smoking goooood, jackhammers baaaaaad
- Thread starter carpediem
- Start date
What about a law that makes it possible for society to protect unborn children from their dumbass mothers? I think that would be a good idea...
yeah!Guden Oden said:
And lets legislate morality into law as well!
And hey, I don't think people who eat chocolate should have kids! So lets legislate that as well!
And lets protect people from themselves! Don't let them do anything that could hurt them! So, lets all take our prozium, and stop feeling or emoting, because you all know that emotions can be painful and harmful!
SO can driving a car, and walking, and jogging (its bad for your joints!). BAN THEM ALL!
Althornin said:
You mean we don't have this already?
Stop acting like such a damned fool. Many laws are meant to do just that. Underage drinking is illegal for example, as is driving cars without a seatbelt or a license. Do you propose to abolish all such laws perhaps?
Smoking has been proved to be harmful to unborn children, do you think it's all right for mothers to damage their offspring (perhaps for life) purely to satisfy their own selfish habits? It sure seems that way.
Seatbelts? That should go. You don't hurt anybody but yourself not using it.
License? That goes under "harm to others".
Underage drinking is a judgement call, the question is when you're selfgoverning. My opinion is when you're legally responsible for your actions you are supposed to also be selfgoverning. So where you and I live: 15. 20 is ridiculous, when you're supposed to be expected to be prepared to die for your country from the age of 18.
License? That goes under "harm to others".
Underage drinking is a judgement call, the question is when you're selfgoverning. My opinion is when you're legally responsible for your actions you are supposed to also be selfgoverning. So where you and I live: 15. 20 is ridiculous, when you're supposed to be expected to be prepared to die for your country from the age of 18.
That is one funny picture... Besides, what would be wrong in laws enforcing a smoke ban on mothers? I can see many reasons to do it, but not one NOT to.MPI said:
...Unless you're sitting behind someone, or indirectly, happen to be a parent for example.
Why? You can still be a good driver despite not having a license.
So a person is mature enough to decide for him/herself in all matters at age 15? I don't think I have to comment that any further than you go take a look at your average 15y/o and find out that is SO not the case.
But that's not quite the scope of the law, now is it? >70% of car rides carries one passenger, the driver... Besides, don't you think it's a matter between the individual sitting in front and the one sitting in the back? If the one in front is cool with it, why wouldn't you be?
Sure, but if you're a good driver you're good enough to get the license. It's those that _doesn't_ meet the minimum documented required standards you want not to drive and subsequently at risk to cause harm to others...
He's apparently mature enough to be held accountable for criminal acts? And we're not talking about _all_ matters either, you're moving the goalposts here, we were specifically talking about consuming alcohol.
MPI... If the world was full of self-governing, responsible, caring-for-the-others people, Law wouldn't exist.
MPI said:
If it's a law that ultimately prevents the person from self-harming, not in a direct sense, but in an indirect sense, it can only be good.
Italy for example had one of the worst records for death by car accident until not too long ago. Since it has been made illegal not to wear seat-belts, as well as strict enforcement on drink-driving, the numbers have gone right down. That's all simply because before the laws, people were "too lazy" to wear seatbelts and "not drunk enough" to avoid driving when drunk. Laws change the culture, and changing a lazy culture to one that feels like it "has to" wear seatbelts and NOT drink-drive can only be a good thing. Whether it's "not right" to enforce a law aimed at one's self harm or not, who cares.
Solzhenitsyn
Newcomer
the names some of these kids are getting nowadays is a big pet peeve of mine. A couple weeks ago I heard that Gwyneth Paltrow named her daughter Apple. Wtf? Some judge should prepare a court order where that kid has to wear a hidden microphone with some kind of digital recording media every day at school. At the end of the day the tape is played back and every time some other kid makes fun of Apple because of her name, A former NFL linebacker gets to slug Gwyneth in the stomach with a pillowcase full of doorknobs for putting her child through that kind of completely unecessary anguish.
Killer-Kris
Regular
london-boy said:
I dunno, I suppose I believe in evolution a little more than most people and feel that if you can remove the lazy and stupid ones from the population it's just that much better for society. So I tend to feel that laws preventing people from harming themselves, in what one would hope is an apparent way, do a great deal of harm to society.
Though I do agree that in the case of the unborn, we are long over due for laws protecting them from the stupidity of their parents, whether through smoking, abortion, or any other number of damaging activities.
^^ Yeah, cause lazy people deserve to die!!! Errrr..... :|
Solzhenitsyn said:
Hahaha! I actually half-agrees with you on that one, but better yet, how about we take that former linebacker and get him to instead slug all those little bullying fuckers who made fun of Apple because of her name?
I think that would be far better in the long run, because if Apple had been named Anna by her mother those little shits would have found something or someone else to harass instead. It's not the symptoms that needs to be treated, but the disease itself.
Killer-Kris
Regular
london-boy said:
Well if their too lazy to bukle their seat belts, I'd classify that as a form of stupidity. Really for the most part I'm not entirely for culling the heard, just more or less allow people to cull themselves.
carpediem said:
Well in most cases the baby would be very much alive, the repercussions of the abuse would only show after the baby was born.
