Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Darth Wong]

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

In short, your argument is "I don't agree with your use of the relative term "stupid"". Well too bad, that's not a rebuttal. You claim that my use of the term is wrong even though it is a relative term; the burden of proof is on you to support your claim of an absolute valuation, not me.

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).

That distinction is irrelevant to the logic of the analogy, hence your rebuttal is nothing but a red-herring fallacy.

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.

How is it an appeal to emotion to point out that you are engaging in a risky and harmful activity? Do you even know what an appeal to emotion is?

3. Proposed that objective costs trump subjective gain and only the stupid believe otherwise.

Correct, because that's true. If an objective cost can be said to be so small that it is insignificant that's fine, but when you are talking about something that kills in mass quantities, that objection simply does not apply, hence the reason for bringing up the life insurance companies' policies; there are objective means of determining when a risk factor is significant and serious.

The implications of youir fanatical ethical reality--despite all its logical defects--on their face are numerous and disturbing.

"Logical defects" which you have failed to actually identify. You simply state it as a fact that "I like it" is a reasonable counter to "it is objectively harmful", and ridicule any attempt to state otherwise. Do you not agree that the objective is more "real" than the subjective? Do you believe that the Heaven's Gate cult members were not idiots for killing themselves in order to achieve a subjective gain? I have repeatedly demanded that you answer this question and you invariably decline to address it, preferring to puff your chest out about how superior you believe your logic is.

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.

You're done because after numerous challenges, you have completely failed to back up your claim that "I like it" is a reasonable counter to "it's objectively harmful". As for "posturing", I have three words for you: "pot", "kettle", and "black". You have consistently, conspicuously, and deliberately avoided addressing points that you could not handle. In the end, your entire argument for smoking is nothing more than "I like it". If you were out to prove that smokers can be intelligent, you have not done yourself any favours with your performance here.

[Obloquium]

In short, your argument is "I don't agree with your use of the relative term "stupid"".

My argument is that I don't see any basis to your claim that "smoking is stupid amounts to a fact" outside the limit to where the risk for death and debilitating injury increases to certainty. On the other hand, you have every right to consider smoking an unwise choice and advocate against it, just as an insurance company has every right to consider smoking a risk factor in its formulas.

That distinction is irrelevant to the logic of the analogy, hence your rebuttal is nothing but a red-herring fallacy.

It is relevant. You stated explicitly that you're only concerned with "significant objective risk." You're drawing a line. It would help that you either justify why even a majority of smoking activity lies on the same side of the line as Russian Roulette. To do that, you have to

How is it an appeal to emotion to point out that you are engaging in a risky and harmful activity?

It is an appeal to emotion to assert my disgust at 400,000 deaths is enough to consider smoking an unwise choice.

Correct, because that's true. If an objective cost can be said to be so small that it is insignificant that's fine, but when you are talking about something that kills in mass quantities, that objection simply does not apply, hence the reason for bringing up the life insurance companies' policies; there are objective means of determining when a risk factor is significant and serious.

Because I should find 400,000 deaths sufficiently disgusting to quit smoking, or because you would have people live their lives to avoid a hypothetical denial of life insurance? If the former, you're appealing to emotion. If the latter, you're premise is wrong (I already have life insurance). Either way, both boil to "because I say so."

"Logical defects" which you have failed to actually identify.

The premise that there is an ethical reality. I pointed that out the first time you brought it up, and then pointed that there are universally held values yielding propositions we can properly evaluate. The rest of my argument stands in my last post, others can review it and decide which case is more compelling.

[Darth Wong]

My argument is that I don't see any basis to your claim that "smoking is stupid amounts to a fact" outside the limit to where the risk for death and debilitating injury increases to certainty.

So you set your limit at "certainty" rather than "serious elevated risk"?

On the other hand, you have every right to consider smoking an unwise choice and advocate against it, just as an insurance company has every right to consider smoking a risk factor in its formulas.

You said earlier that "I have a problem with your claim that "smoking is stupid/unwise/bad/whatever" amounts to a fact." Now you admit that I have every right to say it is unwise, but I still can't say it's "stupid", even though "stupid" is often used in the same manner as "unwise". You're quite the contortionist! Do you even know what your own position is?

That distinction is irrelevant to the logic of the analogy, hence your rebuttal is nothing but a red-herring fallacy.

It is relevant. You stated explicitly that you're only concerned with "significant objective risk." You're drawing a line. It would help that you either justify why even a majority of smoking activity lies on the same side of the line as Russian Roulette. To do that, you have to

Wrong; the Russian Roulette comparison was brought up as a rebuttal to your claim that the unquantifiability of subjective gain makes it a potential trump for any objective harm. I reiterate: the distinction is irrelevant to the purpose of the analogy, and you are merely trying to evade the point.

How is it an appeal to emotion to point out that you are engaging in a risky and harmful activity?

It is an appeal to emotion to assert my disgust at 400,000 deaths is enough to consider smoking an unwise choice.

Bullshit. It is not your emotional reaction, but the number of deaths itself which is the point. By this cretinous logic, one can dismiss any quantification of mass death as a reason for negatively valuing something by simply mischaracterizing it as an appeal to emotion. Can I say that cancer is bad for killing millions of people? Oh no, that's an "appeal to emotion" according to you!

Correct, because that's true. If an objective cost can be said to be so small that it is insignificant that's fine, but when you are talking about something that kills in mass quantities, that objection simply does not apply, hence the reason for bringing up the life insurance companies' policies; there are objective means of determining when a risk factor is significant and serious.

Because I should find 400,000 deaths sufficiently disgusting to quit smoking, or because you would have people live their lives to avoid a hypothetical denial of life insurance?

Because it is stupid to risk your life for a gain that exists only because you have convinced yourself that it exists.

If the former, you're appealing to emotion. If the latter, you're premise is wrong (I already have life insurance). Either way, both boil to "because I say so."

Wrong, and wrong. You may have life insurance, but you pay more for it due to your habit. And no, neither of them are "because I say so". I can back up both of them with objective facts, while your argument relies on nothing more than your own feelings.

"Logical defects" which you have failed to actually identify.

The premise that there is an ethical reality.

And I am supposed to agree with this completely unsupported bullshit statement rather than arguing that ethics is a malleable system designed for the intent of achieving realistic social goals? Why?

I pointed that out the first time you brought it up, and then pointed that there are universally held values yielding propositions we can properly evaluate.

No, you claimed this, with no justification other than "I say so".

The rest of my argument stands in my last post, others can review it and decide which case is more compelling.

Since nobody is agreeing with you, methinks you either have too much confidence in your own bullshit or you simply can't read.

[Obloquium]

Correcting your continuing and repetitive misrepresentations of my objection is growing tiresome.

So you set your limit at "certainty" rather than "serious elevated risk"?

As far as smoking is concerned, your claim that its stupidity is a matter of fact has only been shown to be valid at the limit.

Now you admit that I have every right to say it is unwise, but I still can't say it's "stupid", even though "stupid" is often used in the same manner as "unwise".

No, I've said all along you have the right to call it unwise/stupid/whatever. You have no justification to claim that it amounts to an objective fact for the reasons I've outlined previously. Simply put, in this particular case you don't have a objective leg to stand on when it comes to knocking my idea of fun. There's nothing else here we haven't gone over at length, so I'm going to stop here.

[Darth Wong]

So you set your limit at "certainty" rather than "serious elevated risk"?

As far as smoking is concerned, your claim that its stupidity is a matter of fact has only been shown to be valid at the limit.

And why is it valid at that limit? Using your own twisted logic, we can't even say that.

Now you admit that I have every right to say it is unwise, but I still can't say it's "stupid", even though "stupid" is often used in the same manner as "unwise".

No, I've said all along you have the right to call it unwise/stupid/whatever. You have no justification to claim that it amounts to an objective fact for the reasons I've outlined previously.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what it looks like when someone is reduced to pathetic hair-splitting. The fact that I said "it's a simple fact [that smoking is stupid]" rather than "smoking is stupid" (a statement which is structured to state itself as a fact anyway).

Simply put, in this particular case you don't have a objective leg to stand on when it comes to knocking my idea of fun. There's nothing else here we haven't gone over at length, so I'm going to stop here.

That's a nice way of saying you intend to continue ignoring the points I raised that you have no answer for. Yet again, do you believe that you cannot state with finality that the Heaven's Gate cultists were stupid?

[Obloquium]

And why is it valid at that limit? Using your own twisted logic, we can't even say that.

If there is a widely accepted ethical or aesthetic rejection of behavior that certainly results in death or debilitating injury, then smoking to that extent is "objectively" stupid/unwise/ugly/whatever. We can evaluate at the limit, because at that point there is wide agreement that no subjective gain from the activity can trump the objective costs. And that pretty much wraps it up. I'm out.

[Darth Wong]

And why is it valid at that limit? Using your own twisted logic, we can't even say that.

If there is a widely accepted ethical or aesthetic rejection of behavior that certainly results in death or debilitating injury, then smoking to that extent is "objectively" stupid/unwise/ugly/whatever. We can evaluate at the limit, because at that point there is wide agreement that no subjective gain from the activity can trump the objective costs. And that pretty much wraps it up. I'm out.

In short, after all of your blather about splitting hairs between "it's stupid" and "it's a fact that it's stupid", your argument boils down to what is "widely accepted"?