Why do so many non-smokers hate people who smoke and find them repulsive?
I don't hate the smoker. Just the smoke. And smell. Of everything they own and wear. And while you excluded public smoking, the reality is they are part and parcel, which tends to affect non-smokers more negativeky than smokers realize. Like most vices, we are barely aware and often don't want to admit that our vices could be affecting others because that would mean being critical of ourselves. But they do. Particularly smoking.Not showering is a great analogy. If someone does not shower, they smell. I have had to pull employees aside and bring up their bad grooming because it is affecting the team. However, smokers, somehow, are not subject to this same standard. It is just common courtesy to think of others and, frankly, disrespectful to not consider if you are creating a negative situation.I live in Berlin where there is manadatory smoking at age 14, apparently. And many smokers here, in general, are completely disrespectful. Again, smoking while walking down the street doesn't seem all that bad until you consider how bad it smells and how much it is actually harming non-smokers around you.I like to compare it to flatulence. If we were standing at a bus stop outside and you started smoking near me, is it any better than me, maybe haven eaten a very spicy and bean-y burrito the night before, letting my flatulence rip through the bus stop? I suspect you would chide me for being rude and disrespectful. But at least flatulence is a natural process.So, in summary, smoking smells and is extremely unhealthy for the smoker and the person who has to be near the smoker. If you can be aware of that and treat me with respect, I have no problem with smokers. It is a hard standard to maintain, though, which is why I encourage you to quit smoking. You will save thousands of dollars and make people around you much happier.Just don't trade smoking for not showering because we'll be right back where we started...
Why does Falun Gong preach tolerance, but reject gays and atheists?
Wouldn’t it be a farce if religions and spiritual organizations promoted atheism and homosexuality? Organizations of a spiritual nature are guiding posts for humanity in moral conduct and so is Falun Gong.Does that mean that such organizations reject atheists and homosexuals? Not in the least.Falun Gong is so tolerant and forgiving - following the teaching of Jesus to love one’s enemy - that it even welcomes police officers, inmates and prison staff that have been active in torturing its innocent practitioners.Master Li Hongzhi, in his book “Falun Gong” even says that we should be grateful to those that harm us, because they give us an opportunity to practise forbearance, accumulate virtue and erase karma.Why wouldn’t Falun Gong welcome atheists and homosexuals? Not unlike Jesus’words, “Let him who is without sin throw the first stone”. We all have our faults but we should try to improve ourselves, become better people. To do that we need a good moral teaching as provided by Falun Gong.
Why are some people "pro-choice"?
I think I would be more liberal and democrat if only I could elect a pro-life canidate.. I know this is a very touchy subject but it is one that I feel to strongly about to stay quiet. Please please read.. It is not just for religious reasons that I am against it, but also for ethical reasons: a.)While women indeed have rights to control her body, that right has limits (like all rights). b.)Biologically, the fetus is not part of her body. a.)No child should ever feel unwanted. b.)In my country (USA) thousands of married couples would love to adopt a new-born infant. a.)There should be opposition to the conditions that lead to abortion, not to the baby. b.)Discrimination to women in the work force, poverty, lack of adequate health care and child care. *In order to take a stand against abortion, we must take a stand against the conditions that lead into it. However, do you remember a time you wanted to stand up for the voiceless? Like the poor, or discriminated people. Well who is more voiceless than a fetus? Source(s): I am definately pro-life. I might not of been here today if my mom had an abortion, and beautiful people like Bono or Martin Luther King Jr. could have been aborted. When a fetus is terminated, (as hard as it is to realize, it is very sad) we risk someone who could of made a beautiful impact in this world, and someone who could help lead this world more into one of peace and tolerance.
When will the real feminists speak out against the "Radical feminists" We see on TV and in the media and government and universities?
you hear it all the time, whenever you see people spread lies or do disgusting things in the name of feminism, a bunch of feminists will tell you "Oh no no, those aren't real feminists" or "that's just a radical fringe of the movement" or something like that. so why don't any of these so called real feminists ever do anything to stop the "Radical feminists" When feminists organize these **** walks and walk around holding signs like "TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE". Surely the real feminists would realize that this is a disgusting to say about men and doesn't do anything to actually stop rape and would be the first ones to speak about these things and say "Hey this is not a way to fight rape and we can't say all men are rapists unless they are taught not to". But they don't. usually when anyone is trying to speak about men's issues, a bunch of people calling themselves feminists usually swarm the area, screaming at the person speaking calling them "misogynists" or "Rape apologists". They pull fire alarms, bang hockey sticks on the ground to try to prevent them from being heard. Where are the real feminists speaking out about these things going "hey! you crazies, let them speak! Men have issues too". Or when feminists complain about Matt Taylor's shirt to the point where he did a pathetic apology on air, where were the real feminists saying "hey, what men wear has nothing to do with how many women go into science, you women should apologize for attacking him"
Why is it ok to shame smokers but not fat people?
In most situations, neither smoking nor obesity are "conscious decisions." While smoking was a conscious decision when it was started, it rapidly becomes as unconscious as coughing, blinking, walking, smiling and chewing. The subconscious mind has immense ability to make split-second decisions without the involvement of the conscious mind. The same things happen in obesity regarding food choices and eating.The US government may tell you that obesity is a matter of sloth and gluttony. This is 100% bovine soil enhancement. Well, maybe only 99.44% cow excrement. When the sloth-gluttony perspective is actually put to the test, it fails misterably. Obese individuals can gain weight on extreme, low-calorie diets. And in terms of muscle-based exercise, people with high body weight can expend more energy simply moving around than thin people do actively exercising.So the shame would be on the shamer.Even the health risks of obesity are not actually caused by obesity itself, but rather by the insulin resistance (metabolic syndrome) associated with obesity. But since a quarter of obese people do not have serious insulin resistance and a quarter of people who are not obese do have serious insulin resistance, it can be problematic to assume risk or lack of risk based on body composition.Most people doing shaming of smokers also believe that their addiction is to nicotine, and only nicotine. This is also bovine digestive byproduct. There are also thermoregulatory (energetic), metabolic and neurotransmitter addicitions as well. So before anybody criticizes smokers for their lack of willpower with nicotine gum, consider that their smoking is comparable to medication with antidepressants. [MAO inhibitors.]There are plenty of things that may be worthy of shame, but these two are very low on my list.
How can atheist evolutionists & “gay friendly” churches promote sodomy as a desirable trait?
Male homosexual behavior increases the risk of microorganism infections, hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, rectal pain, ulcers, anal fissures, anal cancer, and ano-rectal trauma. Although (some) heterosexual partners practice it, they do it much less frequently and so the risk is less. The issue here is long-term practice of a behavior with high health risks. From a pure evolutionary point of view, one would find the behavior an undesirable trait compared to normal heterosexual intercourse. So why are so many evolutionists pro-sodomy? This seems logically inconsistent. And why do I read on Yahoo Answers about gay friendly churches? Isn’t our body a “temple of God” and shouldn’t we avoid despoiling it with any unhealthy behavior?
Why Are Non-smokers Just So Evil...?
I'm a non smoker and wouldn't consider myself evil! I am infact against the smoking ban and believe it should be enforced only in places that sell food. All other places can have smoking areas and it should be up to the owner of the premises whether you can smoke in the building or not. For example, a pub is where people go to smoke and have a drink. That's what you get and anyone with a problem shouldn't go in there. It's a bit general calling non smokers evil - it's just the nut cases with nothing better to talk about that fell the need to say anything. You're a smoker, probably a grown adult and no doubt aware of the health issues without needing to be constantly reminded of it. Hope this clears a couple of things up.