Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Smoking and video games, smoking and cars, smoking and electricity, smoking and spitting people in the face, smoking and shooting people, the analogies are numerous.

But smoking is so different and evil than anything in the world that none of the analogies make any sense to a non-smoker zealot.

Thank you for presenting some kind of weird half-constructed strawman version of what I'm trying to say instead of actually responding to it meaningfully.

[Siquo]

Thank you for presenting some kind of weird half-constructed strawman version of what I'm trying to say instead of actually responding to it meaningfully.

As I said in my post, and Jude did in his, I could, but it's of no use. Every time any analogy is made, it is either ridiculed because it does not EXACTLY map onto the subject, or the subject is inflated to mismatch the analogy.

"We" know what you're trying to say, we know all the arguments, they've been said a thousand times and we're perfectly aware of them. That cannot be said for you and our point-of-view.

Discussions cannot be had by merely 'proving' someone elses point of view is invalid, logically incorrect, or plain evil, without understanding it, or where they come from. I could try to defend the analogy by pointing out the alternatives to video-games, the harmfulness of video-games, the addictiveness of video-games, but it would be pointless, since the whole concept of the analogy is not transferred.


So I ask you then, come up with an analogy to smoking. Please specify the precise overlapping areas. Can you think of one that makes sense in your head so we can work with that?

[G-Flex]

Something that has effectively no benefit but is still bad for individuals and society, and horribly addictive? Beats me. Most addictive stuff I can think of actually has some kind of value.

[Siquo]

See? You're so prejudiced that you cannot make any abstraction about the subject, rendering any discussion useless. You're more than welcome to spout the same opinion time after time, though.

[G-Flex]

What abstraction do you even want me to make? That's what I don't get.


Smoking harms people while providing virtually zero benefit in return, and is extremely physiologically addictive. When something like this is the case, hell, I'm not even sure people should be allowed to sell it.

[Neruz]

Smoking and video games, smoking and cars, smoking and electricity, smoking and spitting people in the face, smoking and shooting people, the analogies are numerous.

But smoking is so different and evil than anything in the world that none of the analogies make any sense to a non-smoker zealot. An example:

We had an anti-smoking campaign here in the Netherlands a while ago, with the slogan "at least I'm not smoking". This featured (really, we're talking government funded national television ads) waiters pissing in the drinks of guests at a restaurant ("ap-pel-sap"), smiling widely and saying "hey, at least I'm not smoking"!
After that, spoofs of people killing children and saying "hey, at least I'm not smoking" were of course abundant.

So yes, we know how evil smoking is. Apparently more evil than pissing in other peoples drinks. We're just trying to make other people see that we're human as well and it's really not that bad.




Oh and ChairmanPoo, I'll let you in on a little secret: We were talking about smoking INSIDE on the second page of this thread, which was dismissed by most if not all smokers in this thread, we're reasonable people, after all. After that it was about smoking in general, and you were having a discussion all by yourself, talking to no-one in particular.

To be fair; drinking urine is basically harmless (although disgusting) and will not give you cancer. Unlike smoking, which is not and will.


Now if you want to compare smoking to alcohol, then you're getting closer.

[Siquo]

Ok, I keep on trying: MacDonalds fits the description you just made. So does alcohol. So do videogames (zero benefit because there are other alternatives), and so do a whole lot of other perfectly legal and accepted habits and products. So either the abstraction you just made is valid, and covers those things as well, or it is invalid and you need to tinker with it to exclude previously mentioned habits and products.

The same with cancer: cars give you cancer as well. And run over you. Then there is the "has no benefit"-clause, which seems reasonable for a non-smoker, but smokers do see a benefit, so the whole "benefit" thing is highly subjective (as I tried to show by implying that the "benefit" of driving cars is also subjective).

[ChairmanPoo]

The problem being that noone smokes in general. Everyone smokes somewhere, and the discussion is precisedly about which places should allow it and which not.

And yeah, the analogies kind of suck. Pretty please, stop the insane addict logic.

[codezero]

Here's a game for you to play while you get over it, ThreeToe.
http://www.improbableisland.com/home.php?

haha.

Anyway, I can definately see smoking getting banned in most places in the near future. As long as a good black market starts up. Without a black market, tobbaco workers will lose their jobs, but there'll be nothing in it for the police workers. If you don't believe that than have a look at the biggest naysayers of the legalisation of med. marijuana in America, either your work pays you to fight legalised pot, you believe hearsay, or you support it. The upside of illegal tobacco is the quality will improve drastically, you haven't tried street tobacco if you think I'm full of it.

I look forward to the day we cure cancer and everyone takes up smoking again.

heh.. There is a solution, smoke marijuana, it fights cancer, and apparently hemp oil is the best cancer cure known to man.

@ChairmanPoo, that's your argument, some people seem to be arguing it's complete abolition, from their lives.

[Tack]

Yeah. I'm getting kind of sick of it.

Here's a fucking analogy for you all. What if you were addicted to something that gave you a small rush over a short period of time, whilst at the same time killing you?

If the first smoke doesn't prove how bad they are for you, then you're tough.
However, with that bullshit spouted, seriously. Make your own judgements. I don't care who smokes and who doesn't. I don't tell people not to drive, not to play high-contact or extreme sports. It just doesn't matter. If people are willing to take the risk, who cares? Not them, certainly, and I mean that in a good way.

[Siquo]

The problem being that noone smokes in general. Everyone smokes somewhere, and my discussion is precisely about which places should allow it and which not.

Fixed that for ya 

"Insane addict logic". Could you specify where the logic is insane in pure abstract, so without any value-examples such as "you say smoke is good but it's bad so it's bad logic".

I've got a good one for you, Tack, that fits your.. "analogy": breathing.

[ChairmanPoo]

You are comparing your petty adiction (particularily, your petty addiction in enclosed spaces and it's effect on other people) with an essential transportation system. It might be comparable if I drove my car in your livingroom, or something like that. Otherwise it's stupid as hell. And you know it. Or should.

Oh, and, yeah, the question of marihuana (and marihuana and other things, for that matter) and cancer is still to be settled. But I doubt it's as harmless as it is touted.

[Alexhans]

whoever said that videogames provide zero benefit should leave inmediatly from this thread (not really, but... come on  ).  I've learned a hell of a lot from games.  A lot of games are puzzles that need to be solved using your mind.   Some games train your decision making (in little time) and even your reflexes in action games. People learn a lot of things playing games (history, geography, economy, etc, etc).

As I said.  This discussion has no end.  It's useless and stupid at this point.  Most smokers feel attacked and react arguing to death.  They defend their right to smoke.  I say fine.  Let them.  As long as we all respect each other it's all good. 

Analogies to prove a point are getting out of hand.  Most of them are entirely flawed and only work as a diversion so as to avoid arguing the real point.

[ChairmanPoo]

Analogies to prove a point are getting out of hand.  Most of them are entirely flawed and only work as a diversion so as to avoid arguing the real point.

This

[Siquo]

Well, the real point is that there exist non-smokers who whine about their health-problems inflicted on them by smokers. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is for each to decide. The fact that the non-smokers directly or indirectly also inflict bad health on smokers, is indeed, completely beside the point and irrelevant to the aforementioned righteous whining. The right to whine shall persevere and anything a smoker says can't be true anyhow.




Whoohoo, entirely without analogies! But unconstructive cynicism may have crept in somewhere...