|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| jmuns wrote: |
| from smoking to carbon footprints. so everyone who has a small footprint from using green energy. that is the least of your worries. do you drink coffee? where does it come from? do you only buy organics? local products? local produce? buy things that come in plastic bottles? what kind of plastic? do you eat meat? how was it raised? where was it raised? where was its' food produced? how did it get to you? no one has a small footprint. oh and did you take a boat here to save on energy and emissions from the use of airplanes as well? |
I drink green tea but do enjoy the occasional cuppa black English tea. I only buy local and/or organic, or do without. If I were in NYC, it would always be local and organic, but Korea doesn't always provide that option. I've just started a garden to supplement what I can't find that's up to my standard. No plastics unless it's unavoidable. I'm vegetarian.
I have two pet rats. They eat vegetable scraps, brown rice or black barley, and whatever I've made for supper. They don't bark. They squeak a little, and sometimes wake me up when they wrestle or run on their wheel in the rat mansion, but are otherwise awesome little dudes.
I did take a plane, however. Nobody's perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jmuns wrote: |
| from smoking to carbon footprints. so everyone who has a small footprint from using green energy. that is the least of your worries. do you drink coffee? where does it come from? do you only buy organics? local products? local produce? buy things that come in plastic bottles? what kind of plastic? do you eat meat? how was it raised? where was it raised? where was its' food produced? how did it get to you? no one has a small footprint. oh and did you take a boat here to save on energy and emissions from the use of airplanes as well? |
All those things are collective efforts, in contrast to an individual smoking in front of others. Even with driving, the pollution from one's own car is very tiny. Only because millions of others drive is it a problem and there's no ethical equivalence between criticizing a driver and criticizing a smoker.
I think the best analogy is dog owners. Dogs' noise, feces and in many cases attacks individually cause direct sensory displeasure to others, very similarly to unwanted cigarette smoke. Whilst I am in favor of banning smoking in public, it is nothing like as serious, in my view, as the disease on society that is the pet dog. Cigarettes can easily be smoked in private, and also cigarettes raise tax revenue, whereas dog-ownership is one of the most inconsiderate things I can think of and it boggles my mind that keeping an animal that has the potential to make so much noise is socially acceptable, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| jmuns wrote: |
| from smoking to carbon footprints. so everyone who has a small footprint from using green energy. that is the least of your worries. do you drink coffee? where does it come from? do you only buy organics? local products? local produce? buy things that come in plastic bottles? what kind of plastic? do you eat meat? how was it raised? where was it raised? where was its' food produced? how did it get to you? no one has a small footprint. oh and did you take a boat here to save on energy and emissions from the use of airplanes as well? |
All those things are collective efforts, in contrast to an individual smoking in front of others. Even with driving, the pollution from one's own car is very tiny. Only because millions of others drive is it a problem and there's no ethical equivalence between criticizing a driver and criticizing a smoker.
I think the best analogy is dog owners. Dogs' noise, feces and in many cases attacks individually cause direct sensory displeasure to others, very similarly to unwanted cigarette smoke. Whilst I am in favor of banning smoking in public, it is nothing like as serious, in my view, as the disease on society that is the pet dog. Cigarettes can easily be smoked in private, and also cigarettes raise tax revenue, whereas dog-ownership is one of the most inconsiderate things I can think of and it boggles my mind that keeping an animal that has the potential to make so much noise is socially acceptable, |
I think the problem is that cigarettes aren't smoked in private, and that the private smoke isn't very private when it creeps into one's home from outside.
As for tax revenue: does that tax money go towards healthcare? Because all of the too-poor-for-insurance-but-can-afford-$8-a-pack smokers are going to need it, and I sure as heck don't want to pay for it, while I'm all for universal healthcare. Maybe they could create a credit system. One carton is X amount of money towards their future chemo.
Babies have the potential for making more noise than dogs, imho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
Bramble he brought it up because machinoman brought up the simlariteos to dogs and smoking.
He in no way meant it as you are suggesting, he has told you this, this is beside the point so piss off about it please.
This thread has goten off tracj enough without you suggesting that he meant something he in no way meant.
Perhaps you havent read the whole thread, I'd suggest you to that and stop your ignorant attack on him. |
I've read it and I stand by what I said. Fox is obviously the reincarnation of another (fill in the blank) who made similar statements in the past and I refuse to tolerate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BriTunes
Joined: 12 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perspective: the Iceland earthquake has put out 7 times the emissions all of human-made pollution has in the history of the world. In addition, just breathing air in Europe after the erution is equivilant to smoking 9 packs a day for 40 years.
Good luck with your scaremongering " ewes some guy is smoking in the same room as me ....ewwwwww" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
English Matt
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BriTunes wrote: |
Perspective: the Iceland earthquake has put out 7 times the emissions all of human-made pollution has in the history of the world. In addition, just breathing air in Europe after the erution is equivilant to smoking 9 packs a day for 40 years.
Good luck with your scaremongering " ewes some guy is smoking in the same room as me ....ewwwwww" |
So half the population of Europe is going to develope emphysema or lung cancer or some other smoking related illness pretty soon then are they? Because 50% of all smokers who smoke for 30 years develop one of these conditions. Gee, I better phone home and say goodbye to mum.
Additionally, it wasn't an earthquake it was a volcanic eruption.....please read the words printed next to the pretty pictures on the news websites. What are 'emissions all of human-made pollution'.....I'm not even sure Google translate will be able to help me with that one. How much pollution did Krakatoa pump out into the atmosphere when it erupted? What about the volcanic eruptions in Italy, Hawaii, the Aleutians (et al) that happen so regularly? I guess living in Hawaii must be worse than having to live in my local bar......dudes there smoke A LOT.
If you are going to make such ridiculous claims then please post the link to whichever blog, written by whichever mentalist who flunked science class at school, you read it on.
Also, please learn to spell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| As for tax revenue: does that tax money go towards healthcare? |
In some countries, the UK for example, yes. I forget the exact figures, but tax revenue from tobacco sales is far in excess of the costs of treating smoking-related diseases. I'm strongly opposed to government-run healthcare, personally, but certainly tax revenue from tobacco is an extremely efficient way to deliver healthcare to many people, smoker and nonsmoker alike.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| Because all of the too-poor-for-insurance-but-can-afford-$8-a-pack smokers are going to need it |
Actually, they'll on average need a lot less healthcare than nonsmokers, because smokers tend to die at least 10 years before average life expectancy. It's much more expensive to provide healthcare for those who live until they're 80 or 90 than for smokers who die at 65 or 70. So smokers are brilliant for society: they pay tax that otherwise wouldn't be paid if they were nonsmokers and they die prior to the time when most people need the most healthcare. But those who despise smokers rarely consider this. To them, others' cigarette smoke produces unpleasant short-term sensations, and that, seemingly, is all that's important.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| they could create a credit system. One carton is X amount of money towards their future chemo. |
Very good idea, although they're far more likely to drop dead of a heart attack before needing any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| As for tax revenue: does that tax money go towards healthcare? |
In some countries, the UK for example, yes. I forget the exact figures, but tax revenue from tobacco sales is far in excess of the costs of treating smoking-related diseases. I'm strongly opposed to government-run healthcare, personally, but certainly tax revenue from tobacco is an extremely efficient way to deliver healthcare to many people, smoker and nonsmoker alike.
I'm well aware, but much of the tax money in my country went to a BS war, but that's a whole different argument. I'm hoping the healthcare system really does get an overhaul.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| Because all of the too-poor-for-insurance-but-can-afford-$8-a-pack smokers are going to need it |
Actually, they'll on average need a lot less healthcare than nonsmokers, because smokers tend to die at least 10 years before average life expectancy. It's much more expensive to provide healthcare for those who live until they're 80 or 90 than for smokers who die at 65 or 70. So smokers are brilliant for society: they pay tax that otherwise wouldn't be paid if they were nonsmokers and they die prior to the time when most people need the most healthcare. But those who despise smokers rarely consider this. To them, others' cigarette smoke produces unpleasant short-term sensations, and that, seemingly, is all that's important.
10 years off of 82 (I may be wrong, but the last time I checked this was the average age in the USA. It may be slightly higher or lower now) is still a ripe old age. At 50, they will still cost me money. They will still need to visit the doctor. Smoking is stupid, but I think it should be legal. There just needs to be a way for it to be contained, which was my argument in the first place. People should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies it if doesn't affect other people's health.
| NYC Gal wrote: |
| they could create a credit system. One carton is X amount of money towards their future chemo. |
Very good idea, although they're far more likely to drop dead of a heart attack before needing any.
We can only hope. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
