Replies

Transporting children in automobiles is a greater increase in the risk of harm for children.

The difference, of course, being that there is absolutely no benefit to the child derived from the junkie filling his lungs around the kid. So the increase in the risk of harm of an activity with beneficial aspects to it is irrelevant to this question.

In addition, explain how the rates of asthma and allergies in children have increased as the smoking rates decrease. Based on that correlation alone, then not smoking around children increases their risk of contracting harmful life long health problems.

That's the dumbest, most ignorant, illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement I've read on FreeRepublic in a while. Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy. I mean, you have to be REALLY stupid not to see the fallacy in that statement. (Here's a hint: if other causes of allergies and asthma increase at a greater rate than the rate of smoking decreases, do you think the rate of allergies and asthma would increase, decrease, or remain the same?)

"....being that there is absolutely no benefit to the child derived..."

So, you want to limit allowable behaviour to those that have measurable benefits? Who gets to do the measuring, or who gets to define benefit?

"Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy."

Nice admission that using correlation to push a platform is not appropriate. Now, how do you explain your use of correllations to push government control of parental activity?

"That's the dumbest, most ignorant, illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement I've read on FreeRepublic in a while. Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy."

A#%WNDHC6734HJWCJ""""@@$^GUDBICH8SVE85423I5943JT9FG.

rIGHT-ON BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!

CSM: In addition, explain how the rates of asthma and allergies in children have increased as the smoking rates decrease. Based on that correlation alone, then not smoking around children increases their risk of contracting harmful life long health problems.
WildHorseCrash: That's the dumbest, most ignorant, illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement I've read on FreeRepublic in a while. Holy crap, it's like the perfect storm of mindless idiocy. I mean, you have to be REALLY stupid not to see the fallacy in that statement. (Here's a hint: if other causes of allergies and asthma increase at a greater rate than the rate of smoking decreases, do you think the rate of allergies and asthma would increase, decrease, or remain the same?)

Guess who made the really illogical, inane and ridiculously stupid statement? Hint: It wasn't CSM.