errrr. In the long run yes. The problem is this issue shouldn't be decided by restrictions from the government like some places have done.
I think the issue needs to be solved through awareness on the health problems and treatment for those who are hooked. When those two things come full circle the tobacco industry will not be able to survive.
Unfortunately it's going to be a long time before this ever happens, supposing it would even work.
__________________
"Jesus also thought that non-believers should be stoned"------Alliance
But the question is...who is to say that smoking is wrong? Sure, it's harmful to your health...but does that make it immoral?
The average age at death of retired NFL football players is just over 38. Think about that for a second...we encourage people to play football because it amuses us…but condemn people who choose to smoke, when they might be better off than a pro football player when it comes to health? And think of those huge 300+ lbs. linemen. An NFL lineman has a 52% increased chance to suffer a heart attack compared with other men. They are putting their health at huge risk, but it’s okay because it’s for the sake of entertainment, right?
So how do we determine what we “ought” to do? Should we say that it’s okay as long as society says it’s okay? That’s a scary thought…think of the possibilities of that. If society has that much influence over what we think we “ought” to do (and it surely does), then how do we decide for ourselves what we should do? Should we base it solely on our society’s standards?
In Hindu culture, it’s expected that a widow throw her body on the burning corpse of her dead husband in order to gain good karma. I forget what the term for it is exactly, but the practice was pretty much labeled immoral after the British came over and witnessed this…and ultimately an end to it (for the most part).
But was that right for them to do? If society sets the standards for what we say we “ought” to do, then who are we to say that she should not throw her body on her husbands burning corpse and perish with him, in order to gain good karma. We say this, but then again it would be considered okay for a football player to sign a 10 million dollar contract to give up a better half of his later years, or put him at risk of a heart attack.
The thing with football players is that they know the health risks when getting involved with the sport and are making a decision to play at their own risk.
Smoking effects anyone who breaths it in and it becomes a harm to not only the person smoking, but to people around him/her.
__________________
"Jesus also thought that non-believers should be stoned"------Alliance
But still, for our purposes let's just say the smokers are considerate enough to smoke only when there are no non-smokers around who would be affected.
People would still encourage them to quit and tell them it's bad, am I right?
You seem to misunderstand the word ought. Ought is what you are supposed to do. Not because society deems it that way, but because YOU know it to be true. And not because you just say "because I say so", but rather because you have evidense to prove it so. The surgen general has pictures of the lungs and hearts of those who smoke, that statistics of the lives and the percentage of cancer and heart attacks per smoker, and many much more paper work that would be displeasing to the eyes to see. However very much like your example of the football player, the smoker knows his risks and dangers, much like the woman knew what would happen to her if she were to jump in the fire. But for what? Because society said it was "good karma"?....
Well, I know what I mean when I say ought. What I'm getting at is what helps us determine what we ought to do? Society plays a major role in this, although it’s not the only factor (for most people). But if society alone doesn’t determine what we ought to do, what does? Like you said, I can’t just say I ought to do something “because I say so”, there needs to be some reasoning behind it.
One could also argue that people determine what they ought to do because of law (political or supernatural). But to stick with the example of the smoker...why would that be considered immoral to some people? If society alone doesn't tell us that it's wrong, what else does?
We have a spiritual inclination that helps us to determine such a "truth". We can not rely on either society or a people to determine what is "immoral" and "moral". That is where religion comes into play. And the truth were smoking is bad or "immoral" is because "we are a temple of the holy spirit" (1Corithians 3:16). To cause bodily harm, is ti disturb this and soil it. And thus are we no longer fit to sustain the paraclete and then become disconnected (aka in the state of sin).
Not nessesarliy. True football has its disadvantages, but that's not what football is all about. Can you not have two hand touch, and it still be football, or flag football and it still be the same? Whereas smoking, there is no benefit. Smoking is bad all around, and a danger and harm to ones body.
"we are a temple of the holy spirit" (1Corithians 3:16). To cause bodily harm, is ti disturb this and soil it. And thus are we no longer fit to sustain the paraclete and then become disconnected (aka in the state of sin).
That is why there is pads. To do bodily harm with intention (cutting oneself, smoking, etc.) these are sinful. But football were protective coverings. Helmets, pads, technique are all to help minimize the percentage of injury. Really the concept of football is to through a ball around, and of course to have fun. That isn't a sin...
But it's a fact that pro football players do not live as long as people who do not play pro football. It's also a fact that linemen have a 52% increased chance of getting a heart attack compared to other men. These people still get hurt. These people can get injured, and they know it. Since they know there is a risk, they are willingly putting their bodies in harm's way.
And you must remember that not all smokers get a disease. They know there are risks, but they do it anyway and are able to live to a normal old age without any health issues. Some people who have been smoking and drinking all their lives can live a full life and die relatively healthy. It's been reported in many instances, where people have smoked all their lives and never got lung cancer, emphysema, or any other disease as a result of their smoking.
You're trying to say smoking is immoral (or a “sin”) because it does harm to the body...yet you defend football players and try to justify their actions, although essentially they are no better off than the smoker.
I’m just trying to make the point here that if you say that smoking cigarettes is immoral based on the affects it can have on the body, you cannot contradict yourself and say it’s okay to engage in another activity that can have the same harmful results on the body.
I'm not justifying football. But in finding the exsistance of God you get a paper cut, that does not make finding the exsistance of God "immoral" because you have the likely hood of cutting yourself. The same goes with reading or writing. The chance that you may drop the book on your toe, or the ink of the pen could squirt out the other end entering your eye, and being absorbed into your body where your blood cells begin to duplicate it where your then get ink poisening and die. Football is played with pads to protect the players. They don't intentially get hurt, they get hurt by accidents. That is why the slots for each position are so definly fit. Because if you are just a hair of a detail off, than you will get hurt.
Smoking on the other hand has no + to it. It is a harm to your body because where in football you gain positive attributes from your training that could promote longer life, that does not apply to smoking. Smoking is a risk that has no benfits, and only repercutions. So why smoke if it doesn't do you any good?
KMC Community Forums
Sep 22nd, 2005 03:31 PM
