That's a fallacious argument, because it begs the question. Specifically, in a discussion about whether there are risks associated with vaping, you're presupposing a risk and accuse me of downplaying it. Not gonna play that game.
Encourage or Discourage eCigs?
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's a fallacious argument, because it begs the question. Specifically, in a discussion about whether there are risks associated with vaping, you're presupposing a risk and accuse me of downplaying it. Not gonna play that game.
If you want nic, do this! It's your 'best' option
Rather someone pick up the vaping habit then the smoking one
(Sorry it's not a discouraging post)
Rather someone pick up the vaping habit then the smoking one
(Sorry it's not a discouraging post)
Even if they liked it / enjoyed it?
Would you do this with other products like: beer, coffee, candy bar, etc.?
Hypothetical: Hey Junkman, thanks a lot man for letting me try a sip of your Corona. I really liked the taste of it. Never had a beer until today, but man that tasted good!
Junkman: You're nuts. Stay away.
I respectfully disagree.
"You should..." is normative. Encouragement is either optative or cohortative, depending on the construction; "I encourage you to..." is optative, because it's roughly equivalent to saying "I would hope that you would...." On the other hand, "Let's ...." is cohortative.
In other words, to say that someone should do something is to prescribe an action, implying a moral imperative. To say that you encourage someone to do it is merely to say that you would like for that thing to occur. For example, saying that you encourage someone to get rich is different from saying that she should get rich.
It's a subtle difference, but I believe it's a significant one.
Last edited:
I disagree with your interpretation of the word encourage. My dictionary doesn't say should nor does it imply should.
I wouldn't want them to get addicted to nicotine. I understand that to be a potential risk in the encouragement. Hence, I'd probably desire some sort of discussion, which might be all of 30 seconds, or could be 30 minutes. I dunno. It depends. Why would I encourage it at all? Because I enjoy the product, I believe others would enjoy it, and I think of the product (including potential addiction to nicotine) as relatively harmless. I also think that the product as an exclusive club for smokers only is not necessarily great for the market and is, IMO, part of the reason why FDA has the sort of target on eCigs that they do - to regulate this just like a tobacco product, for that is how it is promoted - You like smoking? You do? We encourage you to try eCigs then. Please try them. We need you to try them. You'll be happier if you do. Please try them. Or as some vapers might put it, you should try them, or you will die from smoking. Your choice. I'm glad I stopped being stupid.
"I also think that the product as an exclusive club for smokers only ...is, IMO, part of the reason why FDA has the sort of target on eCigs that they do"
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just don't think that is based on reality. FDA is after all nicotine products. To think that vaping would be better off it was attracting large numbers of non-smokers is way off base.
Right now vapers can argue back with the FDA that it is helping reduce cigarette consumption, reducing harm and helping some to quit nicotine all together.
Imagine the uproar if there were articles about non-smokers of all ages picking up this new fad sweeping the country of vaping e-cigs.
The only argument that makes sense against FDA killing vaping is that vaping is effective tobacco harm reduction and or cessation, backed by research and testimonials.
Of course FDA doesn't want to hear about THR or smoking cessation either.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I just don't think that is based on reality. FDA is after all nicotine products. To think that vaping would be better off it was attracting large numbers of non-smokers is way off base.
Right now vapers can argue back with the FDA that it is helping reduce cigarette consumption, reducing harm and helping some to quit nicotine all together.
Imagine the uproar if there were articles about non-smokers of all ages picking up this new fad sweeping the country of vaping e-cigs.
The only argument that makes sense against FDA killing vaping is that vaping is effective tobacco harm reduction and or cessation, backed by research and testimonials.
Of course FDA doesn't want to hear about THR or smoking cessation either.
Last edited:
Well, to be honest I don't think I know anyone that hasn't tried a beer. And if one of my friends asked for a swig of my corona (APA more likely) I would say get your own. It isn't like they don't know where to get one.
I am glad you are so confident that there are no risks. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion at this point, and I don't believe that many of even the most ardent supporters of THR are willing to make that claim.
In fact, that strikes me as an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary proof. Perhaps that will come in time, but I don't believe anyone has seen it yet.
Last edited:
How risky is it of me to hop in my car and drive to work everyday? How risky is it for me to have a Big Mac for lunch? How risky is it for me to go skiing?
There's a funny thing about risks: people have an irrational fear of very minor risks when they are novel, but they don't think twice about embracing serious risks of every sort provided that they're common. Just last month, parents all over the United States were in an uproar about the safety of their children at school because a deranged lunatic killed 20 kids and 6 adults in a school shooting in an isolated incident in a faraway town. Meanwhile, 11,000 people died in drinking related accidents last year, as usual.
I reject the validity of your premise about risk. And you really don't help your case by constructing straw men in order to give your opinion an air of reasonableness that it lacks when exposed to real arguments.
Last edited:
Well as clearly stated in my post above, which you decided to punt against, you have to consider the benefits of the risks you undertake, consider alternatives etc.
Driving your car to work is clearly not a risk free proposition. However, there are benefits to undertaking that risk, and for many in these United States, few alternatives.
Having a big mac for lunch? Well, I would say it would have some risks, again addressed in earlier post. Again consider the alternatives and frequency and habit forming nature.
Risks of drinking/being on the road on a Friday or Saturday night vs. risks of sending your children to school? I actually need to address this?
But what I get from your comment is that there are in fact risks from vaping. You just wish to minimize those risks by comparing them to other often encountered risks. This was all clearly discussed in the comment on which you punted.
No, I reject your continued insistence that there is such a thing as risk free or "completely safe" behavior. Thus, your use of these notions as benchmarks against which to measure vaping is useless. You've never addressed this. Given the logical framework of your current argument, you will not be able to unless you adopt a different approach. When you can demonstrate a concrete risk that materially differentiates from the boring, indefinite list of other things people do safely on a regular basis, then we may have something to talk about. Please note: a rhetorically charged description of ingredients and chemical processes that occur during vaping won't fit the bill, not any more than it would for a cake mix.
The presumption that I must prove the exact level of risk vs. other boring activities is invalid.
Your logical framework is the one that is bent. You admit there is risk but make the assumption that the risk is so small as to overide the habit forming/addictive nature of the activity, the tendency for repeated and prolonged exposure and the relatively small if not non-existent benefits for a non-smoker.
Your assumption is without basis.
Last edited:
this is imho not the point. nobody is searching for riskfree behavior. you would probably not be able to find any.
in this case its about the fact, that if someone does not vape or smoke, he is at 0 risk from actively inhaling nicotine and other chemicals by himself. that would have to change once he starts to vape.
so why encourage someone to expose himself to a risk, however small it might be, that he wouldnt be exposed to otherwise?
For the same reason you might encourage someone who'd never tried fried foods to try French fries, even though fried foods increase risk of heart disease and weight gain due to their high fat count, calorie density, and their propensity to prime eaters for overeating: because they taste good and they're fun to consume. In fact, you'd be kind of a jerk if you actively discouraged people from trying French fries.
This gets back to my point about irrational fears of novel minor risks as opposed to known common risks.
Last edited:
i like how you construct your examples, i really do!
and i guess its working most of the time too, right
i really dont want to get into too much detail but im pretty sure you are well aware of the difference between "never in your life eating fried foods" and "never in your life vaping a liquid containing nicotine"
Nope, no term paper for me. Been a good 2 decades since I did that sort of thing. LOL.
I do concede the point that there is a risk to vaping, and as we are seemingly all aware of this, I would think some sort of label would be helpful on all eCig products. That such a thing would be a fair regulation. Would be nice to understand what that risk actually is, for the label right now might read 'unknown risk' which I think could cause more a stir than something along lines of 'very minor risk.'
But even with that label on there, I would still be apt to encourage someone that I knew and that I had some discussion with, and the result of that discussion led me to believe this person would enjoy eCigs as I, and many many, others do. To be clear, I do think a discussion could result in me discouraging someone, while another person in the same room or in another room, might encourage that same individual. Or some ad, article, post on an eCig forum might entice that same individual that I chose to discourage.
And IMO, if we are being honest about this entire line of discussion, it is likely this applies to a segment of the population that might be best noted by their age group. What that age group is exactly, I'm not sure anyone could pinpoint, but I'd go as young as 13. And to be clear, anyone under 18, is not someone I'd encourage, and my hypothetical personal discussion with them would likely be very short.
I do think the potential addiction is a relative non-issue, especially when it comes to vaping. I'm not saying it 'should' be a non-issue, but really at any age, but particularly at a younger age, the idea of potential addiction to something that many others seem to be enjoying, while also seem to be fairly healthy, while also seem to be fairly successful, makes for relative non-issue. And will remain so until the person with a collapsed lung, or something similar comes to a local school and says, 'see me, see what I've become, this is a result of years of vaping. Please be scared of my condition and please don't ever start vaping. Or you will die.'
Being the pretty well known and researched risks of nicotine alone are similar to caffiene, an appropriate warning would be something like "Do not consume if pregnant or nicotine sensitive, do no consume more than x amount of nicotine per day"?
Why do you consider the risk unknown? All the ingredients of vaping are researched and fda approved (nicotine inhalation, vg inhalation, pg inhalation, flavourings). The consistuents of the vapor, the liquid, and the nicotine absorbtion into the body is all known.
I can't see anything thats unknown about vaping, risk wise, apart from the inhalation of gras flavours, which most people on the street would not even consider as a health risk of any kind.... Please explain, this "unknown risk" thing.
- Status
Similar threads
