Off subject:
Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....
Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?
It does not mean less cancer it means less taste...
yes. many people believe that... and fyi. i think you missed scb's point about truth in advertising requirements....
I believe both scb and I get that it does not mean the cigs are any less deadly... but many people do not.
Off subject:
Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....
Of course the government thinks people believe they'll get less cancer when they smoke "light" cigarettes, because research has shown that it's true:
A substantial portion of smokers believe that low-tar cigarettes are less risky than Regular cigarettes. For example, a nationwide 1987 survey (Giovino et al., 1996, p. 49) found that 45.7 percent of Ultra-Light smokers, 32.2 percent of Light smokers, and 29.4 percent of Regular smokers said that low-tar cigarettes reduce the risk of cancer. Nevertheless, smokers’ knowledge about low-tar cigarettes is quite limited.
(And that's just the adults. I would bet misconceptions are worse among kids.)
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly think no one would think this. Why else would the cigarette companies do it?? And why wouldn't people think this, since it's implied??
I just feel it's common sense..
How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...
I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)
The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.
My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.
Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.
Off subject:
Here is another example of Washington and there ignorance
They passed a law saying cigarette company’s can no longer use “light” or “ultra light” on cigarette packs....do they think Americans are so stupid, that they really think they will get less cancer because it is described that way?....what a waste of tax payer money to pass such an ignorant law....
Do you not believe in truth in advertising requirements either?? :?
It does not mean less cancer it means less taste...
:? :?
I'm not sure what that statement has to do with my question.
I just feel it's common sense..
How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...
I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)
The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.
My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.
Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.
This post could be put in just about every topic in the Moving Train. Good job.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I just feel it's common sense..
How about a panel of grown abused children make those calls...
I feel I know about child abuse since I was abused from 5 to age 14...in just about every aspect..
so in a personal way I can see how ignorant not wearing a helmet is when trying to equate it to child abuse or neglect ...
I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)
The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.
My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.
Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.
This post could be put in just about every topic in the Moving Train. Good job.
Comments
yes. many people believe that... and fyi. i think you missed scb's point about truth in advertising requirements....
I believe both scb and I get that it does not mean the cigs are any less deadly... but many people do not.
Of course the government thinks people believe they'll get less cancer when they smoke "light" cigarettes, because research has shown that it's true:
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/13/m13_6.pdf
(And that's just the adults. I would bet misconceptions are worse among kids.)
I honestly don't understand how you could possibly think no one would think this. Why else would the cigarette companies do it?? And why wouldn't people think this, since it's implied??
I'm very sorry that happened to you. I hope you know that no one here is trying to trivialize abuse. (I said earlier that I was trying to compare not wearing a helmet with neglect, not with abuse.)
The problem is just that people have different beliefs and values and we must do our best with regulation to find a balance between costs (parents feeling like their rights are being violated) and benefits (protecting children). I don't NECESSARILY believe that children should be made to wear bicycle helmets. My problem is not with people's varying opinions about where the balance in regulation lies.
My problem is with the notion that it's very obvious where the line should be drawn and that if it's not drawn in a way that exactly fits with a given person's values then the government is OBVIOUSLY fascist and trying to take away our freedom.
Why can't people just get over their blind partisan loyalty and talking points and admit that overall, and especially when it comes to health and safety, the government, public health officials, and most supporters of any given regulation are just trying to do their best to protect the well-being of the people of this nation - especially the children? Once we can agree to that, we can begin to have reasoned, evidence-based discussion about exactly where these lines of regulation should be drawn.
I'm not sure what that statement has to do with my question.
oh wait did I make that comparison?
give me a second to reread......
nope, I did not say that......
but he feed that nasty food to your children and/or grandchildren
This post could be put in just about every topic in the Moving Train. Good job.
"With our thoughts we make the world"