View Poll Results: What do you think about smoking in cars?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • It shouldn't be banned at all.

    29 58.00%
  • I'm fine with Arkansas's current smoking law.

    3 6.00%
  • I'd like to see the law applied everywhere.

    15 30.00%
  • I don't know/Other

    3 6.00%
Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 370

Thread: Smoking in Cars

  1. #321
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,020

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I've provided research. If you chose to actually read through the thread instead of reading the first few posts and then replying, you wouldn't have demanded research.
    Who are you? I was talking to somebody that made a claim... are you making a claim? If so, provide the evidence.

    Otherwise... stay quite.

    Good job.
    Last edited by Bodhisattva; 01-08-12 at 06:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  2. #322
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Who are you? I was talking to somebody that made a claim... are you making a claim? If so, provide the evidence.

    Otherwise... stay quite.

    Good job.
    You made the claim that secondhand smoke was not harmful harmful. You! We've provided research for it, which you either didn't notice or ignored. The person who you were debating also provided evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  3. #323
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I can turn the tables on you with the reductio ad absurdum. Watch:

    Are you saying that ambulances can't crash?
    That's not really reductio ad absurdum. There is a legitimate concern there.regarding the number of children killed or injured in ambulance accidents yearly. I'm personally not aware of any such accidents, but they are certainly possible. Ultimately, though, we have to weigh the risk to benefit scenario with regard to child safety.

    We know that using an ambulance to transport a child is, at least, is slightly risky. However, not transporting the child in an ambulance has the potential to be extremely risky. It would actually be less safe for the child to not be transported by ambulance, therefore the exception makes sense, since the stated goal is to maximize the safety of children.


    The dangers of cigarette smoking have become apparent only recently. We still don't know how many deaths SHS causes.

    I understand your logic, and I understand and admire your debating skills in this matter. But there are still a few flaws.

    A. Most kids don't die in car accidents, yet most kids are in cars. On the other hand, second hand smoke has been shown to cause problems when it is around people.
    Ah, but most children exposed to SHS smoke do not have any serious problems from it. There are correlations between SHS exposure and health problems, but they are by no means a 100% correlation. These health problems are only present in a minority of those exposed to SHS.

    Hell, most of the adverse effects of first-hand smoke only occur in a minority of people who smoke.

    But when the issue is specifically harm to children, we know that being driven in cars does more harm to children each year than SHS exposure does. But, as I noted before, my proposal also accomplishes the goal of reducing the number of children exposed to SHS in cars to as close to 0 as possible (and, in all honesty, it'd probably reduce that number a good deal more than a simple ban on smoking in cars containing children would)

    Therefore, I don't see how you can claim that this is a flaw in my logic. My logic is focused entirely on the safety of children and preventing harm to children which is 100% preventable. My proposal takes care of this on multiple levels. If no kids were in cars, then no kids would die in car accidents. My logic does not care if most kids are not harmed by the danger. It is only concerned with the fact that some kids are harmed.

    Obviously proponents of a ban on smoking in cars that contain children do not care that most kids are not harmed, or else they would not be proponents of that ban. I have to employ the exact same logic in order for my position to remain reductio ad absurdum. (granted, there is a premise that most of the proponents of such a ban have left unstated which I am not including, but that unstated premise is both their primary premise and teh one that prevents them form actually supporting my proposal.)

    B. Again, the benefits to driving children in cars outweighs the costs. Kids can be taken to the doctor's office, and to school that is far away. There are literally no benefits to children who are in a car with a smoker.
    I respond to this by asking why you think that convenience is more important than children's lives? Because the only benefits you mention are ones of convenience, and the costs are children's lives and health.

    Let's alter your statement so that the terms "benefits" and "costs" are replaced by what they actually are instead of terminology that hides what they are:

    the conveniences of driving children in cars outweighs the dead and injured children who died form being driven in cars.

    Another bonus of my plan is that it forces parents to start being more active with their children. Instead of driving their child a mile to school, they'll have to walk them over there. Given the fact that far too many children in this country are now morbidly obese due to their sedentary lifestyle, this twice-daily walk to school will actually help them on a whole new level, preventing even further health problems in the future (obesity surpassed smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death a few years back).

    Thus, not only will my plan save lives directly by preventing children from dying in car accidents, it will also prevent any children from being exposed to second hand smoke in cars AND it will play a role in preventing childhood obesity.

    I don't see anyone else proposing anything even remotely close to being as efficient in saving children and preventing them from coming to harm. And all of these things my proposal helps with are 100% preventable!

    I really cannot understand why my proposal is getting so much resistance from those who claim to only want to make the world a little safer for children. My proposal would undeniably make the world a lot safer for them. On three levels: 1. reducing SHS exposure 2. reducing obesity and 3. by totally eliminating the #1 killer of children under 18. How can people who want 1 possibly be opposed to 2 and 3?

  4. #324
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,020

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    You made the claim that secondhand smoke was not harmful harmful. You! We've provided research for it, which you either didn't notice or ignored. The person who you were debating also provided evidence.
    That is kinda weak... I am debating you or that person... if you presented evidence during a debate with A DIFFERENT PERSON then it is not up to me to go search through the thread to find the evidence, it is up to you to represent it. If you don't want to that is fine but to say that I need to go searching for evidence that you simply say you presented is completely ridiculous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  5. #325
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I really cannot understand why my proposal is getting so much resistance from those who claim to only want to make the world a little safer for children. My proposal would undeniably make the world a lot safer for them. On three levels: 1. reducing SHS exposure 2. reducing obesity and 3. by totally eliminating the #1 killer of children under 18. How can people who want 1 possibly be opposed to 2 and 3?
    I think I know where your premise is flawed. You're proposing your argument on the logic that SHS eliminated in cars with children is based on what's good for them and everyone as a whole. When in actuality it's based on making a select few who want to enforce it to feel good about themselves supposedly helping the poor children. See they're not exploiting the children to accomplish their agenda to unfairly, over-regulate a lawful product, thereby stifling the freedoms of others or they would've obviously had seen the more rational and sensible suggestions you've made that if it's truly about saving children from harm, then transport them safer and reduce obesity by eliminating sugary and fast food. Also as a matter of preventable source of injuries children are hurt by atv's, snowmobiles, skateboards, bicycles, boats, sports, theme parks, playgrounds etc.

    They call that "reductio ad absurdum" because it presents an inconvenience to reduce or eliminate these unsafe activities but I would definitely call, stopping SHS in a car the "theatre of the absurd" as a way of reducing harm in comparison to more serious sources. I guess then we can't assume that "no smoking in cars" is based in logic as much as political control of peoples freedoms, which are being eroded daily by reason of profit and correctness. But of course eliminating an adults choices or liberty hurts nobody, except the very concept this nation was founded on.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  6. #326
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    tobacco is legal.

    until its illegal, folks have the right to smoke in their own home or in their car.
    The issue, is the question of legality when other people are exposed to it, specifically children who are not given a choice. There is no question that its a safety hazard, legal or not.

  7. #327
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    The issue, is the question of legality when other people are exposed to it, specifically children who are not given a choice. There is no question that its a safety hazard, legal or not.
    Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  8. #328
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
    Seriously man....... more government protects you from "cradle to the grave" thinkers.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  9. #329
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Why should that be a sensible, legal question when children have "no choice" what their adult parents or legal guardians expose them too? We've already discussed other harmful exposure from sugary and high fat, processed fast food, chemical carcinogens in construction materials of homes, clothing, farming and livestock processing, to dangerous transportation, sports and other activities. How many more things are potentially worse and not discussed because of the nonsensical righteous factor?
    Because you refuse to discuss the cost/benefit analysis associated with all those things. That is where the argument goes from something that is potentially harmful but still could have benefit to something that is potentially harmful that has very little benefit.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #330
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Smoking in Cars

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because you refuse to discuss the cost/benefit analysis associated with all those things. That is where the argument goes from something that is potentially harmful but still could have benefit to something that is potentially harmful that has very little benefit.
    The cost benefit analysis argument is bunk. Its an opinion argument to restrict freedom on potential happenings. There is nothing to talk about if you won't ban everything due to the equation because you personally don't see the benefit analysis warranting it. That is an illogical argument, sorry.

Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •