I heavily recommend people interested in bad faith argumentation (how to identify it, how to combat it) to read this text. It’s didactic, because of how obviously the guy is twisting things to prove black and white.
Nicotine contributes to the taste of cigarettes and the pleasures of smoking. The presence of nicotine, however, does not make cigarettes a drug or smoking addiction.
Yeah, and gravity doesn’t work on Fridays. /s
Coffee, Mr. Chairman, contains caffeine and few people seem to enjoy coffee that does not. Does that make coffee a drug?
Interesting fallacy he uses here - it’s like a loaded question, but instead of building it around an assumption, he does it around the connotation of a word (drug), to create a false equivalence.
Yes, caffeine is a drug. Yes, it’s addictive. And abstinence syndrome is a pain. The reason you don’t see it being enforced as other drugs is because it’s relatively benign, but you can’t say the same about nicotine. (NB: this is coming from a smoker who drinks a buttload of coffee and yerba.)
Are coffee drinkers drug addicts?
Chaining another rhetorical question to further impact the appeal to emotion of the above.
People can and do quit smoking
Yeah, people can and do quit crack cocaine too. It doesn’t stop it being a drug.
Smoking is not intoxicating; no one gets drunk from cigarettes and no one has said that smokers do not function normally. Smoking does not impair judgment.
Unless something in the report is suggests that, he’s building a straw man and beating it to death.
Point five, Phillip Morris research does not establish that smoking is addictive.
Yeah, and my cat’s research does not establish that scratching furniture damages it. /s
I heavily recommend people interested in bad faith argumentation (how to identify it, how to combat it) to read this text. It’s didactic, because of how obviously the guy is twisting things to prove black and white.
Yeah, and gravity doesn’t work on Fridays. /s
Interesting fallacy he uses here - it’s like a loaded question, but instead of building it around an assumption, he does it around the connotation of a word (drug), to create a false equivalence.
Yes, caffeine is a drug. Yes, it’s addictive. And abstinence syndrome is a pain. The reason you don’t see it being enforced as other drugs is because it’s relatively benign, but you can’t say the same about nicotine. (NB: this is coming from a smoker who drinks a buttload of coffee and yerba.)
Chaining another rhetorical question to further impact the appeal to emotion of the above.
Yeah, people can and do quit crack cocaine too. It doesn’t stop it being a drug.
Unless something in the report is suggests that, he’s building a straw man and beating it to death.
Yeah, and my cat’s research does not establish that scratching furniture damages it. /s