|
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: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| 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. |
It's a point, but it doesn't support your claim that there is no moral difference between a parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| 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. |
It's a point, but it doesn't support your claim that there is no moral difference between a parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. |
did I ever use the word "morally" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| 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. |
It's a point, but it doesn't support your claim that there is no moral difference between a parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. |
did I ever use the word "morally" |
You've split your hairs into mulch. You said you don't feel there is a difference between the two, whether that be morally or otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| 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. |
It's a point, but it doesn't support your claim that there is no moral difference between a parent who exposes their child to second hand smoke and a parent who supports and encourages their child's two pack a day habit. |
did I ever use the word "morally" |
You've split your hairs into mulch. You said you don't feel there is a difference between the two, whether that be morally or otherwise. |
So I ask again, did I ever use the word Morally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So I ask again, did I ever use the word Morally? |
Maybe you didn't. You may have just misspelled it; however, if there's no difference between the two, as you assert, then that excludes any possibility of a moral difference between the two; therefore, whether you said "morally" or not is inconsequential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Seoulio wrote: |
| So I ask again, did I ever use the word Morally? |
Maybe you didn't. You may have just misspelled it; however, if there's no difference between the two, as you assert, then that excludes any possibility of a moral difference between the two; therefore, whether you said "morally" or not is inconsequential. |
Actually I think I conceeded that there is in fact differences, just that the relevant outcome that I care about is the same so I do not concern myself with other factors.
I also admitted that I have the weaker position and that I knew it.
Regardless the actual smoke involved is equally toxic. I take the situation at hand, not the could bes that would happen later.
So again the moral argument is not what I was concerned with by and large.
I always said that smoking around a kid or allowinga kid to smoke is negligence in either case, and wondered why the smoking parent gets a free pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zulethe
Joined: 04 Jul 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If it were an American child, I'd be outraged. But since it's not, I think it's kind of cute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seoulio wrote: |
| Regardless the actual smoke involved is equally toxic. |
Proved false by the statistics you submitted. At least in the long run. Second hand smoke is much less likely to cause the child health problems, or outright kill him than a two pack a day habit.
| Seoulio wrote: |
| I always said that smoking around a kid or allowinga kid to smoke is negligence in either case, and wondered why the smoking parent gets a free pass. |
No one has said anything about giving a parent who exposes their kid to second hand smoke a free pass. I am saying that they are merely less monstrous than a parent who encourages their kid's smoking habit. |
|
| 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
