BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

uziq wrote:

you are such a fucking moron sometimes I don't even know how to engage with you. so it's totalitarian to try and devise informed (and cost effective) healthcare initiatives based on medical research? herp derp

> all scientific research leads to unequivocal finding that smoking is very bad for you dude
> nationalised health service aims to educate public on these findings; doctors encouraged to help their patients to quit if they wish to do so
> preventable illness decreases, addiction rates drop, money and resources freed to deal with more pressing matters
> welcome to a totalitarian state

Macbeth was saying that tobacco should be banned and using collectivist verbage in his argument. I said that collectivist verbage is invalid because we do not have a NHS. Keep up.

Last edited by Jay (2016-02-14 08:20:46)

uziq wrote:

why do you need a national health service to legitimate health & safety laws?

Because arguments about public cost fall flat when costs are picked up by individual insurance policies.

He can't very well say that he hates smokers and thinks they smell bad and that's why he wants smoking banned so he has to argue that it's for some collective good. Here in the US, restrictive laws are generally passed "for the children" to the point that it's become a meme.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Higher demand for services drives up healthcare cost and insurance premiums.

Quoted for obviousness.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Higher demand for services drives up healthcare cost and insurance premiums.

Aren't you still on mommy and daddy's insurance plan?

You really don't have any response to the fact that smoking hurts the healthcare system beyond "freedom"

Jay wrote:

I don't need a better argument. Driving sends millions of people to the hospital every year. Should we ban driving too? Stupid.

UGH. The driving fallback is so overused. I prefer it when you simply tell us that your engineering means you're automatically superior or something. AFAIK, people don't smoke to work, smoke to the store. smoke their kids home from school, or smoke an interstate trip to visit family. Maybe if society was based on hobgoblins and people rode chimney smoke everywhere that might be relevant.

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Higher demand for services drives up healthcare cost and insurance premiums.

Quoted for obviousness.

Do you live in a council house and have teams of doctors and politicians telling you how to go about your day?

Or are you on the other side, and instead the guy that walks around all day being offended by the decisions others make and wishing there was someone that would set them to rights?

Have you been a peasant for so long that you constantly need to look to your betters for guidance?

Or do you imagine that you are one of the betters with all the necessary wisdom?

Personally, I think people are rather intelligent as individuals and more than capable of making their own decisions. At this point people know smoking gives them cancer. They smoke anyway. That's their choice. At this point people know that exercising and eating right is better for their health. They choose to do neither. Again, that's their choice. Apparently you wish to change their ability to choose. The fact that you think that's reasonable is more disgusting to me than having to see fat people or smell smoke.

i love when jay posts like this. with his eloquence and rhetoric up a notch. you can really tell he's incensed.

shame he's still talking utter bollocks.

"have you been a peasant for so long...?" fuck me, move over talleyrand

Last edited by uziq (2016-02-14 16:00:04)

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

Quoted for obviousness.

Do you live in a council house and have teams of doctors and politicians telling you how to go about your day?

Or are you on the other side, and instead the guy that walks around all day being offended by the decisions others make and wishing there was someone that would set them to rights?

Have you been a peasant for so long that you constantly need to look to your betters for guidance?

Or do you imagine that you are one of the betters with all the necessary wisdom?

Personally, I think people are rather intelligent as individuals and more than capable of making their own decisions. At this point people know smoking gives them cancer. They smoke anyway. That's their choice. At this point people know that exercising and eating right is better for their health. They choose to do neither. Again, that's their choice. Apparently you wish to change their ability to choose. The fact that you think that's reasonable is more disgusting to me than having to see fat people or smell smoke.

Does the AMA not publish things to tell people how to live healthier lives? I hardly doubt having nationalized healthcare makes an ounce of a difference when it comes to the politicization of people's health.

Guidelines are fine. I don't mind doctors telling me to lose weight and quit smoking. That's their job. I pay them to do that. They provide advice and I can take it or leave it. It's when the force of law is used to compel me to follow that advice or become a criminal is where I take umbrage. People forget that laws have enforcement provisions, and those enforcement provisions require force whether it's in the form of a fine or a jail sentence. People in the 70s said "ban drugs" and now we have millions of people in jail with no reduction in usage. People in the 20s said "ban alcohol" and we spawned the mafia. Same goes for gambling and every other vice.

Enforcement of a silly law banning the sale of "loosie" cigarettes is what killed Eric Garner. A drug raid in Georgia led to the maiming of an infant when a flashbang grenade was tossed into the child's crib. These stupid anti-vice laws have real world consequences.

how completely unsurprising the resident fat fuck here has an issue with trying to get people to live healthier lives.

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Guidelines are fine. I don't mind doctors telling me to lose weight and quit smoking. That's their job. I pay them to do that. They provide advice and I can take it or leave it. It's when the force of law is used to compel me to follow that advice or become a criminal is where I take umbrage.

And those laws can be passed anyway regardless of a public health system? I hardly doubt any criminalizing law on health issues would either be enacted and enforced. Theoretically yes, but realistically no. I don't think there's an NHS system in the world that can actively force a person to live a certain life style.

I'm not saying the NHS has enforcement. I was saying that lack of a NHS here in the US removes weight from arguments made by prohibitionists when they talk about banning things to lessen burdens on public services etc. There are quite a few people in this country that want a NHS simply so they can use it as a club to force people to behave how they want them to behave.

When Obamacare was in the process of being passed I remember quite a few people gloating about how this was just the beginning and the next step was to implement all the things that Bloomberg was pushing here in New York: salt restrictions, soda bans, cigarette bans, chasing fast food out, etc. It was gross.

Last edited by Jay (2016-02-14 17:16:17)

None of this relates to firearms, the issue here generally that innocent third parties tend to be the victim, not the user in the case of cigarettes or brawndo.

I do agree that there are social justice warriors who are just looking for another stick to use to coerce people into doing what they have decided is the right thing. That doesn't mean the 'right thing' is bad or stupid.

If I'm not paying for it and there's no risk to me then I don't care if people smoke themselves to death or flip their car on a racetrack or blow their brains out.

If I am paying for it, paying people dole as they gasp away on an oxygen cylinder, or bearing the cost of their low productivity, or there's a risk to me or society in general  then I would like the govt to get on top of it. Hence I like firearms well regulated and hard for the average nut to get hold of, for example.

There are also the issues of depression, subintentional suicide and people getting hooked on harmful and profitable products before they've matured enough to really take a rational decision on what they're doing. Arguments about 'freedom' are marginal here.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-02-15 00:50:49)

It is not like he was part of the Peace Corps or traveled around for the Environmental protection agency. He was a part of the most conformity required part of the government for years.

He was legally required to not think for himself for years. That combined with his was experience... Sounds like a case of PTSD.