Should tobacco companies be allowed to give free cigarettes to children?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive No. I assume only that children deserve a happy and healthy childhood. Honestly, if you don't want children to have a happy and healthy childhood I don't think the state should let you have children. What do you think of that?

It's the parents' responsibility to do what they can to provide such things - that is if you assume the children even "deserve" a happy childhood. It is not the role of government to make sure that children have a "happy and healthy childhood."

I'm the least socialist or leftist person on this forums. In fact, you are the socialist! You think families should be run in communal fashion rather than by rule of liberty! I say free the children, you say keep them under government control--it's just that government in your case are the parents themselves.

No, I think that families should be run by the families themselves in whatever manner they see fit. You claim to believe in some "rule of liberty" but if that rule involves the government butting its nose into people's lives then it is no rule of liberty.

It is conspicuous that you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

[Alive]

Quote by: Praxius If you have no answer, then don't quote my question.

I'll quote what I wish! My point is that the answer to your question does not imply what you seem to think it implies, and that is a direct response to your question.

If you never picked up smoking as a kid from a movie, I guess that kinda proves one case of "Resisting Advertisement" as you put it.... canceling out your comment above.

Wrong. Once case means nothing. I have said this in every post I wrote on this thread. The point is only that advertising increases the likelihood that some number of people will undertake an action, not that every person does.

He is wrong because he said no? That's one of the most ignorant things I read today..... as there can be multiple reasons why they wouldn't want to change faiths..... one of which is why waste more of your lifetime to study and learn another religion all over again?

This is the "one case" argument all over again. Yes, people can spontaneously change faith. But it is statistically true that most Americans are Christian and most people in certain Muslim countries are Muslim. So chances are, born in US = Christian, born in Iraq = Muslim; culture influences what you do rather than something about you as an individual. Most likely he IS wrong, and he would have been Christian had he been born in the US.

On the other hand, 1000 years ago we could be certain that he would be wrong, as there were some places where there were absolutely no Muslims and others with absolutely no Christians. Again obvious proof of the overwhelming effects of culture over personal choice.

People don't know how they are affected by something? *snickers*

Yep. Obviously you can't argue that you know how you are affected by something because you can give an explanation for it; if it is true that you do not know how you are affected by something, then your explanation is false. There have been psychological studies which show that people often do not know what influences them to take a certain action. I can spend the time to dig these up if you tell me that you will seriously consider what they say.

Influence exists.... it's exists everywhere, but censoring and restricting one's access to some kinds of knowlege or lifestyle, be that healthy or unhealthy, just shows fear of the unknown, and the in-ability to make your own sound decisions in life based on your fear of the unknown.

Fine! Then for adults, let them have whatever knowledge or lifestyle that they choose. But for children, who are naturally more susceptible to "influence" and not necessarily mature enough to be given choice for themselves, restrict what they have access to. I am not for making cigs illegal (in fact I am for complete drug legalization), or making it illegal to show them in movies. I am only for implementing reasonable protections of children from anyone who wants to take advantage of them. When the kid turns 18, let him smoke if he wants!

Even if you do know the pros and cons.... not allowing younger generations the same knowlege and education on something as you may have had in your upbrining isn't going to make anything better.

Cigs in movies are knowledge and education? Actually, most movies are fiction, so no. :)

[Captain Cardio]

Quote by: Chancellor They do. Get the bad leftists and socialists that are trying to take over out of America! The children are the offspring of the parents and how they are raised is the responsibility of the parents (with influence from the extended family). It is not the government's responsibility.

Quote by: Alive I'm the least socialist or leftist person on this forums. In fact, you are the socialist! You think families should be run in communal fashion rather than by rule of liberty! I say free the children, you say keep them under government control--it's just that government in your case are the parents themselves.

I think we've stumbled across the root of the disagreement - how much of a parental role should the government be taking?

Or - which rights do we hold to be more important, the parents or their children, and at what level of importance for each?

You're fine to have your opinion about either of those, but simple statements like "They do.", "..get the leftists/socialists out of America!" or "you are the socialist!" are far too commonplace, and don't actually say anything about what the best course of action is.

By labeling stances all-inclusively as either 'right' or 'left' or 'socialist' or 'totalitarian' or whatever words we want to use, we drift away from the reality of the situation - and only attempt to associate our opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, then you're one of these people, and those people are wrong". To put that even simpler "You're just wrong - and heres my fancy worded way of saying that"

The fact of the matter is that the government is involved already with parenting in some aspects - we have social services. You can't beat your children to discipline them, you can't have them standing up in your car without a seatbelt, you have to feed your child regularly. If the government finds out you aren't obeying those and an enormity of other rules I can't cite (as I'm not a parent) - they get involved.

Minor variations in these rules do not need to take on the tag of 'socialism' or 'big brother', because those words are merely extremes that distort somebody's position.

Only a very small minority actually want the extreme in society of either socialism or totalitarianism. (maybe those arent the correct words for the extremes - but whatever, you get the point)

So the issue isn't whether we want socialism or big brother or whatever- its what level of government involvement is appropriate, preferable, practical and/or best for our society - in this specific situation?

Some of you guys are saying it's under the parents responsibility - some of you are saying that the children have rights - well ok, but we need to address why, and figure out the root philosophical difference that is behind the scenes in this debate.

(I don't mean to put words in your mouth because I could be wrong with my following interpretation - but the actual interpretation here isn't the point - it's that we should be striving for more complex and deeper interpretations if we are going to advance the discussion):

For example:

You falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood!

The underlying philosophy could be;

Parents have more rights than children. (and/or) If the circumstance is bad enough, then people should have sufficient motivation to elevate themselves out of a situation their parents put them in.

Which could mean on a deeper level, that people's willpower or free will should be given alot of credit.

Somebody on the other side however, could be saying "Kids can grow up and overcome their messed-up childhood." isn't an ok stance, because children have more rights than their parents (and/or) if we are to value equality in our society, especially given the deterministic nature of our world, then we should be ensuring certain basic rights for young citizens.

You guys also seem to disagree about whether children deserve a good childhood - the discussion doesn't have to end there.

But regardless, I want to clarify again, that my interpretations are not up for scrutiny. I would merely like people to consider more in depth, an intelligent style of discussion, so we can move the tendancy more towards debate, and away from merely argument.

My apologies for having singled the two of you out - I am just trying to raise the expectations for the quality of debate at volconvo, and I would hope other people would do the same more often.

[Alive]

Quote by: 5010 Alive, So, tell us what should companies be allowed to give to 5 year old even against parental permission.

Nothing.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor It's the parents' responsibility to do what they can to provide such things - that is if you assume the children even "deserve" a happy childhood. It is not the role of government to make sure that children have a "happy and healthy childhood."

Why?! What makes you think this? I assume this means you are ok with child abuse by parents because that it the obvious implication of what you are saying. Your arguments are entirely arbitrary. Why should parental control be more important than the welfare of children? It simply makes no sense.

No, I think that families should be run by the families themselves in whatever manner they see fit.

Yes, rule of family by the community of the family rather than by freedom. You're a die-hard communist.

You claim to believe in some "rule of liberty" but if that rule involves the government butting its nose into people's lives then it is no rule of liberty.

But parents should have unlimited power to butt their nose into their children's lives?

It is conspicuous that you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

Well, maybe respond with something more substantial than one line if you want a response.

[5010]

So what I'm saying is make the parent liable for how they raise their children, and make companies liable for how they violate the parent's wishes.

Then the primary power is in the hands of the people that we expect to care the most about their kids. When parents are making choices that are clearly harmful to their children, then they can't blame such abuse of power on the world. They alone face the consequences. This puts incentive into better parenting.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio I think we've stumbled across the root of the disagreement - how much of a parental role should the government be taking?

To which I would answer, "none."

Or - which rights do we hold to be more important, the parents or their children, and at what level of importance for each?

Any powers not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution belong to the states or to the people. Since parents have a certain responsibility for their children and since children are not legally capable of running their own lives, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents.

You're fine to have your opinion about either of those, but simple statements like "They do.",

Of course, that was specifically in response to "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Would you have preferred I say "Parents do deserve complete control over their children"?

"..get the leftists/socialists out of America!"

Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying something about the underlying philosophy of what America is? Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying that being a leftist/socialist (I use the terms synonymously) is inconsistent with the American ideals of limited government and maximized liberty.

or "you are the socialist!" are far too commonplace, and don't actually say anything about what the best course of action is.

Identifying someone's political/philosophical bent isn't necessarily a bad thing and it's not your place to make any assumptions about how the term is being used.

By labeling stances all-inclusively as either 'right' or 'left' or 'socialist' or 'totalitarian' or whatever words we want to use, we drift away from the reality of the situation - and only attempt to associate our opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, you're wrong".

A person's particular position may indeed be a "right" (conservative), "left" (liberal), "socialist" (see "left") or "totalitarian" (see "right" and "left"). Using such terms as shorthand makes for shorter posts.

The fact of the matter is that the government is involved already with parenting in some aspects - we have social services. You can't beat your children to discipline them, you can't have them standing up in your car without a seatbelt, you have to feed your child regularly. If the government finds out you aren't obeying those and an enormity of other rules I can't cite (as I'm not a parent) - they get involved.

That doesn't make such involvement right and it's really beneath you to use the "Well, the government does it and so that makes it right" argument.

Only a very small minority actually want the extreme in society of either socialism or totalitarianism. (maybe those arent the correct words for the extremes - but whatever, you get the point)

Most Americans are sheeple and don't have a clue about what they want. They like the idea of the government providing all kinds of social programs and creating all these regulations to stick it to the rich and to the corporations. They have this entitlement mentality going on. But in order for government to provide all these things for them it has to violate the Constitution, usurp powers it does not rightly have, and effectively become a socialist state complete with a huge bureaucracy.

So the issue isn't whether we want socialism or big brother or whatever- its what level of government involvement is appropriate, preferable, practical and/or best for our society - in this specific situation?

Any level that goes beyond the bounds of the Constitution is inappropriate and anyone who is an American should already know this to be true!

Some of you guys are saying it's under the parents responsibility - some of you are saying that the children have rights - well ok, but we need to address why, and figure out the root philosophical difference that is behind the scenes in this debate.

Do we have to address why in a thread about whether tobacco companies should be allowed to give free cigarettes to children? Here's it what it comes down to: the parents brought the children into this world, the parents are responsible for them.

(I don't mean to put words in your mouth because I could be wrong with my following interpretation - but the actual interpretation here isn't the point - it's that we should be striving for more complex and deeper interpretations if we are going to advance the discussion): For example: The underlying philosophy could be; Parents have more rights than children. (and/or) If the circumstance is bad enough, then people should have sufficient motivation to elevate themselves out of a situation their parents put them in. Which could mean on a deeper level, that people's willpower or free will should be given alot of credit.

The United States of America has a long but almost lost history of people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.

Somebody on the other side however, could be saying "Kids can grow up and overcome their messed-up childhood." isn't an ok stance, because children have more rights than their parents (and/or) if we are to value equality in our society, especially given the deterministic nature of our world, then we should be ensuring certain basic rights for young citizens.

Obviously it's a wrongheaded view because it's like letting the inmates run the prison. Cambodia (or Laos) tried something like this by putting the children in authority over their parents after the United States pulled out of Viet Nam.

You guys also seem to disagree about whether children deserve a good childhood - the discussion doesn't have to end there.

I'm not taking any position on whether they do or not. I am, however, challenging the assumption that they "deserve" a good childhood. See "entitlement mentality."

But regardless, I want to clarify again, that my interpretations are not up for scrutiny. I would merely like people to consider more in depth, an intelligent style of discussion, so we can move the tendancy more towards debate, and away from merely argument.

That you posted it puts it up for scrutiny.

My apologies for having singled the two of you out - I am just trying to raise the expectations for the quality of debate at volconvo, and I would hope other people would do the same more often.

It's nice of you to make the attempt. Just understand that there is a place for the shorthand of using certain terms in the place of full sentences.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive Why?! What makes you think this? I assume this means you are ok with child abuse by parents because that it the obvious implication of what you are saying. Your arguments are entirely arbitrary. Why should parental control be more important than the welfare of children? It simply makes no sense.

See, that's your problem: you assume things. I'm going to insist that you take what I post to mean exactly and only what I post without reading anything else into it. What constitutes abuse? To some, even raising your voice at a child is child abuse. King Solomon (the wisest man in history) once said, "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die." You are setting up a false dichotomy between parental control and the welfare of children. "Parental control" and "welfare of children" are not contrary to one another. However, "government control" and "welfare of children" are contrary to one another.

Yes, rule of family by the community of the family rather than by freedom. You're a die-hard communist.

Children are neither physically nor emotionally capable of ruling themselves. What do you propose, that parents who pop out a bunch of joeys leave them to fend for themselves?

But parents should have unlimited power to butt their nose into their children's lives?

While the children are children, yes.

Well, maybe respond with something more substantial than one line if you want a response.

There were at least two whole paragraphs!

[Alive]

Captain Cardio,

It is hard to debate when we have no common agreement on basic morality. If I say good=people being happy and living good lives, and my opponent says good=totalitarian power to the parents, what more can be said? All I can really say is my opponent has a really perverted moral system that allows any kind of abuse of person so long as that abuse is parent to child. But I can't really prove that his moral system is wrong; proving the correctness of a morality is impossible.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: 5010 So what I'm saying is make the parent liable for how they raise their children, and make companies liable for how they violate the parent's wishes.

Can we also make government liable for how it violates a parent's wishes?

Then the primary power is in the hands of the people that we expect to care the most about their kids.

As it should be.

When parents are making choices that are clearly harmful to their children, then they can't blame such abuse of power on the world.

Agreed.

They alone face the consequences. This puts incentive into better parenting.

For most parents, yes.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor See, that's your problem: you assume things.

Actually, assume was a bad word. I am assuming nothing. You asserted that parents should have absolute power over their children. That logically implies that parents should be able to abuse their child: Torture, molest, rape, kill; all of those fall under what you said. My "assume" was only placed there because I am not sure you fully believe what you yourself said. Do you?

What constitutes abuse?

Let's go with what I said above. Should parents be able to rape their children? Should they be able to kill them?

"Parental control" and "welfare of children" are not contrary to one another.

Perhaps not in some cases. But honestly, I know people who have studied child abuse in great detail, and I can tell you that very often parental control and welfare of children are very much contrary to one another!

Children are neither physically nor emotionally capable of ruling themselves. What do you propose, that parents who pop out a bunch of joeys leave them to fend for themselves?

No, I am proposing that the state ensures a reasonable standard of living for all children under its jurisdiction. And that parents who continually abuse their ability to have children without ability to care for them be prevented from further abusing that capability.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive Captain Cardio, It is hard to debate when we have no common agreement on basic morality. If I say good=people being happy and living good lives, and my opponent says good=totalitarian power to the parents, what more can be said? All I can really say is my opponent has a really perverted moral system that allows any kind of abuse of person so long as that abuse is parent to child. But I can't really prove that his moral system is wrong; proving the correctness of a morality is impossible.

The problem, though, is that you're creating a false dichotomy between "being happy and living good lives" and "totalitarian power to the parents" over their children. I think such a dichotomy is itself perverted. You wrongly assume that my position of wanting the government to butt out of our families' lives means supporting the "right" of parents to abuse their children (though you haven't defined "abuse").

It irritates me no end when people presume to argue against what they read INTO my posts instead of arguing against what I said. It is not your place to read into what I post and I will insist that if you're going to disagree with me that you damned well had better get it right! Disagree with what I post and not your interpretations of what I post.

[Alive]

Quote by: 5010 When parents are making choices that are clearly harmful to their children, then they can't blame such abuse of power on the world. They alone face the consequences.

And what are these consequences?

[Alive]

Chancellor, I am reading nothing into your posts except what you yourself have said.

Me: Every child deserves a good upbringing.
You: Why?

So you don't believe every child deserves a good upbringing. Hence, I am reading nothing you didn't say when I say that you believe that totatlitarian parental power is more important than welfare for children. You yourself assert that when they come into conflict, children do not deserve a good upbrining, but parents should have complete power over them. Indeed, you went even further:

You: You falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood!

The welfare of children is of no concern to you as long as they grow up and overcome their bad childhood.

So it was you, not me, who introduced this so-called dichotomy between child welfare and parental control. You never argued, at least in the beginning, that parental control was better for the children, you only argued that children could grow out of whatever problems parental control brought upon them!!

So tell me. Do you support parental control because it is good for the children, or because you oppose government intervention? If both, which is the more important factor? I presume nothing in thinking you care more about opposing the gov't then helping the kids because you said as much in your posts thus far.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive Actually, assume was a bad word. I am assuming nothing. You asserted that parents should have absolute power over their children. That logically implies that parents should be able to abuse their child: Torture, molest, rape, kill; all of those fall under what you said. My "assume" was only placed there because I am not sure you fully believe what you yourself said. Do you?

I said exactly and only what I said and meant exactly and only what I said. But yes, I do believe that parental authority over their children is absolute. Don't give me any of this "logically implies" crap! I'm sick of people reading things into my posts. In case you didn't get it the first time, I said exactly and only what I said and meant exactly and only what I said. If you're going to disagree with me then I expect you to disagree with what I posted and not your interpretations of it.

Let's go with what I said above. Should parents be able to rape their children? Should they be able to kill them?

See above. In the Law of Moses it was commanded that rebellious children be stoned to death. I'm not advocating either the practice of stoning or the execution of children but I am trying to show you that at least one society considered it appropriate to kill their children under certain circumstances. As for raping children, any parent that would even think of having sex with his or her children is perverted.

Perhaps not in some cases. But honestly, I know people who have studied child abuse in great detail, and I can tell you that very often parental control and welfare of children are very much contrary to one another!

Did these people work for the government or for some leftist secular university?

No, I am proposing that the state ensures a reasonable standard of living for all children under its jurisdiction.

Why is it the State's responsibility to ensure a "reasonable standard of living"?

And that parents who continually abuse their ability to have children without ability to care for them be prevented from further abusing that capability.

What constitutes "abuse"? I consider it abuse for a school district to tell parents that they must medicate their children with Ritalin and other such drugs.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Alive Chancellor, I am reading nothing into your posts except what you yourself have said. Me: Every child deserves a good upbringing. You: Why? So you don't believe every child deserves a good upbringing. Hence, I am reading nothing you didn't say when I say that you believe that totatlitarian parental power is more important than welfare for children. You yourself assert that when they come into conflict, children do not deserve a good upbrining, but parents should have complete power over them. Indeed, you went even further:

I simply asked why every child "deserves" a good upbringing. The only correct response from you would have been for you to explain why every child "deserves" a good upbringing! Even here with your post you are still reading things into what I posted.

You: You falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood! The welfare of children is of no concern to you as long as they grow up and overcome their bad childhood.

Again, it means exactly and only what it says: that you falsely assume that the kid can't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood.

So it was you, not me, who introduced this so-called dichotomy between child welfare and parental control. You never argued, at least in the beginning, that parental control was better for the children, you only argued that children could grow out of whatever problems parental control brought upon them!!

No, I only argued that you falsely assumed the kid couldn't grow up and overcome his messed-up childhood. Try taking what I post to mean exactly and only what I post.

So tell me. Do you support parental control because it is good for the children, or because you oppose government intervention? If both, which is the more important factor? I presume nothing in thinking you care more about opposing the gov't then helping the kids because you said as much in your posts thus far.

I support parental control because that's where the control belongs and because I oppose government intervention. The parents gave birth to the children and that, in itself, places on the parents a certain moral responsibility for those children. That responsibility is absolute and no government has the moral right to usurp that responsibility.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor I said exactly and only what I said and meant exactly and only what I said. But yes, I do believe that parental authority over their children is absolute. Don't give me any of this "logically implies" crap! I'm sick of people reading things into my posts.

What? What I said what you said logically implies is exactly what you said you do in fact believe, so it seems I got it right.

See above. In the Law of Moses it was commanded that rebellious children be stoned to death.

Ah, but guess who was responsible for stoning the children to death? The courts. Indeed, the court system is discussed in the Law of Moses. It was not the parents who had the right to kill their children, but, yep, the government. The law is a communal law. Parents are given power, but the power is regulated by a code of laws.

It is nevertheless true that some societies have given parents absolute power. And some societies have given parents less power. Your point?

As for raping children, any parent that would even think of having sex with his or her children is perverted.

Yet it obviously happens. So what do we do with these perverts? Allow them to continue on raping their children? Asking that question is silly though because you already gave your answer. You think allowing perverts to rape their children is better than letting government intervene. I think that's an abhorrent view and I'm really happy people like you are the rarity and people who want to stop those perverts are the commonality.

Did these people work for the government or for some leftist secular university?

As it happens yes. So? Do you think the children lie when they tell about their parents molesting them? I also happen to know people who personally claim to have been sexually abused by their parents. Perhaps they are lying too?

Why is it the State's responsibility to ensure a "reasonable standard of living"?

Because no one else is going to do it if the parents fail in their parental duties. Like I said, in my moral system, welfare of children is more important than totalitarian parental power. That is where this entire argument is derived from; you believe in totalitarianism while I believe in good lives.

What constitutes "abuse"?

Why are you asking me again? I already told you--rape, torture, and murder are all abuse.

[Alive]

Quote by: Chancellor I simply asked why every child "deserves" a good upbringing. The only correct response from you would have been for you to explain why every child "deserves" a good upbringing! Even here with your post you are still reading things into what I posted.</