|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
Are non-smokers automatically courteous by default then? Should all discourtesies be banned?
How does the saying go? I won't do it myself, but I'll defend the right to. Personally, I think the world would be boring if we tried to eliminate everything anyone finds offensive. |
People like you who take what someone says to the ridiculus extreme are already being disingenuous. In this case, doubly so since I already answered that question when I wrote two sentences later that discourtesy shouldn't be made illegal because sometime we need to be discourteous.
I certainly never said anything about banning everything anyone finds offensive.
You have made yourself ridiculus.
Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on?
You and Steelrails are cut from the same cloth. Try responding to the things people actually say, and not what you would like for them to have said. |
Considering that this post was entirely devoid of references to the issue at hand, I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You have failed to respond to our rebuttals of our points, while we directly responded to yours.
Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide.
We have dealt with your points, well the ones that could be dealt with rationally.
You have consistently failed to answer our single most pressing question (All in caps because it has yet to be answered by the smoking-ban people in this whole debate, possibly because there is nor reasonable answer and it exposes the silliness of their position):
WHY CAN"T YOU JUST GO TO A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT??? HOW ARE YOU FORCED TO VISIT THAT PUB???
IF YOU DON"T WANT TO DEAL WITH SMOKE IN A BAR. DON"T GO TO BARS WITH SMOKING!!!
Public building ban- okay. Outdoor ban- okay. Local ban- okay Forcing bars everywhere, of all places, to ban smoking because of risks to health is just such a fail of reason.
Who goes to a bar to be healthy? 95% of people who go to bars go there to drink in excess of 1 drink per hour and to eat some greasy food.
Hey if you want your bar experience to be healthy don't order fries and order the Korean fruit tray instead.
One more question- You don't live in BFE, and you will never visit there, so what gives you the right to tell the people living there that they shouldn't be allowed to have smoking bars?[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
Are non-smokers automatically courteous by default then? Should all discourtesies be banned?
How does the saying go? I won't do it myself, but I'll defend the right to. Personally, I think the world would be boring if we tried to eliminate everything anyone finds offensive. |
People like you who take what someone says to the ridiculus extreme are already being disingenuous. In this case, doubly so since I already answered that question when I wrote two sentences later that discourtesy shouldn't be made illegal because sometime we need to be discourteous. |
Nor did I actively accuse you of any of those things. That little curly thing at the end, it's a question mark. It means I'm making an inquiry.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| I certainly never said anything about banning everything anyone finds offensive. |
Did I say you did?
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| You have made yourself ridiculus. |
Down boy! Remember the old adage about arguing on the Internet.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on? |
See my above points regarding how "honest" my post is. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being disingenuous.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| You and Steelrails are cut from the same cloth. Try responding to the things people actually say, and not what you would like for them to have said. |
Did you not say:
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
?
I was wondering what you meant by that statement, with a bit of verbal (textual) flourish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
Are non-smokers automatically courteous by default then? Should all discourtesies be banned?
How does the saying go? I won't do it myself, but I'll defend the right to. Personally, I think the world would be boring if we tried to eliminate everything anyone finds offensive. |
People like you who take what someone says to the ridiculus extreme are already being disingenuous. In this case, doubly so since I already answered that question when I wrote two sentences later that discourtesy shouldn't be made illegal because sometime we need to be discourteous. |
Nor did I actively accuse you of any of those things. That little curly thing at the end, it's a question mark. It means I'm making an inquiry.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| I certainly never said anything about banning everything anyone finds offensive. |
Did I say you did?
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| You have made yourself ridiculus. |
Down boy! Remember the old adage about arguing on the Internet.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on? |
See my above points regarding how "honest" my post is. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being disingenuous.
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| You and Steelrails are cut from the same cloth. Try responding to the things people actually say, and not what you would like for them to have said. |
Did you not say:
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
?
I was wondering what you meant by that statement, with a bit of verbal (textual) flourish. |
Seriously? Are you honestly trying to claim your questions were sincere?
Allow me to retort. As I said before, the answer to your inquiry was in the post your responded to. It was in the same paragraph as the part you quoted. If what you wanted was an answer to your questions then you didn't need to respond to me at all. So yeah, I have legitimate reason to doubt your sincerity.
You weren't making an inquiry. You were using questions as a rhetorical device to make a claim. The whole reason I went out of my way to say we shouldn't make discourtesy illegal before you even asked the question was because I am aware of this rhetorical device. There are dishonest people who given a chance will take the perfectly reasonable things others say to an extreme to try and make them seem silly. I went out of my way to stop that from happening, and YOU STILL DID IT. How did you do that? By only quoting the part that allowed you to ask the extreme questions and cutting out the answer to those ridiculous questions that was already there. Gee, were did I get the nerve to call you disingenuous? (Ya see, that is a question that isn't really a question. It's sarcasm.)
You aren't some poor misunderstood innocent. I didn't do you wrong. You tried to get away with some BS and I called you on it. That's a fair as it gets.
In short, I believe you were being disingenuous in the first response to me. I believe you have followed that up with a second disingenuous response. Do me a favor and go for a third try. I'm sure if you dig deep you will be able to come up with something so clever that I won't notice what a complete load of horse hockey it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Considering that this post was entirely devoid of references to the issue at hand, I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You have failed to respond to our rebuttals of our points, while we directly responded to yours.
Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide.
We have dealt with your points, well the ones that could be dealt with rationally.
You have consistently failed to answer our single most pressing question (All in caps because it has yet to be answered by the smoking-ban people in this whole debate, possibly because there is nor reasonable answer and it exposes the silliness of their position):
WHY CAN"T YOU JUST GO TO A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT??? HOW ARE YOU FORCED TO VISIT THAT PUB???
IF YOU DON"T WANT TO DEAL WITH SMOKE IN A BAR. DON"T GO TO BARS WITH SMOKING!!!
Public building ban- okay. Outdoor ban- okay. Local ban- okay Forcing bars everywhere, of all places, to ban smoking because of risks to health is just such a fail of reason.
Who goes to a bar to be healthy? 95% of people who go to bars go there to drink in excess of 1 drink per hour and to eat some greasy food.
Hey if you want your bar experience to be healthy don't order fries and order the Korean fruit tray instead.
One more question- You don't live in BFE, and you will never visit there, so what gives you the right to tell the people living there that they shouldn't be allowed to have smoking bars?[/i] |
I understand you think you are responding to the things I said. You really aren't.
Two examples:
First, you have lumped me in a group you call smoking-ban people. I'm agreeing with the OP in wondering why smokers don't exercise common courtesy. Courtesy is VOLUNTARY. Voluntary and banned are different.
Second, I never said smoking was worse than genocide. Not even remotely. You have missed the point by an ocean.
People tend to think that if you are smart you must be able to argue well. This is not the case. Constructing arguments is a skill. It takes training. It is clearly a skill that is not part of your skill set. That is nothing to feel bad about. I'm sure you have other skills. I'm sure there are many things you know better and can do better than me. Argumentation is something I have been trained in. It's something I have taught.
Many things in life look easy until you try them. Then you realize there is actual skill involved. The problem with argumentation is there is no concrete failure. If you have never played baseball you might think batting is easy. You try it, and you strike out. You are forced to face the fact that there is skill. There is not strike out moment in argumentation. It's easy to convince yourself you are making genius arguments when you really are embarrassing yourself. Happens all the time.
This is not a tactic. I am not arguing with you. I'm telling you as an expert and a fellow human that you are bad at argumentation. For what it's worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At the risk of agreeing with a bunch of socks, I have to say this thread is *really* funny. The smokers in this thread--the ones defending their habit and telling us to find another country to live in--are unbelievable. Nonsmokers choose to put up with smoke for all kinds of reasons, and we choose to live in countries that are not smoke-free for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean we have to *like* secondhand smoke or that it's not rude and inconsiderate for you to breathe your @#$% smoke in our faces. I also love how fast you changed the subject and made this into a debate about sitting naked in restaurants.
Thanks to Dave's, I've decided I'm going to take a lesson from the in-your-face smokers and be an in-your-face antismoker from now on. It's been on my list of new year's resolutions for a few decades anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Considering that this post was entirely devoid of references to the issue at hand, I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You have failed to respond to our rebuttals of our points, while we directly responded to yours.
Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide.
We have dealt with your points, well the ones that could be dealt with rationally.
You have consistently failed to answer our single most pressing question (All in caps because it has yet to be answered by the smoking-ban people in this whole debate, possibly because there is nor reasonable answer and it exposes the silliness of their position):
WHY CAN"T YOU JUST GO TO A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT??? HOW ARE YOU FORCED TO VISIT THAT PUB???
IF YOU DON"T WANT TO DEAL WITH SMOKE IN A BAR. DON"T GO TO BARS WITH SMOKING!!!
Public building ban- okay. Outdoor ban- okay. Local ban- okay Forcing bars everywhere, of all places, to ban smoking because of risks to health is just such a fail of reason.
Who goes to a bar to be healthy? 95% of people who go to bars go there to drink in excess of 1 drink per hour and to eat some greasy food.
Hey if you want your bar experience to be healthy don't order fries and order the Korean fruit tray instead.
One more question- You don't live in BFE, and you will never visit there, so what gives you the right to tell the people living there that they shouldn't be allowed to have smoking bars?[/i] |
I understand you think you are responding to the things I said. You really aren't.
Two examples:
First, you have lumped me in a group you call smoking-ban people. I'm agreeing with the OP in wondering why smokers don't exercise common courtesy. Courtesy is VOLUNTARY. Voluntary and banned are different.
Second, I never said smoking was worse than genocide. Not even remotely. You have missed the point by an ocean.
People tend to think that if you are smart you must be able to argue well. This is not the case. Constructing arguments is a skill. It takes training. It is clearly a skill that is not part of your skill set. That is nothing to feel bad about. I'm sure you have other skills. I'm sure there are many things you know better and can do better than me. Argumentation is something I have been trained in. It's something I have taught.
Many things in life look easy until you try them. Then you realize there is actual skill involved. The problem with argumentation is there is no concrete failure. If you have never played baseball you might think batting is easy. You try it, and you strike out. You are forced to face the fact that there is skill. There is not strike out moment in argumentation. It's easy to convince yourself you are making genius arguments when you really are embarrassing yourself. Happens all the time.
This is not a tactic. I am not arguing with you. I'm telling you as an expert and a fellow human that you are bad at argumentation. For what it's worth. |
First off, free advice- less argumentation, more persuasion.
I think any good rule of argumentation is for one person not to go on and on about their skill, or the other persons lack of skill, in argumentation. I don't really see what your skill has to do with smoking and courtesy. And indeed you may be better than me, but those woefully skilled person has noticed some things wrong with what you post-
Your first point of "Why don't smokers exercise common courtesy" is the
loaded question fallacy. First one must define what common courtesy is before we can ask whether or not smokers exercise it.
Also when you mention that you are more skilled in argumentation and that therefore your argument has more validity you are committing two errors- one you are self-categorizing yourself as skilled in argumentation, where that assertions should be made by an independent source(s). Also you are claiming that someone who is more skilled in argumentation automatically makes better arguments all the time than someone who is not. In order for your argument that the more skilled at argumentation's point is more valid because they are more skilled at argumentation, you first have to prove that indeed you are more skilled at argumentation beyond a self-claim.
I may be bad at argumentation, you ain't no better.
Not to mention going after my skill in argumentation without again, addressing the issue that if you find smokers so discourteous, why do you go to establishments where you might be exposed to their discourtesy.
I disagree that smokers are discourteous when they smoke in bars or restaurants that allow smoking. I think non-smokers asking them not to do so in such places is discourteous. The non-smoker voluntarily chose to enter the building and take those changes.
| Quote: |
| genocide, apartheid, and slavery to name a few. That's the hierarchy. Things that are absolutely evil, and then smoking. |
| Quote: |
| Second, I never said smoking was worse than genocide. Not even remotely. You have missed the point by an ocean |
| Quote: |
| Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide. |
Quite right, I meant to say a step below genocide.
Regardless of that definitely noticeable mistake, the central premise of what I was suggesting remains- That if you are calling smoking 'a step below' genocide you're bloody nuts and need to take a chill pill.
Oh and by the way, you can drop the whole "I'm looking out for you and taking the high road act" Everyone can see through it and its condescending tone and it really is a cover for you to avoid having to explain why you keep on entering establishments that allow smoking in spite of the fact that it makes you upset.
I'm guessing you go there for some sort of weird confrontational/anger make me feel good inside thingamajig.
I may not be good at arguing, but I sure know something about not going to places that tick me off. It's called 'Not going to places that tick me off'.
Same with hanging around people that tick me off. It's called 'Not hanging around people that tick me off'
| Quote: |
| Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on? |
What dishonesty? Our side's point is that smoking should be legal. Smoking in bars should be up to either bar owners or local government. Smoking is bad for your health, can be unattractive, costs money, and is ultimately pointless. It also feels good, has social merits, and who cares if it's pointless? Our other big point is that if you don't like smoking or smokers, don't go to places that have smokers and smoking.
WE don't go to you. You come to us by entering that establishment.
I don't see any dishonesty in that.
However we get this whole song and dance avoiding that central point.
So please, why do you continue to go to places that have smoking and smokers if you find the act so disgusting and the people so discourteous? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Considering that this post was entirely devoid of references to the issue at hand, I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You have failed to respond to our rebuttals of our points, while we directly responded to yours.
Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide.
We have dealt with your points, well the ones that could be dealt with rationally.
You have consistently failed to answer our single most pressing question (All in caps because it has yet to be answered by the smoking-ban people in this whole debate, possibly because there is nor reasonable answer and it exposes the silliness of their position):
WHY CAN"T YOU JUST GO TO A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT??? HOW ARE YOU FORCED TO VISIT THAT PUB???
IF YOU DON"T WANT TO DEAL WITH SMOKE IN A BAR. DON"T GO TO BARS WITH SMOKING!!!
Public building ban- okay. Outdoor ban- okay. Local ban- okay Forcing bars everywhere, of all places, to ban smoking because of risks to health is just such a fail of reason.
Who goes to a bar to be healthy? 95% of people who go to bars go there to drink in excess of 1 drink per hour and to eat some greasy food.
Hey if you want your bar experience to be healthy don't order fries and order the Korean fruit tray instead.
One more question- You don't live in BFE, and you will never visit there, so what gives you the right to tell the people living there that they shouldn't be allowed to have smoking bars?[/i] |
I understand you think you are responding to the things I said. You really aren't.
Two examples:
First, you have lumped me in a group you call smoking-ban people. I'm agreeing with the OP in wondering why smokers don't exercise common courtesy. Courtesy is VOLUNTARY. Voluntary and banned are different.
Second, I never said smoking was worse than genocide. Not even remotely. You have missed the point by an ocean.
People tend to think that if you are smart you must be able to argue well. This is not the case. Constructing arguments is a skill. It takes training. It is clearly a skill that is not part of your skill set. That is nothing to feel bad about. I'm sure you have other skills. I'm sure there are many things you know better and can do better than me. Argumentation is something I have been trained in. It's something I have taught.
Many things in life look easy until you try them. Then you realize there is actual skill involved. The problem with argumentation is there is no concrete failure. If you have never played baseball you might think batting is easy. You try it, and you strike out. You are forced to face the fact that there is skill. There is not strike out moment in argumentation. It's easy to convince yourself you are making genius arguments when you really are embarrassing yourself. Happens all the time.
This is not a tactic. I am not arguing with you. I'm telling you as an expert and a fellow human that you are bad at argumentation. For what it's worth. |
First off, free advice- less argumentation, more persuasion.
I think any good rule of argumentation is for one person not to go on and on about their skill, or the other persons lack of skill, in argumentation. I don't really see what your skill has to do with smoking and courtesy. And indeed you may be better than me, but those woefully skilled person has noticed some things wrong with what you post-
Your first point of "Why don't smokers exercise common courtesy" is the
loaded question fallacy. First one must define what common courtesy is before we can ask whether or not smokers exercise it.
Also when you mention that you are more skilled in argumentation and that therefore your argument has more validity you are committing two errors- one you are self-categorizing yourself as skilled in argumentation, where that assertions should be made by an independent source(s). Also you are claiming that someone who is more skilled in argumentation automatically makes better arguments all the time than someone who is not. In order for your argument that the more skilled at argumentation's point is more valid because they are more skilled at argumentation, you first have to prove that indeed you are more skilled at argumentation beyond a self-claim.
I may be bad at argumentation, you ain't no better.
Not to mention going after my skill in argumentation without again, addressing the issue that if you find smokers so discourteous, why do you go to establishments where you might be exposed to their discourtesy.
I disagree that smokers are discourteous when they smoke in bars or restaurants that allow smoking. I think non-smokers asking them not to do so in such places is discourteous. The non-smoker voluntarily chose to enter the building and take those changes.
| Quote: |
| genocide, apartheid, and slavery to name a few. That's the hierarchy. Things that are absolutely evil, and then smoking. |
| Quote: |
| Second, I never said smoking was worse than genocide. Not even remotely. You have missed the point by an ocean |
| Quote: |
| Actually when you brought up the whole "offensive" and said smoking was a step worse than genocide. |
Quite right, I meant to say a step below genocide.
Regardless of that definitely noticeable mistake, the central premise of what I was suggesting remains- That if you are calling smoking 'a step below' genocide you're bloody nuts and need to take a chill pill.
Oh and by the way, you can drop the whole "I'm looking out for you and taking the high road act" Everyone can see through it and its condescending tone and it really is a cover for you to avoid having to explain why you keep on entering establishments that allow smoking in spite of the fact that it makes you upset.
I'm guessing you go there for some sort of weird confrontational/anger make me feel good inside thingamajig.
I may not be good at arguing, but I sure know something about not going to places that tick me off. It's called 'Not going to places that tick me off'.
Same with hanging around people that tick me off. It's called 'Not hanging around people that tick me off'
| Quote: |
| Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on? |
What dishonesty? Our side's point is that smoking should be legal. Smoking in bars should be up to either bar owners or local government. Smoking is bad for your health, can be unattractive, costs money, and is ultimately pointless. It also feels good, has social merits, and who cares if it's pointless? Our other big point is that if you don't like smoking or smokers, don't go to places that have smokers and smoking.
WE don't go to you. You come to us by entering that establishment.
I don't see any dishonesty in that.
However we get this whole song and dance avoiding that central point.
So please, why do you continue to go to places that have smoking and smokers if you find the act so disgusting and the people so discourteous? |
You've changed the subject, though. The original post wasn't about smoking bans ... it was about why (some) smokers don't voluntarily go outside to smoke and why they insist on smoking in front of people who find it offensive. Maybe people hang out with you because they thought you were a nice guy before they found out you smoked? Maybe they knew you smoked but assumed you wouldn't smoke in front of them, out of courtesy? Or maybe they put up with your smoking but don't like it. As AE says, people will put up with a lot until they're pushed past a certain point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| There are dishonest people who given a chance will take the perfectly reasonable things others say to an extreme to try and make them seem silly. |
You mean like you comparing smoking with rape?
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Here is your new slogan. Better a smoker than a rapist. |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| I went out of my way to stop that from happening, |
Sure you did...
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| There are things historically that bother people more than smoking: genocide, apartheid, and slavery to name a few. That's the hierarchy. Things that are absolutely evil, and then smoking. |
Nothing extreme there. You are the epitome of sanity and reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
At the risk of agreeing with a bunch of socks, I have to say this thread is *really* funny. The smokers in this thread--the ones defending their habit and telling us to find another country to live in--are unbelievable. Nonsmokers choose to put up with smoke for all kinds of reasons, and we choose to live in countries that are not smoke-free for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean we have to *like* secondhand smoke or that it's not rude and inconsiderate for you to breathe your @#$% smoke in our faces. I also love how fast you changed the subject and made this into a
debate about sitting naked in restaurants. |
A non-smoker (Captain Corea) brought up the naked argument.
I'm a non-smoker (barring the occasional bar ciggy) arguing for the smokers' cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
At the risk of agreeing with a bunch of socks, I have to say this thread is *really* funny. The smokers in this thread--the ones defending their habit and telling us to find another country to live in--are unbelievable. Nonsmokers choose to put up with smoke for all kinds of reasons, and we choose to live in countries that are not smoke-free for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean we have to *like* secondhand smoke or that it's not rude and inconsiderate for you to breathe your @#$% smoke in our faces. I also love how fast you changed the subject and made this into a
debate about sitting naked in restaurants. |
A non-smoker (Captain Corea) brought up the naked argument.
I'm a non-smoker (barring the occasional bar ciggy) arguing for the smokers' cause. |
You seem to be arguing mainly about bans/bartenders' rights, etc. What about the original topic--the rudeness of imposing your secondhand smoke on people who object to it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
You've changed the subject, though. The original post wasn't about smoking bans ... it was about why (some) smokers don't voluntarily go outside to smoke and why they insist on smoking in front of people who find it offensive. Maybe people hang out with you because they thought you were a nice guy before they found out you smoked? Maybe they knew you smoked but assumed you wouldn't smoke in front of them, out of courtesy? Or maybe they put up with your smoking but don't like it. As AE says, people will put up with a lot until they're pushed past a certain point. |
You've got a point there. I mean there is an element of courtesy. I've always asked when I'm around a new group of people if they mind if I light up. I get the courtesy thing if you are with friends or new acquaintances. I don't get the whole being a patron in a smoking bar and some other random person in the bar gets annoyed at you for smoking. I know plenty of people who don't like smoking and they do one of two things- suggest we go to non-smoking bars (which I'm fine with) or go to places like coffee shops or tea houses.
I'm still failing to see an answer to that essential point of if someone finds smoking and smokers so distasteful what are they doing in a bar that has smoking?
If they find their friends annoying because they smoke why don't they A)Say something or B)Stop being their friend or C)Say hey let's go to Non-Smoking Bar X or Coffee Shop Y?
Most smokers I know are courteous enough to sit together and at one or another so the smoke doesn't get to inconvenient. Also most are more than willing to smoke outside if its a bother to someone. All the person has to do is ask politely and respectfully.
Most smokers are pretty chill and live and let live type of folks so they are more than happy to oblige. Plus they are the type that would rather you be honest and straight forward with them rather than you sitting there secretly stewing at them.
Then again it seems a fair number of the "smokers are discourteous" crowd likes to sit and stew and act passive-aggressively towards the smokers. It's either silent rage or some outburst where they go off on the smoker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| You seem to be arguing mainly about bans/bartenders' rights, etc. What about the original topic--the rudeness of imposing your secondhand smoke on people who object to it? |
It depends on what you mean by imposing. If they're actively blowing it in your face then yeah, that's pretty rude. If it's just wafting, and smoking is permitted, then it's not. The smoker entered the establishment fully aware that they would be able to smoke, just as the non-smoker entered aware that they may have to put up with some smoke.
As for being discourteous, most smokers I know have no problem going outside to smoke if asked politely, or if there's a young child or baby around (an oddly frequent occurrence in Korean bars). I should also say that most smokers that I know here are Korean women, I've a feeling it's a bit different with the ajeossi set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
You've changed the subject, though. The original post wasn't about smoking bans ... it was about why (some) smokers don't voluntarily go outside to smoke and why they insist on smoking in front of people who find it offensive. Maybe people hang out with you because they thought you were a nice guy before they found out you smoked? Maybe they knew you smoked but assumed you wouldn't smoke in front of them, out of courtesy? Or maybe they put up with your smoking but don't like it. As AE says, people will put up with a lot until they're pushed past a certain point. |
You've got a point there. I mean there is an element of courtesy. I've always asked when I'm around a new group of people if they mind if I light up. I get the courtesy thing if you are with friends or new acquaintances. I don't get the whole being a patron in a smoking bar and some other random person in the bar gets annoyed at you for smoking. I know plenty of people who don't like smoking and they do one of two things- suggest we go to non-smoking bars (which I'm fine with) or go to places like coffee shops or tea houses.
I'm still failing to see an answer to that essential point of if someone finds smoking and smokers so distasteful what are they doing in a bar that has smoking?
If they find their friends annoying because they smoke why don't they A)Say something or B)Stop being their friend or C)Say hey let's go to Non-Smoking Bar X or Coffee Shop Y?
Most smokers I know are courteous enough to sit together and at one or another so the smoke doesn't get to inconvenient. Also most are more than willing to smoke outside if its a bother to someone. All the person has to do is ask politely and respectfully.
Most smokers are pretty chill and live and let live type of folks so they are more than happy to oblige. Plus they are the type that would rather you be honest and straight forward with them rather than you sitting there secretly stewing at them.
Then again it seems a fair number of the "smokers are discourteous" crowd likes to sit and stew and act passive-aggressively towards the smokers. It's either silent rage or some outburst where they go off on the smoker. |
I do nearly always avoid bars, but occasionally I've chosen to go with co-workers or acquaintances or for some special event. You're right about the passive-aggressive thing, but then again it's hard to understand why some people need to be hit over the head when they can see the person sitting there coughing. Once I was asked if I was "allergic" to smoke and when I said no, the person proceeded to light a cigarette as if I'd just told him to go ahead. WTF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| You seem to be arguing mainly about bans/bartenders' rights, etc. What about the original topic--the rudeness of imposing your secondhand smoke on people who object to it? |
It depends on what you mean by imposing. If they're actively blowing it in your face then yeah, that's pretty rude. If it's just wafting, and smoking is permitted, then it's not. The smoker entered the establishment fully aware that they would be able to smoke, just as the non-smoker entered aware that they may have to put up with some smoke.
As for being discourteous, most smokers I know have no problem going outside to smoke if asked politely, or if there's a young child or baby around (an oddly frequent occurrence in Korean bars). I should also say that most smokers that I know here are Korean women, I've a feeling it's a bit different with the ajeossi set. |
Well, I'm old enough to remember Canada before smoking became socially unacceptable. When I was 20 I worked at a store and a customer decided to light up right in front of a no-smoking sign because "there [were] no cops around." Yes, I could have said something, but I probably would have lost my job. A few years later I was living in a "nonsmoking" house and my "nonsmoking" roommates thought it would be funny to take up smoking right in front of me. When I said, "I thought there was no smoking at [name of house]?" the person in charge giggled and said, "There is no smoking at [name of house]" and went right on smoking. Very considerate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Well, I'm old enough to remember Canada before smoking became socially unacceptable. When I was 20 I worked at a store and a customer decided to light up right in front of a no-smoking sign because "there [were] no cops around." Yes, I could have said something, but I probably would have lost my job. A few years later I was living in a "nonsmoking" house and my "nonsmoking" roommates thought it would be funny to take up smoking right in front of me. When I said, "I thought there was no smoking at [name of house]?" the person in charge giggled and said, "There is no smoking at [name of house]" and went right on smoking. Very considerate. |
I remember it too. It never really bothered me, but then I never had the terrible experiences with smokers that you did. I guess smokers are just like everyone else: some are rude, some are not. |
|
| 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
