Abstract: There is no contradiction between loving philosophy, being obsessed with the philosophy taught by the professor, and hating smoking in public places, and then reporting this violation, which can be completely one person. I appreciate the comment of a netizen who said: The professor's addiction to smoking proves that reason and thought have no resistance in the face of addiction, reason cannot control human beings, but addiction can. - This is the judgment of really listening to the professor's lectures and practicing his philosophy, and practicing the philosophy he teaches by opposing the professor's smoking behavior. In fact, this professor is also well aware of his own limitations and cannot control his addiction, so before each smoking, he will say "I am very addicted to smoking, and the whole person is languishing if I don't smoke, please forgive me."
Spit on youth production
A retired professor in Fudan was complained about smoking while giving a lecture in Shenzhen, and after investigation, the Shenzhen authorities made an administrative punishment decision to warn the unit involved in accordance with the law, and ordered the company to immediately correct the illegal behavior. In recent years, the professor has become popular on the Internet with his humorous and in-depth talk comedy style, and his philosophical golden phrases have become popular, as well as his habit of cigarette never leaving his hand, and last year Shanghai directly fined him 3,500 yuan for smoking lectures. The Shenzhen Health Commission issued a document saying: No matter how big the smoking addiction is, please bear with it.
If an entertainment star, businessman or official did this, he might have been sprayed by public opinion and died socially, but public opinion seems to be more tolerant of a philosophy professor, and many fans have come forward to defend his lecture smoking habits, saying that "in order to listen to this old man's lecture, I can tolerate him smoking" and "what is flawed, it must be flawless"-this kind of tolerance that puts personality above regulations, in addition to similar to the unprincipled worship of idols by fans in the entertainment industry, It may also involve society's doting on a certain intellectual personality, and the image of traditional knowledge elements as bohemian under the aura of knowledge makes people feel that "this flaw is nothing to the scholar". Under this understanding, some people feel that reporting professors smoking is too fussy, if they don't want to listen, they can not go, and they can leave the scene if they refuse second-hand smoke, after all, the professor has made a full and frank notice before smoking.
This view is obviously wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with the audience reporting smoking, this public awareness should be appreciated, and also support the enforcement of the relevant departments in Shenzhen, if the Internet celebrity professor turns a blind eye because it is an Internet celebrity professor who violates the rules, it is a dereliction of duty. Smoking in lectures, which used to be tolerated as a professor's demeanor or scholar's personality, and even glorified in film and television culture, is now intolerable, refusing to treat it as a "negligible subsection", and respecting the smoking ban as a necessary and non-negotiable principle, which is an advance in public concept.
One of the reasons why the anti-smoking principle has not been implemented in some places and is not treated by some people is that smoking is not only smoking in our context, but also swaggering in the name of "culture", dinner culture, social culture, chat culture, tough guy culture, thinking culture, and all kinds of smoky cool smoking images in film and television reinforce this "cultural" illusion. Many people accept that the Internet celebrity professor smokes in the lecture, and subconsciously may also be influenced by that "culture". Shenzhen's enforcement of public figures is also challenging this "culture" that hinders the effect of smoking bans.
Is a person punishable for smoking in a non-smoking public place? The answer is undoubtedly yes, just because you replace the subject with a "sought-after Internet celebrity philosophy professor", you can't lose your principles and "leave the principles alone". I think that as a philosophy professor, he should know this truth, he chose to smoke, and he chose to accept punishment, especially if he had been punished for this before. The relevant units involved, of course, also know that there are no legal consequences of dissuading or even passing cigarettes, and should be ready to bear illegal responsibility. This, there is really nothing to argue and defend.
Some people seem to think that if they like to listen to a professor's lectures, they should accept him smoking during the lecture, and it is very unkind to report after listening to the lecture on the spot. - This view is also obviously very wrong, lectures are lectures, smoking is smoking, these are two things that should be strictly distinguished. I remember a passage in which a believer asked the priest if he could smoke while praying, and the priest said, of course not. The believer asked, Is it okay to pray while smoking? The priest said, of course. ——The lecture, in fact, has nothing to do with law enforcement, it is just a background for smoking in violation of the smoking ban regulations, and the reason for being investigated is "smoking in public places", no matter what you were doing when you smoked at that time, gossiping, writing, in a daze, filming, serving the people, falling in love, and did not affect the judgment of "violating the smoking ban regulations".
There is no contradiction between loving philosophy, obsessing over the philosophy taught by professors, and hating smoking in public places and then reporting such violations. I appreciate the comment of a netizen who said: The professor's addiction to smoking proves that reason and thought have no resistance in the face of addiction, reason cannot control human beings, but addiction can. - This is the judgment of really listening to the professor's lectures and practicing his philosophy, and practicing the philosophy he teaches by opposing the professor's smoking behavior. In fact, this professor is also well aware of his own limitations and cannot control his addiction, so before each smoking, he will say "I am very addicted to smoking, and the whole person is languishing if I don't smoke, please forgive me." If you don't smoke, the whole person is languishing, and we should see the limitations of a scholar, respect public order and good customs and legal provisions, and not glorify his addiction to smoking just because he loves his philosophy. Sophistry such as "the spirit of listening to lectures is far greater than the harm of secondhand smoke" is an insult to the philosophy taught by the professor. As for "why do you sell cigarettes without smoking", it is even more unreasonable.
To examine whether a person's cognition is mature and sound, it mainly depends on whether his value spectrum is broad enough, whether he can transcend simple binary opposition and be compatible with a certain complexity, whether he can be flexible and can adjust conflicting values, whether he can accept that the person he loves has shortcomings, the person who hates has advantages, whether he can accept that good people must also be prevented, bad people also have rights, whether he can separate people and things, intentions and effects, and whether he can see "suboptimal" or "least bad" in addition to good and bad. The fact that a professor smokes during a lecture is reported tests the public's ability to think about complexity, love lectures and hate smoking, and value conflicts can make sound judgments, rather than brain-dead judgments.