shortcake27 (u/shortcake27)

shortcake27 commented on Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban bbc.com/news/world-asia-6... · Posted by u/belltaco

avgcorrection · 2 years ago

> You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

No, that’s exactly how I understood it... which is categorically different from laws like a minimum voting age.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

Your original argument wasn’t about minimum voting age; you claimed the law would backfire due to the current generation.

The point is to eliminate cigarettes over a long time period and many generations, so I don’t see how it would backfire. How would there be more smokers in 2093 if the minimum age to buy cigarettes is 85?

If you want to change your argument, that’s fine, but my comment was in response to your original argument.

shortcake27 commented on Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban bbc.com/news/world-asia-6... · Posted by u/belltaco

avgcorrection · 2 years ago

What distinction are you making? In 70 years time all the current smokers are going to be dead.

Unless you think that smoking can come into vogue again. Like a cycle.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

You aren’t understanding the law. The idea was to prevent people born after 2008 buying cigarettes.

In 2028, the minimum age to buy cigarettes would be 20.

In 2048, it would be 40.

In 2093 (70 years from now), it would be 85.

So in 70 years, with this law, smokers would basically not exist. It ages people out of smoking. Without the law, the percentage of the population who smoke will remain relatively constant as people who turn 18 start smoking.

shortcake27 commented on Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban bbc.com/news/world-asia-6... · Posted by u/belltaco

sickofparadox · 2 years ago

If it was permanent, as this law was intended to be, then yes. I think that when someone born after 2008 hits their country's decided upon age of majority, they should be able to smoke, drink, or take part in any other of societies vices should they so choose.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

The problem with smoking in particular is that it costs taxpayers obscene amounts of money compared to the other things you listed, in addition to straining the healthcare system which affects people who didn’t intentionally poison themselves.

Cigarettes are also a public nuisance, littering the streets and affecting other people with smoke. I can’t open the windows in my house due to chain smoking neighbours. These people have a right to smoke, yet I don’t have a right to breathe clean air in my own home - pretty unfair if you ask me.

shortcake27 commented on Health experts criticise new NZ government's shock reversal of smoking ban bbc.com/news/world-asia-6... · Posted by u/belltaco

avgcorrection · 2 years ago

A smoke ban for that age group would be pointless where I live because no one (“”) that young smoke. They use other tobacco products (ones without any second-hand effects).

If anything it might have a backfire effect.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

The point isn’t to stop that particular age group from smoking; it’s to eliminate cigarettes in the long term (eg 70 years).

shortcake27 commented on The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy fee.org/articles/the-feds... · Posted by u/janandonly

withinboredom · 2 years ago

If you are driving like your life depends on it, you just go "Why is my car beeping at me?" and either don't worry about it, or try and figure out what is flashing on the dash, if you can spare the attention, speaking from experience, while drifting in empty corn fields, the car was beeping at me about a flat tire...

If your car just cuts off after beeping at you for something it has never beeped at you before for, you are likely to just continue straight on ... thus ending up exactly in the situation you say it won't work.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

I’m just saying that’s how the old systems worked, as that was a limitation of the time.

A modern system doesn’t have to beep. It can tell you what it’s doing, in your language, visually on the dash and audibly. Also, there’s no reason a modern vehicle designed for this type of system needs to cut all power immediately. It could cut power or limit speed over a period of time, allowing the driver to safely pull over. And there’s no reason for it to ever cut power to steering or brakes.

I think a lot of people, yourself included, are having a visceral gut reaction instead of looking at this rationally. The people responsible for the safety of vehicles aren’t going to write a law that requires a vehicle to cut its steering and brakes while the driver is cornering, when there are so many alternatives that would be equally effective but safer. You need to take a step back and apply logic and common sense to the situation.

shortcake27 commented on The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy fee.org/articles/the-feds... · Posted by u/janandonly

abduhl · 2 years ago

Cato is no doubt biased but your comment is the thing with FUD, not the study. They post exactly the question they asked in their study: do you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household in order to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.

Regardless, the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state. Even if the study question is worded in a way you disagree with or that you think is biased, you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

> the study highlights exactly the difference the GP was saying: gen z is much more likely to be okay with the surveillance state

You admit to CATO being biased but you still believe their studies are concrete proof of a hypothesis?

> you’ve presented no argument for why gen z would be disproportionately made to over-respond.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to prove the mechanism CATO uses to get its results, when their data doesn’t line up with the real world.

I’m still looking for the exact link which has details/numbers (I’m currently on my phone on patchy 4g) but my counterpoint to CATO is that in Dunedin, either the University or DCC wanted to install surveillance cameras, and after consulting with the students, the number of cameras was reduced. So in this scenario, you have an older generation wanting more surveillance and the younger generation pushing back. This is not only completely opposite to CATOs study, but is also real opposed to hypothetical.

shortcake27 commented on The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy fee.org/articles/the-feds... · Posted by u/janandonly

abduhl · 2 years ago

It’s 30%: https://www.cato.org/blog/nearly-third-gen-z-favors-home-gov...

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

Thank you, I was looking for this but couldn’t find it. My comment has been corrected.

To anyone downvoting my original comment, take a look at CATO, the style of writing used in their blog posts, their other studies, and their mission statement, and decide for yourself - are they trying to accurately represent gen z, or are they pushing an agenda?

It seems like far-right-wing organisations are expending extensive effort in an attempt to discredit gen z as a generation who are happy to have all their rights sold away and/or eroded. Yet if you speak to a young person today, it doesn’t line up.

“I read a study that said X about gen z” isn’t evidence that gen z believes / does those things.

shortcake27 commented on The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy fee.org/articles/the-feds... · Posted by u/janandonly

Retr0id · 2 years ago

Your question is simply not relevant, that isn't the choice being made here.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.

shortcake27 commented on The feds' vehicle 'kill switch' mandate is a gross violation of privacy fee.org/articles/the-feds... · Posted by u/janandonly

Retr0id · 2 years ago

You already have the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road.

shortcake27 · 2 years ago

I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.

Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?