| Excluding smokers from public places is like a form of racism - treating smokers as different. |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by jennieanimateur  United Kingdom |
| 6 Points |
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyGood point. When you discriminate based on sex or race that is something someone can't change . . . a smoker doesn't have to smoke, but a man or woman has to be a man or a woman (yes, I know there are transgenders and cross-dressers) or a person is whatever race they are (yes, I know of Michael Jackson), you don't really make that choice like you would be if you smoke.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI think it is more discrimination than racism.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI don't like the smell of smoke and it is bad for my health. If they want to smoke for pleasure, go someplace where it doesn't bother me or affects my health.
I actually agree, I am shocked we can have similar thoughts on this, lol.
When all is said and done we are all humans and have more in common then what divides us.
True enough, although the diversity of humanity adds spice to life. Would you really like only lefties blindly agreeing with you on every point and never challenging you? Come on, despite what you may think of any right-wingers, it does make things interesting.
Me, I like reasoned arguments, I am not good at them myself, but I love watching others make them. Sadly the more vocal neocons here don't. For them it is politics of fear and that just leads to wars.
Same here, I enjoy observing a well reasoned argument, and attempting to have them as well. I would just add that some of the more vocal liberals might not be much better. I would say they can degenerate into accusations of racism, homophobia, religious extremism, etc. that doesn't improve things either.
I notice that after the swiftboat incident that the liberals turned angry and more vocal, but I also note that translate seems to be able to respond either way.
In general peeing in public is not allowed, but people who pee can be in public as long as they are not peeing while in public. So its not "racism" or "discrimination" its like translate said, its the activity that is excluded.
However it appears that some people are racist against activities, judging by the votes.
That one hit it right on the head.
Good one sheep.
> However it appears that some people are racist against activities, judging by the votes.
How is that so, how is one "racist" against an activity? Wouldn't that be discrimination more so than racism, if it is either?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt's clearly not racism, it's more like a form of Nazism.
How so?
No cigarette for you!
Ugh, hate getting in the elevator with someone who just smoked, yuck.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt is definitely excluding the activity, and it is also a nuisance. You can choose whether or not you are going to smoke, but smokers shouldn't shove their smoking habit in the faces of the public who either have or have not chosen to smoke. It is far to extreme to say that excluding smokers is like racism. Anyway, maybe it is just one way to show that someone actually cares. Decreasing how much second-hand smoke is taken in by the public en masse and also reducing the areas the smokers can smoke...
So, do you think that people infected with typhoid, hepatitis, and noroviruses be allowed to work as food handlers?
They probably won't infect the majority of people who eat the food they handle, any more than second hand smoke will have deleterious effects on most of the people who are unwillingly subjected to it.
And I was a smoker for 35 years.