EPTOn December 04 2011 21:55 tdt wrote:
I don't agree with the premise of a world population crisis and definitly don't condone murder. Just love liberty. Financial.Sexual. Religious. Smoking whatever and op's idea are an enemy to liberty.
Liberty is a natural state before someone takes it from you. Taxes take it from you. Telling you can't kill yourself with cigarettes take it from you. etc. Obviously murder robs you of liberty.
I don't agree with the premise of a world population crisis and definitly don't condone murder. Just love liberty. Financial.Sexual. Religious. Smoking whatever and op's idea are an enemy to liberty.
Liberty is a natural state before someone takes it from you. Taxes take it from you. Telling you can't kill yourself with cigarettes take it from you. etc. Obviously murder robs you of liberty.
It's amazing you can talk about liberty and "natural states" sitting comfortably warm in front of your computer while OP is talking about helping people starving to death elsewhere... People should have the liberty to do what they want, except when they're born elsewhere in a place screwed over by historical events, then they're fucked and can just go die, right?
OP isn't talking about making a law to force smokers to trade their cigarette money for charity. She's talking about an optional charity where smokers who wish to quit can potentially donate their dollars to a beneficial cause. That's not a terrible idea at all.
Your opinion on this thread seems to be that most smokers seem to prefer their cigarette money for cigarettes rather than other things, therefore the charity wouldn't work. You could have said that in exactly as many words. Instead, you talk about how people should be "encouraging smoking" (because that's wayyyy better than a charity to help starving people) and try to sound smart dropping a couple of Rousseau references that you've been mouth fed by some philosophy class in college. That's how you invalidated your argument.
