• 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!

Which unnatural deaths form an acceptable part of a free society?

Should government stop people from making deadly dangerous decisions?

  • Yes -- by the force of law.

    Votes: 4 8.7%

  • Yes -- by taxing harmful items.

    Votes: 6 13.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 36 78.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Patrickt said:
You wish. If, for example, cigarette smoking caused cancer then we would know who many cigarettes over what period of time but we don't, do we? Not only that but we're told by the priests that second-hand smoke is as bad as smoking and more recently the priests have announced that third-hand smoke is just as bad.

Smoking is certainly not good for you but the "causing death" is nonsense. We all die and if you die having smoked it's a smoking-related death unless you were run over by a bus or shot in the head.
Click to expand...

LIke I said: I'm not interested in cutsie-poo word games. You'll have to play them alone.

Good luck with your magical thinking.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LIke I said: I'm not interested in cutsie-poo word games. You'll have to play them alone.

Good luck with your magical thinking.
Click to expand...

Smoking will never be the proximate cause of death, but it will be a contributing factor to coronary artery disease and cancers. Those who are in denial of science make these type claims to suit their ideology. They misrepresent the level of uncertainty which is always present to be much greater than what it is.
 
SCitizen said:
I must give credit to Howler63. Indeed, guns are used for about 30,000 suicides and homicides a year.

Automobiles also account for 30,700 deaths per year. These deaths can be eliminated by imposing very high gasoline taxes and expanding the system of public transportation which is much safer (by a factor of 60) then cars. In Norway gas costs $10/gallon due to taxes.

Smoking does not cause deaths directly, but it shortens peoples lives.
Click to expand...

Which unnatural deaths form an acceptable part of a free society?

War.
 
Ikari said:
Why wouldn't we have an EPA in a libertarian government?
Click to expand...

We already have a conservative Congress hell bent on de-funding the EPA, claiming it oversteps it's bounds. If industry had it's way, the EPA would not exist since regulations negatively impact the bottom line. Libertarianism promotes maximal personal liberty expecting the free market to moderate all manner of activities. When the public is blind to externalities such as invisible air pollution or 5 parts in a billion of Mercury polluting the water they will not act according to what is in their best interest. When substances like DDT are freely used on crops the public will not be aware of the effects this has on the natural environment and far to many will not care anyway. They will not vote with their feet or with their wallets.
 
Russell797 said:
We already have a conservative Congress hell bent on de-funding the EPA, claiming it oversteps it's bounds. If industry had it's way, the EPA would not exist since regulations negatively impact the bottom line. Libertarianism promotes maximal personal liberty expecting the free market to moderate all manner of activities. When the public is blind to externalities such as invisible air pollution or 5 parts in a billion of Mercury polluting the water they will not act according to what is in their best interest. When substances like DDT are freely used on crops the public will not be aware of the effects this has on the natural environment and far to many will not care anyway. They will not vote with their feet or with their wallets.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is not anarchy, and free-market is not laissez-faire. These are assumptions people make sometimes to get to paint the full of libertarian philosophy as extreme anarchists.

The EPA is perfectly in line with libertarianism. Would it be restricted to proper power and oversight responsibilities? Yes, like all government. But you cannot allow for unsafe pollution, as that infringes upon the liberty of the People in general.
 
Ikari said:
Libertarianism is not anarchy, and free-market is not laissez-faire. These are assumptions people make sometimes to get to paint the full of libertarian philosophy as extreme anarchists.

The EPA is perfectly in line with libertarianism. Would it be restricted to proper power and oversight responsibilities? Yes, like all government. But you cannot allow for unsafe pollution, as that infringes upon the liberty of the People in general.
Click to expand...

Would the EPA be informed by science to determine what is proper power and oversight? Like it is now? Or would politics and biased industries weight in on what areas that power should prevail as is increasingly being attempted?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LIke I said: I'm not interested in cutsie-poo word games. You'll have to play them alone.

Good luck with your magical thinking.
Click to expand...

Sorry, English isn't your first language and faith has replaced science in your life.
 
Patrickt said:
Sorry, English isn't your first language and faith has replaced science in your life.
Click to expand...

Lulz. English is my first language, thanks and I've likely already forgotten more science than you'll learn your entire life.

Again, good luck with that magical thinking. You'll need it.
 
Wait. The thread title is "which unnatural deaths form an acceptable part of society?"

I was looking for the "Savaged by a Dead Sheep" option, but, the question in the poll is about responses to things that kill people....
 
TurtleDude said:
divorce harms society. so lets end divorce by getting rid of the institution of marriage?
Click to expand...

Good idea. From now on, we can **** anyone we want. :mrgreen:
 
People are dying left and right from taking selfies.

"Oliver Park, 51, had ventured into a restricted area of the tourist spot in the Andes, and despite signs warning people to stay away from the cliff’s edge, he asked a fellow tourist to take his photo.
He then lost his balance and fell 130 feet to his death."
Death by selfie: Man falls off a cliff at Machu Picchu while posing for a photo | Fox News Latino

Another man fell 1,600 feet from a waterfall and another died falling down stairs at the Taj Mahal. The article mentions a man who accidentally shot himself in the head while talking a selfie. I guess he forgot it was "shoot the picture" and not "shoot the pistol".

"According to The Washington Post, in March a Washington man fatally shot himself in the face while taking a selfie with what he believed was an unloaded gun."

Can't we all agree the governments of the world need to stop this tragic loss of life?
 
TurtleDude said:
divorce harms society. so lets end divorce by getting rid of the institution of marriage?
Click to expand...
Strange ''reasoning'' , but no so strange for a conservative ..or, I should say a misanthrope .
IMO, the number of deaths is excessive .. Steps MUST be taken to lower the numbers
gun control
driver education
general education .. including tolerance , respect for others , knowing one's self ..
 
Deaths by these selfish and silly ''selfies'' .. 5
Death by guns .. say 30,000 .. now , lets see ..what do we do ?
 
danarhea said:
Good idea. From now on, we can **** anyone we want. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well, some of us will be ****ing anybody that we want... others will get the leftovers or unwanted.
 
earthworm said:
Deaths by these selfish and silly ''selfies'' .. 5
Death by guns .. say 30,000 .. now , lets see ..what do we do ?
Click to expand...

Since every person that has killed another person with a gun uses their fingers to pull the trigger I say that we amputate all fingers. Problem solved.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There are already a huge number of safety regulations on cars that have significantly reduced the death rate due to auto accidents over the last few decades despite the fact there are many more cars on the road. If guns were regulated to the extent that cars are, you would only have a fraction of the type of guns on the market that we do now. I am not saying we should regulate guns like we do cars, but rather I am just pointing out that its a bad comparison.

Personally, I think health insurance rates and medicare taxes should be higher for smokers to reflect the actual costs they place on the system. Basically, if you want to smoke then fine, but if the actuaries decide that you should be paying twice the health insurance rates and twice the medicare rates, then so be it. That is true with a lot of health choices though. No other insurance works like health insurance. For example, if you are a bad driver and get into lots of accidents and get lots of tickets, you will be paying a significantly higher auto insurance rate than a contentious driver. However, you can be morbidly obese, smoke two packs a day, and still pay the same health insurance rate or medicare rate as a vegetarian triathlete. What was particularly deplorable prior to the ACA is that someone born with something like Cerebral Palsy would be practically uninsurable in the private sector while someone that by their own choices in life was obese and a smoker could get health coverage easily.
Click to expand...

If 80%+ of cars involved in fatalities were stolen like they are with guns, then I could see making that comparison.. but they aren't. For the most part the offender in a car fatality legally bought the car, has a legal license, legal registration etc.. but the gun offender stole the gun usually. so even if you have all those regulations, the vast majority of the gun offenders would just steal them.
There are some somewhat promising biometric devices like identilock that would prevent the use by someone else but they are quite expensive.
I do have to say I am surprised today at how often we hear of some kid finding dad or uncle or grandpas gun. loaded in a drawer or behind the door or whatever. Those are the same people who are going to get their gun stolen also.
I would be for requiring a gun safety course for people who want to get a hunting license or buy a gun. I had one when I was 12 years old and a lot of the stupid things people do are discussed. sure not everyone wouild follow it but I think it would be an improvement.
 
TurtleDude said:
you see those as oppositional goals?
Click to expand...

Not oppositional. We depend upon the integrity of the natural environment for our very existence. The Earth is our home and we are part of it's biosphere. We soil our own home and damage the biosphere to our peril.
 
SCitizen said:
I must give credit to Howler63. Indeed, guns are used for about 30,000 suicides and homicides a year.

Automobiles also account for 30,700 deaths per year. These deaths can be eliminated by imposing very high gasoline taxes and expanding the system of public transportation which is much safer (by a factor of 60) then cars. In Norway gas costs $10/gallon due to taxes.

Smoking does not cause deaths directly, but it shortens peoples lives.
Click to expand...

People need to die to make room for others.

It has always been this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom