|
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 |
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
*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?
NO, BUT EVERY PERSON IS HARMED FROM EVERY SMOKE
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Every example I used mentioned harm, or death. |
Only your examples are relevant?
NO, BUT HE ONES THAT USE DEATH OR HARM ARE.
| 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?
WHY NOT, DRUNKENESS IS OFTEN USED AS A DEFENSE, AND IS MAY CASES THE PUNISHMENTS IS LESS SEVERE THAN BEING SIMPLY NEGLIGENT, i AM WILLING TO ALLOW LEGALITY TO BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT THE PUNISHMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME, WHY IS NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE TO DRIVE SOBER A DISTINCTION?
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. |
not to me buddy, I make no ditinction between the guy who gets off on killing and the guy who gets off on making the victim suffer before killing.
One is a little more sick, a little more disturbed, but the outcome is the same.
You have made it perfectly clear your position, I IN NOW WAY agree with you, never will, and there is nothing wrong with my poition, just like there is nothing wrong with yours.
You feel your way, I feel mine. I am not saying that you should think how I think, I am answering your questions and affirming by beliefs through them. Every example you have made I has said how I feel and explained in simple terms why I think that way.
You do not have to make anything any more clear.
Do I? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, your typing could use work, and caps lock is never a good way to make a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just couldn't let it go...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Drunk or dead sober driver, the outcome of that accident is the same. Should they receive the same punishment? |
WHY NOT, DRUNKENESS IS OFTEN USED AS A DEFENSE, AND IS MAY CASES THE PUNISHMENTS IS LESS SEVERE THAN BEING SIMPLY NEGLIGENT... |
Name me a case, just one, where the driver got off with a lenient sentence because s/he was drunk. Drunkenness used as a defense? Are you drunk now?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| ... i AM WILLING TO ALLOW LEGALITY TO BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT THE PUNISHMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME, WHY IS NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE TO DRIVE SOBER A DISTINCTION? |
There's a distinction because there's a difference. Someone who got distracted by a hot pair of legs walking by is hardly as immoral as the guy who knowingly entered and drove a vehicle whilst impaired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Well, your typing could use work, and caps lock is never a good way to make a point. |
LIsten, I don't know how to use that quote function to seperate little bits, so I inserted caps.
My typing could use some work.....no kidding sherlock  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lunar Groove Gardener
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: 1987 Subaru
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right now third world babies are lighting up by the dozens to gain renown and
receive the infusion of assistance that this little Buddha is getting.
It's clearly a win win for these parents to teach their babies how to smoke.
Face it, some babies just look good with a cigarette.
How long are we going to suppress the hidden potential of third world babies?
Next up, babies with fags parachuting in formation.
How about hot-box babies cliff diving, bungee jumping or wrestling alligators?
Very cool, and cute too.
Could yours become the first baby to blow concentric smoke rings at the summit of Everest? Do you really want to hold your baby back?
How about a team of Red Man chewing baby astronauts on the moon?
The first home rolling baby Nascar qualifier. Chain smoking baby rodeo clowns would be super cute!
Who wouldn't love to see a Swisher Sweet sponsored baby death metal group or a French inhaling Baby Gaga.
These parents are geniuses really. Did you see his little leather jacket?
That baby is so totally going to have to change his phone number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
I just couldn't let it go...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Drunk or dead sober driver, the outcome of that accident is the same. Should they receive the same punishment? |
WHY NOT, DRUNKENESS IS OFTEN USED AS A DEFENSE, AND IS MAY CASES THE PUNISHMENTS IS LESS SEVERE THAN BEING SIMPLY NEGLIGENT... |
Name me a case, just one, where the driver got off with a lenient sentence because s/he was drunk. Drunkenness used as a defense? Are you drunk now?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| ... i AM WILLING TO ALLOW LEGALITY TO BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT THE PUNISHMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME, WHY IS NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE TO DRIVE SOBER A DISTINCTION? |
There's a distinction because there's a difference. Someone who got distracted by a hot pair of legs walking by is hardly as immoral as the guy who knowingly entered and drove a vehicle whilst impaired. |
Yeah I wasnt thinking to clearly, drunkeness is often used for defenses in Murder crimes. not in vehicle death, sorry, brain fart
As for the guy being distracted, and driving drunk. The guy driving drunk has diminished capacity, many people can not differentiate right from wrong, which is why bars and people hosting a party should bear more responsibility, YOu can argue that his actions are about as involuntary as the guy who looks at a hot pair of legs.
Flip the coin and argue that they guy is drunk enough to be impaired, but not impaired so much that he doesn't know its wrong and you have recklessness and negligence. The guy who is driving a car and doent watch what he is doing so that he can look at something is equaly negligent. If he wants to see legs he can go to a strip club or rent a porno and see much more, he doesnt get a free pass for taking his eyes off the road because he was looking at legs.
You can bring up any example you wish, you are NOT going to get me to change my mind.
BUt with your accidents example fault is hard to prove in a lot of the cases, so its a bit of an unfair comparison to my original question |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
I just couldn't let it go...
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Drunk or dead sober driver, the outcome of that accident is the same. Should they receive the same punishment? |
WHY NOT, DRUNKENESS IS OFTEN USED AS A DEFENSE, AND IS MAY CASES THE PUNISHMENTS IS LESS SEVERE THAN BEING SIMPLY NEGLIGENT... |
Name me a case, just one, where the driver got off with a lenient sentence because s/he was drunk. Drunkenness used as a defense? Are you drunk now?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| ... i AM WILLING TO ALLOW LEGALITY TO BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT THE PUNISHMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME, WHY IS NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE TO DRIVE SOBER A DISTINCTION? |
There's a distinction because there's a difference. Someone who got distracted by a hot pair of legs walking by is hardly as immoral as the guy who knowingly entered and drove a vehicle whilst impaired. |
Yeah I wasnt thinking to clearly, drunkeness is often used for defenses in Murder crimes. not in vehicle death, sorry, brain fart
As for the guy being distracted, and driving drunk. The guy driving drunk has diminished capacity, many people can not differentiate right from wrong, which is why bars and people hosting a party should bear more responsibility, YOu can argue that his actions are about as involuntary as the guy who looks at a hot pair of legs.
Flip the coin and argue that they guy is drunk enough to be impaired, but not impaired so much that he doesn't know its wrong and you have recklessness and negligence. The guy who is driving a car and doent watch what he is doing so that he can look at something is equaly negligent. If he wants to see legs he can go to a strip club or rent a porno and see much more, he doesnt get a free pass for taking his eyes off the road because he was looking at legs.
You can bring up any example you wish, you are NOT going to get me to change my mind.
BUt with your accidents example fault is hard to prove in a lot of the cases, so its a bit of an unfair comparison to my original question |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| BUt with your accidents example fault is hard to prove in a lot of the cases, so its a bit of an unfair comparison to my original question |
OK, I've got time to kill, let's go back to that original question:
| Seoulio wrote: |
| While I am not condoning the parnets or the behaviou, is this any different at all from parents who smoke around thier children, or Ajushhis being allowed to smoke in places where children are, including out on corwded public streets. |
You then provided us with the stats:
| Seoulio wrote: |
| For every 8 smokers that die 1 second hand smoker dies |
Clearly detailing that second hand smoke is not as dangerous as first hand smoke. Which answers your first question: exposing a child to second hand smoke is not as immoral as supporting their two pack a day habit.
However, you continue to insist that there is no difference. Even going so far as to say there is no difference between a murderer and a kidnapping, pedophilic, abusive, raping murderer.
I wouldn't want to live in your world where the guy who kills someone because his hand slipped on the wheel gets the same punishment as the guy who drunkenly runs someone down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| BUt with your accidents example fault is hard to prove in a lot of the cases, so its a bit of an unfair comparison to my original question |
OK, I've got time to kill, let's go back to that original question:
| Seoulio wrote: |
| While I am not condoning the parnets or the behaviou, is this any different at all from parents who smoke around thier children, or Ajushhis being allowed to smoke in places where children are, including out on corwded public streets. |
You then provided us with the stats:
| Seoulio wrote: |
| For every 8 smokers that die 1 second hand smoker dies |
Clearly detailing that second hand smoke is not as dangerous as first hand smoke. Which answers your first question: exposing a child to second hand smoke is not as immoral as supporting their two pack a day habit.
However, you continue to insist that there is no difference. Even going so far as to say there is no difference between a murderer and a kidnapping, pedophilic, abusive, raping murderer.
I wouldn't want to live in your world where the guy who kills someone because his hand slipped on the wheel gets the same punishment as the guy who drunkenly runs someone down. |
Look, what I did from the start was question WHAT made it all that different. I have all but admitted that the answers I have gotten are good ones, but that I DO NOT choose to make the distinction.
I don't think once ( I may be wrong) did I say that there IS NO difference, I wanted to know what people thought made the situation different.
You bring up that stat 1in 8 dies of second smoking, yet my argument never exclusively mentioned I cared about DEATH being the final result.
Death is only one of the components of the "harm" and there is MUCH that falls under the case of negligence.
As others have pointed out not every person who smokes dies from it. But smoking IS harmful,, and as my link says it is often MORE harmful ( as in more concentrated) than regular smoking.
So a parent smoking around thier child COULD be doing more harm than an actual smoke could do. That stat doesnt say that second smoking is not as dangerous that stat just mentioned that there are not as many LETHAL cases.
Well you know one reason that stat could be so low ? MOST PARENTS DO NOT SMOKE AROUND THIER KIDS!!!!!!!!!
And gosh, a whole crap load of people smoke, but do it in areas where the smoke doesnt interfere or contact non smokers all that much.
So no you haven't shown me that there is a major difference,
As for not wanting to live in my world, in many cases a hand slipping off the wheel is not negligence, its an accident, and I admited from the start that this was hard to prove and that cases should be judged on a case by case basis.
HOWEVER, if your hand does slip off the wheel, it does call into question how diligent you were while driving? Why did the hand slip off the wheel, how fast were you going that the hand being off for a microsecond caused a major crash?
I would think people wouldnt mind living in a world where if you fail to pay attention and you cause death, or significant injury that you are punished for it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Woe be the boring Tuesday that prompts me to continue this "debate".
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Look, what I did from the start was question WHAT made it all that different. I have all but admitted that the answers I have gotten are good ones, but that I DO NOT choose to make the distinction. |
Why not when you've been shown that there are many, many reasons to make the distinction, and have none that justify not making it?
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So a parent smoking around thier child COULD be doing more harm than an actual smoke could do. That stat doesnt say that second smoking is not as dangerous that stat just mentioned that there are not as many LETHAL cases. |
The thing is, they're not doing as much harm. It doesn't matter if they could. I could be killing people with the exhaust from my motorcycle, does that make me as vile as someone who kills people for fun?
Fewer lethal cases means second hand smoke is less harmful. Unless you have some stats somewhere that show that second hand smoke causes ten times as many cases of emphysema or cancer as first hand smoke, but for some reason they're less lethal forms of the diseases.
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Well you know one reason that stat could be so low ? MOST PARENTS DO NOT SMOKE AROUND THIER KIDS!!!!!!!!! |
EVEN MORE PARENTS DON'T MAKE THEIR CHILDREN SMOKE TWO PACKS A DAY!!!!!!!!
| Seoulio wrote: |
| I would think people wouldnt mind living in a world where if you fail to pay attention and you cause death, or significant injury that you are punished for it |
and people are punished for it, but why should they receive the same punishment as someone who is willfully and recklessly irresponsible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
well then you can end it too, I have made my position on it abundantly clear.
Right or wrong, agree or don't agree it's my position and it has some valid points, just as yours does.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Right or wrong, agree or don't agree it's my position and it has some valid points |
No, it doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janny
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Location: all over the place
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kudos to Underwaterbob for putting in the (huge) time to beat Seoulio down.
I had the same kind of argument with him about intent in the "do they eat dog" thread. He tried to assert that beating a dog before killing it is the same as treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. He refused to acknowledge a difference based on intent of abuse and pain...
You went much farther than I did, I gave up quickly. You mentioned beating a dead horse..?
Seoulio...guess you better learn to separate quotes within a post...! I don't see you backing down anytime, anywhere either. PS. I suggest you check your blood pressure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Right or wrong, agree or don't agree it's my position and it has some valid points |
No, it doesn't. |
Listen BUddy I have been respectful and conceeded that there are some excellent points on the flip side, DO NOT stand there all high and might and say that my side does not have some valid points.
The child IS STILL around smoke in either case, and in both cases the smoke is harmful, that is a fact, and THAT ALONE is a valid point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janny wrote: |
Kudos to Underwaterbob for putting in the (huge) time to beat Seoulio down.
I had the same kind of argument with him about intent in the "do they eat dog" thread. He tried to assert that beating a dog before killing it is the same as treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. He refused to acknowledge a difference based on intent of abuse and pain...
You went much farther than I did, I gave up quickly. You mentioned beating a dead horse..?
Seoulio...guess you better learn to separate quotes within a post...! I don't see you backing down anytime, anywhere either. PS. I suggest you check your blood pressure. |
Listen Janny i was never trying to "win" the argument.
Some of us intellignet people do this thing called DISCUSSION, I even said that my position is not all that strong but that I PERSONALLY do not make the distinction.
Also IN this debate you are so petty as to rehas you are also misrepresenting my side, ( at least I think you are, I have forgotten much of what was said in this debate you are clearly bugged about 3 months after the fact.
YOU guys mentioned the cruelty to dogs, I admitted that there was for sure some cruelty to dogs here, there is ALSO a lot of cruelty to animals back home on the way to, the slaughterhouse, AND while being raised. YOUve got chickens artifically grown faster so that the legs break under the strain, youve got cows and pigs herded into pens so tight some of them die of suffocation ( and broken legs are also a huge thing here too).
BUt you guys wanna whine and moan only about the dogs being beaten because it PURPOSEFUL abuse, you don't want to concede that animals being artifically grown and stored for corporate greed and who live life in agonising pain for the most part is ALSO cruelty.
If you wish to post a link to this thread you dredge up my posts will show that. YOU wanted to say that one was basically OKAY as it was just part of the process, but that beating a dog is so much more different.
There is no right or wrong here, you say intent matters I say it doesn't, its a moral argument and neither is right. We have strong opinions on the matter, opposing ones, and thats it.
Grow the hell up man, do you see me following you around insulting you over a difference of opinion months ago? |
|
| 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
