THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD

7/18/2006

Forget the Discussion Points--Distract, Distract, Distract

By Carrie K. Hutchens

A few weeks ago, I was reading an article about a hospital that is planning on banning the "smell of smoke" on employees. At the end of the article, one could click to go to a forum and discuss the matter. I clicked. I was interested in the public's reaction and the arguments to support their position -- whatever that might be. I also had a suspicion I was going to find an argument that was not relevant to the designated topic -- "the smell of smoke left lingering on a person and it being banned by a hospital".

I wasn't disappointed.

There were posters that were ranting and raving about the dangers of second hand smoke and how smokers were supposedly so inconsiderate. Yeah... and????... what did this have to do with the topic at hand -- "the smell of smoke on a person"?

Some posters were trying to point out that if one goes to certain restaurants -- even to get take out -- the person will come out smelling like smoke. Not cigarette smoke perhaps, but an over-powering smell of a smoke fragrance. Some of these posters were wanting to know where we draw the line as to "smells", and who decides which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't? They were attacked as ignorant and/or pro smoking, as the ranters and ravers went on and on and on about their documentation about "second hand smoke".

How many times did these people have to be TOLD that wasn't the topic of discussion?

How many times did they present themselves as superior in knowledge and reasoning abilities, while "imposing" their opinions on others in a discussion that had nothing to do with their focus and opinions thereof in the first place. Duh!?!?!

What I have written thus far has nothing to do with whether it is okay to smoke or smell like smoke. It has to do with people that are so into either themselves (feelings of superiority) or their belief focus, that their fairness in debate, as well as their hearing and reading abilities, becomes irritatingly impaired. It has to do with what these types of people do in all discussions -- things like (but not limited to): take the opportunity to push their beliefs on the audience (even if it is off-topic); distract and evade when they can't defend their position; talk down to everyone as though they are of superior intelligence and everyone else is of less; and, call people names and then get upset when someone calls them one.

I do love how these people claim that the others start name calling when they have no proof, and like-wise claiming they are innocent of doing such a thing, when I know better. I read their name calling comments. Are they trying to say that we are all on drugs or delusional and they are the only sane kid on the forum? I do wonder.

I read some comments today that are alleged to be on a forum. Comments that are saying that the autopsy report says Terri Schiavo was brain dead at the time the feeding tube was removed. Excuse me, but the autopsy does not say that. Doesn't matter. By presenting a falsehood as truth, they are (or appear to be) attempting to gain support through deceit. After all, brain dead is an absolute and the body is being kept alive "solely" by machines. (If this were the case for Terri, she would have passed the minute the feeding tube was removed.) I think I can be pretty sure there aren't many people who would insist on keeping life support going on a person proven to be brain dead. That's the point. Give the audience the lie that will convince them.

Then there was the person that made the snide comment about financing extended care for anyone and everyone no matter what. That's an inflammatory statement that certainly was meant to incite people. Make the people think they are paying for something -- that it is costing them even when it is not or shouldn't be or have been. Like in Terri Schiavo's case... how the heck did Michael get her on Medicaid in the first place with the assets they had? That's something the public ought to be concerned about, rather than just focusing on their feelings that they shouldn't have to pay for Terri to be kept alive.

I find that so interesting how posters on discussion boards repeatedly say that the trust fund was used to pay for Terri's care, when in fact, the lawyers made a killing on that trust fund (in more ways than one). It was the lawyer fees to kill her that majorly depleted the trust fund -- not her care, even though that is what the money was specifically awarded for. How did that happen? Why don't more people care about finding out?

Why don't more people care about the truth? I wonder if maybe it is because they were intentionally led away from it?

This leads me back to the article and original debate about the smell of smoke.

I don't smoke.

Though I have a good "smeller" on me, I don't smell smoke on a person that has done so in a well ventilated area, washed his/her hands afterward, and used a mint or gum to take care of the smoker breath.

So here is the major question...

Is the hospital creating a crisis to "force" their non-smoking agenda on all, rather than to legitimately try to convince and encourage people to become non-smokers?

Is there something the hospital could do to "fix" this matter for all concerned, but they are leaving that out of the scenario, because that might mean people could smoke by choice (until they are ready to quit) and not negatively affect others? Could but aren't willing to do so?

Before I close...

It's bad to stand in front of the exhaust pipe of a car. That stuff blowing out into the atmosphere can kill in minutes if blown into the face. It definitely will kill, if not done in a ventilated area. But we don't have any laws or rules against "smelling" like that, now do we?

Guess that is because more people want to drive than to smoke, so the "smell" becomes an exception to the rule, non-issue, and conversation to be avoided.

True debates are to be full of fact-filled information, are they not? Fact-filled -- rather than distortions and distractions? But that is not what I am seeing.

Maybe debaters ought to do what I did when I was a law enforcement officer.

I tried to prove myself wrong, before I tried to prove others wrong, and/or someone guilty of the charges in question.

Worked exceptionally well!

However, the world seems to have gone mad!... with no fail-safe to grab us before we fall down into those horrendous pits we never thought we could possibly be exposed to. Not us! Never us!!!

Forget the discussion points... distract... distract... distract...

Who cares about the truth anyways???