Technocratic
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 103
- Location
- Soviet Technate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.
That's not what the fallacy of equivocation is, though. Equivocation doesn't mean you created a new definition. Equivocation happens when in part of the argument, you use a different definition of the same word, compared to the other part of the argument. You may use different definitions, but you must stipulate it and why beforehand. You just can't switch up mid argument and apply two different word standards.
Like I said, a made up term. We aren't talking about segregating people based on habit. Places either A) Allow smoking, or B) Prohibit smoking. I haven't read the whole thread, but if someone has made the argument that we shouldn't let smokers themselves, into places like buildings, parks, beaches etc regardless whether they have a cig lit up or not....that would be the first time I would have heard that argument. Personally, I don't have any issue with an establishment prohibiting smoking. I would probably go there, over a place that allowed smoking for similar service/product. I don't have a problem with governments saying they want no smoking at areas that they own, such as DMVs, city/county/state/national parks etc.... I do have a problem with government saying that a privately owned establishment cannot make its own decision in this regard.Smoke neutral means no smoke, but it's still a place that everyone can go to, smokers and non-smokers alike.
Smokers can choose where they smoke. I can't always choose where I am inhaling smoke. That is the difference in the argument on choice. There are still places they can go where others won't be exposed or at least where others are just passing by quickly and won't be exposed for long. Parks are leisure places for families and where people go to be stationery. I can't count the number of times that I have setup a beach blanket, go everything laid out that I wanted for the afternoon, and then some ignoramous lights up near me. I shouldn't have to move because they are oblivious or inconsiderate. Now I don't have to because the same law is in Vancouver.
That's the whole crux of your argument. which is fine, but don't bitch when something you enjoy all of the sudden becomes a danger to society and government takes it away. I'm sure you will say " But what could they take away. I am sure smokers felt the same way 30 years ago.And you're right, I don't care. Smokers don't care about their own health or mine, so why should I care about indulging their habit? They can take a hike.
It does nothing beneficial for you. Smokers do find smoking beneficial to their stress levels.But what does smoking do that is beneficial to society? The answer is nothing.
It's not quite the same thing. Prohibition obviously has not worked, and by that same token, people should be free to do what they want to their own bodies as long as they are not harming others in the process. Smoking in public spaces does not meet that criterion. At least a heroin addict is using a needle and the substance only goes into them. We can talk about social costs too, and health care costs, but nothing is more damaging to society right now than the war on drugs. At least with decriminalization more people could get help, education, and understanding. That said, there is still a level of reasonable use, and that mostly relates to location. People should not be able to smoke crack in parks either, or cannabis, or tobacco. It's all the same... smoke that disperses and I have to breathe in, affecting me in who knows what ways.
Well yes. That's why you don't use a new one mid stream and pretend it's the same one you started with.
Smoking seems to provide a stress benefit, because they are addicts that need their fix. It actually is harming them. That's like saying chugging caffeine "helps" you get rid of a headache. It really doesn't. It caused it in the first place.
Smokers need hard medicine, and they will thank people later. The harder you make it for them, the more incentive they will have to stop.
Well in that case, yes. I thought you meant just using a different definition, period.
Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.Smoking seems to provide a stress benefit, because they are addicts that need their fix. It actually is harming them. That's like saying chugging caffeine "helps" you get rid of a headache. It really doesn't. It caused it in the first place.
Smokers need hard medicine, and they will thank people later. The harder you make it for them, the more incentive they will have to stop.
Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.
Apparently you don't understand what having access means. Non-smokers do indeed have acces to smoking locations.
All you have done is prove that my beliefs about non-smokers are corect. they are by far and away the far more selfish of the two parties being discussed.
Your not equivocating for "pointing" out your perceived flaws in my argument, you are equivocating because you created a new definition for a word.
Your arguments about my analgies have alrteady been proven false. And you've made up infomation to make SHS more dangerous than it really is in public space
I have. Peopel who aren't even aware of which fallacy is which that have presented nothing more than emotional rhetoric and hyperbole aren't really in a position to criticize my logic until they develop an arugment that is actually logical.
Yeah, there is significant no risk posed to others in open space posed from SHS. The whiners who pretend there is are distorting the data to suit their selfish agenda which is entirely because rthey don't like the smell and they will whine incessently about it until they get their way.
Because of that, it is morally correct to smoke around them, if only to piss them off for their lies and distortions.
No obejective study has ever shown minimal exposure in an open environment to have any harmful effects.
You distort the facts. teh studies you are referring to all look at prolonged exposure in closed environments. No objective study supports an outdoor ban.
Only when you agree with it.
You could rewrite this as "I really really really really really hate smoking so I want it banned from ever happening in any place I could possibly encounter."
I'm OK with that argument. At least it's an honest one.
Admit it's not about public safety, and it's not about "equality" and simply admit it's all about your personal hatred of cigarrettes and then we can move on.
The probelm is that everyone can see through the rationalizations. We've had non-smokers come in and agree with me on this multiple times in this thread. The only proponents of such bans are entirely, I mean entirely motivated by their selfish desire to not have to deal with the mild discomfort they occasionally encounter from cigarettes. I'm OK with that as long as they admit it.
It's just like how 9 out of 10 people who oppose the "ground zero mosque" are actually motivated by a secret dislike of muslims/islam, not the rationalizations they present in lieu of admitting the truth. (that's a non-sequitor, but it's also a comparison)
Actually, in the healthcare field patient perception is a part of diagnosis and is often noted in patient notes. Pain/stress levels are accounted for in treatment. So if they think it alleviates their stress, even though it is physically harming them in other ways, then it does provide them a benefit. Maybe its not a net benefit with regards to their entire physiological health, but a temporary benefit nonetheless.
It can also be when there is a misleading use of a word with multiple definitions. By making up a new definition, it would qualify.
In other words, he isn't using Neutral to mean what it would be considered to mean, but something else. But by using the word neutral, it gives the appearance of some other position.
Also called the placebo effect. If we gave subjects some fake cigarettes to smoke, they would probably feel better too. Relaxation and calmness are often tied to habitual practices. For many, coming home, plopping on the couch and turning on the t.v. is the equivalent of a smoker lighting up. Fact is, smokers don't need that particular outlet to relax. There are many other options to choose from that don't endanger themselves or others.
That's true, but they make the choice to be there and be exposed. Most of them are private establishments anyway.
How did I prove you correct? Just because you say so?
I did no such thing.
A baseless accusation. SHS is proven dangerous. That goes without saying. Just because it's "less dangerous" to you in public spaces doesn't make it NOT dangerous at all.
I have presented much more than simple emotional reasoning. I've established health causes and I'm fairly certain I employed my reasoning in a logical fashion. You are welcome to disagree and I am not against that, but to continue calling me logically fallacious is out of line. Just accept that you disagree. It doesn't have to be more than that.
Can you please post proof then, other than your say so?
Here are some links that contradict what you're saying, from a simple google search:
Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) - CDIC: Volume 29, Supplement 2, 2010 - Chronic Diseases in Canada - Chronic Diseases - Public Health Agency Canada
It's not a distortion of the data.
Second hand smoke is hazardous.
In material safety data sheets for things like cyanide, they don't make a distinction between lethality in open space or closed space, it's a hazardous chemical, period. One of many in cigarettes. It shouldn't matter than I am breathing 10 times less outdoors than if you were smoking next to me in doors, I AM STILL BREATHING IT and it's not good for me. How hard is that to comprehend?
And actually, I don't hate the smell of tobacco, and I even like the smell of cigars; I also like the smell of pot. Does that mean I want to breathe in their SHS? No.
Harmful is harmful.
We don't need a study to compare if a substance is harmful outdoors vs. indoors.
If I am sitting next to you outside, you exhale, and I breathe it and start coughing, the venue doesn't matter.
Cigarette smoke is proven to be harmful.
Yet.
Only when their freedoms do not encroach upon my freedoms.
The continual ad hom that I'm lying is not impressive, coming from a mod.
That would mean a willful intent to cover up information, which is not what I'm trying to do.
You can demonize me all you want but it's only going to make you look bad. Keep that in mind.
From my view, it is about public safety. We don't need anymore evidence that smoking is harmful to the smoker and bystanders. There might not be studies yet to prove outdoor risk, but it's a safe assumption. If all people have to go on right now is discomfort and distaste, then I support it until the scientific facts come in. If those peer reviewed, non-industry funded facts prove that outdoor smoking doesn't harm anyone, then I would be in favour of the law being revoked. Until then, given the known information on smoking, it's reasonable to make these laws.
We've also had plenty of smokers come in and whine about how their freedom to poison air is being taken away gradually, and that the public won't support their cancerous, life-shortening addiction. Boo hoo, cry me a river.
The feelings you describe about non-smokers, I too have them, and I have perhaps intermixed them too much with my health concerns in this thread, but make no mistake, the health concern comes first, followed by my personal annoyance. I am a fairly tolerant person and if something doesn't pose a health or safety risk to me then I could care less. Smoking has an established history of causing bodily harm, and it's an educated assumption to say this harm extends to the outdoors as well.
All I can do is LOL at this. You know, I tend to take issues on a case by case basis, and don't make very broad comparisons like this one. Trying to compare me to the "ground zero mosque" fanatics is really just sad. Is every political issue the same in the mind of Tucker Case?
You see the arguments of all non-smokers as the same, and I'm being grouped right in with them. Does it ever occur to you that this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I smoke?
Or it can be a term you employ when you simply disagree with me. The word "misleading" here is disingenuous as I was not intending to mislead anyone.
Again, you are trying to make it seem like I am twisting an argument instead of just acknowledging that we have a different view on neutral, and I am open to debate. Debating the point is one thing, calling me a liar is another. I don't appreciate it. To me, smoke neutral means the air doesn't have smoke. That doesn't mean smokers aren't allowed there, it just means they can't light up. By neutral I mostly meant inert, meaning it can't harm anyone.
But instead of getting me to clarify, you went on the attack and accused me of being a equivocator or a liar. Not the kind of behaviour I would come to expect from you of all people Tuck.
Most of what?
No, becuase you are motivated by self-interest only and refuse to compromise because it's all about your convenience.
Then cite a defintion of making something "neutral" where one side of a polar dichotomy achieves everything it desires while the other gets nothing. I'll wait for it. Probably forever, because such a definition does not exist.
It is of minimal danger, and of far less danger than the consumption fo sehllfish in public is for me. the danger argumetn has no merit whatseover in open air.
It's not out of line becuase your arguemtns have been fallacious as well as distortion of the facts to overbow the dangers presented in public from SHS. You claimed that my shellfish analogy was not apt, but the dangers of shellfish allergens inteh air is legitimate and not distorted for the affected population. It is far greater than teh trisk posed to you outdoors form simply smelling smoke. Your hyperbole is not a legitimate logical argument.
Can't really prove a negative. No objective evidence exists which suggests that there is a significant risk posed form SHS in open public spaces.
those studies do not disprove what I'm saying. they talk about the risk from enclosed environments and prolonged exposures.
See here you are making a factual claim. SHS is dangerous. What you fail to do is mention the additional "In enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time" aspect. It's a distortion becuase you are using a fact nugget without adding the existing qualifiers. You are trying to generalize information abotu a speciic set of data to anotehr situation when that is simply not founde in fact.
It's a lot more than 10 times less, first of all, and second of all teh quantity of a poison involved does makea difference. Especially if you eat soemthing like, oh, I don't know... shellfish, which has a certain amount of acceptable toxinss in it.
Apples have cyanide. in them.
Then you have an irrational fear of a negligable risk.
Except when the thing that is harmful is not harmful to you, but is harmful to otehrs, but it is also something you enjoy, like shellfish perhaps, right?
And something that is harmful in one situation is not harmful in another. A doctor of TCM should ****ing know better than to say that.
False.
False.
In certain situations.
You just said one is not needed.
what about when your freedoms encroach on mine? I guess you are ok with that. Wait, I know you are OK with that. you spent a long time defending that position earlier. Only your freedoms matter, right?
Your "rational" argument is based on distortions and half truths. Dishonest argumetns are dishonest arguments. Just becuase you ddon't lik ethat it is pointed out doesn't make it an ad hom.
The truth of your argument is that you really really really hate cigarretes and don't want to encounter them.
You have willfully distoted teh facts by claiming studies that test the affects of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke in enclosed environments are generalizabel to open environemtns and fleeting exposres. that's willfull deliberate distortion.
Yet even when presented evidence of the danges shellfish pose to people with allergies, and the fairly common nature of those allergies,m you argue that no such ban should be affected.
Sadly, there is evidecne of lifethreatening condistions from environmental contamination from shellfish and peanuts, yet you still don't aply the same logic to those issues.
That's all the evidence necessary to make the accusation that this is not the real motivation. It's all about Orion's saftey. Tucker's safety ain't really important enough to enact a ban over.
Do you support banning everything that poisons the air?
The bolded, underlined italicized statemtn is the most accurate thing you've said in this debate. If it doesn't pose a risk to you, you don't care.
So give up the "public" safety BS. It's all about Orion's safety. That's an honest statement. I have resppect for that.
No. Only the ones that have similar motivations.
My whole argument here has been an effor tto expose that aspect of a common anti-smoker mentality. They don't care when it's someone else at risk or in discomfort. teh shellfish analogy and the subssequent dodges by anti-smokers to try and make it non-comparable when it's very comprable proves that.
tehy delude themselves into thinking it's about public safety because it seems better of them to ascribe false altruistic rationalizations to their beliefs. I like to cut through the BS and focus on teh real argument. ssimply admitting that makes me far more likely to respect the argumetn from the start. while I may disagree with it still, at least I come away repsecting it.
Whether it was intentionally misleading or unintentionally so, it would still qualify as equivocation. Fallacies need not be intentional to be present.
...
Admittedly, that was based on my apparently incorrect assumption that you knew what the word you were using actually meant.
For that assumption, I do appologize. I will not make the same assumption in the future.
I accept your apology. And yes, I apparently had the wrong definition in mind, but I was trying to describe an "inert" environment, i.e. one that is less harmful to people. Apparently using the word neutral set off too many people.
I admit my mistakes, but FYI, it does not create an environment of openness for me to do so when I am already being lambasted with accusations of lying, equivocation, and willful distortion of information.
It does make it pointless to continue the discussion ebcause your fallacies are not going to spontaneously correct themselves, especially given the fact that they are inadvertent.
Smokers have a nicotine addiction. It isn't just a habit, and isn't done just to relax. Smokers continue to use tobacco in one form or another because nicotine is one of them most addictive substances known.
I once had an ex druggie tell me that kicking nicotine was harder than kicking cocaine. He should know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?