye.
um
Doesn't matter. Human rights trump social climate.
Wouldn't you consider having sex a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in public? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
12012
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:00:37 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck to their own body on a park bench?
Same reason you're not allowed to fuck someone on a park bench. You're doing something unpleasant in the direct public eye.
There is a massive difference between public eye and public health. I don't want some cuck smoking at my backyard period.
If I choose to fuck up my health, that's my choice. The government has zero rights to dictate what you can and can't ingest.
12013
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:58:16 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck they want to their own body on a park bench? Does location even matter in regards to smoking since its negative effects on others are cumulative rather than immediate, like a drunken car crash?
If the individual chooses to safely do a drug in the privacy of their own home, the wider social effects cease to matter. It's not nearly the same as drunk driving.
12014
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:57:12 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck to their own body on a park bench?
Same reason you're not allowed to fuck someone on a park bench. You're doing something unpleasant in the direct public eye.
12015
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:54:14 PM »
Out of curiosity, what's your stance on gun control, Class?
You don't need anything bigger than a pistol or a hunting rifle.
12016
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:53:30 PM »
The right to choose what you put into your own body is more important than the institution of insurance.
I don't care about insurance. It's widely known that smoking negatively affects others. Where does the right to "do whatever the fuck you want to your body" end in regards to others' same right?
Do you also think that people should be allowed to drink and drive?
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. This law doesn't say "only 21 year olds can smoke in public".
12017
« on: May 06, 2016, 05:52:22 PM »
Actual races of the world Humans.
Welcome, numale.
"Serious is getting more serious" but I guess ad hominem meme attacks are acceptable too
12018
« on: May 06, 2016, 05:50:39 PM »
NBC
12019
« on: May 06, 2016, 05:15:18 PM »
Secondhand smoke isn't something that happens with this principle. That's obviously wrong.
I already told you I don't give a shit about insurance. Between two conflicting ideas, you have to choose the one that's more important. The right to choose what you put into your own body is more important than the institution of insurance.
And lastly, as I've said a million fucking times here, any person who's actually addicted to cigarettes and gets cancer made that choice for himself when he picked up his first cigarette. And that's a choice you can't morally take away from him.
12020
« on: May 06, 2016, 05:00:10 PM »
we can do WHATEVER the fuck we want to to ourselves
Cigarette usage has a tangible, significant, negative impact on the state of the entire global economy, health, and wellbeing of the population. Arguing that addiction is some manifestation of your self-professed human right to "do whatever the fuck we want to ourselves" is dangerous and naive.
that's a problem with the current medical system That's how insurance works. Lots of people making themselves fatally sick leads to a larger burden on the rest of society.
Like I said, maintaining the most important moral right in mankind is more important than public health statistics or the very institution of insurance in general. No one is physically affected by cigarette smoke who doesn't choose to partake in it.
12021
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:50:58 PM »
If you smoke cigarettes, and you go to the hospital for lung cancer, that's not some big social thing. You pay for your own medical bills.
If the current medical system raises the cost of healthcare for others because of the mistakes I made, that's a problem with the current medical system.
And yes, it's a fucking moral crime. The only thing we're born into this world with is ourselves, and we can do WHATEVER the fuck we want to to ourselves. This isn't hard.
12022
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:40:20 PM »
The idea that everyone should be able to do anything they want to themselves is noble and all, if you don't consider the millions of people literally killing themselves because of one of the most potent chemical addictions available, with immense ramification on the healthcare industry and labor force of the country.
Doesn't matter. Human rights trump social climate.
You're treating addiction as some romanticized consequence of choice. The reality is that companies probably shouldn't have a right to market products like cigarettes, and it's only by longstanding corruption that it's been allowed to continue.
If companies package a product that's clearly labeled, and every bad thing about it is absolutely known by the public, then it's a moral crime to forbid people to buy it. Every single person on the planet can only truly own one thing. Not land, not money, not property. Themselves. No one can forbid you from putting whatever you want to in your own body. Choice and consent are all, and they're certainly more important than public health.
12023
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:19:27 PM »
The idea that everyone should be able to do anything they want to themselves is noble and all, if you don't consider the millions of people literally killing themselves because of one of the most potent chemical addictions available, with immense ramification on the healthcare industry and labor force of the country.
Doesn't matter. Human rights trump social climate.
12024
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:18:08 PM »
I kill myself
12025
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:17:44 PM »
Nicest = Rocket
Meanest = Mordo/Lemon (p much the same person)
12026
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:07:54 PM »
Jester
12027
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:37:56 PM »
Why do people find shit like pepe and this funny?
It legitimately baffles me. Just "lol so random", or is there some kind of clever pun I'm missing here?
ugh disgusting
12028
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:32:01 PM »
Why do people find shit like pepe and this funny?
It legitimately baffles me. Just "lol so random", or is there some kind of clever pun I'm missing here?
12029
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:30:27 PM »
Honestly this is a good thing. Smoking is bad overall but its better than having it be legal to smoke at 18.
Explain how it's a good thing. The government isn't your babysitter. You're an adult who wants to fuck up your health, you have every right to do so.
The same reasons as to why you have to be at least 21 to buy alcohol. Your mind is still developing.
Doesn't matter. And your mind is still developing until you're 26. When you're an adult, you have every right to do whatever dumb shit you want to your own body.
12030
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:26:48 PM »
This makes me want to support Hillary over Bernie
Pages: 1 ... 399400401 402403 ... 1001
|
Show Posts