Quote from: Decimator Omega on May 06, 2016, 06:58:58 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 06:57:12 PM

Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 06:55:38 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 06:53:30 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.

In fact, here is a real world example. It gets very hot here during the summer time. My cuck of a neighbor upstairs smokes inside. He has kids. That smoke travels through my air vent and we're all forced to shut off our AC because of the secondhand smoke, and secondhand smoke is very lethal, on top of that, it can damage electronics, so don't rub all that off as nothing. So we have no fucking right to complain? We have no fucking right to shut our AC off in that situation, we should just accept that shit and breath it in? Hell forget me? What about the kids this cuck has? They have no right to clean air? They're forced to breath all that shit in? They're going to have health problems by the time they reach their 20s.

Yes people can do whatever the fuck they want to themselves, I don't care, but the moment it starts to affect me or someone else, that's a fucking problem and I won't stand any of that shit, and if need be I'll take this kind of shit to court. Today is one of the rare days that I get clean air outside, and even on these days some fucking cuck who works in the building next to mine decides its a great idea to have a smoke in the parking lot, forcing me to close my window, every fucking time.

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.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:01:54 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.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:11:22 PM

Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:08:32 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:01:54 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.

Quote from: Decimator Omega on May 06, 2016, 07:06:41 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:00:37 PM

Quote from: Decimator Omega on May 06, 2016, 06:58:58 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 06:57:12 PM

Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 06:55:38 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 06:53:30 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.

I think I'd rather have more people fucking out here rather than smokers. You seem to be missing the point.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:18:46 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.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 06, 2016, 07:40:18 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.

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?

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.