• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking Illegal With Children In Car[W:501]

Do you agree with ban on smoking inside cars with children?

  • Total voters
    84
So what exactly do you call intentionally causing harm to children? Inconsiderate? Really?
Alyssa said:
I don't believe that it's child abuse. It is, however, selfish and inconsiderate.
Click to expand...
 
Alyssa said:
I don't believe that it's child abuse. It is, however, selfish and inconsiderate.
Click to expand...

Talking in a theater when other people are trying to enjoy the movie is selfish and inconsiderate. Deliberately exposing someone to deadly carcinogens is abuse.
 
It is absurd this is even a point of contention.
Cardinal said:
Talking in a theater when other people are trying to enjoy the movie is selfish and inconsiderate. Deliberately exposing someone to deadly carcinogens is abuse.
Click to expand...
 
Alyssa said:
I don't believe that it's child abuse. It is, however, selfish and inconsiderate.
Click to expand...

Can it negatively impact the child's health? Knowingly and likely? Yes. That's abuse, IMO.

I think for a long time people just didnt really look at this objectively or realize it's potential impact. And yes, just potential but still a very real risk. So to ignore it now is to me, exactly as you say, selfish and lazy and....abusive.
 
By your logic, every parent who puts their child at risk for harm is a child abuser. Why should smoking be different than diet or other environmental factors? Statistically, being poor has long term negative effects on children. Should being below a certain income be grounds of CPS action based on child abuse?
 
People's presumptions and the liberties that are taken with them as a society astounds. Everyone, everywhere cries the hollow cry of "Freedom!", all the while readily casting the yokes of their own opinions and inclinations onto others.

If people took all this energy, all this effort and put it toward productive labor rather than focusing on meddlesome do-gooding perhaps the US would be the industrial juggernaut it once was.
 
Alyssa said:
By your logic, every parent who puts their child at risk for harm is a child abuser. Why should smoking be different than diet or other environmental factors? Statistically, being poor has long term negative effects on children. Should being below a certain income be grounds of CPS action based on child abuse?
Click to expand...

Smoking around your children is easily avoidable.

Edit: the obviousness of this statement just made the earth's axis tilt by three degrees.
 
Last edited:
Alyssa said:
ok so that makes it abuse opposed to the other examples? no, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

That in itself? No, but your other examples were not at all easily avoidable. Lumping an easily avoidable harmful activity in with being poor is really awful logic.

Out of curiosity, are you a smoker?
 
Cardinal said:
That in itself? No, but your other examples were not at all easily avoidable. Lumping an easily avoidable harmful activity in with being poor is really awful logic.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing that it is difficult to avoid giving a child soda? High fructos corn syrup is linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes. Phosphoric acid is linked to osteoporosis, and people who drink significant quantities of soda have lower functioning immune systems. Low functioning immune systems are linked to developing cancer. There.. i just made a solid case that giving a child soda is child abuse.

Cardinal said:
Out of curiosity, are you a smoker?
Click to expand...

As I have said at least twice in this thread, I do not smoke.
 
Alyssa said:
So you're arguing that it is difficult to avoid giving a child soda? High fructos corn syrup is linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes. Phosphoric acid is linked to osteoporosis, and people who drink significant quantities of soda have lower functioning immune systems. Low functioning immune systems are linked to developing cancer. There.. i just made a solid case that giving a child soda is child abuse.
Click to expand...

Where is this going? Do you intend to run down a checklist of every potential risk activity in the universe? We're talking about smoking.
 
Cardinal said:
Where is this going? Do you intend to run down a checklist of every potential risk activity in the universe? We're talking about smoking.
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? Risk is risk.. why single out smokers? But if you want to ignore the point I made and continue beating this rotting corpse, be my guest..
 
Well, eventually it gets to a point where you feel like you're arguing with a child.

"It's 9pm, time to go to bed now."
"I don't want to!"
"Tough, you have to go to bed."
"But Daniel gets to stay up to 11pm!"
"You're not Daniel, and this isn't Daniel's house."
"You're a tyrant!"
"Yes, yes I am. Now go to bed."
 
Cardinal said:
Well, eventually it gets to a point where you feel like you're arguing with a child.

"It's 9pm, time to go to bed now."
"I don't want to!"
"Tough, you have to go to bed."
"But Daniel gets to stay up to 11pm!"
"You're not Daniel, and this isn't Daniel's house."
"You're a tyrant!"
"Yes, yes I am. Now go to bed."
Click to expand...

The smell of your unwarranted condescension is like the ****ty ammonia smell of a public outhouse.
 
Alyssa said:
The smell of your unwarranted condescension is like the ****ty ammonia smell of a public outhouse.
Click to expand...

Human urine consists of only trace amounts of ammonia. I believe you may be thinking of cat boxes.

 
Alyssa said:
By your logic, every parent who puts their child at risk for harm is a child abuser. Why should smoking be different than diet or other environmental factors? Statistically, being poor has long term negative effects on children. Should being below a certain income be grounds of CPS action based on child abuse?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Can it negatively impact the child's health? Knowingly and likely? Yes. That's abuse, IMO.

I think for a long time people just didnt really look at this objectively or realize it's potential impact. And yes, just potential but still a very real risk. So to ignore it now is to me, exactly as you say, selfish and lazy and....abusive.
Click to expand...

............................
 
Lursa said:
Can it negatively impact the child's health? Knowingly and likely? Yes. That's abuse, IMO.

I think for a long time people just didnt really look at this objectively or realize it's potential impact. And yes, just potential but still a very real risk. So to ignore it now is to me, exactly as you say, selfish and lazy and....abusive.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed at those who deny the damage caused by smoking, 2nd hand smoke, and even 3rd hand smoke. Unless they see the damage being something like the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then it's not damage.

With regard to your post above...I agree with you...when people say, yeah, I know what the "so-called" dangers are...but then KNOWINGLY expose kids... and use personal freedom and / or rights to justify doing so...then... :(

Has decades of scientific evidence about smoking been in vain?

Fighting to maintain a right to engage in a behavior that's positively known to inflict harm to self and others is called "addiction". The right for adult individuals to choose to self-destruct is okay by me. But not the right to self-destruct and takes hostages with them. We don't individually live in glass boxes. Our behaviors affect others.
 
Honestly I think this thread exemplifies one of the glaring problems with libertarian dogma, it is so wrong as to be absurd. What normal human would argue for the right to intentionally harm their own children for absolutely no reason?
Removable Mind said:
I'm always amazed at those who deny the damage caused by smoking, 2nd hand smoke, and even 3rd hand smoke. Unless they see the damage being something like the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then it's not damage.

With regard to your post above...I agree with you...when people say, yeah, I know what the "so-called" dangers are...but then KNOWINGLY expose kids... and use personal freedom and / or rights to justify doing so...then... :(

Has decades of scientific evidence about smoking been in vain?

Fighting to maintain a right to engage in a behavior that's positively known to inflict harm to self and others is called "addiction". The right for adult individuals to choose to self-destruct is okay by me. But not the right to self-destruct and takes hostages with them. We don't individually live in glass boxes. Our behaviors affect others.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Honestly I think this thread exemplifies one of the glaring problems with libertarian dogma, it is so wrong as to be absurd. What normal human would argue for the right to intentionally harm their own children for absolutely no reason?
Click to expand...

When one believes that he or she has the right to behave in a destructive way which affects others --- in the face of evidence?...yep, I agree...with ya. Mind boggling.

Well, this belief runs in all directions inside and outside of the libertarian box. Addiction doesn't discriminate. To addiction there's no political ideology, profession, gender, no age...that it won't exploit.

It's called "stinkin thinkin".
 
Lursa said:
I disagree. Abuse is anything that harms the child. Injecting it with harmful bacteria is abuse. There are those (mostly) women that make their kids sick on purpose so that they (the mothers) get attention. That is child abuse. Putting stereo headphones on your child every day and 'cranking cool tunes' is abuse. Telling your child all the time that they are worthless and you never wanted them is abuse. Tormenting a child mentally is abuse.

Of course, we dont know about most things like this (and most are not carried to extremes)...and we cannot always stop them...but it doesnt mean the abuses dont take place.
Click to expand...

Oh My You are totally right!!! I just never saw it before!

Looking at a child without a giant beaming smile on your face... THAT IS ABUSE!!!!!

ABUSE!! I TELL YOU!!

ABUSE!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom