|
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 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
| That is the Cap'n's argument in a nutshell. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. |
I think you're missing the point. I'm against bans in general - not just ones that affect me.
| Quote: |
Life in Klown would be "good fun" if it weren't so true.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I know the guys that came up with that word, and it's regarding a type of person that does some particular behavior - not a land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| is that this is more about behavior of kids, not who they fundamentally are as people. Kids aren't a race. |
Wrong. It IS about who they are fundamentally as possible. A kid has no more ability to choose their age than someone has to choose their race.
If this was about behavior, you would ban the behavior, not the age. A kid who has not engaged in any of the behaviors you have described would still be banned, ergo it is not about behavior.
It seems the only difference here is that you are not a member of the group of people who the ban might affect. I am neither a parent nor a child, but I can see how such a ban is based on the same irrational rationale that could be used against foreigners that would cause people to howl.
As I said, I have no problem with your stance if you are consistent like Fox, who thinks places should be able to ban kids, foreigners, women, elderly, etc.
Would you support a similar ban on elderly people in restaurants if they were noisy and liable to injure themselves?
| Quote: |
| Another problem is... they are kids. They don't get to play by the same rules as adults and fundamentally have fewer rights than adults. We discriminate against them in terms of what they can and can't do all the time, and this is a good thing. They'll be adults someday and then they'll gain those privileges. |
I understand age bans on night clubs or bars or adult entertainment facilities. I don't understand a ban on kids in coffee shops based solely age and which condemns the group as a whole.
And what is hurt by a child that goes into a coffee shop and buys some honey bread and eats it in peace? Should a child be denied that right simply because of a minority of children?
Where does this ban end? With children under the age of 6? 10? 19? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| That is the Cap'n's argument in a nutshell. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. |
I think you're missing the point. I'm against bans in general - not just ones that affect me.
| Quote: |
Life in Klown would be "good fun" if it weren't so true.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I know the guys that came up with that word, and it's regarding a type of person that does some particular behavior - not a land. |
Maybe you're against bans in general, but I haven't seen many posts of that type from you before on here and certainly none with the let's say energy and focus of your posts on this subject. At the very least, it has touched a nerve with you that other bans haven't.
And the reason for that is obvious.
It's part of the title of a blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm against bans in general, and have posted such on this forum in the past - yet usually there's little argument on this forum - when it's foreigners or nigerians, most seem in agreement - other than Libertarians like fox.
Again, the word "Klown' is not used for a location, it's used for ppl that act a certain (ignorant) way. So "life in Klown" makes no sense to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I'm against bans in general, and have posted such on this forum in the past - yet usually there's little argument on this forum - when it's foreigners or nigerians, most seem in agreement - other than Libertarians like fox.
Again, the word "Klown' is not used for a location, it's used for ppl that act a certain (ignorant) way. So "life in Klown" makes no sense to me. |
This should make it clear: http://klownisms.wordpress.com/
So you're against smoking bans, drunk driving bans, bans against discrimination, parking bans, speeding bans, bans on hate speech, bans against gay pride marches?
I mention the last because there was quite a bit of disagreement here on the march(es).
As for foreigner or Nigerian ban threads, I have to agree with sr that the prime motivation behind the complaints is self-interest, and when I (rarely since they're usually sophmoric) post on such threads I usually commend government efforts, as self-interested as those efforts may be, to assist immigrants in SK.
If you had posted that you disagreed with the (very limited--can you even name on restaurant and cafe involved?) bans on personal grounds I could accept that as your opinion on the subject, but when you felt compelled to start in with the specious comparisons to drunks and the handicapped well that's just plain wrong IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I'm against bans in general, and have posted such on this forum in the past - yet usually there's little argument on this forum - when it's foreigners or nigerians, most seem in agreement - other than Libertarians like fox.
Again, the word "Klown' is not used for a location, it's used for ppl that act a certain (ignorant) way. So "life in Klown" makes no sense to me. |
This should make it clear: http://klownisms.wordpress.com/ |
The word came from expathell. You'll find the definition here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Klown
FYI, you do know that the author of that blog is spoofing another writer, right? Do you even know the guys from EH?
| Quote: |
| So you're against smoking bans, drunk driving bans, bans against discrimination, parking bans, speeding bans, bans on hate speech, bans against gay pride marches? |
I'm against blanket bans on demographics of people - not specific actions/habits. Those would be handled on an individual case matter.
For example, you can look at discrimination laws in Canada
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html
For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
I think that decently matches my feelings.
While harmful activity can and should be regulated.
| Quote: |
| I mention the last because there was quite a bit of disagreement here on the march(es). |
I do believe I weighed in on that thread and was in agreement with the majority - the ban on the march was ridiculous.
| Quote: |
| As for foreigner or Nigerian ban threads, I have to agree with sr that the prime motivation behind the complaints is self-interest, and when I (rarely since they're usually sophmoric) post on such threads I usually commend government efforts, as self-interested as those efforts may be, to assist immigrants in SK. |
I'm not Nigerian and have no dog in that fight - yet am against it.
| Quote: |
| If you had posted that you disagreed with the (very limited--can you even name on restaurant and cafe involved?) bans on personal grounds I could accept that as your opinion on the subject, but when you felt compelled to start in with the specious comparisons to drunks and the handicapped well that's just plain wrong IMO. |
I think I've made it clear that I don't agree with bans on specific demographics/groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
I'm against bans in general, and have posted such on this forum in the past - yet usually there's little argument on this forum - when it's foreigners or nigerians, most seem in agreement - other than Libertarians like fox.
Again, the word "Klown' is not used for a location, it's used for ppl that act a certain (ignorant) way. So "life in Klown" makes no sense to me. |
This should make it clear: http://klownisms.wordpress.com/ |
The word came from expathell. You'll find the definition here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Klown
FYI, you do know that the author of that blog is spoofing another writer, right? Do you even know the guys from EH?
| Quote: |
| So you're against smoking bans, drunk driving bans, bans against discrimination, parking bans, speeding bans, bans on hate speech, bans against gay pride marches? |
I'm against blanket bans on demographics of people - not specific actions/habits. Those would be handled on an individual case matter.
For example, you can look at discrimination laws in Canada
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-6/FullText.html
For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
I think that decently matches my feelings.
While harmful activity can and should be regulated.
| Quote: |
| I mention the last because there was quite a bit of disagreement here on the march(es). |
I do believe I weighed in on that thread and was in agreement with the majority - the ban on the march was ridiculous.
| Quote: |
| As for foreigner or Nigerian ban threads, I have to agree with sr that the prime motivation behind the complaints is self-interest, and when I (rarely since they're usually sophmoric) post on such threads I usually commend government efforts, as self-interested as those efforts may be, to assist immigrants in SK. |
I'm not Nigerian and have no dog in that fight - yet am against it.
| Quote: |
| If you had posted that you disagreed with the (very limited--can you even name on restaurant and cafe involved?) bans on personal grounds I could accept that as your opinion on the subject, but when you felt compelled to start in with the specious comparisons to drunks and the handicapped well that's just plain wrong IMO. |
I think I've made it clear that I don't agree with bans on specific demographics/groups. |
No, I don't know "the guys from EH."
Are you saying a word can be used only one way or that its usage can't change, in this case without the express written permission of the "guys from EH"? And that ExpatS in the Urban Dictionary is the last and final authority on all things "klown"?
Yet you asked why not ban drunks and proceeded to try and make a case against drunks. That's a specific "group." How's that work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, let me make this simple for you, because you seem to be struggling for an argument.
I don't think there should be a blanket ban on one demographic. I think the action/s should be banned. Those that bother other tables can/should be asked to stop or leave. That includes children, drunk people, or whoever.
If we are to look at those with "high rates" of bother other patrons, then we must also consider ppl who are drunk. Over consumption of alcohol is a big problem here, and I have mentioned - I've been bothered more often by a neighboring table of loud drunks, than loud kids.
And to be clear, "drunks" are not a specific group. They can be any race, age, gender - it's a decision on their part. See how that works? Did you not read my posting about laws in Canada?
But again, no "bannings" per say, rather enforce the behavior rules. If there's a table of drunk ppl that aren't bothering their neighbors, I could care less about them.
As to the word "Klown", it' a made up word. One that was created by the guys on ExpatHell. The way you were using it made no sense to me, because it's not used in that way - and no, a blog about rants is no authority on it. Now, if you and the blog guy want to use it that way, by all means - define it! what does it mean? If you have some better definition than what I've posted, go for it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Ok, let me make this simple for you, because you seem to be struggling for an argument.
I don't think there should be a blanket ban on one demographic. I think the action/s should be banned. Those that bother other tables can/should be asked to stop or leave. That includes children, drunk people, or whoever.
If we are to look at those with "high rates" of bother other patrons, then we must also consider ppl who are drunk. Over consumption of alcohol is a big problem here, and I have mentioned - I've been bothered more often by a neighboring table of loud drunks, than loud kids.
And to be clear, "drunks" are not a specific group. They can be any race, age, gender - it's a decision on their part. See how that works? Did you not read my posting about laws in Canada?
But again, no "bannings" per say, rather enforce the behavior rules. If there's a table of drunk ppl that aren't bothering their neighbors, I could care less about them.
As to the word "Klown", it' a made up word. One that was created by the guys on ExpatHell. The way you were using it made no sense to me, because it's not used in that way - and no, a blog about rants is no authority on it. Now, if you and the blog guy want to use it that way, by all means - define it! what does it mean? If you have some better definition than what I've posted, go for it! |
It's your argument that has changed as you've struggled for a way to defend your opinion, mainly by injecting drunks into the discussion. I've been consistent.
But I'll give you that you have been consistent on opposition to bans, yet will disagree that drunks are not a specific group. Groups can be inclusive relating to age, gender, race, etc., e.g., a group of cyclists.
No, I didn't read about laws in Canada nor will I unless you can demonstrate how they directly apply to this situation.
However, you seem to be becoming a bit unhinged regarding the word Klown. I was referring to the blog which I linked for you. But you like the EH blog and know the guys there so it's an authority, but a blog that you didn't like that uses it is not using it correctly.
It's a "made-up" word, and he's made up a new use for it, expanding it to include Korea as well as Koreans. Whoop-dee-do!
But, I will add I thought I was using that in response to sr, who had been directly named on that blog and would immediately understand the reference. If I accidentally included it in a response to you, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
It's your argument that has changed as you've struggled for a way to defend your opinion, mainly by injecting drunks into the discussion. I've been consistent. |
I've elaborated on my position, given examples of different aspects that support it, but no - it hasn't changed. Just because you write it does not make it true.
| Quote: |
| But I'll give you that you have been consistent on opposition to bans, yet will disagree that drunks are not a specific group. Groups can be inclusive relating to age, gender, race, etc., e.g., a group of cyclists. |
Groups meaning demographic groups. Groups identified by the traits I've linked to in Canadian law, for example. Smoking, drinking, cycling - those are actions.
| Quote: |
| No, I didn't read about laws in Canada nor will I unless you can demonstrate how they directly apply to this situation. |
It applies to how I view discrimination and such. You asked me to define how I look at groups and such, and I used Canadian laws on discrimination as an example. I also gave a detailed explanation of how a Judge in Korea viewed this issue - you never did reply to that.
I'm curious though, what exactly have you brought to this topic and discussion? You claimed that this was an issue for kids but NOT drunks. That restaurants could not be held liable for a drunk's injuries - I've found that to be false. Where is your legal sourcing on your claims?
| Quote: |
| However, you seem to be becoming a bit unhinged regarding the word Klown. I was referring to the blog which I linked for you. But you like the EH blog and know the guys there so it's an authority, but a blog that you didn't like that uses it is not using it correctly. |
This is where you start trolling. Using words like "unhinged" to try to improve your argument and shoot me down. There is no "unhinged" part of my posting. There is no massive upswell of emotion regarding the word Klown here - I simply could not understand your use of it because A) it didn't match the guy/site that started it, and B) it didn't match the definition posted online. If you want to redefine or add to the definition, so be it - I've asked how you would now define that word, and you've yet to. Feel fee to consider adding said definition to the link/s I've provided. Also, I'd suggest that if you're going to quote blogs for new words, you may want to consider who is writing it - are they an actual person, or are they just writing under a pseudonym for shits and giggles (?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| is that this is more about behavior of kids, not who they fundamentally are as people. Kids aren't a race. |
Wrong. It IS about who they are fundamentally as possible. A kid has no more ability to choose their age than someone has to choose their race.
|
So what. Still a huge difference in concept. Doesn't mean they have to be allowed everywhere at any time. We banned them from working in factories too. We don't allow them into bars, strip clubs, R-rated movies etc. We don't let them drink or drive cars. Adults made these laws. Why? Just to discriminate? No... sometimes for safety reasons, and sometimes just because they didn't want kids around certain adult places. Adults make the rules, and thank goodness they do. If you can't see the difference between kids and race then I don't know what to tell you.
| Quote: |
If this was about behavior, you would ban the behavior, not the age. A kid who has not engaged in any of the behaviors you have described would still be banned, ergo it is not about behavior.
|
Yeah, a few good kids would be banned too. Tough s**t. Kids will be kids. A ban serves as pre-emptive prevention on the behavior. With most parents so lax on kids these days, it's not a question of IF there will be bad behavior, it's a question of WHEN. A ban makes things easier.
| Quote: |
It seems the only difference here is that you are not a member of the group of people who the ban might affect. I am neither a parent nor a child, but I can see how such a ban is based on the same irrational rationale that could be used against foreigners that would cause people to howl.
As I said, I have no problem with your stance if you are consistent like Fox, who thinks places should be able to ban kids, foreigners, women, elderly, etc.
|
Actually, I'm pretty close to Fox's position. I've been denied entry to several places here in Korea, based on being a foreigner, and I dealt with it. Did I think it was right? Not really. Do I think a business should have the right to decide to ban certain groups? Possibly. In the case of kids? Absolutely. Consistent? I don't really care if it is or isn't. I still support banning kids from certain things and I hope the movement gains momentum. It's a quality of life issue. No kids in certain places makes a better life for adults.
| Quote: |
| Would you support a similar ban on elderly people in restaurants if they were noisy and liable to injure themselves? |
IF they were noisy... maybe. But they generally aren't. Plus the elderly are veterans of childhood and deserve more respect than kids. In fact, let's make elderly seating areas in restaurants that are extra plush with better services.
Kids are essentially beta versions of adults... not yet ready for primetime launching. They have fewer rights and more restrictions and adults shouldn't be weeping about it. Yes, kids should be protected from harms... but that doesn't mean they have full rights and need to be able to go anywhere they want, anytime they want.
| Quote: |
I understand age bans on night clubs or bars or adult entertainment facilities. I don't understand a ban on kids in coffee shops based solely age and which condemns the group as a whole.
|
Not really that different. In both cases, adults decided that kids weren't allowed. Restaurant/coffee shop bans are an extension of that. True, they banned them mostly to protect them from harm, but these newer bans are to protect ADULTS from harm. Harm in the form of unwanted stress from loud, out of control kids. More adults should be supporting that; it's a quality of life issue. If parents don't/can't control kids anymore, time to start banning them from certain areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaeguNL
Joined: 08 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| is that this is more about behavior of kids, not who they fundamentally are as people. Kids aren't a race. |
Wrong. It IS about who they are fundamentally as possible. A kid has no more ability to choose their age than someone has to choose their race.
If this was about behavior, you would ban the behavior, not the age. A kid who has not engaged in any of the behaviors you have described would still be banned, ergo it is not about behavior.
It seems the only difference here is that you are not a member of the group of people who the ban might affect. I am neither a parent nor a child, but I can see how such a ban is based on the same irrational rationale that could be used against foreigners that would cause people to howl.
As I said, I have no problem with your stance if you are consistent like Fox, who thinks places should be able to ban kids, foreigners, women, elderly, etc.
Would you support a similar ban on elderly people in restaurants if they were noisy and liable to injure themselves?
| Quote: |
| Another problem is... they are kids. They don't get to play by the same rules as adults and fundamentally have fewer rights than adults. We discriminate against them in terms of what they can and can't do all the time, and this is a good thing. They'll be adults someday and then they'll gain those privileges. |
I understand age bans on night clubs or bars or adult entertainment facilities. I don't understand a ban on kids in coffee shops based solely age and which condemns the group as a whole.
And what is hurt by a child that goes into a coffee shop and buys some honey bread and eats it in peace? Should a child be denied that right simply because of a minority of children?
Where does this ban end? With children under the age of 6? 10? 19? |
OK, at least you agree that kids shouldn't be allowed into night clubs and sex shops. How that is even remotely related to kids running around like crazy in a restaurant, only you would know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I take it you're not a parent, Mix1? Your talk about how certain ppl should get more respect than others is telling.
Maybe I'm funny in that if I meet someone, I start off giving them respect, no matter the age. I don't assume they are less than someone else simply because of age. Some old people are idiots and rude, some young people are awesome. Some people of all ages impress me - I try to give them that opportunity.
Again though - restaurants are dangerous for two main reasons
-Customer behavior
-improper safety practices
Some kids are loud, rude, bump people, spill things, break dishes, fight, cry, and visit other tables.
Some drunks are loud, rude, bump people, spill things, break dishes, fight, cry, and visit other tables.
See the similarities? lol
Again, punish the behavior, not the innocent person.
As to improper safety precautions, think about the OP - a child was burned with charcoal. Ok, now think back to any k-restaurant you've been to that use charcoal. Do they manage it safely? When they bring it out, is it in some type of secure container? Does it have any temp coating around it? Is the worker trained in proper safety techniques?
No.
Most every restaurant that I've been to that has that sort of thing has a disheveled dude who BALANCES a pot of burning charcoal on a stick (?!?!?!) and then proceeds to walk through the restaurant with it.
Not at all safe.
I've already pointed out that behavior is only a small piece of the litigation pie. That short and long term damages are THE main factor. If these places were so concerned with damages, as the article says, then would they not take steps towards a safer dining experience for us all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaeguKid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just got back from a nice galbi dinner. Small restaurant. Maybe 12 tables at the most. All have a grill. 6 tables were occupied, one them being the one I was at. Two had two dudes at each one. Minding their own and drinking soju. Quite a few bottles as their empties were quite piled up. They were drunk indeed. They were loud, but not swearing. I said loud, not shouting.
Not once did they get in the way of the hot coals. Not once did they go from table to table. Not once did they cry. Not once did they get demanding with the staff. Not once did their mom or dad have to deal with them.
It was an enjoyable dining experience. So yeah, I guess you can compare the two in that they are completely not the same! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| So what. Still a huge difference in concept. Doesn't mean they have to be allowed everywhere at any time. We banned them from working in factories too. We don't allow them into bars, strip clubs, R-rated movies etc. We don't let them drink or drive cars. Adults made these laws. Why? Just to discriminate? No... sometimes for safety reasons, and sometimes just because they didn't want kids around certain adult places. |
Actually, the rationale used in all of those IS safety and ONLY safety (preventing exposure to obscenity) when it is put to law. The rationale has NEVER been "they're too loud and run around".
| Quote: |
| If you can't see the difference between kids and race then I don't know what to tell you. |
If you can't tell the difference between a strip club and a coffee shop, I don't know what to tell you...
| Quote: |
| Did I think it was right? Not really. Do I think a business should have the right to decide to ban certain groups? Possibly. In the case of kids? Absolutely. Consistent?I don't really care if it is or isn't. |
EXACTLY. You don't care. You can't be bothered to try and find a consistent principle. Your desire for a pleasurable and convenient experience is overriding any beliefs you have regarding principles, logic, and justice.
Fox, on the other hand, is a true believer, whose position was determined FIRST by his principles and he cared deeply about being consistent and cared enough to carefully consider his other positions and stances and to make sure his stance on this issue corresponded to his previously held principles.
Apparently, your stance was first derived by your immediate reaction and opinion towards such a concept and then you retroactively searched for your principles to support your decision.
| Quote: |
| No kids in certain places makes a better life for adults. |
SOME adults.
| Quote: |
| but these newer bans are to protect ADULTS from harm. Harm in the form of unwanted stress from loud, out of control kids |
But its not about harm. If it was about "loud and out of control", drunks would be banned as well! Alcohol in restaurants should be banned!
| DaeguNL wrote: |
| OK, at least you agree that kids shouldn't be allowed into night clubs and sex shops. How that is even remotely related to kids running around like crazy in a restaurant, only you would know. |
Is that to me or Mix1? He's the one that brought up the whole "we ban kids in other places" thing. |
|
| 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
