Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 11, 2012, 01:36:26 AM ---I can name several regulations that do nothing but make life suck. Bans on indoor smoking in my home state of Washington, for example. How am I supposed to pick up chicks if I can't look cool in a bar? And New York banning large soft drinks? These are just recent examples in certain states, but its this kind of nanny state crap that just rubs me the wrong way.
--- End quote ---
Both are good examples of liberals going too far with regulations. This is stuff that I agree are simply ridiculous. I think it's reasonable to regulate business to keep the playing field fair, but I don't need government to control my behavior to this degree as a consumer.
Nikkoru:
Banning smoking in bars has a lot do with with preventing toxic working conditions for the staff. That's why it was implemented here, considering the rates of cancer among people in that sector of the service industry it seems pretty justified to me. Your phallus-enhancing stupidity aside.
And yes, it is the states' job to ensure employers don't expose their employees to deadly chemicals on a daily basis simply because they're more concerned with their patrons' money than their committing slow and painful manslaughter.
As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.
occasional:
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on November 11, 2012, 06:40:24 AM ---As for soft drinks cup sizes, there are better ways for governments to influence health. They could, for instance, put a small tax on escalating sizes of beverages so were less inclined to ingest so much. Or, better still, simply ensure people are better educated about nutrition and fund programs to develop a more health-inclined culture in your city. Banning them outright simply antagonizes people and doesn't change the fact that they still have poor eating habits.
--- End quote ---
Would've made much more sense to ban free refills.
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on November 11, 2012, 03:34:06 AM ---Are you an anarchist, AceHigh? And if not, can you name me one thing, any thing, that the government could do that you would support and that isn't social engineering or doesn't require social engineering? Remember if you can't that would make you retarded by your own criteria.
--- End quote ---
Laws that are built on reason. Not allowed to murder, robbing people, age of consent, traffic laws, and other laws in that category.
What I am against are laws that specifically aim to change our habits which is social engineering: Food and drinks restrictions and regulations, smoking bans in privately owned establishments, ban on homosexual activities between adults, taxation or subsidy that aims to change behaviour, etc...
If you can't see the difference between those, then you might want to be careful next time you wield that fork at the dinner table.
Tiffanys:
Smoking bans are fine, and I support them... Second hand smoke is more deadly than smoking itself, beyond how physically uncomfortable it is for some people to be around. My body basically treats it like a full on alergen and the smell is so horrendous that there's no way I could eat around it.
Smoking and non-smoking areas are fine, but if an owner doesn't want their establishment to smell like shit then there's no reason they should have to cater to smokers (and if it's somewhere that has waiters or something, then it's a health hazard to them, too!). It's a disgusting archaic deadly habit that needs to be done away with to begin with...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version