Running tab
- Thread starter Uma
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well you could just read the blog by Stanton Glantz. He has pretty much invented or repeated all of them. Unfortunately, he believes them.
Electronic cigarettes were invented by BT to hook a new generation of smokers.
Use of electronic cigarettes by minors is "soaring".
Nicotine causes cancer.
Nobody has any idea what's in electronic cigarettes.
Source- every anti article I've ever read.
Use of electronic cigarettes by minors is "soaring".
Nicotine causes cancer.
Nobody has any idea what's in electronic cigarettes.
Source- every anti article I've ever read.
More silly, ridiculous lies:
Fruit and candy flavors are used in ecigarettes specifically to entice children.
Secondhand vapor is as dangerous as secondhand smoke.
People use ecigarettes only as a way to circumvent smoking bans.
BT is entering the ecig market as a way to keep people smoking.
Ecigs are a gateway to smoking.
Fruit and candy flavors are used in ecigarettes specifically to entice children.
Secondhand vapor is as dangerous as secondhand smoke.
People use ecigarettes only as a way to circumvent smoking bans.
BT is entering the ecig market as a way to keep people smoking.
Ecigs are a gateway to smoking.
Uma mentioned methods we've had to confront. So here are my favorites:
Ad hominem attacks:
Anyone who uses ecigs is a nicotine addict in denial about their addiction. (Implication: Therefore their opinions are meaningless.)
Vapers who write to their regulators/legislators in suport of ecigs are shills for ecig manufacturers/vendors. ("astroturfing")
The Straw Man fallacy (committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.) For instance:
Person A (vaper) has position X. "Vapers prefer non-tobacco flavored e-juice, such as strawberry."
Person B (ANTZ) distorts this to position Y. "Children like strawberry. Therefore strawberry-flavored ecigs will attract children."
Person B then attacks based on position Y. "Ecig manfacturers are selling strawberry-flavored ecigs to attract children to vaping."
Ad hominem attacks:
Anyone who uses ecigs is a nicotine addict in denial about their addiction. (Implication: Therefore their opinions are meaningless.)
Vapers who write to their regulators/legislators in suport of ecigs are shills for ecig manufacturers/vendors. ("astroturfing")
The Straw Man fallacy (committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.) For instance:
Person A (vaper) has position X. "Vapers prefer non-tobacco flavored e-juice, such as strawberry."
Person B (ANTZ) distorts this to position Y. "Children like strawberry. Therefore strawberry-flavored ecigs will attract children."
Person B then attacks based on position Y. "Ecig manfacturers are selling strawberry-flavored ecigs to attract children to vaping."
Oh, here's one I'd forgotten about:
Electronic cigarettes are more dangerous than traditional cigarettes because cigarettes have a filter!
Seriously?!?
From some guy at the WHO.
Wasn't that a medico from the Philippines FDA? (It's early yet today. I could be wrong...)
Here's a link that goes into detail on the statement. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-day-another-e-cigarette.html
Going forward with the idea of common logical fallacies used, there is the genetic fallacy. "The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit."
This is used often in contex with big tobacco. Big tobacco is bad, and big tobacco is starting to sell electronic cigarettes. Therefore e cigarettes are bad, because BT would not have a good idea.
Here's another, that I don't really know could be classified as a specific fallacy... Reduced harm tobacco products have been attempted in the past, and failed (reduced tar cigarettes), therefore it is impossible to invent a reduced harm tobacco product.
^maybe this could be classified as the gambler's fallacy, "The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes of the next coin toss." <actually, I don't think that fits. I'm not sure what the fallacy would be called.
This is used often in contex with big tobacco. Big tobacco is bad, and big tobacco is starting to sell electronic cigarettes. Therefore e cigarettes are bad, because BT would not have a good idea.
Here's another, that I don't really know could be classified as a specific fallacy... Reduced harm tobacco products have been attempted in the past, and failed (reduced tar cigarettes), therefore it is impossible to invent a reduced harm tobacco product.
^maybe this could be classified as the gambler's fallacy, "The gambler’s fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes of the next coin toss." <actually, I don't think that fits. I'm not sure what the fallacy would be called.
Last edited:
And the ever popular argument from ignorance. "Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious." (Quoted from the same source as the others.)
Nobody has been able to prove that electronic cigarettes are completely safe. Therefore they must be unsafe.
Nobody has been able to prove that electronic cigarettes are completely safe. Therefore they must be unsafe.
Keep 'em coming, these are so true.
The expert who is in fact not an expert at all who is called upon to give expert advice about a subject they have no expertise in at all, other than uniting certain fields to protect their financial and political interests to oppose threats to their agendas. Hails bells, I forget the official title...
The expert who is in fact not an expert at all who is called upon to give expert advice about a subject they have no expertise in at all, other than uniting certain fields to protect their financial and political interests to oppose threats to their agendas. Hails bells, I forget the official title...
Hell, you don't even have to say "proven." Just say "a recent study has shown..." (And remember, you can call anything a "study": a survey, a self-reported questionnaire, man-on-the-street interviews; and, as we all know, you can go to a forum, count the number of posts dealing with a particular subject (whether or not the posts are actually relevant), and call it a "study.")
A recent study of 1,000 ECF members has shown ....
A recent study of ECF members (who currently number over 156,000) has shown...
According to Dr. Adam Goldstein the vapor can be thousands of degrees hot when it hits the lungs!
Last edited:
- Status
