Good On You Aust/NZ..

[jillian]

she and her four sisters all worked. their mother didn't once she came to this country.... i'm not quite sure why.

things changed because you're required to have your children in school now til they're 16 and you get charged with child neglect if you don't. the culture changed BECAUSE of inspectors and regulations which, in turn, allowed the system to grow.

the market does not naturally take care of people. markets satisfy only the corporations that are part of it and markets do not act in the best interests of society because they are amoral.

as for The Jungle, yes it was fiction, but so was Oliver Twist. Both reflected the social realities of their days. And both would have been incredibly ugly realities to live in.

The law doesn't stop people from smoking weed, why would you think the law would stop children from skipping school and working if they had to? The culture changed because it was able to change, not because the government told it to change.

The market lifts up the standard of living for everyone.

I'm sure Harry Potter reflects some social realities of the day too, and I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world with wizards running about doing crazy things with magic.

harry potter represents a fantasy world. the Jungle reflects reality.

but its so much simpler to blur fantasy and reality. it means you don't have to address unpleasant facts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Should people then be forced to get into an optimum weight range, and to an optimum body fat percentage? And if candy is bad for you then it should simply be banned outright, or at the very least taxed as much as cigarettes are. Sure you can exercise off any of the ill effects of the candy, but just imagine if you did that exercise and didn't eat the candy. Even better.

You don't find it a little bit ridiculous that you're complaining about having to pay for other people's health care while endorsing the system that says you have to do it? You don't think it's ridiculous that because you pay taxes you think you have an investment in the body of every other person in your country and have the right to tell them what they can or can't do with their bodies? And where does that end? As I'm trying to demonstrate with the above scenarios, how much is too much control over a person?

Why would I do that when there is a division of labor that makes it possible for me not to have to do that?

My point is, there is a way, outside of taxation, to negate the negative affects of candy. There is no such remedy for smoking. You are comparing apples and oranges.

No, the system does not HAVE to do it. They pay more taxes through their smoking, which I think is brilliant. Make ciggies $50 a packet I say! I don't think I have an investment in their body because I pay taxes per se, but I do have an investment in how those taxes are spent. I thought you would be of the "personally responsibility" brigade. That being said, don't you think that if people indulge in a past time that is inherently bad with no redeeming features, then they should take their lumps? It ends with smoking. That and addiction to hardcore drugs, there are no good outcomes.

Not too sure what you mean by the division of labour and how it relates to what we are talking about..

So why not ban anything and everything unhealthy? Candy, cigarettes, sex, etc... The question is, where do you stop telling people what they can't do and let them make their own mistakes?

I think if people engage in activities that are unhealthy they should take their lumps. The lumps of smoking cigarettes are a shorter life. But I don't think it's right for the government to assume that it can force people to be healthy, even if it is a socialized system. As I said before, two wrongs don't make a right.

Well I'm not sure how what you said relates to what we were talking about in that regard lol. But the division of labor means that everyone can specialize in something, so that we don't have to do everything for ourselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

she and her four sisters all worked. their mother didn't once she came to this country.... i'm not quite sure why.

things changed because you're required to have your children in school now til they're 16 and you get charged with child neglect if you don't. the culture changed BECAUSE of inspectors and regulations which, in turn, allowed the system to grow.

the market does not naturally take care of people. markets satisfy only the corporations that are part of it and markets do not act in the best interests of society because they are amoral.

as for The Jungle, yes it was fiction, but so was Oliver Twist. Both reflected the social realities of their days. And both would have been incredibly ugly realities to live in.

The law doesn't stop people from smoking weed, why would you think the law would stop children from skipping school and working if they had to? The culture changed because it was able to change, not because the government told it to change.

The market lifts up the standard of living for everyone.

I'm sure Harry Potter reflects some social realities of the day too, and I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world with wizards running about doing crazy things with magic.

harry potter represents a fantasy world. the Jungle reflects reality.

Fair point, though I was mostly joking with the Harry Potter comment. The fact of the matter is that The Jungle is fiction, and can make up whatever facts it wants as such.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The law doesn't stop people from smoking weed, why would you think the law would stop children from skipping school and working if they had to? The culture changed because it was able to change, not because the government told it to change.

The market lifts up the standard of living for everyone.

I'm sure Harry Potter reflects some social realities of the day too, and I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a world with wizards running about doing crazy things with magic.

harry potter represents a fantasy world. the Jungle reflects reality.

but its so much simpler to blur fantasy and reality. it means you don't have to address unpleasant facts.

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

 

[jillian]

harry potter represents a fantasy world. the Jungle reflects reality.

but its so much simpler to blur fantasy and reality. it means you don't have to address unpleasant facts.

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era? I used the book because i thought it illustrative of the downside of the system you want to see in place.

 

[elvis]

but its so much simpler to blur fantasy and reality. it means you don't have to address unpleasant facts.

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era?

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but its so much simpler to blur fantasy and reality. it means you don't have to address unpleasant facts.

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era? I used the book because i thought it illustrative of the downside of the system you want to see in place.

Of course they can be, but they can also make up their own facts in regards to those conditions and situations.

 

[jillian]

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era?

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

that would certainly be representative of the culture of the rugged individualist.

 

[elvis]

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era?

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

that would certainly be representative of the culture of the rugged individualist.

Yeah I'm all about gun rights, but Judas Maude.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While The Jungle may be based on reality, it isn't reality. It's fiction.

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era?

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

Did you want to address the topic at hand?

 

[elvis]

do you not think that certain works of fiction can be very representative of conditions of their era?

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

Did you want to address the topic at hand?

I already have, numbnuts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He thinks everyone should be allowed to have their own personal ICBM.

Did you want to address the topic at hand?

I already have, numbnuts.

Ouch.

 

[nraforlife]

Why is that good?

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

because smoking is their personal decision to make, NOT yours. Maybe we (the USA) should put a $5000 tax on every buttfuck given/received to help queers make more responsible choices (and to nourish the treasury of course) just like the smoking president.

 

[jillian]

I don't know where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld stand on health care.

given past history, i'd think they'd oppose. but would any of them have gotten to vote on health care?

you don't need to get to them... you have the mitch mcconnels.

the individuals I mentioned are responsible for Iraq, imo. Bush was on the fence, IIRC. mitch mcconnell was one vote, same as Hillary and Biden.

true... they were the architects of the neo-con pathology.

but i don't know that bush was on the fence. from everything i've read about what happened after his people got into the white house (once they cleaned up the pizza boxes left by prior staffers) it was all about iraq. 9.11 was just a facile excuse, imo, since it allowed him to finish the job his daddy started. otherwise, he wouldn't have surrounded himself with the cheney's, rummy's, wolfowitz's, etc. he'd have listened to colin powell and that side of his cabinet.

mitch mcconnell was just by way of example.

 

[Navy1960]

I've watched my father pass away from lung cancer, due to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. When I first joined the Navy back in the days of John Paul Jones (laughs) we were able to even get them with a chit and it was encouraged. Your's truley took up the same habit which I eventually put down 10 years ago now. Cigarettes are not good for you people, and while it should ALWAYS be a persons individual right to choose the things they think are best for them and yes that includes taking up smoking if they wish, it's a habit you will regret one day. Even the loved one's around you that do not smoke are subject to the same smoking that you engage in and these are the things this old Sailor had no clue about for many years. The way I see it is like this, as stated a person should be free to make that choice if they so wish, however as cigarettes are a matter of commerce and it can be argued that they are even subject to inter-state commerce which I tend to agree with they are therefor subject to whatever tax or regulation any state or local or even Federal Govt. whishes to place on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Watched my mother-in-law die of emphysema due to smoking. Not at all pleasant. Have a brother that was a 2-3 pack a day smoker. We had, years ago, planned to do some hiking and fishing in the mountains where we grew up, when we both were retired. Not going to happen. He is short of breath, now, even on a minor 4000 ft pass.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. It should be considered a dangerous drug. Imagine, if you will, that tobacco was a new product, just being introduced. Now imagine it going through FDA screening. Get the picture?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Watched my mother-in-law die of emphysema due to smoking. Not at all pleasant. Have a brother that was a 2-3 pack a day smoker. We had, years ago, planned to do some hiking and fishing in the mountains where we grew up, when we both were retired. Not going to happen. He is short of breath, now, even on a minor 4000 ft pass.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. It should be considered a dangerous drug. Imagine, if you will, that tobacco was a new product, just being introduced. Now imagine it going through FDA screening. Get the picture?

It is dangerous, nobody's questioning in this thread. As stated before, however, it is the personal decision of each individual to smoke. Nobody has the right to tell somebody else what they can do with their own body.

 

[Mr Natural]

Watched my mother-in-law die of emphysema due to smoking. Not at all pleasant. Have a brother that was a 2-3 pack a day smoker. We had, years ago, planned to do some hiking and fishing in the mountains where we grew up, when we both were retired. Not going to happen. He is short of breath, now, even on a minor 4000 ft pass.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. It should be considered a dangerous drug. Imagine, if you will, that tobacco was a new product, just being introduced. Now imagine it going through FDA screening. Get the picture?

It is dangerous, nobody's questioning in this thread. As stated before, however, it is the personal decision of each individual to smoke. Nobody has the right to tell somebody else what they can do with their own body.

Who's telling people they can't smoke?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Watched my mother-in-law die of emphysema due to smoking. Not at all pleasant. Have a brother that was a 2-3 pack a day smoker. We had, years ago, planned to do some hiking and fishing in the mountains where we grew up, when we both were retired. Not going to happen. He is short of breath, now, even on a minor 4000 ft pass.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. It should be considered a dangerous drug. Imagine, if you will, that tobacco was a new product, just being introduced. Now imagine it going through FDA screening. Get the picture?

It is dangerous, nobody's questioning in this thread. As stated before, however, it is the personal decision of each individual to smoke. Nobody has the right to tell somebody else what they can do with their own body.

Who's telling people they can't smoke?

Setting an obscene tax on cigarettes is just short of an outright ban.

 

[Mr Natural]

It is dangerous, nobody's questioning in this thread. As stated before, however, it is the personal decision of each individual to smoke. Nobody has the right to tell somebody else what they can do with their own body.

Who's telling people they can't smoke?

Setting an obscene tax on cigarettes is just short of an outright ban.

It's only an obscene tax for those who smoke cigarettes.