U.S. bid to make military smokeless

[bobheck]

Oh this is bullshit!
The world seems to be just FULL of people who know what's better for you than you do! They love being able to tell you what to think, how to live, what to do....man that must be a power-trip rush.
Hey, too much fat and salt is bad for you, so let's shut down McDonalds, Burger King, etc., and ban unhealthy foods.
Hey 50-60,000 people a year die in car wrecks....let's ban those too.
Alcohol is responsible for a bunch of deaths too! That's out the window!

When you start banning things, ....where should the line be drawn?

And millions upon millions die each year from 'natural causes', so lets force everbody to live unnaturally!

Guns kill thousands each year, but a finger has to pull the trigger, so leave everybody in the world a thumb only and sever the other digits!

The most common reason for death in the home is slipping/falling. So, make it illegal for people to stand up or walk in their home!

 

[Schuyler]

The military is a johnny-come-lately to this issue and it's not even there yet. It's a proposal someone else wants to impose on them. In civilian life around here you can't smoke in most places--including bars! You can't smoke within 25 feet of the entrance to a restaurant, for example (I think the feet is right--not entirely sure.) You can't smoke in any public building and most any office building.

You don't have rights in the military. It's a socialist environment. You get free healath care, therefore you WILL get any innoculation they want you to, end of story. They OWN you. Get it yet?

One year they told us we had to have flu shots. I went into this big tent where corpsmen were using those guns that shoot the fluid into you instead of needles. They were shooting test shots in the air and the stuff flew clear across this huge tent. I registered when I went in...

..and snuck under the tent to get out!

Call it bull shit if you want, but that's easy and very safe to say from the outside looking in when you are not subject to the UCMJ: the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which means you will follow lawful orders, period.

 

[CapnG]

When you start banning things, ....where should the line be drawn?

At the demarcation point between sensible, responsible adult and spoiled, selfish, irresponsible child.

If people generally can't be relied upon to conduct themselves in a grown-up manner then limits must be imposed (eg speed limit) simply to allow society to function. Freedom isn't all about "Me, ME, ME!" you know. It's a balancing act, weighed for the benefit of most at the expense of some.

 

[bobheck]

At the demarcation point between sensible, responsible adult and spoiled, selfish, irresponsible child.

If people generally can't be relied upon to conduct themselves in a grown-up manner then limits must be imposed (eg speed limit) simply to allow society to function. Freedom isn't all about "Me, ME, ME!" you know. It's a balancing act, weighed for the benefit of most at the expense of some.

Actually, freedom is mostly about ME when it comes to personal freedoms. That's what makes it so special, individuals have rights and freedoms. The "greater good" is the basis of socialist/communist ideology.

Don't get me wrong, I agree we need laws, regulations, and limits for a functioning society. I just wanted to vent my view on your statement.

 

[CapnG]

Actually, freedom is mostly about ME when it comes to personal freedoms. That's what makes it so special, individuals have rights and freedoms. The "greater good" is the basis of socialist/communist ideology.

I hear this alot (mostly from Americans) and I'm always perplexed by what appears to be either an inability to tell the difference between "socialism" and "society" or a marked preference for anarchy over law and order.

As for individual rights: no such thing. Privelidges are afforded to individuals at the behest of society in general and the sufferage of the ruling class in particular, doesn't matter if it's a hardline, totalitarian state or the "free-est" democracy on Earth. I know most people probably prefer to think it works the other way around but in practice this is how "rights" actually work.

As an aside, I'm not really sure if you and I are in danger of double-breaking our oath by talking politics to each other Bob, or if the two cancel each other out?

 

[bobheck]

I hear this alot (mostly from Americans) and I'm always perplexed by what appears to be either an inability to tell the difference between "socialism" and "society" or a marked preference for anarchy over law and order.

As for individual rights: no such thing. Privelidges are afforded to individuals at the behest of society in general and the sufferage of the ruling class in particular, doesn't matter if it's a hardline, totalitarian state or the "free-est" democracy on Earth. I know most people probably prefer to think it works the other way around but in practice this is how "rights" actually work.

As an aside, I'm not really sure if you and I are in danger of double-breaking our oath by talking politics to each other Bob, or if the two cancel each other out?

You are forgetting, in a democracy/representative republic, the people grant themselves the rights. So it is ultimately about ME. If it were socialist or communist, then the government does hold the power and YEILD it to people as it sees fit. That is not true in a democracy. The people, as individuals, have the ultimate power.

Hey, you broke the oath first, talking about freedom. But, now I will be silent on this matter.

 

[CapnG]

You are forgetting, in a democracy/representative republic, the people grant themselves the rights. So it is ultimately about ME.

Not so. It can't be about ME in a democracy because democracy is based on majority rule, ergo it's more about US than ME.

But, as I said, that is how people prefer to think it works. In reality the powers that be will only allow so much democratic activity before imposing their will either by delay, deception or force (depends on the democracy in question).