Breaking News
Comments
-
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...0 -
Black and white thinking. Either it's America, land of the free, or it's Stalin-era Russia?PJPOWER said:
Exactly, I am more for people making their own decisions than governments having to tell them what they can or cannot consume/do. But education is key in that being functional...which is where the ball is getting dropped in a major way.HughFreakingDillon said:there would have to be a massive cultural shift for anything like that to fly in the US, and even Canada. we should be teaching kids at a very young age that McDonald's is a legal form of edible heroin.
we are brainwashed to crave that shit.
imagine if there was a drive thru "Green Leaf" or something every block. kids eating kale smoothies on the way to soccer practice.0 -
You getting citizenship?Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
I would if I could. No spiders that kill you, no deadly snakes, no crocodiles...0 -
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
I've often dreamed of moving to NZ. Sounds like a magical place, where the culture lines up with my ideals.
And I would, too, if it weren't for my damn meddling kids.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Maybe they will ban meddlingHughFreakingDillon said:I've often dreamed of moving to NZ. Sounds like a magical place, where the culture lines up with my ideals.
And I would, too, if it weren't for my damn meddling kids.
0 -
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
0 -
well then I bought all these Scooby Snacks for nothing.PJPOWER said:
Maybe they will ban meddlingHughFreakingDillon said:I've often dreamed of moving to NZ. Sounds like a magical place, where the culture lines up with my ideals.
And I would, too, if it weren't for my damn meddling kids.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Separation of church and state is a bunch of malarkey. We were founded on the pretext of freedom when it’s really based on religion and gods gift to us - free will. Keep smoking...eating ice cream....free will0
-
Agree it is time to band the word god from money and anything govt related. Really is a horrible joke on the US that this garbage is in place.The love he receives is the love that is saved0
-
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
0 -
We can thank the prefrontal cortex for the ability to manage fear.FiveBelow said:
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...0 -
Hahaha!HughFreakingDillon said:
well then I bought all these Scooby Snacks for nothing.PJPOWER said:
Maybe they will ban meddlingHughFreakingDillon said:I've often dreamed of moving to NZ. Sounds like a magical place, where the culture lines up with my ideals.
And I would, too, if it weren't for my damn meddling kids.0 -
FiveBelow said:
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
This weekend we rock Portland0 -
I'm okay with that. If its social health care, have taxes on cigarettes and fast food. Anything that you willingly use or put in your body that damages your health shouldn't be at the cost of everyone else either, I could agree with that. I just don't think the government should force you into that healthy lifestyle.F Me In The Brain said:mace1229 said:
It is a bad idea when the government forces you to. Yes, giving up fats food would be good, but it should be your choice. The government shouldn't force you to. Should government force everyone to do yoga an hour a day to? Prison camp for those who dont?Hobbes said:
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.mace1229 said:
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice.
Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.Let them pay for their heart disease sickness or is it OK for the govt to pay because someone wants to smoke and get cancer or live on McDonald's and have a heart attack?0 -
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...0 -
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?PJPOWER said:
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...0 -
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, haHobbes said:
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?PJPOWER said:
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...0 -
Tempo argued that the progression of bans would lead to bungee jumping. I was referencing that as a joke.PJPOWER said:
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, haHobbes said:
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?PJPOWER said:
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
There are a lot of folks who are paralyzed with fear that limit their ability to live their lives to their fullest potential.0 -
Ohhhh, okay!!! Haha, I was like “bungee jumping???”Hobbes said:
Tempo argued that the progression of bans would lead to bungee jumping. I was referencing that as a joke.PJPOWER said:
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, haHobbes said:
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?PJPOWER said:
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.Hobbes said:
Free of fear is liberating.PJPOWER said:
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.Hobbes said:
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.PJPOWER said:
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.Hobbes said:
New Zealand has an oppressive government?PJPOWER said:
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.tempo_n_groove said:
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?Hobbes said:
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.tempo_n_groove said:
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?Hobbes said:
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.tempo_n_groove said:
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.Hobbes said:
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.tempo_n_groove said:
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?Hobbes said:
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.tempo_n_groove said:
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.mace1229 said:
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor.tempo_n_groove said:
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.PJPOWER said:Not sure if this fits into the “Breaking News” category, but maybe;
New Zealand considers banning smoking for anyone born after 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/16/new-zealand-aims-to-create-smoke-free-generation-cigarettesJust curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
I would agree.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy.
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line?
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
There are a lot of folks who are paralyzed with fear that limit their ability to live their lives to their fullest potential.
I agree with your second sentence. I think most of us have let fear prevent us from stepping out there a time or two and missing opportunities along the way. If you are constantly that way, though, I would suggest cognitive behavioral therapy. I’ve seen it work wonders with people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help