New Zealand - you gotta be this old to have rights.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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)