Smoking with your kids in the car?
Discussion
Pixelpeep said:
SWoll said:
Do you really believe the examples you have given to strengthen your argument are in any way comparible to intentionally poisoning a child with toxic fumes?
I'm not after strengthening my argument, im not having an augment, im giving an opinion - if you don't agree i can accept that, and i won't try and force you to agree with me.SWoll said:
People don't smoke around their children because they aren't 'educated' to know the harm it causes, even the most moronic of parents are well aware of the health issues, they do it because they are selfish and irresponsible.
quite a sweeping statement you cant really back that up can you?SWoll said:
IMO the only thing that might make people like this change their attitude would be to fine/prosecute them. Do this and they might reconsider their actions in future.
Yeh because the law has a good track record of getting people to stop doing things that are bad for them. how is the war on drugs anyway?SWoll said:
Oh, and your comment about seeing them down A&E. Nice...
i thought it added a touch of class2) Are you really that naive? Every cigarette packet is emblazoned with text/imagery stating the health issues of smoking and I would guarantee that if you were to ask 1000 adults if they are aware passive smoking is harmful then 999 would say yes.
3) Again, not comparable. And if legislation stopped even a handful of children from, as you put it, being rushed to A&E with and asthma attack at 4 in the morning it would be worth it IMO.
4) It certainly added a touch of something...
SWoll said:
2) Are you really that naive? Every cigarette packet is emblazoned with text/imagery stating the health issues of smoking and I would guarantee that if you were to ask 1000 adults if they are aware passive smoking is harmful then 999 would say yes.
They would.But 90% of those would say 'But I had the winnda open, innit?'
Regiment said:
To me, it's a form of child abuse and any parent who smokes in front of their kids is a bad a parent, so yes, it's none of my business if I see child abuse going on and should just keep on walking.
Well unfortunatly it isn't in the eyes of the law. Whether it should be is another issue. Personally I would agree with it being law, but I would also be worried about the precedent it sets for other acitivities. I see many parents take their children climbing, which some people think is a horribly dangerous activity, but this could be banned once the precedent has been set.
aizvara said:
You are probably right.
Or they might eventually change their ways if enough people told them what they thought of their behaviour. I.e. not ignoring the problem as "they clearly have a different set of values" or some similar excuse that amounts to moral relativism.
That would probably require society to start functioning and interacting again, taking collective responsibility. So not very likely.
Agree with you completely, peer pressure would definately have an affect.Or they might eventually change their ways if enough people told them what they thought of their behaviour. I.e. not ignoring the problem as "they clearly have a different set of values" or some similar excuse that amounts to moral relativism.
That would probably require society to start functioning and interacting again, taking collective responsibility. So not very likely.
But unfortunately with mildly sociopathic attitudes like this
Motorrad said:
I couldn't care less if people want to smoke around their children as they are nothing whatosever to do with me.
I think we're fighting a losing battle.Robb F said:
I don't think the ignorance/stupidity excuse would be acceptable in this case
Well unfortunatly it isn't in the eyes of the law. Whether it should be is another issue.
Personally I would agree with it being law, but I would also be worried about the precedent it sets for other acitivities. I see many parents take their children climbing, which some people think is a horribly dangerous activity, but this could be banned once the precedent has been set.
Climbing isn't really a selfish act that is guaranteed to be detrimental to the health of a child with no positive affect though is it? Unless you plan on forcing a child against their will to climb the side of a mountain with no safety gear...Well unfortunatly it isn't in the eyes of the law. Whether it should be is another issue.
Personally I would agree with it being law, but I would also be worried about the precedent it sets for other acitivities. I see many parents take their children climbing, which some people think is a horribly dangerous activity, but this could be banned once the precedent has been set.
SWoll said:
1) Basic definition of argument - An exchange of diverging or opposite views.
Sorry, but this reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch.MP: Is this the right room for an argument?
JC: I've told you once.
MP: No, you haven't.
JC: Yes, I have.
(Repeat for a while)
MP: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
JC: yes, it is.
MP: No, it's just contradiction.
JC: No, it isn't.
MP: Yes, it is. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to make a proposition.
JC: No, it isn't.
Etc.
Pixelpeep said:
SWoll said:
Sorry, but that's a lot of b
ks.
Human rights issue? Right to choose? Seriously? How about the rights of the child who is being subjected to toxic fumes due to having parents etc. who don't give a st?
so what, you make sitting a child in front of a tv for 6 hours a day illegal?ks. Human rights issue? Right to choose? Seriously? How about the rights of the child who is being subjected to toxic fumes due to having parents etc. who don't give a s
t?you make it illegal to let your children cross the road?
you make it illegal to let your kids play with anyone whos parents have a criminal record?
in this day and age rather than educating people as to the dangers we seem to prefer to slap a law on it. its crazy, you cant keep protecting people from being stupid - natural selection!
if someone is too stupid to know smoking will harm their children then i look forward to seeing them down A&E when out of the blu their kid has an asthma attack at 4am.
Just to be clear, i dont think its right smoking with kids, i would never do it, im just saying that 'banning' something doesn't stop it, educating people better would.
SWoll said:
1) Basic definition of argument - An exchange of diverging or opposite views.
2) Are you really that naive? Every cigarette packet is emblazoned with text/imagery stating the health issues of smoking and I would guarantee that if you were to ask 1000 adults if they are aware passive smoking is harmful then 999 would say yes.
3) Again, not comparable. And if legislation stopped even a handful of children from, as you put it, being rushed to A&E with and asthma attack at 4 in the morning it would be worth it IMO.
4) It certainly added a touch of something...
1) you neglected to quote the entire definition of argument.2) Are you really that naive? Every cigarette packet is emblazoned with text/imagery stating the health issues of smoking and I would guarantee that if you were to ask 1000 adults if they are aware passive smoking is harmful then 999 would say yes.
3) Again, not comparable. And if legislation stopped even a handful of children from, as you put it, being rushed to A&E with and asthma attack at 4 in the morning it would be worth it IMO.
4) It certainly added a touch of something...
ar·gu·ment/ˈärgyəmənt/
Noun:
An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
Well, you might be heated but i am not so its an exchange of opinion to me
2) so pictures of bad stuff doesn't stop them, 999 out of 1000 of them know the dangers and still do it - how will giving them a fine help? - they already pay 15.5p tax on every cigarette so financial penalties don't seem to be affective either
3) stop press - i agree. but on the same token if increasing awareness of the dangers (more detail than currently used) helps just a handful more - wouldn't it be worth considering?
4) lol
monthefish said:
Can you please re-read you post and see if you really think that was a sensible, well-thought out contribution to the discussion.
i love this.it's my opinion and i am using a public forum to voice it.
Yes, i consider it to be sensible and well thought out.
if you disagree then it becomes your issue.
i assume you have a different opinion to mine on this too?
As a non-smoker, I am confused as to how I should damage my children whilst driving.
I've tried turning around and punching them in the face when stopped at lights or in heavy traffic, however, according to a wealth of research, this won't have the same long-term effect and doesn't seem to cause any cancer or respiratory health risk?
I've tried turning around and punching them in the face when stopped at lights or in heavy traffic, however, according to a wealth of research, this won't have the same long-term effect and doesn't seem to cause any cancer or respiratory health risk?
hesnotthemessiah said:
On a slight side issue....
My wife did the 'Race for Life' on Sunday and there was a woman walking the course smoking and had a couple of kids in tow.
NON of my business of course but I thought it was a tad insensitive as I guess many of the people raising money and partaking had lost loved ones due to cancer.
Eh? Shirley even the most retarded c-word must understand how inappropriate that sort of behaviour is? My wife did the 'Race for Life' on Sunday and there was a woman walking the course smoking and had a couple of kids in tow.
NON of my business of course but I thought it was a tad insensitive as I guess many of the people raising money and partaking had lost loved ones due to cancer.
As for the smoking in cars with children on board, I'd be the person that told them. The kids/baby can't defend themselves and the parents should know what damage can and will be done.
I don't think it's out of the question for this to make made illegal?
It's not something I would do personally, but I am grateful that for now at least we live in a society where you are free to make your own risk based decisions for yourself and your children.
Compared to the garbage many people feed their kids, the st they let them watch on television and the lazy way they raise them generally I consider smoking around them to be a relatively minor thing. That person may be a wonderful parent in every other way, and yet you pass judgement on them as a parent while the "Findus Crispy Pancake for dinner" crew in the car behind are A-ok?
Compared to the garbage many people feed their kids, the s
t they let them watch on television and the lazy way they raise them generally I consider smoking around them to be a relatively minor thing. That person may be a wonderful parent in every other way, and yet you pass judgement on them as a parent while the "Findus Crispy Pancake for dinner" crew in the car behind are A-ok?dme123 said:
It's not something I would do personally, but I am grateful that for now at least we live in a society where you are free to make your own risk based decisions for yourself and your children.
Compared to the garbage many people feed their kids, the st they let them watch on television and the lazy way they raise them generally I consider smoking around them to be a relatively minor thing. That person may be a wonderful parent in every other way, and yet you pass judgement on them as a parent while the "Findus Crispy Pancake for dinner" crew in the car behind are A-ok?
Passive smokes' effect on babies and children is quite bad. A poor diet or sedentary lifestyle can possibly be overcome over time, but the damage to a child's lungs will likely last their whole lives. Asthma is one likely outcome.Compared to the garbage many people feed their kids, the s
t they let them watch on television and the lazy way they raise them generally I consider smoking around them to be a relatively minor thing. That person may be a wonderful parent in every other way, and yet you pass judgement on them as a parent while the "Findus Crispy Pancake for dinner" crew in the car behind are A-ok?Regiment said:
To me, it's a form of child abuse and any parent who smokes in front of their kids is a bad a parent, so yes, it's none of my business if I see child abuse going on and should just keep on walking.
I think raising a child in a religion is child abuse. Shall we ban that?aizvara said:
Passive smokes' effect on babies and children is quite bad. A poor diet or sedentary lifestyle can possibly be overcome over time, but the damage to a child's lungs will likely last their whole lives. Asthma is one likely outcome.
According to the clown you've quoted, a parent has the right to permanently damage the health of their child if they want to ... What a fked up point of view that is Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff