Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Darth Wong]

Oh jumpin' Jesus humping Mary on a pogo stick. Yes! Of course I am! It falls under the term 'drug adict', we haven't defined X drug with Y usage, this is why I'm arguing against the analogy.

Since the analogy related to companies with blanket policies against drug users, they must all be lumped together for the purpose of the policy. Your problem is that you think this gives you license to lump them all together for the purpose of describing their present and future behaviour, which is complete bullshit. It's not my fault you're too dense to get this.

An analogy is a generalisation, that's what makes it so fucking stupid. I don't need to show the 'individual', I need to show the 'group'.

No, dumb-fuck. An analogy is an attempt to illustrate a particular form of logic by demonstrating its use in a similar situation. It does not have to be 100% identical. The only way to defeat an analogy is to show that the logic in question cannot be applied, and you have failed to do so. In short, you obviously do not understand what an analogy is for, and this mind-bogglingly cretinous statement of yours merely confirms that.

The logic is that I as an employer would prefer not to trust employees who are known to have self-control problems or who are quite frankly stupid, and someone who was both addicted to cigarettes and who refused to enroll in a "quit smoking" program obviously falls into one or both categories. A blanket policy on drug abuse could easily be justified by the same logic.

Your rebuttal is that this blanket policy is actually justified by different logic, ie- the "fact" that the people affected by it have all kinds of horrible behaviour. The problem is that this is simply false, because not all drug users fall neatly into your stereotype. Get it yet? Or would you like me to spell this out in crayon for you?

Einstein did not have the past 5 decades of health research upon which to base his decision, you idiot. Try again.

You are right of course, but Einstein did end his life shorter than necessary by choosing to not undergo life saving surgery, he certainly had a fatalistic attitude somewhere, although don't take that as an attempt at rebuttle, just an observation. He was also known for being a shitty father and husband, the point would actually be that life style choice isn't a corellation with intelligence (which we are defining here as their ability to do their work).

Red herring. Although quite frankly, Albert Einstein was not a model employee for other reasons; he deliberately took work that he could slack off at, so that he could spend his time and energy on other things. Good for humanity, but bad for his employer.

Oh bite me, it is a risk with a drug adict that isn't apparent in a smoker due to their addiction, you hand waving that isn't going to change it.

Irrelevant. You obviously don't understand what the point of an analogy is. Triumphantly showing that it is not 100% identical doesn't do shit.

The part where this is yet another arbitrary constraint that you put there for your analogy to work! For fuck's sake! It doesn't matter that they haven't gone to the extreme yet. It matters that their life style choice can lead to it, while a smoker's won't.

"Can lead to it"? That's rich; you're saying that something the person has not done yet is a fair and reasonable basis for dismissal while present character issues such as his self-control, intelligence, and scientific comprehension are not?

[Crown]

The logic is that I as an employer would prefer not to trust employees who are known to have self-control problems or who are quite frankly stupid, and someone who was both addicted to cigarettes and who refused to enroll in a "quit smoking" program obviously falls into one or both categories. A blanket policy on drug abuse could easily be justified by the same logic.

Your rebuttal is that this blanket policy is actually justified by different logic, ie- the "fact" that the people affected by it have all kinds of horrible behaviour. The problem is that this is simply false, because not all drug users fall neatly into your stereotype. Get it yet? Or would you like me to spell this out in crayon for you?

No, that pretty much sums it up. Conceed the point, and apologise for acting like a retard for not seeing it earlier.

[Justforfun000]

No, that pretty much sums it up. Conceed the point, and apologise for acting like a retard for not seeing it earlier.

Hey don't feel too bad. I didn't really get the full point until DW's last post either. I was confused about what you were actually arguing. lol.

[Galvatron]

Mike, shouldn't smoking have its own entry on your "Things That Piss Me Off" page? I mean, it appears that smoking makes you really, really angry.

[Justforfun000]

Mike, shouldn't smoking have its own entry on your "Things That Piss Me Off" page? I mean, it appears that smoking makes you really, really angry. Smile

Really eh?

I have never seen him so riled up about something most people are somewhat indifferent to. Although I think it's wiser to be more vehemently against it then the average attitude.

[Obloquium]

I'm not sure if it's legal. I'm not even sure if it runs afoul of widely accepted notions of liberty. I'm a smoker, but I can't think of a legal or ethical reason why any employeer that objects to unprotected lifestyle choices doesn't have the right to let me go absent specific law or contracts stipulating otherwise. That said, I'm glad pretty much everybody smokes where I work.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, shouldn't smoking have its own entry on your "Things That Piss Me Off" page? I mean, it appears that smoking makes you really, really angry.

True; it does piss me off. The worst is when I see pregnant women smoking; stupid fucking bitches.

It's annoying that smokers get all upset and defensive and angry when you tell them it's fucking stupid to smoke. That's a simple fact.

[Obloquium]

I don't think you can go so far as to say its a fact that "smoking is stupid." Whether your willing to accept the risks or not for the pleasure of smoking is a matter of subjective taste. On the other hand, AFAIK smoking is one of many unprotected leisure activities people are more than free to find objectionable and form their associations accordingly. Unless I'm missing something, there's no legal or moral issue at stake here--just one of personal preference.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you can go so far as to say its a fact that "smoking is stupid."

Are you one of those people who disagrees that Russian Roulette is stupid? I had this conversation with someone before.

Whether your willing to accept the risks or not for the pleasure of smoking is a matter of subjective taste.

Plug "Russian Roulette" into that line instead of "smoking" and the logic is the same.

On the other hand, AFAIK smoking is one of many unprotected leisure activities people are more than free to find objectionable and form their associations accordingly. Unless I'm missing something, there's no legal or moral issue at stake here--just one of personal preference.

There is a utilitarian moral issue at stake here, and everyone lends at least some credence to utilitarian ethics unless they're hardcore Randroids with that whole "my stuff, my rights, fuck the rest of society" viewpoint of theirs. Same goes for duty ethics.

[Obloquium]

Are you one of those people who disagrees that Russian Roulette is stupid? I had this conversation with someone before...
There is a utilitarian moral issue at stake here, and everyone lends at least some credence to utilitarian ethics unless they're hardcore Randroids with that whole "my stuff, my rights, fuck the rest of society" viewpoint of theirs. Same goes for duty ethics.

Yes, I think Russian Roulette is stupid. I personally find it ethically and aesthetically appalling, as does my present social circumstance to an extent where it is trivial to speak of a differing point of view. Neither I nor American society has decided as much about smoking.

[Darth Wong]

Are you one of those people who disagrees that Russian Roulette is stupid? I had this conversation with someone before...
There is a utilitarian moral issue at stake here, and everyone lends at least some credence to utilitarian ethics unless they're hardcore Randroids with that whole "my stuff, my rights, fuck the rest of society" viewpoint of theirs. Same goes for duty ethics.

Yes, I think Russian Roulette is stupid. I personally find it ethically and aesthetically appalling, as does my present social circumstance to an extent where it is trivial to speak of a differing point of view. Neither I nor American society has decided as much about smoking.

Appealing to your own decision in order to justify your own decision is not much of an argument. It's nothing more than a refined version of the "because I say so" argument from Grade 3.

At what point would you agree that the damage and hazards associated with something make it a stupid thing to do?

[Obloquium]

Appealing to your own decision in order to justify your own decision is not much of an argument. It's nothing more than a refined version of the "because I say so" argument from Grade 3.

I have no doubt that at some point the argument boils down to I say so, just as utiltarian ethics boils down to the principle "there is an ethical reality...why? Because I say so."

At what point would you agree that the damage and hazards associated with something make it a stupid thing to do?

I have no idea how to answer that question objectively and in general (that's what you're looking for, right?) without resorting to definition.

[Darth Wong]

Appealing to your own decision in order to justify your own decision is not much of an argument. It's nothing more than a refined version of the "because I say so" argument from Grade 3.

I have no doubt that at some point the argument boils down to I say so, just as utiltarian ethics boils down to the principle "there is an ethical reality...why? Because I say so."

Not really. Utilitarian ethics has a legitimate basis as long as you can get the other person to agree that human suffering is bad and should be avoided: a far more basic and universal proposition than, say, the absolute truth of an entire religious text or national constitution.

At what point would you agree that the damage and hazards associated with something make it a stupid thing to do?

I have no idea how to answer that question objectively and in general (that's what you're looking for, right?) without resorting to definition.

Even if you do resort to simply stating it as a naked premise, do you have a criterion at all?

[Obloquium]

Not really. Utilitarian ethics has a legitimate basis as long as you can get the other person to agree that human suffering is bad and should be avoided: a far more basic and universal proposition than, say, the absolute truth of an entire religious text or national constitution.

Agreed. The value assignment for pain is a fairly normative principle. That does not mean it is objectively real or that it yields a measure that is single-sourced or is complemented by measures that arise from equally universal principles. Russian Roulette is sufficiently risky vis a vis the pleasure for me and most people to consider people who play it suicidal or some other equally deserving label of absurdity. I'm not sure how universal that is given its depiction in a few kick-ass movies. However, I see no universal normative underlying the claim that smoking is stupid.

Even if you do resort to simply stating it as a naked premise, do you have a criterion at all?

IRL? No, I don't. Even if I did, I probably wouldn't dwell on whether it's universal or not. And if I did end up considering how widely accepted my notion of stupidity is, I wouldn't be surprised if I did come off as a Randroid in some areas. What is a Randroid?

[Obloquium]

"fairly normative principle" should read "fairly universal principle." And I know, I'll use preview before I submit from now on.

[Batman]

Okay. Russian roulette (unless you're stupid enough to play it with an autoloader) has a 1-in-6 (typically) chance of killing you, with a 5-in-6 chance of doing you no harm whatsoever. Smoking is inevitably doing you harm, and has an increasing to 1-in-1 depending of how much you smoke chance of doing permanent harm if not killing you.
Tell me again how it isn't stupid?
And that's ignoring Russian Roulette is highly unlikely to harm anyone but the players, whereas smoking has a good chance of hurting everybody in the smokers vicinity.

[Obloquium]

Okay. Russian roulette (unless you're stupid enough to play it with an autoloader) has a 1-in-6 (typically) chance of killing you, with a 5-in-6 chance of doing you no harm whatsoever. Smoking is inevitably doing you harm, and has an increasing to 1-in-1 depending of how much you smoke chance of doing permanent harm if not killing you.
Tell me again how it isn't stupid?
And that's ignoring Russian Roulette is highly unlikely to harm anyone but the players, whereas smoking has a good chance of hurting everybody in the smokers vicinity.

You've set up the problem to compare a single round of Russian Roulette to a lifetime of smoking. What if I smoke for a year and quit? What about five years? Ten? What is the risk compared to a year's worth of Russian Roulette trials? Five years? Ten? I leave this as an exercise to you.

[Obloquium]

Also, and I know this is bordering on triviality, but why not play your ten years worth of Russian Roulette trials out in public where people are smoking--be careful NOT to be mindful of others around you. That way you have a level playing field on which to make a fair comparison of risk.

[Darth Wong]

Agreed. The value assignment for pain is a fairly normative principle. That does not mean it is objectively real or that it yields a measure that is single-sourced or is complemented by measures that arise from equally universal principles.

So? It is still among the best, if not the best basis for a system of ethics. Arguing that it does not reach some impossible ideal is pointless.

Russian Roulette is sufficiently risky vis a vis the pleasure for me and most people to consider people who play it suicidal or some other equally deserving label of absurdity. I'm not sure how universal that is given its depiction in a few kick-ass movies. However, I see no universal normative underlying the claim that smoking is stupid.

According to the CDC, "Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times." They willingly undertake this risk in order to feed a psychological and chemical addiction. The benefits are largely circular: people who claim that smoking is pleasurable only do so because they have addicted themselves to it; cigarette smoke is considered highly unpleasant by those who have not conditioned themselves to like it.

Does that make it "stupid"? It certainly makes it an unwise choice, so all you're really arguing about is whether "stupid" is an excessively strong term, which is in turn nothing more than whining about how blunt someone chooses to be.

Even if you do resort to simply stating it as a naked premise, do you have a criterion at all?

IRL? No, I don't. Even if I did, I probably wouldn't dwell on whether it's universal or not.

So why do you object to others saying that smoking is stupid?

And if I did end up considering how widely accepted my notion of stupidity is, I wouldn't be surprised if I did come off as a Randroid in some areas. What is a Randroid?

A Randroid is someone who thinks that Ayn Rand was right about everything.

[Obloquium]

So? It is still among the best, if not the best basis for a system of ethics. Arguing that it does not reach some impossible ideal is pointless.

I think you missed my second objection, that it does not yield a measure (at least not one you've presented) that is either arises from the same foundation or from some similarly universal principles. Also, I suspect that measuring utilitarian ethics success runs into the same problem to justify the normative in the first place.

According to the CDC, "Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times." They willingly undertake this risk in order to feed a psychological and chemical addiction. The benefits are largely circular: people who claim that smoking is pleasurable only do so because they have addicted themselves to it; cigarette smoke is considered highly unpleasant by those who have not conditioned themselves to like it.

Which does not change the fact that we don't have a universal measure to determine whether the pleasure--delayed or not--from smoking outweighs or is outweighed by the health risks. For me, personally, the conditioning didn't take to long. Then again, I started young.

Does that make it "stupid"? It certainly makes it an unwise choice, so all you're really arguing about is whether "stupid" is an excessively strong term, which is in turn nothing more than whining about how blunt someone chooses to be.

Your argument boils down to a gut feeling that the pleasure afforded by the addiction is outweighed by the health risks. That's where I have a problem.

So why do you object to others saying that smoking is stupid?

I don't. I have a problem with your claim that "smoking is stupid/unwise/bad/whatever" amounts to a fact. For one, there's nothing construed as universally held value rationale underlying the claim (you only go half way by appealing to our common view of the risks).

A Randroid is someone who thinks that Ayn Rand was right about everything.

Where there is no evidence of anything remotely like a universally held value, you can count me in with the "my rights, my stuff" thing.

[Edi]

According to the CDC, "Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times." They willingly undertake this risk in order to feed a psychological and chemical addiction. The benefits are largely circular: people who claim that smoking is pleasurable only do so because they have addicted themselves to it; cigarette smoke is considered highly unpleasant by those who have not conditioned themselves to like it.

Which does not change the fact that we don't have a universal measure to determine whether the pleasure--delayed or not--from smoking outweighs or is outweighed by the health risks. For me, personally, the conditioning didn't take to long. Then again, I started young.

The pleasure is subjective, the health risks are not, they are objectively measurable, as is the damage smoking causes to your body. And arguing that the conditioning didn't take long for you is pointless because your addiction caused the conditioning. What about people like me who don't smoke? For example, you can never condition me to consider cigarette smoke as anything other than grossly repulsive. I find the stink so offensive I've never even tried cigarettes, cigars or other substances people smoke, not so much as taken a single draught, and I never intend to.

Does that make it "stupid"? It certainly makes it an unwise choice, so all you're really arguing about is whether "stupid" is an excessively strong term, which is in turn nothing more than whining about how blunt someone chooses to be.

Your argument boils down to a gut feeling that the pleasure afforded by the addiction is outweighed by the health risks. That's where I have a problem.

What gut feeling? He just smacked you over the head with evidence from the CDC, which doesn't use anecdotal data but statistics of large trends, and a 22-fold risk of death, or 10-fold from some otehr causes is not a trivial thing.

So why do you object to others saying that smoking is stupid?

I don't. I have a problem with your claim that "smoking is stupid/unwise/bad/whatever" amounts to a fact. For one, there's nothing construed as universally held value rationale underlying the claim (you only go half way by appealing to our common view of the risks).

Given the damage that results from smoking over time, it is stupid. It takes a bloody huge chunk of money from the smoker's income and literally makes it go up in smoke. You would probably consider somebody who rolled up a hundred dollar bill and lit it on fire stupid, and smoking is no different from that at all. Except the $100 bill would probably be less poisonous by orders of magnitude.

You don't have a logical or evidence-backed leg to stand on so you might as well concede this issue before it gets painful for you, because it is going to go all downhill from here if you persist. Trust me, riding the argument all the way to (under)ground is not a pleasant experience...

Edi

[Darth Wong]

I think you missed my second objection, that it does not yield a measure (at least not one you've presented) that is either arises from the same foundation or from some similarly universal principles. Also, I suspect that measuring utilitarian ethics success runs into the same problem to justify the normative in the first place.

Don't be ridiculous; you do not need a precise measure of success to tell whether you're heading in the right or wrong direction, and objective harm for subjective gain is the wrong direction. This is like saying that if you can't determine exactly how fast you're falling, then you're not falling.

Which does not change the fact that we don't have a universal measure to determine whether the pleasure--delayed or not--from smoking outweighs or is outweighed by the health risks. For me, personally, the conditioning didn't take to long. Then again, I started young.

See above.

Your argument boils down to a gut feeling that the pleasure afforded by the addiction is outweighed by the health risks. That's where I have a problem.

See above.

I have a problem with your claim that "smoking is stupid/unwise/bad/whatever" amounts to a fact. For one, there's nothing construed as universally held value rationale underlying the claim (you only go half way by appealing to our common view of the risks).

See above.

A Randroid is someone who thinks that Ayn Rand was right about everything.

Where there is no evidence of anything remotely like a universally held value, you can count me in with the "my rights, my stuff" thing.

More like appealing to uncertainty in order to dismiss conclusions without presenting palatable alternatives.

[Obloquium]

Don't be ridiculous; you do not need a precise measure of success to tell whether you're heading in the right or wrong direction, and objective harm for subjective gain is the wrong direction. This is like saying that if you can't determine exactly how fast you're falling, then you're not falling.

Doesn't work that way. You have a fairly universal measure of the risk. You do not have a universal measure of the pleasure. That's where your claim that " 'smoking is stupid' amounts to a fact" fails. Unless you argue that I can only be restricted to choices that can be evaluated by some universal ethic (a normative that would in fact fall back on the same principle of ethical reality you're trying to justify), then this whole exercise is pretty pointless. Some people will find the habit worth it, some people won't.

More like appealing to uncertainty in order to dismiss conclusions without presenting palatable alternatives.

When your margin of error covers two or more mutually exclusive interpretations, then you can't honestly adhere to one. However, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. For your claim to work, we have to weigh whether the risk outweighs the pleasure. And the simple fact is that there is no universally held measure of pleasure when it comes to smoking.

[Obloquium]

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?

[Darth Wong]

Don't be ridiculous; you do not need a precise measure of success to tell whether you're heading in the right or wrong direction, and objective harm for subjective gain is the wrong direction. This is like saying that if you can't determine exactly how fast you're falling, then you're not falling.

Doesn't work that way. You have a fairly universal measure of the risk. You do not have a universal measure of the pleasure.

You don't need one. The fact that it is totally subjective while the risk is harsh and objective is enough. Subjective gain for objective harm is the same equation used by religious fanatics to justify their asinine bullshit.

When your margin of error covers two or more mutually exclusive interpretations, then you can't honestly adhere to one. However, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. For your claim to work, we have to weigh whether the risk outweighs the pleasure. And the simple fact is that there is no universally held measure of pleasure when it comes to smoking.

That's because it's subjective, whereas the damage (and totally unnecessary, unconstructive nature of it, not to mention the costs) are all objective. Do you honestly not understand the difference in weighting between objective and subjective?