Breaking News

Hobbes said:

FiveBelow said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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-cigarettes

Just 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?

That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking?  I'm sure other things are on the docket too.

Anything else that causes problems?  A book or certain music perhaps?

Not a fan of this...

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. 
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.

We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.

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.

Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.

In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?

I would agree.

Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.

A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?

I can see the banning guns, sure.  I don't like it though.

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?

Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.

Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy. 

I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question.  Surely you can see the difference in the 2?

If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.

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.

It asks a question.  It also says to me, why stop there?

It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.

New Zealand has an oppressive government?

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.  

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...

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.

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.

Free of fear is liberating. 

I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.

We can thank the prefrontal cortex for the ability to manage fear.

Poncier said:

FiveBelow said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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-cigarettes

Just 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?

That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking?  I'm sure other things are on the docket too.

Anything else that causes problems?  A book or certain music perhaps?

Not a fan of this...

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. 
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.

We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.

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.

Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.

In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?

I would agree.

Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.

A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?

I can see the banning guns, sure.  I don't like it though.

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?

Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.

Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy. 

I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question.  Surely you can see the difference in the 2?

If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.

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.

It asks a question.  It also says to me, why stop there?

It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.

New Zealand has an oppressive government?

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.  

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...

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.

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.

Free of fear is liberating. 

I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.

Hobbes said:

FiveBelow said:

Poncier said:

FiveBelow said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

Hobbes said:

PJPOWER said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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-cigarettes

Just 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?

That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking?  I'm sure other things are on the docket too.

Anything else that causes problems?  A book or certain music perhaps?

Not a fan of this...

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. 
Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.

We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.

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.

Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.

In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?

I would agree.

Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.

A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?

I can see the banning guns, sure.  I don't like it though.

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?

Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.

Alcohol? Bungee jumping? Books? Music? Again, slippery slope fallacy. 

I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question.  Surely you can see the difference in the 2?

If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.

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.

It asks a question.  It also says to me, why stop there?

It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.

New Zealand has an oppressive government?

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.  

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...

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.

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.

Free of fear is liberating. 

I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.

Had to look this one up, my brothers would be very disappointed in me. Outside of the original 3 films I have only seen Rogue One.