4 ms·

That's not exactly what you quoted though - you quoted "The sale of...". Fairly inconsistent for someone who insists on consistency. Surely you can see how thos

That's not exactly what you quoted though - you quoted "The sale of...". Fairly inconsistent for someone who insists on consistency. Surely you can see how those words are important. This is the problem: Tobacco causes 20% of deaths and is industry and lobby driven, and is discussed here as a cause of unequal mortality. That's the topic. I think that anything that causes 20% of deaths should be avoided if possible. You saying that "protecting people isn't my goal" is obnoxious and rude. Forget "harm Big Tobacco" - I don't want all those people to die prematurely if possible. How you can twist that into me being the problem is perverted. Gay sex is a completely different issue. It's not industry driven, and it's a rounding error compared to tobacco deaths. There's no nuance. It's not relevant to the topic. I haven't stated a position on it as it is not relevant (whether you wrote a blog post on it or not). Yet you invent my position on it, and call me unprincipled. Again, obnoxious and rude. You are committing several logical fallacies here, but most importantly: This topic is not about my position on gay sex. Not at all.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
When I point out that gay sex causes harm (your original concern), you suddenly retreat to "industry and lobby driven" and now "unequal mortality". (Gay sex disproportionately kills blacks, but I guess that inequality is ok?) The reason this is relevant to the topic at hand is that you are making an argument that you know to be flawed. It's clear that you know it's flawed because you refuse to apply it anywhere else, and immediately retreat from "don't want all those people to die prematurely" when those people are dying prematurely from something you don't want to ban. What do you gain from making an argument you know to be incorrect?
- cromulent 10y ago
  There are lots of things that cause harm, but they aren't what I am talking about and they are different topics. We don't have to be consistent for all types of harm. That's asinine. I'm not "retreating", I am clarifying why there is a difference between an industry whose products causes 20% of deaths and free people engaging in activities as you can't seem to tell the difference, but you are being deliberately obtuse. How can I be retreating by mentioning "unequal mortality"? That's the title of the article. You are just being silly. You are playing games by placing words in my mouth: "I guess that inequality is ok?". Straw man. You are saying that if one form of harm could be regulated or banned, all must be. Slippery slope. "What do you gain..." - again, focusing on me instead of addressing the topic. Ad hominem. I think you understand all of this but you are trolling. Intellectual dishonesty.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

When I point out that gay sex causes harm (your original concern), you suddenly retreat to "industry and lobby driven" and now "unequal mortality". (Gay sex disproportionately kills blacks, but I guess that inequality is ok?) The reason this is relevant to the topic at hand is that you are making an argument that you know to be flawed. It's clear that you know it's flawed because you refuse to apply it anywhere else, and immediately retreat from "don't want all those people to die prematurely" when those people are dying prematurely from something you don't want to ban. What do you gain from making an argument you know to be incorrect?

cromulent 10y ago
There are lots of things that cause harm, but they aren't what I am talking about and they are different topics. We don't have to be consistent for all types of harm. That's asinine. I'm not "retreating", I am clarifying why there is a difference between an industry whose products causes 20% of deaths and free people engaging in activities as you can't seem to tell the difference, but you are being deliberately obtuse. How can I be retreating by mentioning "unequal mortality"? That's the title of the article. You are just being silly. You are playing games by placing words in my mouth: "I guess that inequality is ok?". Straw man. You are saying that if one form of harm could be regulated or banned, all must be. Slippery slope. "What do you gain..." - again, focusing on me instead of addressing the topic. Ad hominem. I think you understand all of this but you are trolling. Intellectual dishonesty.