[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people withfacts."
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 14:25:01 PDT 2009
The argument form is invalid. Consider:
I thing you are immoral. Therefore, being you should be illegal.
I think it is immoral for Gary to lie. Therefore it should be illegal
for Gary to lie.
I believe that it is wrong for one person to constantly bring up
another's occupation during politcal discussions, so it should be
illegal.
You actually only need one counterexample to prove an argument form
invalid but here are three.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:30 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
wrote:
> "This is the form your argument: I believe that X is wrong, so X
> should be illegal. That is a bad argument. "
>
> Really?
>
> I believe that murder is wrong so murder should be illegal.
>
> I believe that rape is wrong so rape should be illegal.
>
> I believe that arson is wrong so arson should be illegal.
>
> I believe that theft is wrong so theft should be illegal.
>
> I believe that child abuse is wrong so child abuse should be illegal.
>
> I believe that treason is wrong so treason should be illegal.
>
> Do I need to go on Mr. "I am a master of argument?"
>
> Is this really the sort of thing the tax payers of Washington pay
> you to teach their kids? I gotta tell ya I really don't think that
> their getting their monies worth.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
> withfacts."
>
> This is the form your argument: I believe that X is wrong, so X
> should be illegal. That is a bad argument.
>
> Why should your moral beliefs, or the moral beliefs of anyone for
> that matter, be the basis for law? And if you think they should
> matter, then there is NO reason for you to criticize Dan or anyone
> else for voting for the smoking ban as long as they thought that
> smoking in doors in public places was wrong. Apparently you think
> Dan's vote was "selfish" because you think that people's personal
> beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to matters of the law. So in at
> least some instances you seem to agree with my reasoning.
>
> Your beliefs on abortion entitle you to restrict your own behavior
> but not to restrict the behavior of others. The only basis for
> restricting behavior through law, as I see it, is clear harms to
> clear persons.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
>> "He believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all
>> other views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can
>> be certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not
>> certainty."
>>
>> Since I believe that the fetus is a person, how could I not believe
>> that it trumps all other views? Since, as you admit there is
>> uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of caution and allow a
>> fetus to live rather than take a what the hell attitude and have an
>> innocent person die.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: Wayne Price
>> Cc: the lockshop ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
>> with facts."
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> I share your beliefs -- exactly. And in the past Crabtree has made
>> fun of these same beliefs, so don't expect him to respond. As in
>> the case of Sunil's questions, he'll remain silent when his
>> inconsistencies are obvious. The diiference between our views and
>> Crabtree's is that we genuinely respect freedom and think people
>> should decide for themselves about personal, religious,
>> philosophical issues. Crabtree is only for those freedoms that
>> coincide with his own world view. He is not for freedom per se. He
>> believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other
>> views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can be
>> certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not
>> certainty.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary,
>>>
>>> I too am stuck with this one. While I am personally anti-abortion,
>>> I am still pro-choice on the matter. IF I were in a situation
>>> where the abortion decision had to be made, I would choose NOT to
>>> terminate the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption.
>>> HOWEVER, I still believe that the choice to be made should NOT be
>>> the governments to make but the individuals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of
>>>> to try and make a valid point?
>>>>
>>>> As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can find
>>>> someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife and
>>>> wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then swell,
>>>> I wish them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the
>>>> state being forced to recognize it.
>>>>
>>>> With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to admit
>>>> that you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How could I
>>>> not see the similarity between making a choice that has a 1 in 15
>>>> chance of potentially damaging the health of the person doing
>>>> the choosing and making a decision that has a 100% chance of
>>>> killing an innocent party?
>>>>
>>>> In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will
>>>> not be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess
>>>> do get to make an informed choice and as a result your comments
>>>> seem a trifle lame.
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>> To: the lockshop
>>>> Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>> people with facts."
>>>>
>>>> You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about
>>>> whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop
>>>> pretending to respect a person's right to make decisions for him
>>>> or herself!
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a
>>>>> mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and
>>>>> employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students
>>>>> but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a
>>>>> citizen reaches the age of 21 in the United States he hasn't
>>>>> heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.
>>>>>
>>>>> How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take
>>>>> it upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making
>>>>> their own decisions with regard to the risks they take in life.
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: TIM RIGSBY
>>>>> To: starbliss at gmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>>> people with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to add the idea of this saying,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend
>>>>> to be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation
>>>>> and legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I
>>>>> hear my junior high and high school aged students talking about
>>>>> how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked if
>>>>> they would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they won't.
>>>>> Yet what these students don't realize is that they are actually
>>>>> smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties. What is even
>>>>> scarier is a lot of the parents think that hookah is a safe
>>>>> alternative as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed
>>>>> with young people all of the time. Often times, other
>>>>> substances are being laced into the tobacco as well and these
>>>>> young people are unknowingly smoking illegal drugs along with
>>>>> their fruit and tobacco mixture.
>>>>>
>>>>> I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the
>>>>> State Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control
>>>>> these hookah establishments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho
>>>>> Code, what is a hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar,
>>>>> a private club? If it falls under the bar definition, then
>>>>> people under 21 should not be allowed in. It seems as though
>>>>> hookah bars would fall into an undefined gray area of the Idaho
>>>>> Clean Indoor Air Act. However, Moscow seems to have covered
>>>>> hookah bars in their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> " 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is
>>>>> one of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it
>>>>> the hard way. Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's
>>>>> President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die
>>>>> in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World -- or
>>>>> been beaten and gassed by Police for trespassing on public
>>>>> property -- or been hounded by the IRS for purely political
>>>>> reasons -- or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken
>>>>> nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp
>>>>> your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who is President
>>>>> or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had
>>>>> voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
>>>>> From: starbliss at gmail.com
>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
>>>>> with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one
>>>>> of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I
>>>>> received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in total
>>>>> what is stated in the subject heading of this post. Wise words,
>>>>> no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical
>>>>> facts my post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically
>>>>> addictive drug, with underage tobacco addiction common, raising
>>>>> questions if whether adult "choice" is in effect regarding
>>>>> employees or consumers in tobacco related decisions; that
>>>>> tobacco is the leading cause of premature death (nuclear waste
>>>>> or energy or even nuclear weapons production is not even close
>>>>> as a cause of premature death); that other drugs doing less harm
>>>>> to society than tobacco are criminalized and prosecuted
>>>>> aggressively, involving civil and human rights violations, yet
>>>>> who among those opposing regulation of tobacco, will as
>>>>> aggressively advocate for these drugs to be managed by free
>>>>> choice and the marketplace, rather than a government "Big
>>>>> Brother?" Some, perhaps... While there are others who should
>>>>> know better playing some on this list as fools, for the sake of
>>>>> debate, or political advantage, or popular image or whatever...
>>>>> Or they are as deluded as those they are debating with...
>>>>>
>>>>> My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that
>>>>> expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that
>>>>> dangerous idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I forgot,
>>>>> I already am...), I may not comply. I recently read a variation
>>>>> of this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:"
>>>>> "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up." Lovelock
>>>>> was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of
>>>>> nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Ted Moffett
>>>>> To: Moscow Vision 2020
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leadin
>>>>> g Killer: Centers for Disease Control
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug. Once
>>>>> addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept. And many
>>>>> people become addicted while underage, encouraged to continue
>>>>> their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are often shared
>>>>> between customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the
>>>>> comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the
>>>>> facts regarding the magnitude of the damage. Comparisons to
>>>>> other harmful behaviors are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting
>>>>> that a slippery slope of regulation will lead to government
>>>>> control over too many aspects of life, but many of these
>>>>> behaviors do not involve a drug addiction. Of course alcohol
>>>>> has dramatic negative impacts. But workers in bars are not
>>>>> forced to drink the drinks the customers order, as they breathe
>>>>> the smoke of the customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an
>>>>> addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is approached
>>>>> so callously. They can work elsewhere, it's announced with smug
>>>>> authority, as if in this economy workers have the luxury of
>>>>> choosing whatever job suits their fancy, rather than an urgency
>>>>> to take whatever work they can find. If it was cocaine or
>>>>> heroin or methamphetamine that workers were exposed to, the
>>>>> attitude might be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the
>>>>> workplace should be protected based on free market, free choice,
>>>>> adult responsibility? If this is the logic, where are the
>>>>> protests against laws imposed on those selling cocaine, heroin
>>>>> or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting adults, which can
>>>>> result in long prison sentences? Let the free market decide!
>>>>> Why stand in the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
>>>>>
>>>>> If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their
>>>>> outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology might
>>>>> have more intellectual credibility. Instead, the libertarianism
>>>>> proposed is inconsistent and conformist. Or perhaps those
>>>>> opposed to the smoking ordinance will now protest that bars do
>>>>> not allow legal cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine use? Think
>>>>> of the profits to be made! And remember, tobacco prematurely
>>>>> kills more people than those three drugs combined...
>>>>>
>>>>> If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is,
>>>>> resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use,
>>>>> I would oppose this vehemently. But an ordinance regulating
>>>>> smoking in bars does not stop any adult from legally using
>>>>> tobacco products in settings where they do not expose workers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the
>>>>> exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be
>>>>> mostly eliminated. After all, if workers exposed to hazards
>>>>> monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work with those risks,
>>>>> they can work elsewhere, as long as signs posted in the
>>>>> workplace inform them of the risks. A "Big Brother" government
>>>>> bureaucracy gone.
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
>>>>> The Burden of Tobacco Use
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease,
>>>>> disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an
>>>>> estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or
>>>>> exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a
>>>>> serious illness caused by smoking. For every person who dies
>>>>> from smoking, 20 more people suffer from at least one serious
>>>>> tobacco-related illness. Despite these risks, approximately 43.4
>>>>> million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars,
>>>>> and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx,
>>>>> esophageal, and oral cancers.
>>>>> The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More
>>>>> than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including children and
>>>>> adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief
>>>>> exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the
>>>>> same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke as smokers.
>>>>> Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death,
>>>>> including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and
>>>>> sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear
>>>>> problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in
>>>>> children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand
>>>>> smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung
>>>>> cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart
>>>>> disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18
>>>>> months have lower respiratory tract infections.
>>>>> Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant
>>>>> economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per yea
>>>>> r in medical expenditures and another $97 billion per year r
>>>>> esulting from lost productivity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [A text description of this graph is also available.]
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> A 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint
>>>>> for action to “reduce smoking so substantially that it is no
>>>>> longer a public health problem for our nation.” The
>>>>> two-pronged strategy for achieving this goal i
>>>>> ncludes not only strengthening and fully implementing curren
>>>>> tly proven tobacco control measures, but also changing the r
>>>>> egulatory landscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost a
>>>>> mong the IOM recommendations is that each state should fund
>>>>> a comprehensive tobacco control program at the level recomme
>>>>> nded by CDC in Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Cont
>>>>> rol Programs–2007.
>>>>> Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are
>>>>> comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to
>>>>> reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases
>>>>> caused by smoking. A comprehensive program is a coordinated
>>>>> effort to establish smoke-free policies and social norms, to
>>>>> promote and assist tobacco users to quit, and to prevent
>>>>> initiation of tobacco use. This approach combines educational,
>>>>> clinical, regulatory, economic, and social strategies.
>>>>> Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies
>>>>> to protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote
>>>>> cessation, and prevent initiation when they are applied in a
>>>>> comprehensive way. For example, states can increase the unit
>>>>> price of tobacco products; implement smoking bans through
>>>>> policies, regulations, and laws; provide insurance coverage of
>>>>> tobacco use treatment; and limit minors’ access to tobacco p
>>>>> roducts.
>>>>> If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy
>>>>> People 2010, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for
>>>>> preventing smoking initiation and increasing cessation need to
>>>>> be fully implemented.
>>>>> CDC's Response
>>>>>
>>>>> CDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC’s Of
>>>>> fice on Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadershi
>>>>> p for a comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducing toba
>>>>> cco use. A variety of government agencies, professional and
>>>>> voluntary organizations, and academic institutions have join
>>>>> ed together to advance this approach, which involves the fol
>>>>> lowing activities:
>>>>> Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
>>>>> Essential elements of this approach include state-based,
>>>>> community-based, and health system-based
>>>>> interventions; cessation services; counter marketing; policy
>>>>> development and implementation; surveillance; and evaluation.
>>>>> These activities target groups who are at highest risk for
>>>>> tobacco-related health problems.
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favor
>>>>> ite sports pics. Check it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release
>>>>> Date: 07/23/09 18:00:00
>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
>>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090725/ea6c887e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list