Rules for smoking in sheffield

[Cyclone 10]

22 hours ago, makapaka said:

It is hypocritical to complain about someone undertaking a harmful social activity you disapprove of whilst undertaking a more damaging social activity adjacent to them.

Eating (meat) has now become "MORE damaging" and a "social" activity.

 

Eating is a physiological requirement.  Not a social activity.  Making it a social activity as well (who says they're not eating alone though) doesn't make it any more or less harmful.

False equivalence, still.

20 hours ago, makapaka said:

Yes to an extent - but a less avoidable extent.

No, that isn't hypocrisy.

[Guest makapaka]

41 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Eating (meat) has now become "MORE damaging" and a "social" activity.

 

Eating is a physiological requirement.  Not a social activity.  Making it a social activity as well (who says they're not eating alone though) doesn't make it any more or less harmful.

False equivalence, still.

No, that isn't hypocrisy.

Eating out in restaurants and consuming meat whilst doing so is a social activity.

 

theres no requirement for a person to eat out, nor to consume meat for that matter.

 

the meat industry is more damaging to the environment than smoking. 

 

Youve basically - like others - normalised certain harmful activities and marginalised others. Then sought the moral high ground based on your own perception of what is harmful and what is not.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

No, you're conflating two things.

Eating isn't a social activity, it's strictly a requirement to stay alive.  It can be made to also be a social activity.  Although eating out is not guaranteed to be social.  I eat out alone sometimes because it's the most convenient way.  What I eat is irrelevant, it's no more social or less social to eat a salad than a steak.

 

So, continues to be a false equivalence.  Eating IS required.  Eating out isn't necessarily social.  Smoking is NEVER required, and doing so close to people eating is not excused by any nonsense about food production being a polluting activity.

In fact it occurs to me that your defence of this behaviour is exactly the same that smokers were raising with regards to driving.  Why shouldn't we smoke in the pub when you drive around...

 

I haven't had to normalise anything, you brought in the hypothetical steak because a salad wouldn't suit your purpose.  The OP simply said eating.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

No, you're conflating two things.

Eating isn't a social activity, it's strictly a requirement to stay alive.  It can be made to also be a social activity.  Although eating out is not guaranteed to be social.  I eat out alone sometimes because it's the most convenient way.  What I eat is irrelevant, it's no more social or less social to eat a salad than a steak.

 

So, continues to be a false equivalence.  Eating IS required.  Eating out isn't necessarily social.  Smoking is NEVER required, and doing so close to people eating is not excused by any nonsense about food production being a polluting activity.

In fact it occurs to me that your defence of this behaviour is exactly the same that smokers were raising with regards to driving.  Why shouldn't we smoke in the pub when you drive around...

 

I haven't had to normalise anything, you brought in the hypothetical steak because a salad wouldn't suit your purpose.  The OP simply said eating.

No we’ve already been through this.

 

i made it clear at the outset that I was referring to what they might eat.

 

Eating meat is not required.

 

You’ve also just given a prime  example of you normalising an activity that is damaging to you and others.

 

 

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

So you accept that eating out isn't necessarily social, and that eating is a physiological need?

 

In which case your argument about meat is irrelevant, a strawman, since you introduced it.

[Guest makapaka]

55 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So you accept that eating out isn't necessarily social, and that eating is a physiological need?

 

In which case your argument about meat is irrelevant, a strawman, since you introduced it.

Eh?

 

The argument about meat isn't irrelevant is it. That's the basis of my argument.

You keep trying to make out I'm saying people shouldn't eat which is the strawman - i've never said that.

 

If you use the reply function I get a notification by the way.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

Eating out in restaurants and consuming meat whilst doing so is a social activity.

 

theres no requirement for a person to eat out, nor to consume meat for that matter.

 

the meat industry is more damaging to the environment than smoking. 

 

Youve basically - like others - normalised certain harmful activities and marginalised others. Then sought the moral high ground based on your own perception of what is harmful and what is not.

 

 

Eating out is a function and a necessity for most who eat out  in this country.

From the nursery, the school canteen, the college canteen, university residences, works canteen, office microwave,  the lunchtime café, food hall, staffroom, residential property. etc., etc..

In ever increasing numbers in the big cities flats have inadequate facilities.

The nature work you do often mean working away from home.

 

I am very sure that the vast majority of this population, steak is not affordable or on the menu.

 

Neither does the vast majority of people who go out to eat socially chose steak.

 

Finally a steak eater can without any hint of hypocrisy protect their family and friends to protect them from diseases which kill 1.5 million a year.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

21 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

Eating out is a function and a necessity for most who eat out  in this country.

From the nursery, the school canteen, the college canteen, university residences, works canteen, office microwave,  the lunchtime café, food hall, staffroom, residential property. etc., etc..

In ever increasing numbers in the big cities flats have inadequate facilities.

The nature work you do often mean working away from home.

 

I am very sure that the vast majority of this population, steak is not affordable or on the menu.

 

Neither does the vast majority of people who go out to eat socially chose steak.

 

Finally a steak eater can without any hint of hypocrisy protect their family and friends to protect them from diseases which kill 1.5 million a year.

 

 

It’s not about steak.

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Eh?

 

The argument about meat isn't irrelevant is it. That's the basis of my argument.

You keep trying to make out I'm saying people shouldn't eat which is the strawman - i've never said that.

 

If you use the reply function I get a notification by the way.

Yes, that's what's known as a strawman isn't it.  When you introduce something new to the argument (on the other side) to then "win" your point against.

You had to narrow "eating" to "eating meat".

 

I don't keep trying to make that out at all.  I keep pointing out that eating has to happen and the location is irrelevant.  So any point you think you can apply to eating out has to apply to eating anywhere.

17 minutes ago, makapaka said:

It’s not about steak.

Great.  So it's about salad then.  So explain how eating salad is a source of pollution (which erroneously in your mind means you can't complain about any other sources of pollution).

Then address that latter point, engaging in some polluting behaviour doesn't somehow ban you from complaining about people spoiling your dinner with a nasty habit.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, that's what's known as a strawman isn't it.  When you introduce something new to the argument (on the other side) to then "win" your point against.

You had to narrow "eating" to "eating meat".

 

I don't keep trying to make that out at all.  I keep pointing out that eating has to happen and the location is irrelevant.  So any point you think you can apply to eating out has to apply to eating anywhere.

Great.  So it's about salad then.  So explain how eating salad is a source of pollution (which erroneously in your mind means you can't complain about any other sources of pollution).

Then address that latter point, engaging in some polluting behaviour doesn't somehow ban you from complaining about people spoiling your dinner with a nasty habit.

No I didn’t narrow anything. Of course I wasn’t suggesting people can’t eat.

 

my whole arguments started based on the meat industry.

 

You are just continuing to try and reframe my argument to suggest people shouldn’t be allowed to eat which is just daft and a bit tiresome.

 

in regard to your last point - it doesn’t ban you from doing anything - it’s not really your fault that you’ve normalised your own destructive activities. Just think about it the next time you start judging others.

[Cyclone 10]

Yes you were, that's why you keep talking about meat and not salad or just food.

 

Quote

my whole arguments started based on the meat industry.

Precisely, your argument depends on narrowing the scope to meat.

 

I'm not trying to reframe it, I'm showing that you HAVE reframed it in order to make your argument, it's a strawman.

 

Still missing the point, firstly, having your dinner spoiled by 2nd hand smoke is nothing to do with judging others is it, it's literally spoiling your dinner.  Secondly, the argument, "well, your food created pollution to be created" doesn't somehow excuse the behaviour of those spoiling your dinner.  Dinner which we've established could be a salad, may not be social and food is required to stay alive.

[hackey lad 3,970]

Can't you two get a room and thrash this out in private ?