All smokers (or at least, all smokers who smoke in public) are doing something that physically hurts for people whom cigarette smoke causes pain, though, whereas the vast majority of people from the middle east have never participated in terrorism in any way.
You can deflect to an admittedly imperfect example meant only to illustrate a concept all you want.
My only point is:
Don't be a disgustingly rude dick to every smoker you meet, especially preemptively.
I don't agree with treating anyone this way. All targets inclusive. Overweight people, Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, Soldiers & Military Personnel, Pro-life advocates, people who are pro-gay rights but hold the personal opinion it's wrong, have ALL suffered injustice and dehumanizing behavior from people that believe they are BETTER than them because there are a few bad examples that lie within those groups.
It's wrong, straight up. And the argument that ONLY smokers harm those around them does not stand up to people that take issue with the above examples. A pro-choice advocate may find it vastly more harmful to the human race to be pro-life. Also, the scientifically provable facts about the effects of second hand smoke are largely sensationalized and taken out of context. It is harmful, but not to the wildly extreme degree many aggressive non-smokers present it as.
I'm not talking about second hand smoke causing cancer or anything, I'm talking about people for whom it triggers migraines, asthma attacks, or seizures.
So let's see here:
The only study linking cigarette smoke with migraines gained statistical backing with "smoking more than 5 cigarettes a day can trigger migraines" (Journal of Headache and Pain)
Asthma occurs in 7.5% of the population, of which I've found several studies showing that second-hand smoke exacerbates the condition in over half the sample size (3.75%) when "prolonged exposure" occurs. (EPA, American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, American Lung Association)
There are no studies anywhere in any accredited scientific journal that link second-hand smoke to seizures. Given that olfactory triggers do exist and the theory it could be linked is not entirely unsound despite having zero conclusive studies, even for people directly smoking up to 2 packs a day (a HMS study in 2011 failed to find cigarette smoke a conclusive determinate)
So let's be generous and say that we're dealing with a total of 3.5% of the population that will experience seizures and migraines from second-hand smoke (this is a very generous over-estimation, but I want to be fair in favor of those who may suffer) and we can bump the asthma sufferers up to say, 4.5% (significantly "over half") this brings us to a total of 8% of the population for him this is an issue.
When "prolonged exposure" to second-hand smoke occurs. I'm not sure how it is possible to suffer "prolonged exposure" to second-hand smoke IF somebody is dealing with the smokers I'm referring to - the kind who are understanding and willing to accommodate non-smoker's needs - but nevertheless...
If you're saying 8% of the population is completely justified in preemptively being aggressive, rude, and showing dehumanizing behavior to smokers BEFORE giving them a chance to snuff their cigs, despite the fact I largely disagree with such rude behavior I'll STILL accept this.
I'm saying I see an awful lot more than 8% of the population behaving atrociously towards smokers with no provocation, and this is what bothers me.
Migraine and seizure triggers are pretty difficult to study, and they aren't studied nearly often enough. I realise that's not good evidence for cigarette smoke triggering seizures or migraines, but when people who have seizures or migraines say that it's one of their triggers, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them. Note that I'm not talking about things which CAUSE seizure disorders, but things that trigger seizures in people who already have seizure disorders. I'm thinking of somebody specific, right now.
The thing is, I think we agree on your main point. When it's just a matter of disliking the smell or passing moral judgement, I think it's completely inappropriate for people to treat smokers the way they do sometimes, and I agree that it's often probably a matter of feeling morally superior, not a matter of genuine distress. However, I pointed out what I did because I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that some of the people you encounter may be experiencing genuine distress, that you can't necessarily tell who those people are, and that sometimes, what seems like reasonable and courteous behaviour to you may cause real problems for other people.
The way you expressed your problem also made me very uneasy, particularly the comparison to racism. It's a generally a good policy not to compare things to racism. Even with other types of oppression, it always ends in up turning into the Oppression Olympics, and nobody wants to play that game. In this case, it's not a type of oppression, it's just people being shitty, and appropriating other people's oppression to talk about your problems is hurtful and rude.
It did clear a lot of things up and I feel we do agree on most parts, and it's good to bring up that some people may be suffering more than the average joe with an inferiority complex.
But still... racism? The definition mandates that there be a belief that someone is inferior based on their race. My example, again, was demonstrative of stereotyping. I was not equating being rude to smokers with being a racist.
It's your personal interpretation that smokers suffer "people being shitty" but fat people suffer "oppression" when people are rude to them. That's your call regarding particular semantics and a subjective view of oppression. While it's not my intention to be hurtful and rude to any group that suffers discrimination, remember that from your shoes, you may find it hurtful to put smokers on par with the armed forces, overweight people, pro-lifers, and the other examples I listed, from MY shoes it's harmful to write off discrimination simply because... well, whatever reason it is you have for thinking it's not discrimination.
There never was a "contest" to say who suffered the worst. Certainly not an Olympic competition. There was only a message speaking out against discrimination of all sorts, smokers included.
Is it normal to be awe-struck by socially-accepted rudeness?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
All smokers (or at least, all smokers who smoke in public) are doing something that physically hurts for people whom cigarette smoke causes pain, though, whereas the vast majority of people from the middle east have never participated in terrorism in any way.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You can deflect to an admittedly imperfect example meant only to illustrate a concept all you want.
My only point is:
Don't be a disgustingly rude dick to every smoker you meet, especially preemptively.
I don't agree with treating anyone this way. All targets inclusive. Overweight people, Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, Soldiers & Military Personnel, Pro-life advocates, people who are pro-gay rights but hold the personal opinion it's wrong, have ALL suffered injustice and dehumanizing behavior from people that believe they are BETTER than them because there are a few bad examples that lie within those groups.
It's wrong, straight up. And the argument that ONLY smokers harm those around them does not stand up to people that take issue with the above examples. A pro-choice advocate may find it vastly more harmful to the human race to be pro-life. Also, the scientifically provable facts about the effects of second hand smoke are largely sensationalized and taken out of context. It is harmful, but not to the wildly extreme degree many aggressive non-smokers present it as.
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not talking about second hand smoke causing cancer or anything, I'm talking about people for whom it triggers migraines, asthma attacks, or seizures.
--
zohan
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I have a lot of smoker friends
I ain't rude to them
I m just expressing my dislike for the smoke not the smoker
So let's see here:
The only study linking cigarette smoke with migraines gained statistical backing with "smoking more than 5 cigarettes a day can trigger migraines" (Journal of Headache and Pain)
Asthma occurs in 7.5% of the population, of which I've found several studies showing that second-hand smoke exacerbates the condition in over half the sample size (3.75%) when "prolonged exposure" occurs. (EPA, American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology, American Lung Association)
There are no studies anywhere in any accredited scientific journal that link second-hand smoke to seizures. Given that olfactory triggers do exist and the theory it could be linked is not entirely unsound despite having zero conclusive studies, even for people directly smoking up to 2 packs a day (a HMS study in 2011 failed to find cigarette smoke a conclusive determinate)
So let's be generous and say that we're dealing with a total of 3.5% of the population that will experience seizures and migraines from second-hand smoke (this is a very generous over-estimation, but I want to be fair in favor of those who may suffer) and we can bump the asthma sufferers up to say, 4.5% (significantly "over half") this brings us to a total of 8% of the population for him this is an issue.
When "prolonged exposure" to second-hand smoke occurs. I'm not sure how it is possible to suffer "prolonged exposure" to second-hand smoke IF somebody is dealing with the smokers I'm referring to - the kind who are understanding and willing to accommodate non-smoker's needs - but nevertheless...
If you're saying 8% of the population is completely justified in preemptively being aggressive, rude, and showing dehumanizing behavior to smokers BEFORE giving them a chance to snuff their cigs, despite the fact I largely disagree with such rude behavior I'll STILL accept this.
I'm saying I see an awful lot more than 8% of the population behaving atrociously towards smokers with no provocation, and this is what bothers me.
--
VioletTrees
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Migraine and seizure triggers are pretty difficult to study, and they aren't studied nearly often enough. I realise that's not good evidence for cigarette smoke triggering seizures or migraines, but when people who have seizures or migraines say that it's one of their triggers, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them. Note that I'm not talking about things which CAUSE seizure disorders, but things that trigger seizures in people who already have seizure disorders. I'm thinking of somebody specific, right now.
The thing is, I think we agree on your main point. When it's just a matter of disliking the smell or passing moral judgement, I think it's completely inappropriate for people to treat smokers the way they do sometimes, and I agree that it's often probably a matter of feeling morally superior, not a matter of genuine distress. However, I pointed out what I did because I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that some of the people you encounter may be experiencing genuine distress, that you can't necessarily tell who those people are, and that sometimes, what seems like reasonable and courteous behaviour to you may cause real problems for other people.
The way you expressed your problem also made me very uneasy, particularly the comparison to racism. It's a generally a good policy not to compare things to racism. Even with other types of oppression, it always ends in up turning into the Oppression Olympics, and nobody wants to play that game. In this case, it's not a type of oppression, it's just people being shitty, and appropriating other people's oppression to talk about your problems is hurtful and rude.
I hope that clears some things up.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It did clear a lot of things up and I feel we do agree on most parts, and it's good to bring up that some people may be suffering more than the average joe with an inferiority complex.
But still... racism? The definition mandates that there be a belief that someone is inferior based on their race. My example, again, was demonstrative of stereotyping. I was not equating being rude to smokers with being a racist.
It's your personal interpretation that smokers suffer "people being shitty" but fat people suffer "oppression" when people are rude to them. That's your call regarding particular semantics and a subjective view of oppression. While it's not my intention to be hurtful and rude to any group that suffers discrimination, remember that from your shoes, you may find it hurtful to put smokers on par with the armed forces, overweight people, pro-lifers, and the other examples I listed, from MY shoes it's harmful to write off discrimination simply because... well, whatever reason it is you have for thinking it's not discrimination.
There never was a "contest" to say who suffered the worst. Certainly not an Olympic competition. There was only a message speaking out against discrimination of all sorts, smokers included.