Well let me ask you this... how much does a family member or friend "love" you or their family or friends if they are forsaking their health to the level of getting such things? This issue is very easily turned to attempt to create a sense of sympathy or empathy of the alleged victim or lack of by someone like me, but in reality, it's quite the opposite - isn't it? Can you not recognize that. Is this not merely a case of denial, selfishness or uncaring behavior that you're justifying in order to evoke or supposed to look past in order to somehow on some level justify the bad habits and actions to an extremely high, long lastingly level?
Framing your words? Semantics? Here is what you said...
All you smokers - get cancer and die. Good riddance.
Knowing that you have family members and friends that smoke, don't you find the above statement to be irrational and indifferent to those you love? I don't know many sensible people that would say such a thing, especially when there's a personal connection.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Well let me ask you this... how much does a family member or friend "love" you or their family or friends if they are forsaking their health to the level of getting such things? This issue is very easily turned to attempt to create a sense of sympathy or empathy of the alleged victim or lack of by someone like me, but in reality, it's quite the opposite - isn't it? Can you not recognize that. Is this not merely a case of denial, selfishness or uncaring behavior that you're justifying in order to evoke or supposed to look past in order to somehow on some level justify the bad habits and actions to an extremely high, long lastingly level?
My great-grandfather was a smoker. He smoked a pipe for years and years. He started smoking before anyone realized it was dangerous. He lived with empysema until he died of lung cancer when I was 12. For most of my life before he died, I remember him being on oxygen, barely able to get around the house, too weak to even change out of his pajamas, much less help my great-grandmother out around the house. She satyed home and cared for him for 10 years while he was sick. TEN years of having no life of her own, unable to travel and visit her child and grandchildren, of doing all the cooking and cleaning, of running all the errands, of not being able to work, of changing out his oxygen, of making his doctors appointments and helping him get dressed and driving him to them, of helping him to bed every night and out of bed every morning, etc. I have no doubt that, had he known what he was going to put her through because of his habit, he never would have smoked to begin with.
Well let me ask you this... how much does a family member or friend "love" you or their family or friends if they are forsaking their health to the level of getting such things? This issue is very easily turned to attempt to create a sense of sympathy or empathy of the alleged victim or lack of by someone like me, but in reality, it's quite the opposite - isn't it? Can you not recognize that. Is this not merely a case of denial, selfishness or uncaring behavior that you're justifying in order to evoke or supposed to look past in order to somehow on some level justify the bad habits and actions to an extremely high, long lastingly level?
I can tell you, as a smoker, that I love my wife and daughter more than anything in this world. And yes, I admit that I'm being selfish by continuing such a self-destructive habit. I know this, but it's called an addiction for a reason. Quitting smoking is not the easiest thing to do. Now, I don't expect or desire any sympathy from you for the difficulties I have in achieving my goal of quitting. But it's not only cold, it's down right heartless for someone to wish death upon something else simply because they picked up a bad habit. I'm guessing you had a personal experience with death that led you to feel the way you do. I'm not trying to pull out some drug store pyschology, but it definitely is not natural to feel such disdain toward your fellow human beings, especially loved ones, simply because they smoke cigarettes.
Honest question here - say your neighbor's child was hit by a car...you knew the parents had told this kid to not play in the street, but he wandered into traffic anyway and was killed. Would you look out of your window at the accident and simply say, "Ah well, kid got what he deserved" ???
See, this is where it starts to push the lines of reason for me….if there is a glass wall separating two sides of a room…the smoking side has proper ventilation, air quality monitoring etc…how much more dangerous is the ‘seepage’ of smoke than the exhaust in the parking lot?
Of course, partition walls only apply to a split building. What of the ‘all smoking’ establishments? How do they infringe on anyone’s rights if the workers are aware of the hazards and provided a way to stay safe?
Again, there is no way to stay safe in an "all smoking" establishment. And I don't think your split building partition walls are realistic.
I agree that ‘near doors’ is a good rule. But isn't it overboard to not allow the bus I mentioned? Or to say that a wind-break wall can’t be constructed in the back alley to shield smokers from severe wind chills? THAT is what I said was harassment – that and changing the rules as people found ways to accommodate smokers.
And yes – no smoking in ANY public place. That includes outdoor public places (patios), and cigar bars. I don’t recall there being any actual ‘cigar bars’ here when the law was enacted, but NO ONE has been exempted.
I can't comment about the bus or wind-break wall since I don't know all the details. I have no doubt, though, that if any establishments had existed for the sole purpose of smoking (like cigar bars) then they would have been exempted.
What about just walking down the street? Is smoking banned then too?
Nudity is allowed in strip bars. Sex in brothels. Urination/defecation in public bathrooms.
The workplace is more complex, yes, but all of those things are legal in SOME workplaces, and not subject to blanket bans.
Well, here nudity is regulated in strip clubs, brothels are illegal, and smoking is allowed in cigar bars & casinos. Your urination/defecation defense doesn't count because bathrooms are still private places intended for that purpose. I'm sure if smoke didn't travel they would allow bathroom-type places for people to smoke too.
No, not banned on the sidewalk…unless you’re near a doorway.
No, there’s no way to stay safe, but we’re back to the construction site analogy. If an adult chooses to work in that environment, the employer makes them aware of the hazards, and provides them with a means to protect themselves…..what’s the problem?
The partition walls are not unrealistic. It’s what bars, bingo halls, casinos etc around here did after the first incarnation of the law which stated their had to be full-height walls and proper ventilation provided. After these establishments spent all that money to build the walls…they changed the rules and outlawed it altogether.
Like I said - zero exemptions. There was a tobacco shop that said they relied heavily on allowing smoking, as their customers stayed to smoke (wasn’t exactly a cigar bar). They closed their doors after being denied an exemption. Same with a members-only club started by an AA group. A HUGE majority of their members smoked, so they tried for an exemption. That’s basically what they did – sat around and smoked. No food. No drinks. No public access. They denied them, and the centre closed. What good did that accomplish? A bunch of booze addicts lost a big part of their support structure. Nonsense!
I have no problem with regulation, as stated. I’m sure there are massage parlours or escorts where you live. That is regulation (wink wink regulation…but regulation nonetheless). Urination/defecation DOES count, because piss and shit WOULD travel without the proper disposal system…just like smoke
ok, I'm done.
No, there’s no way to stay safe, but we’re back to the construction site analogy. If an adult chooses to work in that environment, the employer makes them aware of the hazards, and provides them with a means to protect themselves…..what’s the problem?
The partition walls are not unrealistic. It’s what bars, bingo halls, casinos etc around here did after the first incarnation of the law which stated their had to be full-height walls and proper ventilation provided. After these establishments spent all that money to build the walls…they changed the rules and outlawed it altogether.
A simple cost-benefit analysis will show the difference between construction and smoking. Construction is a necessary part of society. Huge benefit is gained from construction, as from other events that are regulated but not banned. No real benefit, however, is gained from smoking.
When it comes to hazard regulation, there is a heirarchy of controls. From best (most effective) to worst (least effective), it goes like this: 1. elimination of the hazard, 2. substitution, 3. engineering controls, 4. administrative controls, 5. personal protective equipment. Which control you use is influenced in part by the cost of implementing that control or, put another way, by the benefit of not implementing that control. So while it would cost society a great benefit to eliminate construction altogether, we don't lose any great benefit from eliminating the hazard of indoor smoking.
Also, you suggest that, like construction zones, we should implement only the least effective control when it comes to smoking. But I'm sure construction zones have other control in place as well, besided just personal protective equipment.
Regarding partition walls being unrealistic, I said that because you specifically said they would only work in a split building. How many places that you know are split buildings? I'm thinking of my favorite bar/music venue, and there's no way it would work there.
Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:
What is the source for this information? Frankly, I don't know how anyone can accurately calculate the number of deaths due to second hand smoking, but a quick google search turned up multiple sources that claim the average is around 50,000 deaths per year (this is included in the 450,000 annual deaths of Americans due to smoking).
Looks like that number was from an old study, so your data is more likely to be accurate. Here's the source of the number I quoted (which was quoted in my 2007 textbook):
US Environmental Protection Agency. Resipiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: EPA; 1992. EPA publication 600/6-90/006F.
Here's another question, which might get more to the point of the thread (or maybe not; it could be too late): Why don't we tax cigarettes more? My state's annual legislative session just ended today and a bill that would increase taxes on cigarettes failed (as did the bills to increase taxes on alcohol and suger-sweetened beverages). And yet the budgets of our Medicaid program and other public health programs were decreased for lack of revenue. We know that smoking (and drinking and consuming sugar-sweetened beverages) costs us a lot of money in added public healthcare costs. So why are people reluctant to raise money to pay for these services by taxing the completely unnecessary products that create their need? Also, how does it benefit anyone when we lose funding for prevention programs and programs that help people quit smoking in order to preserve people's easy consumption of cigarettes?
I don't doubt this for one moment, but can't we sit here and honestly admit that the vast majority for roughly 20+ years do know what the risks and effects of these habits cause? I do have sympathy for those that did not honestly know which it appears your story is telling and there's a good deal of people like that.
My great-grandfather was a smoker. He smoked a pipe for years and years. He started smoking before anyone realized it was dangerous. He lived with empysema until he died of lung cancer when I was 12. For most of my life before he died, I remember him being on oxygen, barely able to get around the house, too weak to even change out of his pajamas, much less help my great-grandmother out around the house. She satyed home and cared for him for 10 years while he was sick. TEN years of having no life of her own, unable to travel and visit her child and grandchildren, of doing all the cooking and cleaning, of running all the errands, of not being able to work, of changing out his oxygen, of making his doctors appointments and helping him get dressed and driving him to them, of helping him to bed every night and out of bed every morning, etc. I have no doubt that, had he known what he was going to put her through because of his habit, he never would have smoked to begin with.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It is easy to pick up habits, but at the same time, at some point in our life we have to act like adults and either make decisions that benefit ourselves in good ways, or be held accountable and responsible for those we do not. What we do in life (whether good, bad or indifferent) shapes our future... and if these are the decisions a person makes as an adult, they have to live with the results. You say my thoughts or comments are disdainful towards people or loved ones because I don't share the same level of sympathy - I think it's merely a harsh reality people care to ignore or not acknowledge. People make excuses or put up blinders compared to just being honest and open. I don't think or view the world and society around me with these illusions and hold people accountable and responsible for their decisions. If we want to be treated like adults, we have to act the part as well.
In terms of your analogy below, I don't think it's fair to hold a child to the same standards as an adult in these type of situations. Adults are supposed to make decisions based on knowledge, experience and similar - something we don't expect children to necessary have and especially in important decisions and topics. Adults can recognize (or are supposed to) the ramifications of their actions and decisions - so I don't really think your comparison is a fair example.
I can tell you, as a smoker, that I love my wife and daughter more than anything in this world. And yes, I admit that I'm being selfish by continuing such a self-destructive habit. I know this, but it's called an addiction for a reason. Quitting smoking is not the easiest thing to do. Now, I don't expect or desire any sympathy from you for the difficulties I have in achieving my goal of quitting. But it's not only cold, it's down right heartless for someone to wish death upon something else simply because they picked up a bad habit. I'm guessing you had a personal experience with death that led you to feel the way you do. I'm not trying to pull out some drug store pyschology, but it definitely is not natural to feel such disdain toward your fellow human beings, especially loved ones, simply because they smoke cigarettes.
Honest question here - say your neighbor's child was hit by a car...you knew the parents had told this kid to not play in the street, but he wandered into traffic anyway and was killed. Would you look out of your window at the accident and simply say, "Ah well, kid got what he deserved" ???
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't doubt this for one moment, but can't we sit here and honestly admit that the vast majority for roughly 20+ years do know what the risks and effects of these habits cause? I do have sympathy for those that did not honestly know which it appears your story is telling and there's a good deal of people like that.
My great-grandfather was a smoker. He smoked a pipe for years and years. He started smoking before anyone realized it was dangerous. He lived with empysema until he died of lung cancer when I was 12. For most of my life before he died, I remember him being on oxygen, barely able to get around the house, too weak to even change out of his pajamas, much less help my great-grandmother out around the house. She satyed home and cared for him for 10 years while he was sick. TEN years of having no life of her own, unable to travel and visit her child and grandchildren, of doing all the cooking and cleaning, of running all the errands, of not being able to work, of changing out his oxygen, of making his doctors appointments and helping him get dressed and driving him to them, of helping him to bed every night and out of bed every morning, etc. I have no doubt that, had he known what he was going to put her through because of his habit, he never would have smoked to begin with.
My point was that people now choose not to think about (or do anything about) the hell they're ultimately deciding to put their loved ones through.
First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.
thank fuck we banned smoking in bars here... idiots who smoke and quite happily pass their smoke onto bar staff are no better than those nazi doctors who injected chemicals into the eyes of twins.
sometimes people take a job because they have to... some people take on a job in a smokey bar because they have food to put on a table...
and if it means smokers have to walk 8 feet to the door so they can smoke outside then its a good thing for everybody... not only are smokers selfish, but they are too fucking lazy to walk to the bar door for a ciggy?... might help cut the obesity problems at the same time...
WOW.... crap ! I would like to award you with the flying fickle finger of faith award.
your post is just bull shit...fuck you, remind me to put my cig out on your forehead asshole.
Here's another question, which might get more to the point of the thread (or maybe not; it could be too late): Why don't we tax cigarettes more? My state's annual legislative session just ended today and a bill that would increase taxes on cigarettes failed (as did the bills to increase taxes on alcohol and suger-sweetened beverages). And yet the budgets of our Medicaid program and other public health programs were decreased for lack of revenue. We know that smoking (and drinking and consuming sugar-sweetened beverages) costs us a lot of money in added public healthcare costs. So why are people reluctant to raise money to pay for these services by taxing the completely unnecessary products that create their need? Also, how does it benefit anyone when we lose funding for prevention programs and programs that help people quit smoking in order to preserve people's easy consumption of cigarettes?
The anti-smoking campaign here is insanely aggressive. They've made all stores that sell them cover up their displays. They're kept in cabinets or behind curtains, and cost $12 a pack. The problem they've encountered in the past is the black market it creates. I'd like to see a breakdown of cig tax expenditures here...if the money is going to anti-smoking education, r&d, healthcare etc...I'm all for it. Otherwise, it's just another tax on the poor, really...like 'get cancer and die, good riddance...but give me all your money while you do it', or something like that
Plus...I hate to mention it, but it's valid (probably to the obesity argument too) :
If your concern is cost/benefit...most studies don't factor in the elderly care savings realized by smokers dying 10 years younger.
Either way - I've heard that since the taxes were raised, it's had a big effect on the number of smokers in my province. I'm sure ALL of these programs help to that end, which is a good thing. It's mostly the personal freedom side of this that bothers me from the poli-sci perspective. On the personal/emotional level, it's the intolerance.
A simple cost-benefit analysis will show the difference between construction and smoking. Construction is a necessary part of society. Huge benefit is gained from construction, as from other events that are regulated but not banned. No real benefit, however, is gained from smoking.
Regarding partition walls being unrealistic, I said that because you specifically said they would only work in a split building. How many places that you know are split buildings? I'm thinking of my favorite bar/music venue, and there's no way it would work there.
When the laws were in flux in my city, there were quite a few places that partitioned their businesses...they basically had to make it two separate areas, with 'adequate' ventilation in the smoking side. Usually just a glassed in smoking area. Why wouldn't it work at your fav bar? One room closed in? They still do it in airports all over the world...
As for the rest of the safety stuff...I'm involved with that control process on a nearly daily basis, I know how it works. The construction analogy was to point out hypocrisy, not define the debate. As long as smoking is legal, there is a demographic that will seek ways to smoke socially...I think it's wrong to say that smoking is ok in the privacy of your home, but not in a private business/club/establishment that has agreed to protect the rights of minors and non-smokers. As long as the rights of non-smokers aren't infringed upon, that business owner should be doing the cost-benefit analysis, not the government. Now stop making me sound like a righty
In terms of your analogy below, I don't think it's fair to hold a child to the same standards as an adult in these type of situations. Adults are supposed to make decisions based on knowledge, experience and similar - something we don't expect children to necessary have and especially in important decisions and topics. Adults can recognize (or are supposed to) the ramifications of their actions and decisions - so I don't really think your comparison is a fair example.
The AVERAGE age of a new smoker in the US is 13. they're addicted, and it's normalized before they have any kind of realistic understanding of their mortality.
Despite that ^ fact, I understand the point you're trying to relay about accountability as they get older....But yes, I do take exception to your choice of words. Unless you want to be held to the same forum standards as a child fuckin around on youtube. ...it was meant to sound hard and spark debate, I get that..but it came across as inflammatory tabloid garbage to me.
I have a question for all the non smokers. What if it wasn't tobaco and it were something else like herb ? would you still feel the same way about second hand smoke ?
If your concern is cost/benefit...most studies don't factor in the elderly care savings realized by smokers dying 10 years younger.
I'd like to see the data showing a net savings. Just because they die sooner doesn't mean they don't spend as much money in all the extra healthcare needed before they day. Most healthcare dollars in general are spent on end-of-life care, and end-of-life is end-of-life whether you're 65 or 75.
My favorite bar/music venue has two rooms: one with the bar and another with the stage - both tiny. If they made one room the smoking room, non-smokers wouldn't have access to the bar. If they made the other room the smoking room, non-smokers wouldn't have access to the stage.
As long as the rights of non-smokers aren't infringed upon...
I think the whole point is that this doesn't happen - the rights of non-smokers ARE infringed upon - which is why regulations are needed. If non-smokers' rights weren't infringed upon I couldn't give a shit what people do. They could light themselves on fire for all I care (though they should be taxed up the ass for it to pay for their medical care).
I have a question for all the non smokers. What if it wasn't tobaco and it were something else like herb ? would you still feel the same way about second hand smoke ?
Is it a carcinogen or other health hazard? Regardless, I don't want to have to inhale something that interferes with my ability to breathe. Even incense can be damaging to people's lungs.
What we do in life (whether good, bad or indifferent) shapes our future... and if these are the decisions a person makes as an adult, they have to live with the results. You say my thoughts or comments are disdainful towards people or loved ones because I don't share the same level of sympathy - I think it's merely a harsh reality people care to ignore or not acknowledge. People make excuses or put up blinders compared to just being honest and open. I don't think or view the world and society around me with these illusions and hold people accountable and responsible for their decisions. If we want to be treated like adults, we have to act the part as well.
Here's a quick story. About a month ago, I drove past a motorcycle accident on the way to visit my sister. The police and paramedics had just arrived and the I saw the guy laying there, dead on the side of the road. He wasn't wearing a helmet and, well I don't need to give any more details. I quickly asked my wife to distract my 5-year old daugther who was sitting in the backseat. She didn't need to see that. Hell, I didn't need to see that. Now, this guy died because of a stupid decision to not wear a helmet, but I don't just cast it off as natural selection and act like a robot with no feelings or emotion. That was someone's son. Or brother. Or spouse. I feel empathy for the person whose world is now crushed because the one they love the most is gone. It's arcane to me how you appear to not be able to see this through a personal lens and feel a little compassion, regardless of the reason why the guy died.
In terms of your analogy below, I don't think it's fair to hold a child to the same standards as an adult in these type of situations. Adults are supposed to make decisions based on knowledge, experience and similar - something we don't expect children to necessary have and especially in important decisions and topics. Adults can recognize (or are supposed to) the ramifications of their actions and decisions - so I don't really think your comparison is a fair example.
Okay, fair enough. Your earlier post about "play in traffic, you get hit by a car" had me wondering if it was only applicable to the reckless driver analogy. I just wanted to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.
thank fuck we banned smoking in bars here... idiots who smoke and quite happily pass their smoke onto bar staff are no better than those nazi doctors who injected chemicals into the eyes of twins.
sometimes people take a job because they have to... some people take on a job in a smokey bar because they have food to put on a table...
and if it means smokers have to walk 8 feet to the door so they can smoke outside then its a good thing for everybody... not only are smokers selfish, but they are too fucking lazy to walk to the bar door for a ciggy?... might help cut the obesity problems at the same time...
WOW.... crap ! I would like to award you with the flying fickle finger of faith award.
your post is just bull shit...fuck you, remind me to put my cig out on your forehead asshole.
Godfather.
relax man... have a cancer stick or something.. jeez
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Yes the average new smoker is 13 - but people need to practice these bad habits for a long ass time for them to have the type of effects we're discussing. At some point that child will be an adult smoker and fully aware of the decisions and ramifications of their decisions. And if they continue that habit long enough, you'll deserve what they get as a result.
The AVERAGE age of a new smoker in the US is 13. they're addicted, and it's normalized before they have any kind of realistic understanding of their mortality.
Despite that ^ fact, I understand the point you're trying to relay about accountability as they get older....But yes, I do take exception to your choice of words. Unless you want to be held to the same forum standards as a child fuckin around on youtube. ...it was meant to sound hard and spark debate, I get that..but it came across as inflammatory tabloid garbage to me.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I do have empathy for the family member of such a scenario because in the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions... ie this motorcyclist is responsible for not wearing a helmet and even if his family urged him to wear one, you can't force people to do things they do not want too. But even with all this stated, can we both agree that the motorcyclist's decision to not wear a helmet resulted in this result - so why should we feel bad or something over that fact? Perhaps you focus on the reaction towards the family, but isn't this merely displacement of emotion and responsibility on the fact of the matter? The motorcyclist caused these problems, suffered as a result and then his family will suffer as a result of their not having him in their life. It all still goes back to that persons' decision and ramifications of it.
Here's a quick story. About a month ago, I drove past a motorcycle accident on the way to visit my sister. The police and paramedics had just arrived and the I saw the guy laying there, dead on the side of the road. He wasn't wearing a helmet and, well I don't need to give any more details. I quickly asked my wife to distract my 5-year old daugther who was sitting in the backseat. She didn't need to see that. Hell, I didn't need to see that. Now, this guy died because of a stupid decision to not wear a helmet, but I don't just cast it off as natural selection and act like a robot with no feelings or emotion. That was someone's son. Or brother. Or spouse. I feel empathy for the person whose world is now crushed because the one they love the most is gone. It's arcane to me how you appear to not be able to see this through a personal lens and feel a little compassion, regardless of the reason why the guy died.
In terms of your analogy below, I don't think it's fair to hold a child to the same standards as an adult in these type of situations. Adults are supposed to make decisions based on knowledge, experience and similar - something we don't expect children to necessary have and especially in important decisions and topics. Adults can recognize (or are supposed to) the ramifications of their actions and decisions - so I don't really think your comparison is a fair example.
Okay, fair enough. Your earlier post about "play in traffic, you get hit by a car" had me wondering if it was only applicable to the reckless driver analogy. I just wanted to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I do have empathy for the family member of such a scenario because in the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions... ie this motorcyclist is responsible for not wearing a helmet and even if his family urged him to wear one, you can't force people to do things they do not want too. But even with all this stated, can we both agree that the motorcyclist's decision to not wear a helmet resulted in this result - so why should we feel bad or something over that fact? Perhaps you focus on the reaction towards the family, but isn't this merely displacement of emotion and responsibility on the fact of the matter? The motorcyclist caused these problems, suffered as a result and then his family will suffer as a result of their not having him in their life. It all still goes back to that persons' decision and ramifications of it.
Empathy is that unique human ability to imagine oneself in another’s position, to understand how others think and feel, to emotionally enter another person’s world, and to respond with compassion. This is essential to healthy relationships, social unity and personal growth.
In order to feel love, a person must be able to feel empathy. Narcissists and psychopaths lack empathy. The same applies to people with other personality disorders.
Q. How important is empathy to proper psychological functioning?
A. Empathy is more important socially than it is psychologically. The absence of empathy - for instance in the Narcissistic and Antisocial personality disorders - predisposes people to exploit and abuse others. Empathy is the bedrock of our sense of morality. Arguably, aggressive behavior is as inhibited by empathy at least as much as it is by anticipated punishment.
But the existence of empathy in a person is also a sign of self-awareness, a healthy identity, a well-regulated sense of self-worth, and self-love (in the positive sense). Its absence denotes emotional and cognitive immaturity, an inability to love, to truly relate to others, to respect their boundaries and accept their needs, feelings, hopes, fears, choices, and preferences as autonomous entities.
I just stated, I can feel empathy for the family member or friend of such a person, but do not feel any such thing for the actual person who puts themselves in such a situation or predicament.
Also, I rather find it funny you're throwing such terms in my direction but completely disregard the lack of empathy, responsibility or accountability of the person ACTUALLY putting their family member or friend through such things as a result of their own decisions and actions.
I do have empathy for the family member of such a scenario because in the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions... ie this motorcyclist is responsible for not wearing a helmet and even if his family urged him to wear one, you can't force people to do things they do not want too. But even with all this stated, can we both agree that the motorcyclist's decision to not wear a helmet resulted in this result - so why should we feel bad or something over that fact? Perhaps you focus on the reaction towards the family, but isn't this merely displacement of emotion and responsibility on the fact of the matter? The motorcyclist caused these problems, suffered as a result and then his family will suffer as a result of their not having him in their life. It all still goes back to that persons' decision and ramifications of it.
Empathy is that unique human ability to imagine oneself in another’s position, to understand how others think and feel, to emotionally enter another person’s world, and to respond with compassion. This is essential to healthy relationships, social unity and personal growth.
In order to feel love, a person must be able to feel empathy. Narcissists and psychopaths lack empathy. The same applies to people with other personality disorders.
Q. How important is empathy to proper psychological functioning?
A. Empathy is more important socially than it is psychologically. The absence of empathy - for instance in the Narcissistic and Antisocial personality disorders - predisposes people to exploit and abuse others. Empathy is the bedrock of our sense of morality. Arguably, aggressive behavior is as inhibited by empathy at least as much as it is by anticipated punishment.
But the existence of empathy in a person is also a sign of self-awareness, a healthy identity, a well-regulated sense of self-worth, and self-love (in the positive sense). Its absence denotes emotional and cognitive immaturity, an inability to love, to truly relate to others, to respect their boundaries and accept their needs, feelings, hopes, fears, choices, and preferences as autonomous entities.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I just stated, I can feel empathy for the family member or friend of such a person, but do not feel any such thing for the actual person who puts themselves in such a situation or predicament.
Also, I rather find it funny you're throwing such terms in my direction but completely disregard the lack of empathy, responsibility or accountability of the person ACTUALLY putting their family member or friend through such things as a result of their own decisions and actions.
I've stated several times in this thread that I do understand personal accountability and responsibility, but it doesn't mean that I lack any feeling of compassion or basic human emotion simply because a person's death may have been the result of a poor decision or lifestyle choice. Sorry, but I am not an emotionally shallow person with little to no regard for human life.
Do you not feel empathy for casualties of war? According to your logic, the soldiers knew the assumed risk when they signed up for the military, so why feel any emotion for them when they die? I've presented scenarios and you continually suggest the person got what they deserved based on the situation they put themselves in.
Many of you attempt to throw this emotional psychology garbage in my direction and I find it rather funny. You sit here and defend people who forsake their families, health, welfare and similar to extreme levels and do nothing but make excuses for it, yet on the same hand, when I bring it up, throw stones in my direction?
People who have these kind of issues (addiction and similar) are the ones with psychological and emotional issues - not me. Get it and your logic straight and in order. I believe in justice, accountability and responsibility - none of which are emotionally depraved. You say things like "no regard for human life", yet look at the people you're defending - people with no regard for their own life, because they are throwing it away in a selfish and conscious decision making manner regardless of how it effects others (family, friends, etc).. yet you sit here and call me names for acknowledging these facts. It's pretty nonsensical and hypocritical to say the least.
I've stated several times in this thread that I do understand personal accountability and responsibility, but it doesn't mean that I lack any feeling of compassion or basic human emotion simply because a person's death may have been the result of a poor decision or lifestyle choice. Sorry, but I am not an emotionally shallow person with little to no regard for human life.
Do you not feel empathy for casualties of war? According to your logic, the soldiers knew the assumed risk when they signed up for the military, so why feel any emotion for them when they die? I've presented scenarios and you continually suggest the person got what they deserved based on the situation they put themselves in.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Many of you attempt to throw this emotional psychology garbage in my direction and I find it rather funny. You sit here and defend people who forsake their families, health, welfare and similar to extreme levels and do nothing but make excuses for it, yet on the same hand, when I bring it up, throw stones in my direction?
People who have these kind of issues (addiction and similar) are the ones with psychological and emotional issues - not me. Get it and your logic straight and in order. I believe in justice, accountability and responsibility - none of which are emotionally depraved. You say things like "no regard for human life", yet look at the people you're defending - people with no regard for their own life, because they are throwing it away in a selfish and conscious decision making manner regardless of how it effects others (family, friends, etc).. yet you sit here and call me names for acknowledging these facts. It's pretty nonsensical and hypocritical to say the least.
It's not garbage, nonsensical, or hypocritical - it's psychology 101. My wife is a psychologist and I know a thing or two about this. Trust me, it is unnatural to possess your viewpoint toward human life absent unresolved pyschological trauma. Most likely, someone very close to you passed away due to a poor decision they made (smoking, reckless driving, etc) and you have never properly dealt with your feelings and emotions. I'm not calling you names or being unreasonable here, I just know what I'm talking about. Maybe this is uncomfortable for you and you don't want to disclose the personal event that led to you becoming this way, but you started all of this by saying you wished all smokers would get cancer and die, and good riddance. And then you confirmed that some of your family members and friends smoke. So you basically wished death upon your loved ones simply because they have an addiction. And you think I have a twisted sense of reality?
Firstly - completely wrong on your psychological analysis of me.
Secondly - please use all this psychological analysis and point it at the people making these decisions firstly...when you do that - I'll be more than happy to discuss my reasons I have my views.
It's not garbage, nonsensical, or hypocritical - it's psychology 101. My wife is a psychologist and I know a thing or two about this. Trust me, it is unnatural to possess your viewpoint toward human life absent unresolved pyschological trauma. Most likely, someone very close to you passed away due to a poor decision they made (smoking, reckless driving, etc) and you have never properly dealt with your feelings and emotions. I'm not calling you names or being unreasonable here, I just know what I'm talking about. Maybe you don't want to disclose the personal event that led to you becoming this way, but you started all of this by saying you wished all smokers would get cancer and die, and good riddance. And then you confirmed that some of your family members and friends smoke. And you think I have a twisted sense of reality?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Firstly - completely wrong on your psychological analysis of me.
Secondly - please use all this psychological analysis and point it at the people making these decisions firstly...when you do that - I'll be more than happy to discuss my reasons I have my views.
It's not garbage, nonsensical, or hypocritical - it's psychology 101. My wife is a psychologist and I know a thing or two about this. Trust me, it is unnatural to possess your viewpoint toward human life absent unresolved pyschological trauma. Most likely, someone very close to you passed away due to a poor decision they made (smoking, reckless driving, etc) and you have never properly dealt with your feelings and emotions. I'm not calling you names or being unreasonable here, I just know what I'm talking about. Maybe you don't want to disclose the personal event that led to you becoming this way, but you started all of this by saying you wished all smokers would get cancer and die, and good riddance. And then you confirmed that some of your family members and friends smoke. And you think I have a twisted sense of reality?
Social conditioning? I'm opened to reasoned debate here, but I can't even begin to understand your perspective unless you discuss the reasons why you have those views.
Once again and this appears to be turning into ping-pong... you pass off the reasons and psychological/ emotional issues of the group in question that carry out these long term, harmful habits, yet pass your judgment on me. You claim you can't even begin to understand my rational - how bout you turn that upon the people making conscious, adult decisions which cause harm to themselves, their families and friends? Seems like you're displacing that key area upon me when in fact, it should be on them.
Social conditioning? I'm opened to reasoned debate here, but I can't even begin to understand your perspective unless you discuss the reasons why you have those views.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Once again and this appears to be turning into ping-pong... you pass off the reasons and psychological/ emotional issues of the group in question that carry out these long term, harmful habits, yet pass your judgment on me. You claim you can't even begin to understand my rational - how bout you turn that upon the people making conscious, adult decisions which cause harm to themselves, their families and friends? Seems like you're displacing that key area upon me when in fact, it should be on them.
Social conditioning? I'm opened to reasoned debate here, but I can't even begin to understand your perspective unless you discuss the reasons why you have those views.
Look, basic pyshological facts back up my argument that YOU are suppressing feelings of some kind, not me. It is not normal to feel so apathetic and disdainful toward human beings simply because they made decisions you don't agree with or think they should have avoided. You can apply your distorted logic to any single tragic event and blame the death on the individual, without any regard to the outcome. John drove home from work and got hit by a mack truck. Well, he knew the assumed risk of driving a car, so he's at fault and we shouldn't shed a tear. The luge accident. Again, guy knew it was dangerous, so why should I care he's dead. Sally's heart disease must have been from eating all those cheeseburgers. Fuck her. Police offer killed in the line of duty. Again, he knew the risks, so why should I care if he's 6 feet under. Firefighters... fuck em all, right?
And you honestly, deep in your being, think I'm delusional for feeling sympathy for any of these individuals. I've agreed with you several times that people need to be more personally accountable for their actions, but I don't just slap the "they deserved it" tag and move on when someone dies. The sooner that people like you begin to deal with unpleasant emotions and stop displacing blame and hurt onto others for their shortcomings, the better off we'll all be as a society. Some situations in life are avoidable, some are not. Regardless, I still care deeply about a lot of people and I would NEVER wish anyone dead just because they have a vice. Good luck in life my friend.
With certain things in life, like your health, yes I do feel this way. There are certain things we control and certain things we do not. You don't agree with me, and I don't discount your right to have sympathy or empathy in that scenario, but do not tell me I have to agree or view it in the same manner or there is something wrong with me. That is a load of crap and nothing more. Also, you can keep all of you psychological analysis to yourself as none of it pointed at me is close to correct.
Look, basic pyshological facts back up my argument that YOU are suppressing feelings of some kind, not me. It is not normal to feel so apathetic and disdainful toward human beings simply because they made decisions you don't agree with or think they should have avoided. You can apply your distorted logic to any single tragic event and blame the death on the individual, without any regard to the outcome. John drove home from work and got hit by a mack truck. Well, he knew the assumed risk of driving a car, so he's at fault and we shouldn't shed a tear. The luge accident. Again, guy knew it was dangerous, so why should I care he's dead. Sally's heart disease must have been from eating all those cheeseburgers. Fuck her. Police offer killed in the line of duty. Again, he knew the risks, so why should I care if he's 6 feet under. Firefighters... fuck em all, right?
And you honestly, deep in your being, think I'm delusional for feeling sympathy for any of these individuals. I've agreed with you several times that people need to be more personally accountable for their actions, but I don't just slap the "they deserved it" tag and move on when someone dies. The sooner that people like you begin to deal with unpleasant emotions and stop displacing blame and hurt onto others for their shortcomings, the better off we'll all be as a society. Some situations in life are avoidable, some are not. Regardless, I still care deeply about a lot of people and I would NEVER wish anyone dead just because they have a vice. Good luck in life my friend.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
My great-grandfather was a smoker. He smoked a pipe for years and years. He started smoking before anyone realized it was dangerous. He lived with empysema until he died of lung cancer when I was 12. For most of my life before he died, I remember him being on oxygen, barely able to get around the house, too weak to even change out of his pajamas, much less help my great-grandmother out around the house. She satyed home and cared for him for 10 years while he was sick. TEN years of having no life of her own, unable to travel and visit her child and grandchildren, of doing all the cooking and cleaning, of running all the errands, of not being able to work, of changing out his oxygen, of making his doctors appointments and helping him get dressed and driving him to them, of helping him to bed every night and out of bed every morning, etc. I have no doubt that, had he known what he was going to put her through because of his habit, he never would have smoked to begin with.
I can tell you, as a smoker, that I love my wife and daughter more than anything in this world. And yes, I admit that I'm being selfish by continuing such a self-destructive habit. I know this, but it's called an addiction for a reason. Quitting smoking is not the easiest thing to do. Now, I don't expect or desire any sympathy from you for the difficulties I have in achieving my goal of quitting. But it's not only cold, it's down right heartless for someone to wish death upon something else simply because they picked up a bad habit. I'm guessing you had a personal experience with death that led you to feel the way you do. I'm not trying to pull out some drug store pyschology, but it definitely is not natural to feel such disdain toward your fellow human beings, especially loved ones, simply because they smoke cigarettes.
Honest question here - say your neighbor's child was hit by a car...you knew the parents had told this kid to not play in the street, but he wandered into traffic anyway and was killed. Would you look out of your window at the accident and simply say, "Ah well, kid got what he deserved" ???
No, there’s no way to stay safe, but we’re back to the construction site analogy. If an adult chooses to work in that environment, the employer makes them aware of the hazards, and provides them with a means to protect themselves…..what’s the problem?
The partition walls are not unrealistic. It’s what bars, bingo halls, casinos etc around here did after the first incarnation of the law which stated their had to be full-height walls and proper ventilation provided. After these establishments spent all that money to build the walls…they changed the rules and outlawed it altogether.
Like I said - zero exemptions. There was a tobacco shop that said they relied heavily on allowing smoking, as their customers stayed to smoke (wasn’t exactly a cigar bar). They closed their doors after being denied an exemption. Same with a members-only club started by an AA group. A HUGE majority of their members smoked, so they tried for an exemption. That’s basically what they did – sat around and smoked. No food. No drinks. No public access. They denied them, and the centre closed. What good did that accomplish? A bunch of booze addicts lost a big part of their support structure. Nonsense!
I have no problem with regulation, as stated. I’m sure there are massage parlours or escorts where you live. That is regulation (wink wink regulation…but regulation nonetheless). Urination/defecation DOES count, because piss and shit WOULD travel without the proper disposal system…just like smoke
ok, I'm done.
A simple cost-benefit analysis will show the difference between construction and smoking. Construction is a necessary part of society. Huge benefit is gained from construction, as from other events that are regulated but not banned. No real benefit, however, is gained from smoking.
When it comes to hazard regulation, there is a heirarchy of controls. From best (most effective) to worst (least effective), it goes like this: 1. elimination of the hazard, 2. substitution, 3. engineering controls, 4. administrative controls, 5. personal protective equipment. Which control you use is influenced in part by the cost of implementing that control or, put another way, by the benefit of not implementing that control. So while it would cost society a great benefit to eliminate construction altogether, we don't lose any great benefit from eliminating the hazard of indoor smoking.
Also, you suggest that, like construction zones, we should implement only the least effective control when it comes to smoking. But I'm sure construction zones have other control in place as well, besided just personal protective equipment.
Regarding partition walls being unrealistic, I said that because you specifically said they would only work in a split building. How many places that you know are split buildings? I'm thinking of my favorite bar/music venue, and there's no way it would work there.
Looks like that number was from an old study, so your data is more likely to be accurate. Here's the source of the number I quoted (which was quoted in my 2007 textbook):
US Environmental Protection Agency. Resipiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: EPA; 1992. EPA publication 600/6-90/006F.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
In terms of your analogy below, I don't think it's fair to hold a child to the same standards as an adult in these type of situations. Adults are supposed to make decisions based on knowledge, experience and similar - something we don't expect children to necessary have and especially in important decisions and topics. Adults can recognize (or are supposed to) the ramifications of their actions and decisions - so I don't really think your comparison is a fair example.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
My point was that people now choose not to think about (or do anything about) the hell they're ultimately deciding to put their loved ones through.
The anti-smoking campaign here is insanely aggressive. They've made all stores that sell them cover up their displays. They're kept in cabinets or behind curtains, and cost $12 a pack. The problem they've encountered in the past is the black market it creates. I'd like to see a breakdown of cig tax expenditures here...if the money is going to anti-smoking education, r&d, healthcare etc...I'm all for it. Otherwise, it's just another tax on the poor, really...like 'get cancer and die, good riddance...but give me all your money while you do it', or something like that
Plus...I hate to mention it, but it's valid (probably to the obesity argument too) :
If your concern is cost/benefit...most studies don't factor in the elderly care savings realized by smokers dying 10 years younger.
Either way - I've heard that since the taxes were raised, it's had a big effect on the number of smokers in my province. I'm sure ALL of these programs help to that end, which is a good thing. It's mostly the personal freedom side of this that bothers me from the poli-sci perspective. On the personal/emotional level, it's the intolerance.
When the laws were in flux in my city, there were quite a few places that partitioned their businesses...they basically had to make it two separate areas, with 'adequate' ventilation in the smoking side. Usually just a glassed in smoking area. Why wouldn't it work at your fav bar? One room closed in? They still do it in airports all over the world...
As for the rest of the safety stuff...I'm involved with that control process on a nearly daily basis, I know how it works. The construction analogy was to point out hypocrisy, not define the debate. As long as smoking is legal, there is a demographic that will seek ways to smoke socially...I think it's wrong to say that smoking is ok in the privacy of your home, but not in a private business/club/establishment that has agreed to protect the rights of minors and non-smokers. As long as the rights of non-smokers aren't infringed upon, that business owner should be doing the cost-benefit analysis, not the government. Now stop making me sound like a righty
The AVERAGE age of a new smoker in the US is 13. they're addicted, and it's normalized before they have any kind of realistic understanding of their mortality.
Despite that ^ fact, I understand the point you're trying to relay about accountability as they get older....But yes, I do take exception to your choice of words. Unless you want to be held to the same forum standards as a child fuckin around on youtube. ...it was meant to sound hard and spark debate, I get that..but it came across as inflammatory tabloid garbage to me.
I'd like to see the data showing a net savings. Just because they die sooner doesn't mean they don't spend as much money in all the extra healthcare needed before they day. Most healthcare dollars in general are spent on end-of-life care, and end-of-life is end-of-life whether you're 65 or 75.
My favorite bar/music venue has two rooms: one with the bar and another with the stage - both tiny. If they made one room the smoking room, non-smokers wouldn't have access to the bar. If they made the other room the smoking room, non-smokers wouldn't have access to the stage.
I think the whole point is that this doesn't happen - the rights of non-smokers ARE infringed upon - which is why regulations are needed. If non-smokers' rights weren't infringed upon I couldn't give a shit what people do. They could light themselves on fire for all I care (though they should be taxed up the ass for it to pay for their medical care).
Is it a carcinogen or other health hazard? Regardless, I don't want to have to inhale something that interferes with my ability to breathe. Even incense can be damaging to people's lungs.
Here's a quick story. About a month ago, I drove past a motorcycle accident on the way to visit my sister. The police and paramedics had just arrived and the I saw the guy laying there, dead on the side of the road. He wasn't wearing a helmet and, well I don't need to give any more details. I quickly asked my wife to distract my 5-year old daugther who was sitting in the backseat. She didn't need to see that. Hell, I didn't need to see that. Now, this guy died because of a stupid decision to not wear a helmet, but I don't just cast it off as natural selection and act like a robot with no feelings or emotion. That was someone's son. Or brother. Or spouse. I feel empathy for the person whose world is now crushed because the one they love the most is gone. It's arcane to me how you appear to not be able to see this through a personal lens and feel a little compassion, regardless of the reason why the guy died.
Okay, fair enough. Your earlier post about "play in traffic, you get hit by a car" had me wondering if it was only applicable to the reckless driver analogy. I just wanted to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
relax man... have a cancer stick or something.. jeez
Godfather.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Empathy is that unique human ability to imagine oneself in another’s position, to understand how others think and feel, to emotionally enter another person’s world, and to respond with compassion. This is essential to healthy relationships, social unity and personal growth.
In order to feel love, a person must be able to feel empathy. Narcissists and psychopaths lack empathy. The same applies to people with other personality disorders.
Q. How important is empathy to proper psychological functioning?
A. Empathy is more important socially than it is psychologically. The absence of empathy - for instance in the Narcissistic and Antisocial personality disorders - predisposes people to exploit and abuse others. Empathy is the bedrock of our sense of morality. Arguably, aggressive behavior is as inhibited by empathy at least as much as it is by anticipated punishment.
But the existence of empathy in a person is also a sign of self-awareness, a healthy identity, a well-regulated sense of self-worth, and self-love (in the positive sense). Its absence denotes emotional and cognitive immaturity, an inability to love, to truly relate to others, to respect their boundaries and accept their needs, feelings, hopes, fears, choices, and preferences as autonomous entities.
Read more at Suite101: Empathy: Empathy and Personality Disorders http://personalitydisorders.suite101.co ... z0fzoLclrG
Also, I rather find it funny you're throwing such terms in my direction but completely disregard the lack of empathy, responsibility or accountability of the person ACTUALLY putting their family member or friend through such things as a result of their own decisions and actions.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I've stated several times in this thread that I do understand personal accountability and responsibility, but it doesn't mean that I lack any feeling of compassion or basic human emotion simply because a person's death may have been the result of a poor decision or lifestyle choice. Sorry, but I am not an emotionally shallow person with little to no regard for human life.
Do you not feel empathy for casualties of war? According to your logic, the soldiers knew the assumed risk when they signed up for the military, so why feel any emotion for them when they die? I've presented scenarios and you continually suggest the person got what they deserved based on the situation they put themselves in.
People who have these kind of issues (addiction and similar) are the ones with psychological and emotional issues - not me. Get it and your logic straight and in order. I believe in justice, accountability and responsibility - none of which are emotionally depraved. You say things like "no regard for human life", yet look at the people you're defending - people with no regard for their own life, because they are throwing it away in a selfish and conscious decision making manner regardless of how it effects others (family, friends, etc).. yet you sit here and call me names for acknowledging these facts. It's pretty nonsensical and hypocritical to say the least.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It's not garbage, nonsensical, or hypocritical - it's psychology 101. My wife is a psychologist and I know a thing or two about this. Trust me, it is unnatural to possess your viewpoint toward human life absent unresolved pyschological trauma. Most likely, someone very close to you passed away due to a poor decision they made (smoking, reckless driving, etc) and you have never properly dealt with your feelings and emotions. I'm not calling you names or being unreasonable here, I just know what I'm talking about. Maybe this is uncomfortable for you and you don't want to disclose the personal event that led to you becoming this way, but you started all of this by saying you wished all smokers would get cancer and die, and good riddance. And then you confirmed that some of your family members and friends smoke. So you basically wished death upon your loved ones simply because they have an addiction. And you think I have a twisted sense of reality?
Secondly - please use all this psychological analysis and point it at the people making these decisions firstly...when you do that - I'll be more than happy to discuss my reasons I have my views.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Social conditioning? I'm opened to reasoned debate here, but I can't even begin to understand your perspective unless you discuss the reasons why you have those views.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Look, basic pyshological facts back up my argument that YOU are suppressing feelings of some kind, not me. It is not normal to feel so apathetic and disdainful toward human beings simply because they made decisions you don't agree with or think they should have avoided. You can apply your distorted logic to any single tragic event and blame the death on the individual, without any regard to the outcome. John drove home from work and got hit by a mack truck. Well, he knew the assumed risk of driving a car, so he's at fault and we shouldn't shed a tear. The luge accident. Again, guy knew it was dangerous, so why should I care he's dead. Sally's heart disease must have been from eating all those cheeseburgers. Fuck her. Police offer killed in the line of duty. Again, he knew the risks, so why should I care if he's 6 feet under. Firefighters... fuck em all, right?
And you honestly, deep in your being, think I'm delusional for feeling sympathy for any of these individuals. I've agreed with you several times that people need to be more personally accountable for their actions, but I don't just slap the "they deserved it" tag and move on when someone dies. The sooner that people like you begin to deal with unpleasant emotions and stop displacing blame and hurt onto others for their shortcomings, the better off we'll all be as a society. Some situations in life are avoidable, some are not. Regardless, I still care deeply about a lot of people and I would NEVER wish anyone dead just because they have a vice. Good luck in life my friend.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis