Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Obloquium]

You don't need one. The fact that it is totally subjective while the risk is harsh and objective is enough.

No, its not. I have a choice I can't evaluate because it involves a subjective term. I cannot objectively declare it worse than refraining based on just half the argument. Try your substituting surfing or skydiving or eating a rich Italian meal for smoking.

Subjective gain for objective harm is the same equation used by religious fanatics to justify their asinine bullshit.

And by anyone who ever makes a pessimistic choice not to watch TV, climb a mountain, or do anything that carries even the slightest risk of injury or death. It's yields a meaningless parallel, as does equating Russian Roulette with smoking.

[Darth Wong]

You don't need one. The fact that it is totally subjective while the risk is harsh and objective is enough.

No, its not. I have a choice I can't evaluate because it involves a subjective term. I cannot objectively declare it worse than refraining based on just half the argument. Try your substituting surfing or skydiving or eating a rich Italian meal for smoking.

Does surfing cause a 22-fold increase in the chance of getting lung cancer? No? False analogy, then. When there is a serious objective risk or harm, subjective pleasure is simply not a worthwhile counter.

Subjective gain for objective harm is the same equation used by religious fanatics to justify their asinine bullshit.

And by anyone who ever makes a pessimistic choice not to watch TV, climb a mountain, or do anything that carries even the slightest risk of injury or death. It's yields a meaningless parallel, as does equating Russian Roulette with smoking.

What kind of a fucktard describes 400,000 deaths a year as "even the slightest risk"?

[Obloquium]

Another brainfart. It should read "anyone who makes an optimistic choice to" do that list of things.

[Darth Wong]

Another brainfart. It should read "anyone who makes an optimistic choice to" do that list of things.

No, the brainfart is trying to say that because you can't put a precise number on the bullshit "subjective pleasure" of smoking, then you can say that it might outweigh 400,000 deaths per year. By this idiot logic, anything you subjectively want to do is automatically immune from criticism because you can't put a number on your own subjective desire to do it.

[Obloquium]

Does surfing cause a 22-fold increase in the chance of getting lung cancer? No? False analogy, then.

The amount of risk is inconsequential in your analysis because you default to a pessimistic choice when you can't evaluate the subjective gain against a universally accepted measure of cost.

When there is a serious objective risk or harm, subjective pleasure is simply not a worthwhile counter.

And what's the objective basis for "serious?"

What kind of a fucktard describes 400,000 deaths a year as "even the slightest risk"?

I don't know anyone who would. We've already agreed that the health risks are universally appreciated. I have problem with your assertion that a universally held negative value assignment automatically trumps a subjective positive.

[Obloquium]

No, the brainfart is trying to say that because you can't put a precise number on the bullshit "subjective pleasure" of smoking, then you can say that it might outweigh 400,000 deaths per year. By this idiot logic, anything you subjectively want to do is automatically immune from criticism because you can't put a number on your own subjective desire to do it.

No, by my reasoning smoking differs from genocide in that my present social circumstance passionately abhors one and is ambivalent about the other. By your reasoning, there's no basis for any choice that carries risk.

[Darth Wong]

When there is a serious objective risk or harm, subjective pleasure is simply not a worthwhile counter.

And what's the objective basis for "serious?"

Enough deaths so that you cannot attribute it to random chance and freak incidents. Smoking easily qualifies. So do certain "extreme sports", drunk driving, etc. All activities where there is significant objective risk and no objective gain.

What kind of a fucktard describes 400,000 deaths a year as "even the slightest risk"?

I don't know anyone who would. We've already agreed that the health risks are universally appreciated. I have problem with your assertion that a universally held negative value assignment automatically trumps a subjective positive.

Once it reaches the point of causing death, why the fuck shouldn't it?

[Darth Wong]

No, the brainfart is trying to say that because you can't put a precise number on the bullshit "subjective pleasure" of smoking, then you can say that it might outweigh 400,000 deaths per year. By this idiot logic, anything you subjectively want to do is automatically immune from criticism because you can't put a number on your own subjective desire to do it.

No, by my reasoning smoking differs from genocide in that my present social circumstance passionately abhors one and is ambivalent about the other. By your reasoning, there's no basis for any choice that carries risk.

Significant risk of death, moron. Not just any risk at all. I risk stubbing my toe by walking out of the front door in the morning, so don't put words in my mouth.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

SO he's saying the massive and proven deathrate caused by smoking, the huge financial cost to the individual AND his family, the hospital time/money wasted, and the emotional pain on both family sides is a small, irrelevant risk compared to the personal subjective pleasure gained from killing yourself over time? Wah? What kind of ethical system is that.

I don't think you even have to use a utilitarian ethic to figure this one out, you could probably use Kantian ethics or some deontological frameowrk. You ought to treat any human being as a means to an end, including yourself. Wouldnt you be treating yourself as a means to the end of mere pleasure, no matter how illogical the activity is?

I don't see how you could logically will someone to smoke. How can you logically will it as a universal law that you could kill yourself knowingly in an effort to make your life more pleasurable? It seems counterproductive.

Even if you don't do a calculus of utility, you could do what's right because it's categorical, or, you could use some type of Prima Facie deontology. You shouldn't use yourself or anyone else to get to goal A. YOu should get to goal A because it's a logical thing to do.

[Obloquium]

Enough deaths so that you cannot attribute it to random chance and freak incidents. Smoking easily qualifies. So do certain "extreme sports", drunk driving, etc. All activities where there is significant objective risk and no objective gain.

You're asserting there are objective risks so great that only an objectively demonstrated greater gain justifies assuming them. So how do you justify the demarcation between significant and insignificant risk? You can't rationally. In the end you appeal to popularity, just as you do for the basis buy in for a utilitarian analysis. That's not a problem at all, but in the case of smoking you have no universally held normative that justifies drawing any line whatsoever.

Once it reaches the point of causing death, why the fuck shouldn't it?

I would think the burden of proof rests on the positive case. If you could point to evidence that there is no "objective" gain, which in the case of values translates to a wide acceptance that smoking is an unjustified risk (for whatever reasons), then you'd have a leg to stand on. Presently, you don't.

[Obloquium]

Significant risk of death, moron. Not just any risk at all. I risk stubbing my toe by walking out of the front door in the morning, so don't put words in my mouth.

See above post.

[Tommy J]

[quote="Obloquium']

If you could point to evidence that there is no "objective" gain, which in the case of values translates to a wide acceptance that smoking is an unjustified risk (for whatever reasons), then you'd have a leg to stand on. Presently, you don't.

Hey Obloguium. What exactly are you arguing?

Smoking is an acceptable risk for pleasure?
Smokers got rights too?

I mean man, what?

Listen, I'm a light smoker, meaning I don't smoke when I'm indoors at home, I don't smoke when I'm at work. Essentially I smoke when I'm with my friends, maybe 1 after work, or at the bar having a drink.

And you know what, I know its bad for me. Every critical study proves it's bad. And if my employer said quit smoking or we're firing you, I'd quit.

I look at it this way. I smoke and it's no one elses damn business if I do or not because it's my body. Lots of people engage in all sorts of behaviors that are bad for them. Some eat too much, some drink too much, some use drugs recreationally, some people use drugs a lot, some people drive their cars excessivly fast for kicks and endager others....etc..

I do however respect the rights of non smokers. I never light up in their cars, I never blow smoke in their face and when at their homes I don't smoke or I go outside to do such. Bars are fair game to me because in Atlanta it's still legal to smoke inside a bar, thus a non smoker knows what their in for if they go inside.

Thus, I know it's bad but still do it because I'm addicted to the nicotine and still enjoy the sensation of smoking. Will I quit some day -- yes most likely but not today.

So if you're trying to argue some justification for smoking YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE because it simply isn't rationale to engage in an activity that is potentially deadly

Your only argument is that sometimes people engage in irrational behaviors and activites despite being warned not to do such. Ergo our failed human condition.

[Obloquium]

SO he's saying the massive and proven deathrate caused by smoking, the huge financial cost to the individual AND his family, the hospital time/money wasted, and the emotional pain on both family sides is a small, irrelevant risk compared to the personal subjective pleasure gained from killing yourself over time? Wah? What kind of ethical system is that.

I'm saying that in the US, where a quarter of the adult population takes that risk and nearly half do end up quitting, where a third of the smoking population actually dies as a result, and (IIRC) half end up with debilitating health problems, social circumstances do not place the habit in the same league with Russian Roulette or any other activity universally regarded as "stupid." Nobody's arguing that smoking is unhealthy, that smokers assume a far greater risk to their lives and health than non-smokers, and that death or injury do to the habit isn't horrific. I do have a problem with Wong's assertion that "smoking is stupid amounts to a fact." There is no basis to the claim, at least none he's demonstrated. All we have is his word that the risks of smoking are sufficient significant to trump any subjective pleasure arising from it. That does not amount to a fact by any standard.

I don't think you even have to use a utilitarian ethic to figure this one out, you could probably use Kantian ethics or some deontological frameowrk.

Utilitarian ethics promises a universally applicable measure of gain and cost. I don't know if that's true; I'm not an ethicist and I don't have time to evaluate whether or not its claim to link the normative to the positivist is valid. I'm at least willing to accept that it is the most successful framework for ethics we have, provided we are evaluating objective gains and costs against each other and not delving into subjective parameters.

You ought to treat any human being as a means to an end, including yourself. Wouldnt you be treating yourself as a means to the end of mere pleasure, no matter how illogical the activity is?

We're all doomed to die. Darth Wong doesn't appear to go as far as to say man should live healthy and long as he possibly can irrespective of other considerations. He does claim, at the very least, that man should avoid risks to life and health after a point. He hasn't explained where that point is why he believes it to be a universal truth. I'm not even sure if its practically possible to define even in as narrow a case as smoking. I would appreciate an attempt, though.

I don't see how you could logically will someone to smoke. How can you logically will it as a universal law that you could kill yourself knowingly in an effort to make your life more pleasurable? It seems counterproductive.

Could you rephrase?

Even if you don't do a calculus of utility, you could do what's right because it's categorical, or, you could use some type of Prima Facie deontology. You shouldn't use yourself or anyone else to get to goal A. YOu should get to goal A because it's a logical thing to do.

Same here.

[Obloquium]

Hey Obloguium. What exactly are you arguing?

Just a very narrow argument. Darth Wong asserts that "smoking is stupid" amounts to an objective fact. I'm challenging the validity of that claim.

Smoking is an acceptable risk for pleasure?
Smokers got rights too?

I mean man, what?

Personally, I believe that Darth Wong's claim is valid in the limit where the debilitating and fatal risks of smoking cannot be avoided At that point we can say there is a universal assessment of the gain (none) we can properly evaluate against the universally accepted assignment of risk.

Listen, I'm a light smoker, meaning I don't smoke when I'm indoors at home, I don't smoke when I'm at work. Essentially I smoke when I'm with my friends, maybe 1 after work, or at the bar having a drink.

I'm a bit heavier, I probably smoke a pack every month. I'm down from a pack a day. I'm also 25. Compare that with my coworker who is over 50, has considerable health problems, and continues to smoke. Darth Wong's claim that the stupidity of smoking is an objective fact inelegantly lumps my occasional indulgence of an addiction with the far riskier behavior of my coworker.

And you know what, I know its bad for me. Every critical study proves it's bad. And if my employer said quit smoking or we're firing you, I'd quit.

I'd probably do the same, but like I said in my first post I don't see any reason why an employer can't legally or morally fire someone for smoking. The argument against would, on the moral issue, take the same form as Darth Wong's and suffer from the same defect. If I can't objectively claim smoking is stupid because the subjective gain can't be evaluated against the objective risk, I can't turn around and compel someone to accept my fun as fact. Thankfully, we all pretty much smoke.

[Tommy J]

Just a very narrow argument. Darth Wong asserts that "smoking is stupid" amounts to an objective fact. I'm challenging the validity of that claim.

But he's right, from a purlely logical objective perspective anyone who engages in any activity that increases the likilehood of death is stupid. My answer back to that is, so what. Many people do stupid things, this happens to be one of my stupid behaviors. So long as I don't infringe on the rights of non-smokers or subject them to my stupidity what's the problem?

I'd probably do the same, but like I said in my first post I don't see any reason why an employer can't legally or morally fire someone for smoking. The argument against would, on the moral issue, take the same form as Darth Wong's and suffer from the same defect. If I can't objectively claim smoking is stupid because the subjective gain can't be evaluated against the objective risk, I can't turn around and compel someone to accept my fun as fact. Thankfully, we all pretty much smoke.

Reminder, they are a health care company. I'm a smoker it I've visited friends in the hospital before and it's always bothered me despite being a smoker seeing a Dr. with his white coat on, outside of a hospital lighting up. Thus some professions I think it's acceptable to limit employment to non-smokers.

Would it be ok for the Director of the American Cancer Society to light up in the parking lot outside of work?

Would it be ok for the Surgeon General to knock off a couple of smokes in the local bar next to her office would that be ok?

Of course not.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I'm saying that in the US, where a quarter of the adult population takes that risk and nearly half do end up quitting, where a third of the smoking population actually dies as a result, and (IIRC) half end up with debilitating health problems, social circumstances do not place the habit in the same league with Russian Roulette or any other activity universally regarded as "stupid."

If a quater of the population takes the risk, that's a coulter of almost 300 million people. Quit a large number. 1/3 dies. This affects, again, a large number, and that's the direct impact. It also impacts the family and the friends of all of these people.

Smoking is a silly thing to do because the pains of doing it certainly outweigh the benefits. Name a benefit, other than subjective pleasure, that comes from smoking?

Cigerettes are nothing more than sticks in which chemicals, which deliberately are meant to addict and kill you are placed into them. When you smoke you are willingly committing suicide slowly. Only if you are lucky do you not get very ill, dibilitated, or killed. There are rare occasions.

Smoking is also ridiculously costly to your family, both emotinally, healthwise, and through cost. Do you know how much cigs cost and how much people spend on something that later ends up either killing them or driving them into hospital treatment? No temporary pleasure is worth that. YOu need to think long term damage.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject:
Tommy J wrote:
Hey Obloguium. What exactly are you arguing?


Just a very narrow argument. Darth Wong asserts that "smoking is stupid" amounts to an objective fact. I'm challenging the validity of that claim.

Quote:
Smoking is an acceptable risk for pleasure?
Smokers got rights too?

I mean man, what?


Personally, I believe that Darth Wong's claim is valid in the limit where the debilitating and fatal risks of smoking cannot be avoided At that point we can say there is a universal assessment of the gain (none) we can properly evaluate against the universally accepted assignment of risk.

Quote:
Listen, I'm a light smoker, meaning I don't smoke when I'm indoors at home, I don't smoke when I'm at work. Essentially I smoke when I'm with my friends, maybe 1 after work, or at the bar having a drink.


I'm a bit heavier, I probably smoke a pack every month. I'm down from a pack a day. I'm also 25. Compare that with my coworker who is over 50, has considerable health problems, and continues to smoke. Darth Wong's claim that the stupidity of smoking is an objective fact inelegantly lumps my occasional indulgence of an addiction with the far riskier behavior of my coworker.

Doing it less just lessens the stupidity of doing it. It's still stupid, but not AS stupid. There are degrees.

1. Not doing it is smart
2. Doing it some is stupid
3. Doing it a medium ammount is stupider
4. Doing it a lot is unfathomably stupid.

There's no point in which smoking ISNT stupid, unless you are getting paid mega bucks to do it, and your family will be better OFF if you die while giving them losts of money from it. But this isn't a reality, so it's a non-option.

Nobody's arguing that smoking is unhealthy, that smokers assume a far greater risk to their lives and health than non-smokers, and that death or injury do to the habit isn't horrific. I do have a problem with Wong's assertion that "smoking is stupid amounts to a fact." There is no basis to the claim, at least none he's demonstrated. All we have is his word that the risks of smoking are sufficient significant to trump any subjective pleasure arising from it. That does not amount to a fact by any standard.

Those facts make it stupid, both from a Utilitarian pov as well as Kantian. You are not only hurting yourself, but your family. You couldn't logicallywill it that you would hurt your family economically/socially, as well as yourself. You couldn't make that a universal law of nature.

You also cannot weigh your personal happiness against the massive harm being done by the practice. The calculus doesn't add up.

Utilitarian ethics promises a universally applicable measure of gain and cost. I don't know if that's true; I'm not an ethicist and I don't have time to evaluate whether or not its claim to link the normative to the positivist is valid. I'm at least willing to accept that it is the most successful framework for ethics we have, provided we are evaluating objective gains and costs against each other and not delving into subjective parameters.

The only point in which the Utilitarian calculous would turn in your subjective favour is when the suffering = less than your happiness. This can only happen if:
1. You are alone
2. No one cares about you
3. You aren't costing anyone anything more than you are worth
4. You aren't wasting crucial time and resources that could have been used on someone more deserving.

We're all doomed to die. Darth Wong doesn't appear to go as far as to say man should live healthy and long as he possibly can irrespective of other considerations.

Yes. Everyone will die, but that's not the point. The fact that everyone dies doesn't change the fact that you want to minimize the suffering and pain and destruction that you can in life. Do you just stop caring because you and everyone else will eventually die?

THis is the same argument someone told me for not wearing seatbelts. Why wear a seatbelt? You are all gonna die anyway. You never really save a life.

He does claim, at the very least, that man should avoid risks to life and health after a point. He hasn't explained where that point is why he believes it to be a universal truth. I'm not even sure if its practically possible to define even in as narrow a case as smoking. I would appreciate an attempt, though.

There is a point. That point is the one in which the harm done to your relatives/friends/society overshadows what you want. If they have to pay for YOU to be fixed when YOU are the one who made yourself unhealthy, dead, ill, that's wrong. If they are the ones who have to take care of you when you have some disease directly caused by smoking, then it's wrong.

It's not wrong in and of itself that you do it. It's the consequences that make it wrong. The small ammount of pleasure of 1 person is almost always outweighed by the cost, damage to the friends/family, not to mention the rest of society who has to deal with you.

I don't see how you could logically will someone to smoke. How can you logically will it as a universal law that you could kill yourself knowingly in an effort to make your life more pleasurable? It seems counterproductive.


Could you rephrase?

You cannot logically will that it to be a universal law of nature that in an effort to make your life better, more pleasurable you will purpousfully kill yourself. to achieve it. It's contradicting. You are saying smoking gives you pleasure and makes your life better in comparison to the costs. However, in making your life better, you are actually just killing yourself and making it worse.

Smoking cannot logically improve your life by ending it or making you unhealthy as a result.

[Edi]

The pleasure is subjective

Yes, which is why we don't ban bull-running, base jumping, watching TV or any other activity that carries the slightest risk of injury or death. Smoking is obviously not aesthetically appalling, so why say it is?

Would you care to address the other points I made, or shall I accept your concession right now? Not that it would be anything other than superfluous at this point, you've been stomped so hard there's hardly a stain left. I warned you it was going to get painful, and you've been handled with kid gloves so far...

Edi

[Obloquium]

Would you care to address the other points I made

What other points? Your argument is identical to Darth Wong's and suffers from the same defect. You asserted that the objective risks of smoking trump the subjective pleasure. Like Wong, you haven't even bothered to justify that claim. If you want to debate the health risks involved, find someone who disagrees with you.

[Obloquium]

If a quater of the population takes the risk, that's a coulter of almost 300 million people. Quit a large number. 1/3 dies. This affects, again, a large number, and that's the direct impact. It also impacts the family and the friends of all of these people.

For the nth time, I'm not debating the health risks. I agree with you. We have a problem when you claim:

Smoking is a silly thing to do because the pains of doing it certainly outweigh the benefits.

No one here's even bothered to prove this claim. I see nothing wrong in presently permitting myself the pleasure of a cigarette. More importantly, there is no universally held value--what would pass as a basis buy in for an aesthetic or ethical proposition--that would even allow me to determine whether I'm making an objectively wise or unwise choice.

Name a benefit, other than subjective pleasure, that comes from smoking?

This is akin to restricting choices to only those that show an objective benefit over and objective cost, a point I've already raised with Wong.

[Batman]

For the nth time, I'm not debating the health risks. I agree with you. We have a problem when you claim:

Smoking is a silly thing to do because the pains of doing it certainly outweigh the benefits.

No one here's even bothered to prove this claim.

Because it's blindingly obvious. Even if smoking affected nobody but you the company would be entitled to fire you (wether I like that or not) because as it's a serious health risk you're damaging your usefulness to the company.
However, smoking DOES affect other people. Second-hand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers, be they people in bars, your co-workers or babies growing in women who smoke, thanks to your health suffering it affects your work performance and thus your employer, you smoking affects everybody who pays health insurance thanks to your addiction eventually tallying a quite siginifcant hospital bill (unless smokers pay significantlyy higher premiums in the US which I rather doubt), your loved ones having to deal with your deteriorating health, possibly having to care for you...

I see nothing wrong in presently permitting myself the pleasure of a cigarette.

YOU benefit from smoking. (Well, technically, so does the tobacco industry).
A WHOLE SHITLOAD OF PEOPLE suffer from it. If you don't see the problem I kindly request you resign your membership of the human race.

More importantly, there is no universally held value--what would pass as a basis buy in for an aesthetic or ethical proposition--that would even allow me to determine whether I'm making an objectively wise or unwise choice.

*scratches head*
Doing something that will inevitably harm me seems like an inherently unwise choice to me. I may deem the choice acceptable on account of the pleasure I gain but it's unwise nevertheless.

Name a benefit, other than subjective pleasure, that comes from smoking?

This is akin to restricting choices to only those that show an objective benefit over and objective cost, a point I've already raised with Wong.

And that point is wrong because?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think an important factor to consider here is that smoking is stupid because it will hurt you and cause serious complications later on in life. Basically you have no control over whether it will hurt you or not. It's a fact that your body will suffer because of it.

Let's take an extreme sport like rock climbing without safety devices. Yes, it has the potential to kill but you can control the situation and if you're an experienced rock climber you reduce the chances of being injured or killed.

The same can not be said for smoking.

In conclusion smoking IS stupid because you are taking part of something that will hurt you can cause damage and eventually death, and you have no control over it. The same can be said for sun bathing, and self mutilation.

[Darth Wong]

No one here's even bothered to prove this claim.

The claim has been proven by pointing out that the harm is real, while the benefit exists only in your head. You honestly do not understand why that which is real trumps that which exists in your imagination? You have completely ignored the points I made earlier about how you could justify any religious fanaticism with this nonsensical valuation of "subjective benefits" to be comparable with real, significant objective harm.

I see nothing wrong in presently permitting myself the pleasure of a cigarette.

Wow, appeal to personal opinion.

More importantly, there is no universally held value--what would pass as a basis buy in for an aesthetic or ethical proposition--that would even allow me to determine whether I'm making an objectively wise or unwise choice.

Don't be an idiot; the choice is objectively stupid. You are saying that there's an imaginary benefit in your head which outweighs all of the serious, quantifiable costs and hazards and damages associated with smoking. By this cretinous logic, one might as well say that it's not stupid to kill yourself if you believe you will end up on the Hale-Bopp comet afterwards.

[Justforfun000]

I think he's trying to argue this in a different way then how it's coming across..

If I'm not mistaken he is trying to say that the "stupid" label doesn't automatically apply just because somebody chooses to take the subjective pleasure over the objective harm. He's probably presenting it in the sense that he isn't "stupid" as in not understanding what is the smartest way to go, he is simply making an informed choice and saying sometimes you'll do things that could potentially shorten your life for momentary gratification. Like eating a cheeseburger. Drinking heavily-sugared pop. Having a heavy night of drinking.

So I think he's trying to bring to you a point that if you do ANYTHING that you know is not particularly constructive or purposeful as to your health, and is in some ways likely detrimental (like the examples above), then you are being hypocritical to call people stupid.

This is all down to a judgement call. We are going to all die barring some miraculous medical discovery, and many people will choose pleasurable habits or behaviours that may shorten your life. But some feel the life is better lived by having their desires fulfilled then denying themselves and living a longer "ascetic" life.

It's a fair philosophical argument. I have to agree that it's debatable as to whether it can be fairly labeled stupid or not. From a certain VIEWPOINT, like a medical practitioner, absolutely. But in the overall scheme of things? Depends on your priorities. This is really a more philosophical judgement rather than a black and white one.

[Darth Wong]

So I think he's trying to bring to you a point that if you do ANYTHING that you know is not particularly constructive or purposeful as to your health, and is in some ways likely detrimental (like the examples above), then you are being hypocritical to call people stupid.

Which would be a black/white fallacy, as was made quite obvious earlier when he tried to suggest that it's impossible to draw a line in the sand at any given point. Even though insurance actuaries make entire careers out of doing precisely that: deciding when something warrants classification as a serious risk factor.

[Obloquium]

Which would be a black/white fallacy, as was made quite obvious earlier when he tried to suggest that it's impossible to draw a line in the sand at any given point.

I did no such thing. I pointed out there was absolutely no basis behind YOUR demarcation. That is there is no universal agreement that the temporary pleasure of smoking is trumped by the objective risks except in the limit where the act is

Even though insurance actuaries make entire careers out of doing precisely that: deciding when something warrants classification as a serious risk factor.

Presumably for the same reason its within the rights of a firm to fire someone for smoking. That has nothing to do with your completely bogus claim that "smoking is stupid amounts to a fact." All you've done is:

1. Set up a completely bogus comparison of game between Russian Roulette and smoking (comparing a single trial of one to a lifetime of trials of the other).

2. Appealed to emotion by demanding I consider the very real harm of smoking the prima facie for declaring unwise any choice carrying a 1 in 3 chance of death and something like a 50% chance of debilitating injury as a result of longterm heavy smoking.

3. Proposed that objective costs trump subjective gain and only the stupid believe otherwise. The implications of youir fanatical ethical reality--despite all its logical defects--on their face are numerous and disturbing. That you later introduced some arbitrary demarcation between choices that should only be decided on their universally accepted positive and negative value assignments means you're taking a step back, but then this whole exchange has been an exercise in posturing.

With that, I'm done. You think smoking is stupid amounts to a fact, you're entitled to your delusion.