Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
You really aren't capable of making an argument that isn't just hyperbole and scope shifting aren't you?
|
Scope shifting is the whole argument. The scope has been shifting every year for the past 20 to 30 years. I'm not pro-second hand smoke, I'm not pro child abuse, I'm not pro head injuries. None of that.
I do have problems with this constant legislation creep. I dislike how the argument always seems to be that "It's about the children", or that I'm somehow siding with some terrorists if I don't want to take my belt off or be fondled to get on a plane. I dislike how the whole argument has been skewed so if I disagree with this, then somehow I'm some kind of monster.
A previous poster was partially right when he said that this particular legislation was not the hill to die on. But that's the issue, it never really seems to be that hill. My big issue is how many more are there going to be? Where is it going to end? Because when I was younger, these things that have been legislated away would have been considered crazy. Absolutely crazy.
I don't like these laws because I don't like the direction these laws are going. I don't think that smoking in a car with children is a good thing. I also don't think that a cop or a legislature should try to legislate that someone who disagrees with this is now in breach of law. Look at what the law is trying to do, and what it is saying. It's about changing people's attitude. It's about changing people's behavior. It's about "educating" (or should it be re-educating?) people who disagree. It's about deciding which attitudes are legal, and which are not. It's practically training people. And honestly, you've seen government, and the individuals that it attracts. Do you want them to be the ones training people to be obedient, compliant people?
Let me repeat. I do not think it's a good idea for people to smoke in a car with children. I understand the reasoning behind protecting innocent people from harm, and in principle agree with their goals. What I disagree with is the method and implementation of these goals, because of the larger implications on society. So yeah. I have been shifting the scope of the argument. Because the constant shifting scope of government is the argument.