(December 10, 2021 at 8:48 pm)Helios Wrote:

(December 10, 2021 at 8:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Imma take these one at a time.


I'm not. I'm trying to get you to understand the point that freedom that endangers other people must be limited.


For now, it is.


I thought your country had laws against child endangerment. Clearly, I was mistaken.


No, my country is NOT majority Christian, it isn't even majority religious. 38% Christian, 44% non-religious (the balance is a smattering of other, non-Christian religions). Give that this is the case, the rest of your statement needs no reply.


Agreed. However, it does not mean allowing people to do things which endanger public health and safety (you know, like those riots that always get your knickers in a twist).  As I said before, NO freedoms are absolute - not speech, not assembly, not religion, not press. But these freedoms are legislated to exist in limited, curtailed form because doing so contributes to the public good. Tobacco use contributes nothing.

Boru

The funny thing is you could turn his argument about "where does it end? " to the"freedom" to do immoral or distasteful things.

2 cents. 

I think our friend may be confusing licence with rights. They are not the same thing. (look them up)

Quote:2 cents. 

I think our friend may be confusing licence with rights. They are not the same thing. (look them up)

Not sure what you mean 

OLB was arguing that if we allow one restriction then we allow an endless stream of restrictions on people's behavior. Then he argued people should be allowed to do immoral or distasteful things. My point was by his own logic allowing people to do immoral things opens up the same problem where do we draw the line? Ultimately the point was too much freedom can be just as bad as too many restrictions on it and too.

(December 12, 2021 at 7:43 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:2 cents. 

I think our friend may be confusing licence with rights. They are not the same thing. (look them up)

Not sure what you mean 

OLB was arguing that if we allow one restriction then we allow an endless stream of restrictions on people's behavior. Then he argued people should be allowed to do immoral or distasteful things. My point was by his own logic allowing people to do immoral things opens up the same problem where do we draw the line? Ultimately the point was too much freedom can be just as bad as too many restrictions on it and too.

I don’t really have an issue with allowing people to do immoral or distasteful things. My issue is with allowing people to do things that are a proven danger to other people.

If someone wants to read a dirty book (immoral) or play the accordion professionally (distasteful), ‘it neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg’.

Boru

(December 12, 2021 at 7:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 12, 2021 at 7:43 pm)Helios Wrote: Not sure what you mean 

OLB was arguing that if we allow one restriction then we allow an endless stream of restrictions on people's behavior. Then he argued people should be allowed to do immoral or distasteful things. My point was by his own logic allowing people to do immoral things opens up the same problem where do we draw the line? Ultimately the point was too much freedom can be just as bad as too many restrictions on it and too.

I don’t really have an issue with allowing people to do immoral or distasteful things. My issue is with allowing people to do things that are a proven danger to other people.

If someone wants to read a dirty book (immoral) or play the accordion professionally (distasteful), ‘it neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg’.

Boru

Neither do i. My point was he asked where does it end on restrictions I'm saying that can also apply to the allowance of immoral or distasteful acts. So his argument isn't a good one if it can be twisted back onto him. So it's a poor argument against Newzealands new law.

(December 12, 2021 at 7:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 12, 2021 at 7:43 pm)Helios Wrote: Not sure what you mean 

OLB was arguing that if we allow one restriction then we allow an endless stream of restrictions on people's behavior. Then he argued people should be allowed to do immoral or distasteful things. My point was by his own logic allowing people to do immoral things opens up the same problem where do we draw the line? Ultimately the point was too much freedom can be just as bad as too many restrictions on it and too.

I don’t really have an issue with allowing people to do immoral or distasteful things. My issue is with allowing people to do things that are a proven danger to other people.

If someone wants to read a dirty book (immoral) or play the accordion professionally (distasteful), ‘it neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg’.

Boru

And if they want to suck on a big smoldering homage to a brown penis - in the privacy of their own home - this affects you how?

(December 12, 2021 at 7:43 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:2 cents. 

I think our friend may be confusing licence with rights. They are not the same thing. (look them up)

Not sure what you mean 

OLB was arguing that if we allow one restriction then we allow an endless stream of restrictions on people's behavior. Then he argued people should be allowed to do immoral or distasteful things. My point was by his own logic allowing people to do immoral things opens up the same problem where do we draw the line? Ultimately the point was too much freedom can be just as bad as too many restrictions on it and too.

"Not sure what you mean "

That's why I suggested looking up the terms.


 A quick search found this:

"The dictionary defines freedom as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."


"Freedom includes taking responsibility for our lives. As long as it is compatible with the common good, people should be allowed to choose how they want to live. License, on the other hand, is the abandonment of all responsibility. It is carte blanche to do as we wish. It is incompatible with virtue and destroys community."

Opinion: The difference between freedom and license (sapulpatimes.com)

Yeah not see the relevance to my point.But thank you for the English lesson 

---

Quote:And if they want to suck on a big smoldering homage to a brown penis - in the privacy of their own home - this affects you how?

Yeah because smoking has no negative impacts outside you home 

(December 12, 2021 at 9:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(December 12, 2021 at 7:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don’t really have an issue with allowing people to do immoral or distasteful things. My issue is with allowing people to do things that are a proven danger to other people.

If someone wants to read a dirty book (immoral) or play the accordion professionally (distasteful), ‘it neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg’.

Boru

And if they want to suck on a big smoldering homage to a brown penis - in the privacy of their own home - this affects you how?

You do get that secondhand smoke is still a thing, and that it can cause much of the same damage as first-hand smoking, right? And, I may not be going to your home, but if you have kids (I know you don’t and power to you for that) and you smoke in front of them, they’re breathing in that same secondhand smoke, and they have no say in whether or not they want to breathe in all those poisons.

(December 12, 2021 at 9:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(December 12, 2021 at 7:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don’t really have an issue with allowing people to do immoral or distasteful things. My issue is with allowing people to do things that are a proven danger to other people.

If someone wants to read a dirty book (immoral) or play the accordion professionally (distasteful), ‘it neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg’.

Boru

And if they want to suck on a big smoldering homage to a brown penis - in the privacy of their own home - this affects you how?

It chiefly affects me by straining healthcare resources.

And if you really, truly believe that people can confine a nicotine addiction to their own home, I'd like to talk you about these shares in a gumdrop mine I have for sale.

Boru

(December 13, 2021 at 4:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 12, 2021 at 9:01 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: And if they want to suck on a big smoldering homage to a brown penis - in the privacy of their own home - this affects you how?

It chiefly affects me by straining healthcare resources.

And if you really, truly believe that people can confine a nicotine addiction to their own home, I'd like to talk you about these shares in a gumdrop mine I have for sale.

Boru

The same arguement could be applied to ANYTHING that could be such a drain.

Motorcycles, mountain climbing, sugar, risky sexual behavior..


Are you against legalizing any other drugs?