People who want to tell other people how to live - is this a red state thing? (Phoenix: home, buy)

[Howard Roark]

Please be more clear and provide an example.

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Yes, even the Libertarians, who love to tell us the right way to live is to not tell others how to live, do it.

[Nanny Goat]

I think the thing with being overweight or obese is not to judge how people look. We all have imperfections. And, people can look great at any size. But, it's a health issue. Joints are affected, more back pain, increase in all cancers, harder to breathe, heart issues/high blood pressure, increased type 2 diabetes, fatty liver, etc. It affects all body functions. And, it's an epidemic. With kids, it affects their self-esteem and health. And, kids being put on statins at 10 or so. Insanity.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Please be more clear and provide an example.

The sentence is the example: Libertarians tell us it is wrong to tell others how to live. Telling us it is wrong to tell others how to live is, in fact, just another way of telling others how to live.

[Howard Roark]

Sorry in advance, but that is lame.

I can tell you do not have a math or philosophy background based on what you say here. It just does not make sense.

Modus Ponens? Nope. Modus Tollens? Nope. What logical principle are you using in your assertion?

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The sentence is the example: Libertarians tell us it is wrong to tell others how to live. Telling us it is wrong to tell others how to live is, in fact, just another way of telling others how to live.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

For me the competition is with myself. All others can compete with themselves. The meaning of that is look how you want, act how you want, and allow others to do the same. What you would find from true conservatism is that getting government out of our life is more important than having them tell us how to live. From what I see it is the liberal side of the aisle that has a beliefe that we the people are too stupid to know what is good for us. To protect us from ourselves they will vote on legislation that will help us live the way that they see fit. Laws are put into place to protect us from us. I would rather send someone into office that does nothing then to have someone create ways to save me. I like the great majority of people can think for themselves. If you want to warn me that I can hurt myself from smoking feel free. Do not take my right away to smoke though. I can decide for myself. (Not that I smoke, But then I choose not to.) I can also decide how much to eat or not eat.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

For me the competition is with myself. All others can compete with themselves. The meaning of that is look how you want, act how you want, and allow others to do the same. What you would find from true conservatism is that getting government out of our life is more important than having them tell us how to live. From what I see it is the liberal side of the aisle that has a beliefe that we the people are too stupid to know what is good for us. To protect us from ourselves they will vote on legislation that will help us live the way that they see fit. Laws are put into place to protect us from us. I would rather send someone into office that does nothing then to have someone create ways to save me. I like the great majority of people can think for themselves. If you want to warn me that I can hurt myself from smoking feel free. Do not take my right away to smoke though. I can decide for myself. (Not that I smoke, But then I choose not to.) I can also decide how much to eat or not eat.

But children can't decide how much or what to eat, whether to get Whooping cough vaccinations or much of anything. If parents make bad choices, children can suffer. So does it make sense to outlaw Happy Meals? Do parents have the right to destroy or neglect their children's health? To run up future costs to society for life-long problems that will begin with bad habits parents taught their kids? If it's OK for parents to make decisions about food choices that will impact their health, is is OK to beat them? to molest them? to give them alcohol? drugs? How about mutilation in religious tradition? Honor killings? Do we use your list of taboos or the liberals' list? I suppose you would want us to use yours, which makes you just like everyone else: telling others how to live, believing your beliefs are better than mine.

[Bondurant]

This thread is going nowhere and has nothing to do with Phoenix. Before it, hopefully, is moved or locked I will say this...

It's scary that people support laws that dictate who can eat what. We are entering a frightening era in this country. Our civil liberties are erroding and the spiral continues under Obama. "The Government knos best" mentality will be the deathknell of the United States. Wake up. It starts with smaller things that people will accept and ignore...

[arleigh]

I think that one should make a clear distinction between what the government demends and what society accepts.
There are numerous social atmospheres, legislating one law to govern them all into conformity is our deepest concern.
Certain laws are required that are across the board including murder and thieft and the like. But the complexities of human diversity in culture such as eating, excersize, and nutrision,are choices that belong to the individual.
The law is clear concerning packaged foods being labeled with ingredience, and the information is out there ,to help people know what is healthy and what is not . people make choices .
The problem with thoose choices are when people abuse something and the public has to foot the bill to deal with it , That is the crux of the argument.
In sted of blaming some one else for providing some snac food an undiciplined person abuses himself with, the undiciplined person should be responsible for their own actions and not punish the manufacturer for providing that snack food .
Here's the contraast "the way I see it "
A concervitive has a child that is curious and puts his finger in a light fixture and gets burnt, He deals with the problem and the responsibility for his actions .
The liberal however finds a lawyer and attempts to sue the electric company for porviding the electricity or the lamp manufacturer for the lamp, unwilling to take any responsibility . That's a fact. The sad thing is companies pay off not willing to deal with frivelous lawsuits because of liberal judges that live in the same mode of conduct not wishing to take responsibility for them selves . Oh goodness what could that lead to should there be an honest accountable judge , expulsion, he'd never last , lawers would have a field day because Lawyers typically are liberal, otherwise they would not defend the known criminal. My opinion

[Nanny Goat]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

But children can't decide how much or what to eat, whether to get Whooping cough vaccinations or much of anything. If parents make bad choices, children can suffer. So does it make sense to outlaw Happy Meals? Do parents have the right to destroy or neglect their children's health? To run up future costs to society for life-long problems that will begin with bad habits parents taught their kids? If it's OK for parents to make decisions about food choices that will impact their health, is is OK to beat them? to molest them? to give them alcohol? drugs? How about mutilation in religious tradition? Honor killings? Do we use your list of taboos or the liberals' list? I suppose you would want us to use yours, which makes you just like everyone else: telling others how to live, believing your beliefs are better than mine.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by arleigh

A concervitive has a child that is curious and puts his finger in a light fixture and gets burnt, He deals with the problem and the responsibility for his actions .

Nah, the conservative condemns the liberals who forced electricity on him and longs to return to the days of the oil lamp.