beeble
Posts: 799
Joined: 5/25/2005 From: UK Status: offline
|
quote:
darchChylde wrote: To your point about my judging him for not lighting a lady's smoke, it's not that he doesn't but why that is judgmental on his part. Also, I feel a right to judge in this instance as I am speaking from a long-standing "code" of what a gentleman does and how he behaves; while, on the other hand, you are both speaking from actual personal prejudice. There is a large and widely-accepted body of scientific literature going back fifty years that says that smoking is harmful to health. I don't feel that refusing to participate in somebody's self-harm is prejudicial behaviour. t was also a long-standing code that a gentleman should earn a good living, while his wife stayed at home and looked after the house and children. But if I claimed that women should stay at home because of this code, I'd be rightly flamed as being prejudiced. `It's a long-standing code' isn't an argument. The action has to be judged on its own merits. Now, to be clear, I don't feel that it's ungentlemanly for you to light a woman's cigarette. Unless she's run out of matches or lighter fuel, she'd just light it herself if nobody did it for her, as you say. But I do reject the idea that it's ungentlemanly of me not to do the same, particularly as I'd have to go out of my way to do so. (More like crossing the street to hold a door open, rather than holding one for somebody walking immediately behing you.) quote:
Just so you know, about the old lady and the bus... my next sentence had the word "seriously", clearly implying that the line about getting hit by a bus was sarcastic. I suppose I should unpack and dust off my "Sarcastic Hat" for future use. Ah. I read it as being emphatic: the same sort of usage as in `Seriously, you need to do X' meaning `You *really* need to do X' rather than `I'm not being light-hearted, now: you need to do X.' Apologies for the misunderstanding quote:
*darchChylde walks away, a member of one of the few minorities it is still okay to discriminate against* What, smokers? If you want to poison yourself and other consenting adults in private, go ahead. It is absolutely *not* discrimination to require you not to poison other people. It would be discrimination to say `I will not employ you because you smoke' or `I will not employ you because you are gay'; it is not discrimination to say, `You may not smoke at work' or `You may not have gay (or any other kind of) sex at work.' beeble
|