I admit my posts have been long and elaborate, but that's because I have been replying to several previous posts at the same time.
Quote:
|
use of the "you can't prove it so I win" technique are among several logical fallacies of which you are a chronic repeat offender
|
? Either you are confused, or I am.
You and the other anti-smokers are the ones attempting to enact legislation. You want action, the banning of smoking in public places. Therefore, the onus is on you to make your case for it, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PERSAUSION. If you can't make your case that smoking should be banned in public places, then yes, I do win. That is the way arguments work. That is not a logical fallacy to require the proponent of an position to support his/her position.
Quote:
|
"smoking is cool, therefore I should be allowed to inflict it on everyone else"
|
I don't recall ever having made this statement. Why did you put in in quotes? That's misleading and uncool. I did make the statement that smoking is cool, but that was in response to a poster's query as to why people smoke, not why it shouldn't be banned in public places. If I failed to make this clear, I apologize.
Quote:
|
Clearly you can't be swayed in your opinion, so I will stop trying, but I do think your argumentative technique could be... revised. At the very least. I think you have poor form.
|
I could be easily swayed in my opinion, as I thought I had made clear, but I am stupid so perhaps I haven't.
So, for the record:
I agree that killing other people without justification should be illegal. However, I do not believe that second hand smoke kills other people (certainly not second hand smoke in bars and restaurants). IF ANYONE HAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLS PEOPLE PLEASE LINK TO IT AND I WILL CONSIDER IT.
The EPA report previously linked to is a 12 year old meta-study of smaller studies that is highly suspicious. The WHO report I linked to is only 6 years old and found only weak evidence to support the claim that second hand smoke increases cancer RISK. I do not find such weak evidence persausive.
If you have a different reason for banning smoking in public places, please post it and I will consider it, and if I disagree with it, I will point out why it is an insufficient reason for the government to take action.
Quote:
|
I have to say, I find your arguments to be flawed almost beyond common sense.
|
Great, please point out which arguments I made were flawed. Such generalizations do not help me to improve my argument skills.
Quote:
|
Whats up with your continual analogies to black people? What the hell have black folk got to do with smoking? Are you trying to make smokers out as a persecuted minority?
|
Again, please reference a specific analogy and I will try to make it clearer.
I know I'm stupid and have great difficulty making my ideas clear. But general ad hominem attacks against me do not make the issues in this topic