Super Bowl advertising

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be responsible for their actions. What I <b>am</b> saying is that most recreational drugs serve no useful purpose (i.e., curing disease), and with them come many risks (i.e., the person will freak out and kill someone). We need to be aware of these risks and take steps to prevent them from becoming reality.

No, we don't. That's several unsupported assertions. Perhaps recreational drugs serve no "useful purpose" for *you*, but that doesn't speak for everyone, and doesn't entitle you to start exercising cooercion over others just because *you're* filled with fear you only think is reasonable. Drugs aren't evil. Drugs don't commit crimes. Evil or irresponsible people will continue to commit mahem on others no matter how many different knids of scissors Mommy dham takes away from them. Why aren't you lobbying for alcohol prohibition? Oh...I see...alcohol has a useful purpose....for you.

Being that drunk *does* merit a death sentence when you get behind the wheel of a car, as the dimwit in the example was (only moments before he found an even dumber way to die). That'a a matter of *natural* law, not the product of some legislature...and in the court of the real world such appeals based on your personal set of values don't apply.

As for my personalization of some issues - it is only done when it seems obvious <b>to me</b> that someone is largely apathetic to an issue (or someone's fate) simply because they are so far removed from it.

Don't confuse apathy with a failure to respond to your hysteria. My analysis of the situation is just different from yours..I frame the issues differently than you do. It irritates and angers me when sombody decides that the way to deal with stupid or evil actions by other people is to try to restict my personal freedom in some pointless, arbitrary way.

{B{You always counter with "well, that <b>hasn't</b> happened" - because you're lucky, and because your daughter "knows better". Well what if she didn't? [/b]

That's an irrelevant counterfactual. And I've *never* asserted it was because I was "lucky"; you're making that one up. It's not luck.

You seem to live in a world of magic and luck, where *things* are evil or stupid rather than *people*. Simply because it's easier to make laws about things rather than behaviors doesn't mean it's the best way to regulate society and protect people.

In fact, it's the worst...