I know it’s poor form to throw up another link before making an honest woman of the first one. But this doesn’t need to be wrapped in the warm puff pastry of a post, except to say that comparing cigarette smoking to terrorism is wrong on the following levels:
- It elides the distinction between a homicidal telos and a suicidal telos with collateral damage — ruinously;
- It continues the anti-smoking trend of turning all nonsmokers into anti-smokers, which is both
- a failure to recognize that recreational smoking exists and
- an unnecessary introduction of strife into society;
- There actually were lung disease risks associated with the debris from the towers, but they could have been averted by proper reactive government action rather than the proactive (and usually inappropriate) government action of smoking bans;
- If using 9/11 imagery to make a point were effective, Rudy Giuliani would still be in the presidential race. (Thank heavens for backlash.)
h/t: Copyranter, to whom I’d be tempted to send in my resume and cover letter if I didn’t suspect it would be posted for the mockery of the masses.
“A failure to recognize that recreational smoking exists”? It seems to me that *any* kind of smoking, “recreational” or not, poses health risks not only to the smoker but to his or her companions. So from a non-smoker’s point of view, what possible benefit is there to making a distinction between “recreational” and “non-recreational” smoking? How is this anything more than a nice rhetorical way for a smoker to justify his/her habit without admitting addiction and/or self-destruction?
As I website possessor I believe the content matter here is rattling wonderful, appreciate it for your hard work. You should keep it up forever! Best of luck. Consequently: thank you and please please go on with your good work. I’ll surely come back and look for new input! Greetz