Membership Level: Full Posts: 9888 Status: Offline
Quoting: Michael Potter Taking your argument of personal rsponsibility Don, to its logical conclusion, would mean that anyone who knowingly takes a risk with their health eg smokers, dangerous sports participents, obese people etc, would all have to pay their own medical bills. Setting aside the tax that they pay, the question is, where would you draw the line?
I believe the argument here is about the Zealots in our society, constantly trying to dictate to us how we should live our lives, how we should think, what we should say, these are people, usually the Liberal Elite, eg Harriet Harman, who always think they know best. Hearing contantly all the propaganda they pour out, I honestly believe they now rank smoking, a worse crime than murder. Advice is one thing, draconian laws to force complience is another.
Listening to an eminant doctor on radio 5, on this subject, who specialised in lung desease, I was surprised to hear her say that banning smoking in cars would be a step too far, and could undo much of the good work, that she considers, has been done thus far, and no, she was not a smoker.
Alright Michael, Apart from the fact that Harriet Harman is Labour not a Liberal I agree with most of what you say.
A poster carried on the claim that "Residual smoke, is still a killer" this little gem of knowage comes from the same source that invented a cigarette generated invisable, undetectable gas that defies the laws of physics. If you want to find dangerously high levels of carcinogens take a walk in the center of any town at rush hour.
The area of Liverpool I live in has a high level of lung desease, is that because we’re all heavy smokers? or has it something to do with that in a 1 mile radious we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal & a metal cutter added to 2 arterial roads pumping out their emitions 24 hours a day. The boffins in white coat will say it’s the cigarettes. These are the same boffins who a couple of hundred years ago blamed most illnesses on bad air & their predecessors who could prove that all deseases were caused by the little old lady at the end of the village casting spells.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 1618 Status: Offline
Quoting Michael Potter,
Taking your argument of personal rsponsibility Don, to its logical conclusion, would mean that anyone who knowingly takes a risk with their health eg smokers, dangerous sports participents, obese people etc, would all have to pay their own medical bills. Setting aside the tax that they pay, the question is, where would you draw the line?
I believe the argument here is about the Zealots in our society, constantly trying to dictate to us how we should live our lives, how we should think, what we should say, these are people, usually the Liberal Elite, eg Harriet Harman, who always think they know best. Hearing contantly all the propaganda they pour out, I honestly believe they now rank smoking, a worse crime than murder. Advice is one thing, draconian laws to force complience is another.
Listening to an eminant doctor on radio 5, on this subject, who specialised in lung desease, I was surprised to hear her say that banning smoking in cars would be a step too far, and could undo much of the good work, that she considers, has been done thus far, and no, she was not a smoker. ...........................
Hi Michael, I would include obesity, but not in all cases, some is genetic, beyond the control of the individual, and that requires medical assistance, but for most of the fat bastards out there, that is self inflicted, so tough!
I also agree that there are too many zealots out there, that is why I advocate personal responsibility. If you are made aware of the risks of any activity/life style, you make your choice, then having played the tune, you pay the piper.
Sports activities which involve great risk, insure yourself.
If you are a smoker, heavy drinker, or drug addict, and you are made aware of the risks to your health, and you have taken the personal choice of continuing with the abuse to your body, okay! don’t expect society to foot the bill when your body organs fail, live (or die) with it.
We do not require zealots, just a clear understanding of what medical treatment is available, the choices are down to each and every-one of us.
As for the eminent doctor, how can it be a step too far? from what?
I know life ain’t simple, but it could be, and think how it would help reduce the population explosion.
Last edited by Don Knight
Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humour. He will always use it in evidence against you.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 2602 Status: Offline
Quoting: Michael Potter Taking your argument of personal rsponsibility Don, to its logical conclusion, would mean that anyone who knowingly takes a risk with their health eg smokers, dangerous sports participents, obese people etc, would all have to pay their own medical bills. Setting aside the tax that they pay, the question is, where would you draw the line?
I believe the argument here is about the Zealots in our society, constantly trying to dictate to us how we should live our lives, how we should think, what we should say, these are people, usually the Liberal Elite, eg Harriet Harman, who always think they know best. Hearing contantly all the propaganda they pour out, I honestly believe they now rank smoking, a worse crime than murder. Advice is one thing, draconian laws to force complience is another.
Listening to an eminant doctor on radio 5, on this subject, who specialised in lung desease, I was surprised to hear her say that banning smoking in cars would be a step too far, and could undo much of the good work, that she considers, has been done thus far, and no, she was not a smoker.
A belated Welcome from me, Michael, and I agree with your very reasoned opinion.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 2602 Status: Offline
[QUOTE]Quoting: Don Knight
Hi Michael, I would include obesity, but not in all cases, some is genetic, beyond the control of the individual, and that requires medical assistance, but for most of the fat bastards out there, that is self inflicted, so tough!
I also agree that there are too many zealots out there, that is why I advocate personal responsibility. If you are made aware of the risks of any activity/life style, you make your choice, then having played the tune, you pay the piper.
Sports activities which involve great risk, insure yourself.
If you are a smoker, heavy drinker, or drug addict, and you are made aware of the risks to your health, and you have taken the personal choice of continuing with the abuse to your body, okay! don’t expect society to foot the bill when your body organs fail, live (or die) with it.
We do not require zealots, just a clear understanding of what medical treatment is available, the choices are down to each and every-one of us.
As for the eminent doctor, how can it be a step too far? from what?
I know life ain’t simple, but it could be, and think how it would help reduce the population explosion.
How about that for profiling into a group!! .................................................................................. "I would include obesity, but not in all cases, some is genetic, beyond the control of the individual, and that requires medical assistance, but for most of the fat bastards out there, that is self inflicted, so tough!" ..........................................................................
Firstly I don’t see any "fat bastards " in starving Afirica........
And what about ALL the other hereditary illnesses which are "genetic" such as lung dieases, liver diseases, and contaminate poisonings .........
"Sports activities which involve great risk, insure yourself".
..............................................
What you are really "advocating" is private health insurance for healthy active people and NHS for inactive people, who tend to get fat because they sit on their asses all day!
Your argument turns on itself and in fact as people get old they tend to put on weight anyway!
Membership Level: Full Posts: 1618 Status: Offline
Quoting Patricia Davies
Self opinionated rigidity equals - zealot !
" a smoker, heavy drinker, or drug addict"
How about that for profiling into a group!! .................................................................................. "I would include obesity, but not in all cases, some is genetic, beyond the control of the individual, and that requires medical assistance, but for most of the fat bastards out there, that is self inflicted, so tough!" ..........................................................................
Firstly I don’t see any "fat bastards " in starving Afirica........
And what about ALL the other hereditary illnesses which are "genetic" such as lung dieases, liver diseases, and contaminate poisonings .........
"Sports activities which involve great risk, insure yourself".
..............................................
What you are really "advocating" is private health insurance for healthy active people and NHS for inactive people, who tend to get fat because they sit on their asses all day!
Your argument turns on itself and in fact as people get old they tend to put on weight anyway!
Long time since I have had to answer quotes in paragraphs, but I found this necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>
Having an opinion= zealot, I think not.
Heavy smoker, heavy drinker, drug addict. Yes a group of people who have little or no consideration for other people, and the effect it is having on those nearest to them, So yes you could profile them as selfish individuals.
The reference was to the obese (fat bastards) in this country,who are obese through over indulgence and lack of exercise Not to the ones who have genetic disorders.
Africa is somewhat different, but I can contribute a can of beans.
Don’t assume what I am advocating. High risk sports (professionals are covered) if you are partaking of high risk sports, take out insurance against injury, winter holiday makers do this as a matter of course, and I assume all intelligent people in other sports do the same.
Elderly and physically impaired people are fully covered by the NHS
If having no time for numb nuts makes me appear cruel, so be it, and if suggesting that people be given choices, as opposed to being told what to do makes me a zealot?????
I’m sorry that you felt that you had to answer, but there really was no need.
Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humour. He will always use it in evidence against you.
