| Author |
Message |
    
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1668
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 03:01 pm: |   |
Gee, I never thought about them before.
Bill Nelson
RISEN, ISBN 1-93301616-4
Behler Publications
Hiding Places, Den of Deception |
KATZ ~ Teela
Awareness Member
Post Number:
5
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 04:39 pm: | |
I hear ya Fred.
****Here's a site that shows the different pics on packs that I mentioned, it's just a matter of time before the States adopt this lovely feature****
http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/news_info.php?cPath=22&news_id=78
http://home.cogeco.ca/~foreverrainbows |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
1391
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 08:04 pm: | |
No, you didn't hear me.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
1392
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 08:13 pm: | |
I believe in the Bill of Rights. Consequently, I don't appreciate social engineering by liberals who think they have all the answers.
http://www.fdungan.com/vigilantes.htm |
Tom Elkins
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
333
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 07:50 am: | |
Right, Fred. You have the right to drink beer. There's a locally owned pizza place near here which delivers. If you ask, they'll also deliver beer. It's probably not legal, but it should be. Unfortunately, they don't deliver to CA.
Tom Elkins
NORTH of TEXAS
www.authorsden.com/tomelkins |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
10
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 04:17 am: | |
In the building I live in, it's illegal to drink beer, wine, or any other alcholic beverage. In fact, if I decide to go get drunk--which I normally don't do--I am not allowed to enter my own home while intoxicated. It's illegal for me to do that.
Well, since I'm not an avid drinker, and because I take meds for mental problems, I concur.
However, it would be nice if I could decide for myself what's good for me, instead of the landlords of my apartment building doing so.
I think the same thing goes for smoking. It should be my choice, not someone else's. I do smoke, although not in public, as I find smoking in the comfort of my own home to be more relaxing and enjoyable than sitting outside in a hard chair under an eave of my building's roof, with rain dripping all around me.
My only question as to the smoking problem is, why does the government penalize the smokers, who are supposedly the victims of Big Tobacco, for smoking? Does it not make more sense to penalize the people producing the victims than the victims themselves? |
Stephen Lodge
Hunger Member
Post Number:
59
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 09:36 am: | |
How can there be a "victim" when smoking was a matter of choice in the first place?
Novels by Stephen Lodge:
"Shadows of Eagles"
"Charley Sunday's Texas Outfit!"
"Nickel-Plated Dream"
|
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1678
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 09:43 am: | |
"My only question as to the smoking problem is, why does the government penalize the smokers, who are supposedly the victims of Big Tobacco, for smoking? Does it not make more sense to penalize the people producing the victims than the victims themselves?"
IMO, absolutely not. I person must take personal responsibility for his/her actions. No one forced you to smoke.You are responsible.
There are many other products out there that advertise daily that I'm sure you have never tried.You choose smoking.Take the consequences.
Bill Nelson
RISEN, ISBN 1-93301616-4
Behler Publications
Hiding Places, Den of Deception |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1718
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 09:53 am: | |
Looking at the photos of the last two posters, I can see that I'm going to have to buy some sunglasses if I want to hang out with this crowd...
But wait a minute, this is Michigan and it's January. Sunrise is still several months off.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com |
Olen Armstrong
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
416
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 10:41 am: | |
To add to bill and Stephen's point-
I've never even HEARD of someone from "Big Tobacco" coming to a person's home, wrestling them to the ground, sticking rolled up tobacco into their face and then setting it on fire. If that's happening, we need to know. So I guess it ISN'T happening. It's always a choice.
Anyone who began smoking after 1964 is ABSOLUTELY at fault. If any American hasn't heard that smoking is bad for you, they haven't been listening.
The soldiers in WWII even began calling them "coffin nails"...as they were lighting up.
SO maybe "Big Tobacco" lied. So what. The users chose to listen to the lies. They chose to light up.
I don't smoke. Never have. Never will. But if my choice is valid, why isn't theirs valid? The product is legal, last time I looked.
It's a stupid choice, but then isn't that the most basic definition of freedom...the freedom to be stupid as long as we don't hurt anyone else?
Later,
Olen A |
Joyce Scarbrough
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
773
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:27 am: | |
My problem with the tobacco companies is that they hid the facts about nicotine being addictive from the public as long as they could and even added more nicotine to cigarettes after they knew it. They actively searched for ways to attract younger smokers (flavored cigarettes, cartoon ads) to replace the ones who were dying off. Then they lied about all of it after they were exposed by brave former employees who were literally risking their lives by blowing the whistle on these reprehensible entities. All this has been documented.
IMO, this is why they should be sued and put out of business. Jail sentences wouldn't break my heart either.
Toyce
~Joyce Sterling Scarbrough
True Blue Forever
ISBN 0-9722385-9-X
Now available to order from Authors Ink Books
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com
Read the first chapter at http://www.authorsden.com/joycelscarbrough1
Pour yourself a glass of bubbly and check out Champagne Books http://www.champagnebooks.com |
Stephen Lodge
Hunger Member
Post Number:
60
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:41 pm: | |
"All this has been documented."
Mostly by Hollywood - The Insider (1999) Based on a true story about a CBS 60 Minutes-episode in 1994 on malpractices in the tobacco industry, that was never aired.
Novels by Stephen Lodge:
"Shadows of Eagles"
"Charley Sunday's Texas Outfit!"
"Nickel-Plated Dream"
|
Fred Dungan
Unity Member
Post Number:
1396
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:59 pm: | |
The legal settlements were wrong-headed. Instead of changing the product so as to make it less of a hazard, i.e. making the manufacturers remove substances such as ammonia which are added to make the product more addictive, the lawyers went for the money.
Tobacco has a long history. The columns in the Capitol are carved in floral designs of tobacco and cotton. We sold both all over the world and it made us rich. If you would like to do justice with the money from tobacco judgments, I suggest that it be paid as reparations to the descendants of the slaves who toiled in the fields and who are the real victims of tobacco.
Any substance can be abused. Alcohol comes to mind. Demonizing alcohol via the Volstead Act proved to be a mistake. Now, rock concerts are sponsored by brewers and distillers. I have yet to hear anyone complain about Big Alcohol recruiting a new generation of drinkers.
Don't get me wrong. I definitely believe in legislating morality. If I and many others had our way, drinking, smoking, adultery, and a host of other evils would be punishable offenses.
http://www.dunganbooks.com |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1680
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 02:41 pm: | |
Joyce,
What do you suppose the Federal Revenue from tobacco companies might be? Which Senator will step forward and propose to pur them out of business and cut off millions of dollars of income. Ain't gonna happen. Same with hard drugs/alcohol.
"....drinking, smoking, adultery" Hey, Fred, go easy. Two out of three isn't bad.
Bill Nelson
RISEN, ISBN 1-93301616-4
Behler Publications
Hiding Places, Den of Deception |
Joyce Scarbrough
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
774
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 03:45 pm: | |
I have no problem with the money from the lawsuits going to someone besides smokers' families. It's not that I sympathize with the smokers, it's outrage over the things tobacco companies have done. They shouldn't get away with it. Pharmaceutical companies who continued to sell dangerous drugs would be shut down. Food manufacturers who knew about tainted or dangerous products and continued to sell them would be prosecuted. Car makers who covered up safety hazards would be history. Why should tobacco companies get away with it?
Note that I'm not asking why DO they get away with it. I know that and don't even expect anything to change for the exact reasons you've stated, but that doesn't make it right. And I hate it when people discount what those SOBs have done and redirect the blame toward the smokers.
And I've never smoked either.
Toyce
~Joyce Sterling Scarbrough
True Blue Forever
ISBN 0-9722385-9-X
Now available to order from Authors Ink Books
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com
Read the first chapter at http://www.authorsden.com/joycelscarbrough1
Pour yourself a glass of bubbly and check out Champagne Books http://www.champagnebooks.com |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1682
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 03:50 pm: | |
JT,
Take two shots of bourbon and call me in the morning.
Bill Nelson
RISEN, ISBN 1-93301616-4
Behler Publications
Hiding Places, Den of Deception |
Dennis Collins
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1719
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 04:29 pm: | |
When I started smoking the big danger was that it would stunt your growth but I smoked anyway... Three packs a day... Pall Malls... No filters... Forty years...
And I grew to almost 5' 7"
In my ninth tobacco free year now.
Dennis Collins
Moderator
www.theunrealmccoy.com |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
11
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 02:05 am: | |
"Don't get me wrong. I definitely believe in legislating morality. If I and many others had our way, drinking, smoking, adultery, and a host of other evils would be punishable offenses."
I'm glad the majority of Americans don't, frankly. The 18th Amendment legislated morality, and like you pointed out, it did not serve our country well.
Rather, it gave career criminals new avenues of gaining power and influence in the U.S. Also, in making the sale and consumption of liquor in the U.S. illegal, it brought about the popularity of products that, though they satisfied people's craving for alcohol, also were much more toxic and dangerous than what legitimate breweries had up to that point, produced.
Further, I don't think it's the government's job to decide what is and is not morally right or wrong. That should be left to the individual person and the religion they follow. The government of the United States, according to the 1st Amendment, shall not pass laws respecting the establishment of religion. In other words, the State and the Church are two separate entities. If the government legislates morality, then it takes on the job of religion. That, I think, is far more wrong than people smoking or drinking. |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3056
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 08:32 pm: | |
"If the government legislates morality, then it takes on the job of religion."
So you would have no problem removing all moral laws such as those that apply to, say, murder...
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
12
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 05:28 pm: | |
"So you would have no problem removing all moral laws such as those that apply to, say, murder..."
I would have a problem with that, actually, because it's also a law of common sense. Murder is a pre-meditated act of agression with intent to take someone's life.
On the other hand, making it illegal to light up a cigarette or drink an alcoholic beverage would not be a law of common sense. Rather it would be a law based solely on morality, because someone's religion tells them personally it's wrong.
I can see restrictions on smoking or drinking such as not drinking and driving, or not smoking in a restaurant, because in those cases other people can suffer for it. But an outright ban for the sake of "I don't think it's right," I do have a problem with. |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3058
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 09:07 pm: | |
One person's common sense is another person's morals...
I consider it common sense not to waste hard-earned money on items which you can become addicted to, which make you smell bad (in the case of smoking) or make you suffer from impaired judgment (in the case of drinking). Other people would consider it a moral issue.
The majority of interpersonal laws, I believe, were created based on morality...to say that we should never legislate morality seems a bit strange in my opinion...
Consider the issues of bigomy/polygamy, consensual underage sex (a big hot topic in our state now) or consensual sex with a minor, and adult-oriented stores near school districts. In all actuality, none of these (maybe the last one, but if the store maintains strict entrance policies...) actually hurt another person, but we still legislate against them. A person would be hard-pressed to find large groups of people (aside from those who wish to engage in these behaviors) who think we should rescind such laws. In these cases, it would seem that people don't mind laws based on morality.
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
15
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 12:13 am: | |
"Consider the issues of bigomy/polygamy, consensual underage sex (a big hot topic in our state now) or consensual sex with a minor, and adult-oriented stores near school districts. In all actuality, none of these (maybe the last one, but if the store maintains strict entrance policies...) actually hurt another person, but we still legislate against them. A person would be hard-pressed to find large groups of people (aside from those who wish to engage in these behaviors) who think we should rescind such laws. In these cases, it would seem that people don't mind laws based on morality."
I would imagine you wouldn't find too many people openly willing to have those laws rescinded because those people would be afraid of what others would think or do to them if they openly said, 'I believe this law is wrong.'
I know of at least one man who doesn't have a problem with one or two of those laws being rescinded, who at the same time has no desire whatsoever to practice the acts prohibited therein.
I find, for instance, nothing wrong with the adult bookstore down the street, just a couple blocks away from the local grade school. I myself don't go in there, but I don't think less of people who do go in there.
Also the idea of bigomy/polygomy doesn't bother me a bit. I myself would not practice it, but I don't like the idea of forcing someone else not to practice it because I personally do not practice it. I believe what a person does in their bedroom is their business, not mine or the government's.
I say the same thing about smoking or drinking. Of course, I personally do smoke, as I've pointed out previously, but only in the privacy of my home. Still, I am not offended or afraid when someone else lights up outside. Like I said, it's their business.
The same thing goes for drinking. I used to drink, though not much, but I wouldn't do it now for a number of reasons. Does that mean I should force other people not to drink? No.
BTW, it's interesting to note that you can get the same effects from a car's exhaust pipe or taking a good sniff of the smell surrounding a gasoline station, that smoking can cause. I don't see anyone planning on making it illegal to drive any time soon for fear that the exhaust will murder their children or that the driver will automatically be drunk.
I understand the 'One man's common sense' issue, but I don't hold to the idea that one person's morals--drinking, smoking, immoral sexual activities--should be forced on another person. Just because it's immorality to you or me, does not make it immorality to everyone. |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3061
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 05:02 am: | |
"I understand the 'One man's [sic - person's] common sense' issue..."
Based on the remainder of your response, I wouldn't think so...
-----"A person would be hard-pressed to find large groups of people (aside from those who wish to engage in these behaviors) who think we should rescind such laws."
"I know of at least one man who doesn't have a problem with one or two of those laws being rescinded, who at the same time has no desire whatsoever to practice the acts prohibited therein."
You'll hopefully notice I said "large groups of people" versus "anyone"...
Back to the 'common sense' argument...related to bigamy (bigomy?) and polygamy. It only makes common sense not to allow multiple spouses (easy, fellas), since a single household could then have upwards of over 10 dependents for tax purposes, and have ALL of those dependents on their health insurance where applicable. Would there then have to be extra government oversight to check and make sure the residence this family is using can house all those dependents (much as government has to run checks on the homes of foster care providers)? Would they have to check on the situation to avoid cases of tax fraud? The list goes on...
Common sense or morality? You decide...
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Tom Elkins
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
343
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 07:16 am: | |
Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations,which sets forth the free market economics later called capitalism, wrote an earlier book titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In a chain of logic hard to refute he links a free society to a free economy to a sound moral base. The sound moral base is the essential building block, or the other two can't work.
Tom Elkins
NORTH of TEXAS
www.authorsden.com/tomelkins |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1705
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 08:38 am: | |
"Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a > c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a > e : capable of right and wrong action <a >
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a >
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a > <moral>
- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb
synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had>. "
We could have discussions on what "moral" is until the cows come home (I have mine on curfew) and not all agree on what it really is.
I personally don't think there is a hard, fast morality. It is what is generally accepted by most in a given society.
In our society, monogomy is the norm; in others, many wifes is considered a good thing.We generally accept drinking in moderation as okay; Islam doesn't permit it.That only makes one "immoral" in the eyes of the other view, not in actuality.Seems to me it doesn't matter what the individual thinks, his chosen society sets the norm and the moral are expected to conform to those guide lines.
 |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
17
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 01:34 pm: | |
"In our society, monogomy is the norm; in others, many wifes is considered a good thing.We generally accept drinking in moderation as okay; Islam doesn't permit it.That only makes one "immoral" in the eyes of the other view, not in actuality.Seems to me it doesn't matter what the individual thinks, his chosen society sets the norm and the moral are expected to conform to those guide lines."
Good point. What I believe is moral is not necessarily what someone else believes is moral. What I believe to be common sense, someone else thinks to be unbelievably stupid.
In both cases, it's an issue of opinion. My opinion does not negate someone else's, nor does their opinion negate mine.
For instance, If I want to say, "One man's morals...." instead of "One person's morals...." that's my right because there is no law saying I cannot say "One man's morals."
I guess it's the way we were raised.
And Todd, you said that you would be hard-pressed to find a large group of people who would be willing to overturn the laws you mentioned. I contest that. I think the large majority of people are tired of the government deciding what is and is not morally acceptable, but are not willing to say so for fear of retribution by either the government or the people around them. This is what I said (though not in so many words) in my previous post. The part about those people's fear and the reason for it is something you neglected to acknowledge I said when you replied to my post. |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1708
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 04:00 pm: | |
There is always a "yeah, but..." so, Yeah, but,
By definition...
"MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong"
In a given society, the moral confirm to the group mores. One who doesn't is not considered a moral person. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think!
Eg. If you want more than one wife, move to a society that condones it. Then you are no longer immoral.If your society deems smoking immoral, then you must not smoke, or, move to a society that thinks it's okay. Same deal...
That's life... |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3062
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 04:40 pm: | |
"I think the large majority of people are tired of the government deciding what is and is not morally acceptable, but are not willing to say so for fear of retribution by either the government or the people around them."
That would be like saying "many people e-mail me privately agreeing with me."
The great thing about a democracy (or republic) is that the large majority of people can change the government if they believe it to be useless, or are tired of them doing something. So far, I don't see that change happening on a large scale.
-----"I would imagine you wouldn't find too many people openly willing to have those laws rescinded because those people would be afraid of what others would think or do to them if they openly said, 'I believe this law is wrong.'"
"The part about those people's fear and the reason for it is something you neglected to acknowledge I said when you replied to my post."
I didn't think that this was a major part of your argument, so didn't acknowledge it. But one has to imagine if they fear retribution for their opinions and beliefs, they probably don't support their belief fully themselves. The "true believers" don't mind negative reaction. Although a VERY negative example of this, look at Rev. Fred Phelps. Hate his politics and his opinions, but the guy doesn't let anyone keep him from making his opinion known.
There are other folks who conduct themselves in a similar manner (in other areas, with different political stances), and they also have no problem voicing their opinion. So, one has to ask, why won't these? (if there's such a large majority)
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
18
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 07:09 pm: | |
"There are other folks who conduct themselves in a similar manner (in other areas, with different political stances), and they also have no problem voicing their opinion. So, one has to ask, why won't these? (if there's such a large majority)"
Because, Sir, they do not wish to be likened to fanatics who think that their personal morals are universal and therefore must be obeyed by everyone else in the whole wide world.
"If your society deems smoking immoral, then you must not smoke, or, move to a society that thinks it's okay. Same deal..."
I'm afraid this is not true. For me as a smoker to be forced not to smoke would require a written law against smoking where I live. As I write this, there is no law saying I have no right to smoke. Therefore I am under no obligation whatsoever to stop smoking, even if the more vocal people in my society don't like the fact that I do it.
"I didn't think that this was a major part of your argument, so didn't acknowledge it. But one has to imagine if they fear retribution for their opinions and beliefs, they probably don't support their belief fully themselves."
This is why oppressive religious organizations invented the terms 'Excommunication,' and 'heretic,' Todd. The idea is that a person who thinks for themselves instead of blindly following what is considered moral by everyone else is labeled a 'heretic' so that no one will listen to them. Then, if the heretic continues to say anything about their beliefs, they are excommunicated from their Church (if their Church believes in such a thing), which basically condemns the person's soul. This is done to people who think differently than what is accepted by the religious establishment, and decide they are going to speak out about it.
If the great majority of people who live in this country belong to Christian denominations that believe in labeling people as heretics and condemning their souls through excommunication, then the fear of retribution by the Church is a major factor in why the majority of people are not overly vocal in what they believe.
I hold to the belief that the majority of people wish to think for themselves, instead of deciding to follow whatever the vocal minority preaches. But, like I said, the majority of us are afraid of saying anything at all for fear of retribution.
I have yet to see the reason that smoking and drinking must be made illegal. There is no moral reason that these things in and of themselves should be made into punishable offenses.
If the so-called 'Moral Majority' were indeed the majority, why are many of the morals they preach not law (at least in the U.S. where I live)? Further, if they are indeed the majority, why do they openly blast anyone who dares disagree with them, even to the point in some cases of delving into their opponents' personal lives?
It couldn't be because their opponent's side makes sense to the majority of people. After all, I've just had two prominent posters on a webforum tell me it's not possible.
Like I said, the majority does not speak very often because the majority does not wish to be looked upon as fanatical. |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
19
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 07:48 pm: | |
Hello again everyone,
I wish to apologize for my obvious rudeness in my last few posts. I've not been contacted by any moderators or anything; it's just that I've been thinking about how I've reacted to people's posts, and I've realized that I have quite overreacted.
Smoking has been a part of my life since I was a child, and when I read a post stating it should be made completely illegal, I have to say I was very offended. I was raised in a very conservative family, but smoking was never an issue of morality to us. We always considered the Church people who told us that God was offended by it, to be fanatics.
Nevertheless, I was very much a jerk on this thread, and if you'll allow me to continue talking, I will do my best to keep from being so disruptive. Just because I believe something, does not mean that I can force anyone else to believe it. Sometimes I think I forget that people who disagree with me are not my enemies. They might be my opponents in a debate, but they are not my enemies.
It is because I find I have been very disruptive and overly rude--as well as pretty much hijacking the thread, which was not my original intent, I simply wanted to add to the conversation that was already in progress--I offer my humble apologies. The way I've been acting is not the way I am in real life; this is just a highly-charged issue for me and I sometimes have a tendency to overreact. |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1711
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 07:55 pm: | |
Sean,
You make good points and my example of smoking was lame. Of course, that is not necessarily a major moral issue, just a minor one.
However,(agan),
"I have yet to see the reason that smoking and drinking must be made illegal. There is no moral reason that these things in and of themselves should be made into punishable offenses."
It has been proven that second hand smoke is harmful and laws have been passed banning smoking in certain places, more everyday. Therefore, illegal and punishable by fine!
How many thousands of deaths are directly linked to alcohol every year? If you can't drink and drive, how do you get home form the bar? People break the law, ie: become "law breakers" every day. Perhaps (even thought it was tried) drinking should be made illegal. Government has an obligation to the whole, and, in spite of what some think, one cannot just do what ever he damned well pleases. That's the "entitlement generation" attitude, and they are learning fast. (I don't know your age...maybe you're of that group).
A citizen can't pick and choose which laws he will or will not obey. Can't work, no way, no how... |
Stephen Lodge
Hunger Member
Post Number:
63
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 09:09 pm: | |
If you made drinking illegal, how would Teddy Kennedy ... Oh, never mind.
Novels by Stephen Lodge:
"Shadows of Eagles"
"Charley Sunday's Texas Outfit!"
"Nickel-Plated Dream"
|
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
20
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 09:16 pm: | |
"It has been proven that second hand smoke is harmful and laws have been passed banning smoking in certain places, more everyday. Therefore, illegal and punishable by fine!"
It sounds to me, now that I read the above quoted passage, that our disagreement might be the result of a miscommunication.
I'm not against restrictions, Bill. I was referring to an outright ban on smoking anywhere.
One of the rules in the building I live in, is no smoking in the indoor common areas (hallways, lobby, etc.) A few years ago the manager threatened to make it against the rules to smoke anywhere in the building, including inside tenants' apartments. His reason? One tenant took a lit cigarette into the hallway one time.
He, basically wanted to punish the majority of the tenants in our building (21 units, roughly two-thirds of the tenants therein--including the manager--were smokers) for one person's laziness (they didn't want to put it out before making the trip through the common areas from the outside to their apartment.)
This is the kind of stuff I'm referring to. The restrictions you're mentioning are common sense. My fear is that people will someday take it too far and force others not to smoke inside their own homes.
This is why I referred to smoking as being legal. When I said people have the right to smoke, I meant in certain places they're allowed to and in certain places they're restricted from it.
On the issue of lung cancer and stuff like that, I frankly concur. I am not the type of person who is going to say (anymore, anyway; I would have at one time) that Science wouldn't know what it's talking about. But I am also the type of person who only smokes in the privacy of my own home, and rarely in front of anyone. If I do smoke in someone else's presence, it is almost always because they are smokers as well. If they're not smokers, I ask permission to light up in their presence. I always try to be polite where smoking is concerned, even in my own home. |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3064
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 09:39 pm: | |
I have no problem with smoking and drinking being legal (though I do find restrictions in public places to be refreshing). If not for these folks, I imagine I would be required to pay more in taxes to make up the shortfall.
My initial post was merely to point out that government legislates morality all the time...
Now, I must return to my WIP...
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1713
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 09:40 pm: | |
In Theory (only), all laws are supposed to be based on common sense.
Steve,
Ted Kennedy joined Alcoholics Anonymous - True - He now drinks under an assumed name. (drum rolllllll)
He was the town drunk, but the town was Boston! (Another)
Take my wife, take my wife, please.... Where is Henny when you need him?
Smoke if you want, just stay away from me, please. Drink all you want. Maybe you won't run into another car (possibly with kids in it)...
I know, I know... old chestnuts... Yeah, But...I read the paper every day and watch the slaughter on the news each night. Are you one of them? Yet?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
22
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 10:27 pm: | |
"Drink all you want. Maybe you won't run into another car (possibly with kids in it)..."
Seeing that I don't drink or drive, I can say with confidence that I won't.
"In Theory (only), all laws are supposed to be based on common sense."
That's the problem. A lot of things are supposed to happen in theory that don't work out so well in reality.
The Volstead Act comes to mind, as does the Comstock Act.
I see what you're saying, though. Laws should only be based on common sense. |
Todd Hunter
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
3065
Registered: 02-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 05:40 am: | |
But whose common sense?
Mindsight Moderator
Check out the musings over at Aston's new blog
|
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
25
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 06:50 am: | |
"But whose common sense?"
Good question. I'll leave the answer to the lawmakers. Like I said before, I don't believe that just because I personally think something is moral, that therefore everyone else around me should be required to follow my moral judgments as law. That's what I was trying to point out in my original post.
I also was pointing out that I do not believe the majority of people want to shove their personal beliefs down other people's throats.
Like many, I was raised to believe that God was the ultimate Judge of Humanity, and that the average human being does not have the right to force other average human beings to believe or act exactly like they do.
I was taught that if you want people to believe your way is right, that you ought to be a non-judgmental example of it.
Considering this conversation, I understand why I was taught that. If I verbally disagree with the outspoken Far Right or Far Left, I'm considered--in no particular order--to be 1) a member of the 'entitlement generation' and therefore not knowledgeable, 2) immoral, 3) wanting to practice immorality (after all, I believe morals should be a personal issue and not legislated), 4) a law-breaker (because I smoke in my home, therefore I'm breaking a law banning all smoking--a law that does not exist,) 5) dirty, filthy, stinky, 6) one who thinks murder should not be a crime (after all, I believe smoking and drinking should not be a crime--why not murder?)....
I could go on, but the point I'm making is that I am none of the above. I have been judged solely on my written opinion that smoking should remain legal in the cases it's legal in now. I have also been judged based upon the written opinion that smokers should not be penalized by the government because they are addicted to one of the most habit forming drugs in the world. I stated they are victims, and they are victims. I live around chain smokers (I myself might have a smoke once in a week, btw) who wish to God they could stop smoking. I have a neighbor in the hospital right now who has been suffering from a severe case of Emphysima for the last several years, and he cannot stop smoking.
He is also like almost everyone in my building: disabled, low income, poverty-level, and constantly being treated like a criminal because he smokes in his apartment.
He is a victim, not a criminal. He ought not to be treated like a criminal, just because he lights up in his apartment.
But I digress. The point I'm making is, I have been judged for speaking my mind, and because what I said was in disagreement with the vocal minority.
And people wonder why Moderates such as myself don't say much. |
Joyce Scarbrough
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
786
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 08:01 am: | |
I just got the chance to read all the posts in this thread from the past few days.
Sean, as someone who hates smoking and not smokers, I don't have a problem with anything you've said and don't consider you any of the things you listed. I'm not a moderator here, but I don't personally ever have a problem with anyone voicing an unpopular opinion as long as it's done civilly, as you have certainly done. I hope you'll continue to express yourself freely.
Toyce
~Joyce Sterling Scarbrough
True Blue Forever
ISBN 0-9722385-9-X
Second edition now available from Authors Ink Books
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com
Read the first chapter at http://www.authorsden.com/joycelscarbrough1
Pour yourself a glass of bubbly and check out Champagne Books http://www.champagnebooks.com |
Bill Nelson
Unity Member
Post Number:
1714
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 11:21 am: | |
Sean,
Don't you think all of us over react when we get on our respective soap-boxes?
To me, these discussions are like arm wrestling, a form of healthy competition. You struggle and grunt and groan to pin the other guy's arm (ideas) to the table.
Yea! You win! Or, you lose. So what? No one is intended to be injured or hurt, so don't take this so personal. You're not a lesser person because you state what you think. I believe you're a stronger person because your ideas are enforced or refined or proven to be incorrect. That's a plus.
Even Harry had a good thought once! No, really! Joyce might have one someday, who knows?
Religion, and other moral topics, politics, sexual preference, football...always seem to get people's hackles up, but, when it's over, it's over.
Go have a smoke (you ninny) and think of a new topic. |
Sean D. Schaffer
Awareness Member
Post Number:
27
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 01:52 pm: | |
Joyce, Bill, thank you. I guess I do forget, quite easily, that a debate isn't a personal thing. I never was very good at it and never really knew how to go about it. I was taught the basics of debating in High School, but honestly that is one subject in which I am guilty of not listening to my teachers.
And I also forget how much of a moral hot-bed the smoking issue is, probably because I was raised in a time when it was acceptable to smoke everywhere. Sure, blowing it in someone's face was impolite, but people generally didn't think of second-hand smoke and stuff like that causing problems.
Again, thank you kindly for reminding me how debates are supposed to work and just how heated this issue really is. I think I have a better understanding, just from your two posts, that debating is a good thing, not a personal argument.
I appreciate you all very much.
Oh, and Bill,
A cigar does sound pretty good right about now. Thanks for the suggestion. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
