|
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 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Nor has anyone really been able to show my how a parent who smokes with thier child around is any less negligent or guilty of child abuse than one who allows if not encourages their kid to smoke |
So you would just as soon leave your child with someone who will encourage him/her to smoke two packs a day as with someone who smokes 2 packs a day themselves.
You proved the difference you fail to acknowledge yourself:
| Seoulio wrote: |
| For every 8 smokers that die 1 second hand smoker dies |
Though I question your statistic: they all die eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Question the statistic all you want to, I left the link to the site I got it from, you can judge for yourself if its accurate or not.
What I am saying is I WOULD NOT make the distinction.
If a person is going to get my kid to smoke or simply smoke constantly around him There is no difference for me.
If my son is round that smoke and gets addicted from being around the smoke, why should it matter to me if it was because he was around smoke or actually encouraged to smoke that caused the addiction?
The end result - My Kid is exposed to harful smoke in both.
So while I understand the intent of your question, as I said, it is beside the point and "would you rather....." is not exactly a logical defeat of my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Question the statistic all you want to, I left the link to the site I got it from, you can judge for yourself if its accurate or not. |
I think you missed the humor there...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| If my son is round that smoke and gets addicted from being around the smoke, why should it matter to me if it was because he was around smoke or actually encouraged to smoke that caused the addiction? |
You're missing the point. Exposure to second hand smoke does not necessarily get one addicted. Smoking two packs a day sure does, and is in fact a sign that one is already addicted.
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So while I understand the intent of your question, as I said, it is beside the point and "would you rather....." is not exactly a logical defeat of my point. |
You argue that if the results are the same, there's no difference between a negligent parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a negligent parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. I'm telling you that's a huge if, and there is a difference in every case where your if does not hold true, which is 89% of cases (8/9) according to your very own statistics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Question the statistic all you want to, I left the link to the site I got it from, you can judge for yourself if its accurate or not. |
I think you missed the humor there...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| If my son is round that smoke and gets addicted from being around the smoke, why should it matter to me if it was because he was around smoke or actually encouraged to smoke that caused the addiction? |
You're missing the point. Exposure to second hand smoke does not necessarily get one addicted. Smoking two packs a day sure does, and is in fact a sign that one is already addicted.
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So while I understand the intent of your question, as I said, it is beside the point and "would you rather....." is not exactly a logical defeat of my point. |
You argue that if the results are the same, there's no difference between a negligent parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a negligent parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. I'm telling you that's a huge if, and there is a difference in every case where your if does not hold true, which is 89% of cases (8/9) according to your very own statistics. |
1) Did I miss the humor, my bad
2) I am not missing the point, I dont consider the addiction in my equation. Looking at it in that moment of my son is smoking himself or being around it, the smoke is harmful either way. NO if you are going long term, I think that being around that smoke is going to make him prone to smoking from either addiction or simply familiarity, so again I factor that OUT of my thinking.
3) Those statitics point out possible consequences, ones that are not taht testable either. We are exposed to second hand smoke cosntantly, you can not pinpoint what concentrations do what and to whom with any accuracy. What we have proven is that it is equally, if not more so (simply based on the concentrations we COULD be exposed to daily) dangerous than smoking itself.
So again outcome statistics asside ( who gets cancer in how many cases etc) what is the moral difference between encouraging a kid to smoke and smoking around him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| what is the moral difference between encouraging a kid to smoke and smoking around him? |
How can you factor out addiction, this to me seems to be one of the most important factors. That aside I suppose it's a question of malicious intent. Smoking around a child is stupid and negligent, but of a careless selfish variety. Encouraging, and probably the first couple of times forcing, a child to smoke is intentional cruelty or the most unbelievable ignorance possible. Both are not good, but one seems to me to be outright cruelty while the other is selfishness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So again outcome statistics asside ( who gets cancer in how many cases etc) what is the moral difference between encouraging a kid to smoke and smoking around him? |
We can't talk morals without talking outcomes. If there are zero consequences to your actions, then they can't be judged morally good or bad. Your question makes no sense.
Considering outcomes, exposing a child to second hand smoke is roughly 8 times less likely to end up killing him than getting him to smoke two packs a day. Therefore a parent who actively encourages and supports a toddlers two pack a day habit is more morally bankrupt than one who negligently smokes in the presence of their toddler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeMayonnaise
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nothing to add, just that Seoulio is an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As to the kid actually smoking the cigs himself rather than inhaling second-hand smoke...
1. It's not really an either/or in this situation. Since the father smokes, he is inhaling second-hand and first-hand smoke. Whatever the effects of second-hand smoke, it must surely be worse to inhale both types of smoke rather than just one.
2. Second-hand smoke is a bigger problem in more advanced countries or cooler countries where people tend to spend more time indoors with less ventilation. Their place looks pretty open and I'm guessing a lot of the smoking takes place outside.
3. The biggest difference I can see between first-hand and second-hand smoke is the fact that a toddler is allowed to hold a lit cigarette. A toddler should not be holding a lit anything. It's only a matter of time before he drops a ciggy on his potbelly or his bare legs. Or worse, he burns down their hut. How |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeMayonnaise wrote: |
| Nothing to add, just that Seoulio is an idiot. |
Wow, your brilliant comment here nearly blew me away.
What makes me an idiot, the fact that dont make the distinction between the two, knowing full well that the result is basically the same.
I mean I will grant you I say some idiotic things, I am not an idiot. I never said that all of my thoughts or beliefs are right, however in this case I do not make the distinction. THousands of people get up in arms about this kid smoking, I get equally up in arms about parents recklessly endangering thier children by smoking around them.
That being said, some people are making some perfectly valid points that I can accept, especially FLakfiser who stated that a child should not be holding a lit anything, first poster in 3 pages to make that comment and you have to admit that one is a doozy.
I will admit that a smoking kid is worse, I pretty much have to with all the poinst peole have made, all I am simply saying, and I think mnay would agree that a parent who smokes around thier child is pretty pathetic too, and is also endangering the child's welfare.
So I don't make too much of a distinction based on severity.
Just like I am not going to think all that much differently if a criminal shoots my kid to death, or if he kidnaps, beats, rapes, sodmises and the strangles my kid to death.
is one less severe than the other, or course, in one of them did my child suffer extreme amounts of pain, yes, but in the end, my child is still dead in both scenarios.
If we hold that "smoking" is bad then haveing or children "second hand smoking" is bad too
which was always my original point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
Just like I am not going to think all that much differently if a criminal shoots my kid to death, or if he kidnaps, beats, rapes, sodmises and the strangles my kid to death.
is one less severe than the other, or course, in one of them did my child suffer extreme amounts of pain, yes, but in the end, my child is still dead in both scenarios. |
You really don't think there's a difference between a murderer and an abusive, pedophilic, raping murderer? By that logic, if someone dies in a car accident, it doesn't matter if the driver responsible was drunk or just negligent. Whether the driver was trashed, or was simply tired or distracted is of no consequence. Should we take away the licenses of everyone who causes a car accident regardless of the reason? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
Just like I am not going to think all that much differently if a criminal shoots my kid to death, or if he kidnaps, beats, rapes, sodmises and the strangles my kid to death.
is one less severe than the other, or course, in one of them did my child suffer extreme amounts of pain, yes, but in the end, my child is still dead in both scenarios. |
You really don't think there's a difference between a murderer and an abusive, pedophilic, raping murderer? By that logic, if someone dies in a car accident, it doesn't matter if the driver responsible was drunk or just negligent. Whether the driver was trashed, or was simply tired or distracted is of no consequence. Should we take away the licenses of everyone who causes a car accident regardless of the reason? |
Okay you guys like to misquote me. i didnt say that there wasnt a differecne, I said that I am not likley to feel all that much differently ( ballsy claim I admit)
As for your driving example um yes thats exactly how I would feel as well. YOu think I would care if someone is killed by a drunk driver or a guy texting? Are either case any less irresponsible? What about the person driving tired.
Hell this is how my Aunt died, driving when she knew she was tired, luckilly she didn't take anyone else with her, she simply feell asleep and drove her car off of a 100 foot drop onto a frozen lake.
As for taking away the licenses of those in an accident, wow talk about a non sequitor.
1) Lots of factors cause accidents, and not all of them, in fact many of them, have nothing to do with driver negligence (of at least 1 party at any rate.)
2) Not all of these accidents result in death, but when they do they almost always end up with a charge, often reckless endangerment, recklessness causing death ( or something similar) they are verey rarely just "an accident" and no one is found not at fault.
3) Accidents often result in charges laid against one or many of the drivers involved, often these charges result in a removed license.
Now if someone makes a simple mistake driving yes of course that is different than driving drunk. Doesnt make the victim any less dead, and doesn't mean I would forgive them any faster as far too many people are way to careless behind the wheel of a car.
Any more situations youd like to see how I feel?
The bottom line is I am an outcomes guy, not an intent kind of guy. I may sympathise slightly more with a situation doesnt mean I am going to feel that much differently about the end result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| As for taking away the licenses of those in an accident, wow talk about a non sequitor. |
It's not a non-sequitur. We take away the licenses of those who drive drunk and get into accidents. By your standards: the outcome is all that matters, we should be taking away the licenses of anyone who gets into an accident. I guess you don't have to worry about jury duty anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| As for taking away the licenses of those in an accident, wow talk about a non sequitor. |
It's not a non-sequitur. We take away the licenses of those who drive drunk and get into accidents. By your standards: the outcome is all that matters, we should be taking away the licenses of anyone who gets into an accident. I guess you don't have to worry about jury duty anytime soon. |
And as stated not all accidents are fatal, or result in ANY harm, the same is not true of smoking. Every example I used mentioned harm, or death.
So if people hit a parked car tryng to pas another car then they should be punished for that? Because of a nick on the paint job?
Either refine your example to one that is relevant and equal to the original example, or its a non sequitor.
However under the assumption that you meant all accidents resulting in Death, YES I think the liscences should be taken away be it by drunkeness, negligence, carelessness, or lack of attention, or driving past a certain age etc
I mean honestly, what sensible person wouldn't
Hell I got into an accident about ten years ago, thankfully I wasnt hurt, but I was rear ended from behind by a car travelling 80 km an hour, thankfully I was stuck in traffic in front of me, so MOst of the impact was absorbed when I hit the other cars, but I still managed to hit SEVEN cars while STOPPED from the initial force, and by the end my car was on top of her car.
Who was the culprit, an 80 year old woman so heavilly medicated that she either fell asleep at the wheel, or didn't see the cars in front of her for whatever reason.
End result, I could have been killed, I could have been crippled for life do you think I would have cared if it was because she was drunk medicated or simply stupid?
So again to answer your question, in an applicable situation, yes your liscence should be gone if you cause a significant accident, what with a vehicle being significantly deadly if you don't use it properly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*sigh* dead horse meet stick...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| And as stated not all accidents are fatal, or result in ANY harm, the same is not true of smoking. |
Every smoker, and person exposed to second hand smoke, dies because of it?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Every example I used mentioned harm, or death. |
Only your examples are relevant?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So if people hit a parked car tryng to pas another car then they should be punished for that? Because of a nick on the paint job? |
Drunk or dead sober driver, the outcome of that accident is the same. Should they receive the same punishment?
I don't see how I can make it any more clear that the ends are not independent of the means. It's pretty obvious that a person who murders someone, and a person who kidnaps, beats, rapes, abuses and murders someone are pretty different animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Who was the culprit, an 80 year old woman so heavilly medicated that she either fell asleep at the wheel, or didn't see the cars in front of her for whatever reason. |
And if it's only the outcome that matters, this 80 year old woman should receive the same punishment as a 20 something year old drunk driver would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
