Rouge Rover
Senior Member
- Jan 27, 2016
- 935
- 120
- 45
What about it? Yes there is a fallacy at work. Youre basically pretending that if we execute mass murders we should do the same to jay walkers. IOW the fallacy of false equivalence.Its not all or nothing. That is the fallacy in an argument such as yours. Some risks are deemed more acceptable than others. Giving your child cancer and aggravating asthma and allergies are not acceptable.Are you for seatbelts in school busses? If it's all about the kids health then maybe we should address some other things. Car windows down in a traffic jam, are you OK with that? How about video games? Are you for them? Riding bikes on anything other than flat concrete surfaces, you alright with that?
What about instant death from a face plant? How about brain chemistry being altered? There's no fallacy at work here, you either care about kids or you don't.
There is no false equivalence here. Smoking bad, right? How bad is it and when does it manifest? Leave your kid unattended, how much bad shit can happen and how soon? If it's all about the kid's health you're on a very dark path on this.
Sure there is- why you want to excuse blowing smoke in a child's face I don't get.
We know cigarette smoking is bad for the smokers health- and for those who have heavy exposure to the smoke.
Yes- this is about a kid's health.
No- we can't protect kids from every possible situation- you appear to think that our options are binary- do nothing to protect our kids from health dangers- or protect them 100% from every possible health danger- presumably because you just are pissed that anyone would possibly restrict a parents right to blow smoke in his kids face.
You're right, we can't protect kids from every possible situation. But, if you do want to protect kids from some of them what would you choose, the immediate danger or one that would be faced years later, if at all? I think your concern is misguided.