Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.
- Thread starter LEDBETTER122
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I started a reply until I got down to you taking stuff out of context.
If you'd like to try again I'll gladly reply.
Name calling? "Anti-vaper-vapers" is name calling? What else do you call vapers who are against other vapers and blame them for their predicted future downfall of vaping?
I don't care if it's public vaping, sub-ohm or anything else, "Waaaahhh, they don't vape like I do, they're going to destroy vaping." is anti-vaper-vapers.
"We just don't know" after 9 years and at least 6 years on ANTZ radar. The "experts" still haven't been able to know what SHV is. They "just don't know what's in them" in spite of recipe posted all over the place, ingredient labels and extensive testing on the individual ingredients going back a very long time.
And you wonder why I think you've been brainwashed?
I just want to jump in quick and pick out two words that I often see...
Ignorant
This is not something that is used to call other people names. Because someone may describe a statement as "being ignorant of the existing information", is not calling names.
From dictionary.com
Ain't nuthin personal, it's that the other person is assessing your level of knowledge.
Confrontation
I often see this used in response to someone like me who is a public vaping advocate (PVA) .
A lame-... attempt to characterize the act of vaping in public as a militant / radical / in-your-face effort to incite a confrontation
If that is truly what someone believes is being advocated, quote it, link it, cite it - but don't try to mis-characterize what is being said in such a blatant effort to stir up negative emotions.
So when you adopt the phraseology calling the PVA here as the "pro confrontation side, you are clearly attempting to create a most hostile / nasty / ugly image of those you disagree with.
It's such a lame debate strategy, and really, it's beneath the typical level of discourse here at ECF.
And btw, educating the ignorant is exactly what needs to be done in this world. People actually make a living educating the ignorant masses.
As a matter of fact, that's what my daughter does every day at her school full of ignorant students who have yet to overcome their lack of knowledge on all things math!
You are over simplifying.
In the case described by the OP, a person was vaping in a doctors waiting room where children were waiting to be seen.. probably a pediatrician.
Do you think a doctors waiting room is an appropriate place to vape?
How many doctors waiting rooms are bigger than a shoebox? How do you assure that a waiting room in a medical facility has good enough ventilation to assure minimally adequate air quality for the people who sit there? You can keep people making clouds out for one. It is irrelevant what the substance might be.. its a waiting room occupied by sick people who are probably unwilling to be subjected to anything more than air.
Are you 100% confident that vaping has no adverse effects on a person or child with asthma? allergic asthma? emphysema? bronchitis? lung cancer? cystic fibrosis? pneumonia? Many respiratory conditions cause extreme sensitivity to things as benign as a flower.
When my sister was a child, she spent many summers inside because pollen and even smelling a flower caused asthmatic reactions.
It may well be that VG, PG, and even nicotine are inconsequential to the average person.. or maybe it's not.
What about the compounds in the flavors?
Run that by a respiratory specialist.
Any medical facility should prohibit vaping on site. Breathing should be permitted and nothing else.
As for outside, I couldn't care less who vapes or where.
Bolding / emphasis added...
P (may call you P?),
You speak what is in my head/heart so clearly & eloquently!
++ 1 gaggle
"Taking stuff out of context"? I'd love to know which part of my post that you're referencing to and I'll gladly frame it within the context for you.
Yes, it is. I don't agree with you on some aspect of vaping but that doesn't mean that I am an anti-vaper. And how can a vaper be a anti-vaper? By the same token, if you want to label people I can very well label you as anti-rational vaper, or a mulitant vaper, or over-zealot vaper, etc. but I didn't b/c I don't believe in name calling.
Obviously you have a different standard that I do. Which is fine. I don't force you to accept my standard and I don't call you ignorant or stupid or brainwashed. Please do give me the same respect I give you, that's all.
Last edited:
No one can be 100% sure that anything in the universe will be free from someone, somewhere having an adverse effect from it.
What we can be reasonably sure of is that the more smokers and friends and families of smokers are exposed to and educated about vaping the more lives will be improved.
But I guess in a lot of people's eyes that's tertiary to someone being offended or someone being afraid of harm being done (despite evidence and studies to the contrary).
What we can be reasonably sure of is that the more smokers and friends and families of smokers are exposed to and educated about vaping the more lives will be improved.
But I guess in a lot of people's eyes that's tertiary to someone being offended or someone being afraid of harm being done (despite evidence and studies to the contrary).
If no one is present, yes. If no one is present, and I vape, and 3 seconds later someone enters that space, still a yes.
If the room is crowded, I would not vape in that space, but would just assume wait until they show you to that room where you are all by yourself for a few minutes and a vape there instead. I've already done this (twice) in 2014.
Just to be clear in this discussion, you as a vaper (or any vaper reading this) which would you rather inhale, secondhand vape or whatever a sick person is exhaling into the room? Let's assume it is a crowded room, a little bit bigger than a shoebox, with equal ventilation to a shoebox.
All things that now make me question if waiting rooms filled with sick people is plausibly making things worse for everyone there.
But I wouldn't likely vape in that area.
Though I got a question, what if the doctor of that office said, no problem? That he/she has done the research and knows the issues, and knows all the type of patients he/she sees, and says vaping is not a problem. Is it then still a matter of disrespect to vape in that space?
I numbered these to make it easier for me to reply.
1) Yeah, I disagree with that first one. If no one is around in a medical facility, which I find to be the case often, then I see it as non issue.
2) Breathing with a mouth filter would make even more sense in this location. If vaping were disallowed, I would think that policy would be next in line for implementation. If it were not, I'd vape on.
3) So, out of curiosity, if fellow vapers were making the case that vaping outdoors in public was just plain rude and disrespectful, what might you think about that vaper? Would you think they are carrying the torch for ANTZ on that one, or that they have a legitimate point and would make you reconsider your actions of whether or not vaping outdoors is actually an okay thing?
2 points here:
1) There are facts available to us, in the form of chemical analysis
Peering through the mist - School of Public Health - Drexel University
The results of a chemical analysis is a collection of factual statement of level of identified elements found in the substance.
Not subject to interpretation, nor debate.
Parts per billion or whatever is a statement of fact.
Implications of the factual levels could be subject to interpretation, but not the facts.
But an extremist is quite comfortable raising hysteria over anything above 0 eh... Context and real-world levels of exposure have little to do with it for them (when it's convenient).
2)
I don't see you, nor anyone really citing studies / research that clearly demonstrate the so-called negatives regarding vaping.
Tons of links & citations to the growing body of knowledge that put vaping into a 95-99% safer for the user, and more so for everyone else assessment.
So no, I do not see there's plenty of 'supports' to both sides
(and don't lower / embarrass yourself by trying to characterize my statement as saying there Are NO negative vaping 'supports')
Last edited:
You don't consider calling someone ignorant name calling, I disagree but that's fine, that's you opinion. But it is wrong to automatically assume someone who holds a different view than yours is being ignorant. As you yourself quote, ignorant = lacking in knowledge, training, information. Well, have anyone stopped and considered that the person who holds a different view than yours does NOT necessarily lack knowledge, training or information, but instead they possess a DIFFERENT set of knowledge, training, information? Therefore disagreement from the opposing party dose NOT always equal to ignorance on the part of opposing party! It happens a lot. Einstein wasn't convinced of quantum mechanics but he had never called Neil Bohr ignorant. Einstein recognized that Bohr wasn't ignorant even though Bohr had a different view. (NOT that I am comparing myself to Einstein or Bohr, of course not, it's just an example.)
Last edited:
A couple things.
1. What would your feeling be if the vaper in question had NOT expelled a cloud? Still a problem?
2. What would your feeling be if the vaper in question had used a Nicotrol Inhaler? Still a problem?
One problem with your statement is that you make an assumption that there is some inherent risk in the contents of PG and VG. And if your concerns about what is in your e-juice is that great, then I suggest you stop using it yourself. You still have the infamous FDA antifreeze statement on your mind. I suggest you actually research PG and VG and it's uses. I also suggest you look at the flavors being used. All these items are generally classified as safe by the FDA.
I also suggest you read the Drexel Report and this thread that I started prior to the release of the Drexel Report.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-discussion/508446-myth-second-hand-vape.html
I tried to show with simple math that is impossible for a vaper to exhale enough to be of any concern. The Drexel Report actually backs this up with studies and shows much lower concentrations that I did in my worst case scenario.
A person exposed to 1ml of liquid PG vaporized over an hour in a 10ftx10ftx10ft room with no ventilation would be subjected to a concentration of PG of .035ppm PG. So if 1ML of liquid PG only equates to .035ppm, how much do you think is in a cloud? You talk about the "shoebox" of a waiting room, but you are completely unaware the total volume of air that exists in that shoebox and how much it would take to actually fill that shoebox with significant concentrations of an inhalant. Also, my calculations were based on NO ventilation, which of course does exist in a doctors office.
Second, PG is often use in nebulizers as a medium to deliver other drugs in respiratory treatment. So I don't think a respiratory specialist is going to tell you that PG is a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if PG is used in the antibiotic spray that they continually spray into the waiting room to try and kill all the germies that the rugrats bring in with them.
So the problem lies is that since YOU don't know the effects or the ingredients in the vapor you exhale, so you assume there is some phantom boogie man inside it that's going to cause problems with the children in the office.
I admit that the vaper in question could have been a little more considerate. But I also know the cloud was in no way a threat to anyone in the room, and I still believe that the OP really had no business confronting the vaper as they did. If they had concerns, they should have taken it up with the Doctor and let the doctor take action if he desired.
So we are back to this each and every time. Of course you are correct that nothing in this universe is 100%, absolutely certain. But this is a strawman argument and a red herring b/c nobody, not me anyway, is asking for a 100%, absolute certainty. I have a particular level of standard upon which I'll be convinced that vaping and SHV is safe in the most reasonable terms any reasonable person should recognize and accept. To me that threshold has not been reached just yet. Fine, you disagree, maybe you have a different standard, maybe you don't really care, maybe i have set the bar unreasonably high, maybe ..., I don't know, but whatsoever that is, it's fine with me. What I am not happy with is the fact that people like me are being automatically called ignorant, stupid or brainwashed. It's childish to do that.
The word is an adjective.
Being described as ignorant really can't be a derogatory 'name calling'.
it is someone assessing your level of knowledge as being less than complete in comparison to their own, or what they know to exist - which is exactly what you went on to say above!
Maybe you just want the use of the word to be able to be characterized as 'name calling' - just ain't possible, grammatically speaking.
First of all, I have read the Drexel report -- it's very well known; get toss around here a lot -- and many other.
Second, this thread is not even a debate on SHV harmfulness. Many posters including myself are willing to take the position, in this thread, for the sake of discussion, that SHV is indeed harmless. However, the topic here really is about etiquette and decorum. That is to say, even if we all agree that SHV is absolutely completely harmless, does it then mean that vapers can vape whenever and wherever they want? That's the question upon us here in this thread.
No one can call you ignorant, because you have been presented with facts which you choose to ignore. You have also consciously decided to hold the ingredients in e-liquid and SHV to a standard that you don't hold to any airborne ingredient that one is exposed to. Do you hold air fresheners and the chemicals in that to the same standard? Do you only clean your home with water? No.
So when one holds one thing to one standard and something else to a much higher standard, that's not ignorance, it's hypocrisy.
As long as I am not specifically exhaling directly in your face, (Which is not only rude, but actually confrontational, vaping or not.) then vapers SHOULD be able to vape anywhere and wherever they want. The very same reason that smokers (when smoke was considered harmless) were able to smoke anywhere and wherever they want.
The problem with your assumption is that you have place yourself as the supreme authority of deciding what is good etiquette and decorum based on your own opinions. Who made you Miss Manners?
And even if I do witness what you feel is "rude" behavior, then what business is it of mine to call someone else on it. I might say to myself, wow, that's rude, and mentally note not to do so myself, but aren't I being just as rude to openly walk up to someone and confront them and say that their behavior is rude?
And remember, we are not talking about someone walking up to you and blowing a cloud into your grill. We're talking about someone sitting across the room from you minding their own business and enjoying a vape. If they are minding their own business, why can't you mind yours? That's one of the fundamental tenants of Live and Let Live. It is what is behind "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
My question to you is this? Why do you feel it necessary to inject your behavior and lifestyle choices on someone else? Who made you the moral authority?
After all, I'm just the poor sap sitting having a cup of coffee and a vape. You are the one who feels it necessary to get out of your chair walk over to me, interrupt what I am doing and tell me how wrong I am. Who's the rude one here? Perhaps you need to evaluate your own motivations rather than dissecting mine. Perhaps you should pay attention to the plank in your own eye before you pick the splinter out of mine.
Last edited:
So, b/c a word is an adjective, it is not name calling? OOOH, I see, it's not a "name" (n.) that is being called. For "name" calling, it has to be a noun like calling someone an idiot (n.), that'll be name calling. But saying someone is stupid (adj.) is not "name" calling b/c you are not calling someone a name but instead you use an adjective to describe the person. OK, I've got it. Wow, thank you for the grammar lesson. You are really smart (adj.). This really contributes a lot to the discussion on hand! Wow.
So, for the sake of this argument, how about I take it all back. It's not "name calling", fine, but it's insulting -- so, substitute the "name calling" bits in my posts with "insulting" and I will be grammatically correct, right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
