Quote:
Originally posted by Ruth
No, it isn't ridiculous. He made a valid point. I think it's ridiculous to draw a parallel between a smoker saying that and a paedophile or wife beater saying that.
|
That only works because you singled out "paedophile" and "wife beater" two of the extreme's. I also listed "and right down to liars, cheaters, drug users" etc. You can't excuse yourself by comparing the bad things you've done, to the entire mass amount of bad things occuring throughout the entire planet.
His so called "valid" point doesn't seem to have much basis for being valid, but rather an excuse...as I said before.
He's pretty much saying "So what, I smoke and you end up having to breathe it in...you don't like it, but guess what? there's much worse going on in the world, so shut your mouth"
How could that be passed off as anything more than the immature ramblings of a selfish man? anyone who approves of such words must be of a similar nature.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruth
The point is that the majority of people who need hospital treatment need it because of some lifestyle choice - whether it's because they play a dangerous sport, smoke, drink, do a dangerous job, whatever. You think tax payers money should not pay for treatment for any of these people? Do you think that basically, we should only ever use taxpayers money to treat people who fall ill through no fault of their own? And how would we determine that?
|
I think you'll find ive been backing up sports players throughout the entire topic, so perhaps you should pay more attention to my words...rather than focusing on the rants you're currently forming in your head whilst reading this.
Ive also established my views on people who choose dangerous jobs...and that if it's justified, eg. A fireman, then I have no problem. If it's "Daredevil, stuntman" then I believe it's within that persons best interests to get themselves insured, or make sure the job can provide assistance if that person is injured.
Smokers and alcohol abusers choose to over use substances that they know full well will cause internal problems, health implications and sometimes death. Again, they can't act irresponsibly, only to expect the general public to help them out.
It's the equivalent of a member of "Jackass" performing a highly dangerous prank, and expecting me to pay for his operation to save him because he decided to jump off a cliff into a mass of rose bushes. He knew it wouldn't end well, he knew there was no benefit or point to his actions, and he acted irresponsible and thoughtless to the situation...but still my money should go towards helping him? What logical reason is there for that?
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruth
Just tried to add this to my last post, but my computer won't let me edit it, so I'll put it here. Smoking is totally legal (just about). It's utterly ridiculous to say that taxpayers money should not be used to treat someone who does something which is completely legal and for which they pay tax anyway.
|
They don't pay tax for themselves. Im sure some of their money might end up being used for the treatment of people with smoking related illness, and some of it won't. As with my money...some will go towards them in my lifetime most likely, and some won't.
The fact of the matter is, it's still a portion of my earnings that is spent on them.
It's also irrelevant as to whether it's illegal or not...
They've made a concious choice to abuse a substance that harms their health. Then expect non smokers to contribute to their treatment?
They're sending out a blatant message of: "Im harming myself and know full well I am, being completely irresponsible and I expect you to help me out when it all goes wrong"
It's just utter selfishness.
And again, I have to repeat...
Nobody here is saying people should be refused treatment. So im not sure why people are talking about it.