How bluntly does someone have to say ‘this is good compared to smoking, but caused harm for non-smokers’ before y’all stop projecting whatever shallow kneejerk absolute suits your fancy?
As bluntly, and as often as possible to ensure the demarcation is obvious to all.
Hate to turn your putrid argument around on you, but this isn’t as trivial as the annoyance of needing a sarcasm flag to avoid Poe’s Law, even though the impact of vaping on adult members of society who do not use it is merely an annoyance which causes their knees to jerk.
And your facts are wrong: Tobacco smoke kills half a million people per year. The jury is out on whether or not vaping is quantifiably medically dangerous at all. There is absolutely no data on harm from 2nd hand vaping, so you cannot say (in good faith) that it’s causing harm.
Specifics matter in comparisons when the potential outcome is a total ban on a substance that has helped minimize harm for millions, and is mostly harmless in comparison.
In short - gnash your teeth elsewhere, you smug turd. You’re wrong.
Yeah, that’s a lot of words when they could’ve just said “I don’t understand risk, harm reduction, any statistics relavent to the topic, or science.”
How bluntly does someone have to say ‘this is good compared to smoking, but caused harm for non-smokers’ before y’all stop projecting whatever shallow kneejerk absolute suits your fancy?
As bluntly, and as often as possible to ensure the demarcation is obvious to all.
Hate to turn your putrid argument around on you, but this isn’t as trivial as the annoyance of needing a sarcasm flag to avoid Poe’s Law, even though the impact of vaping on adult members of society who do not use it is merely an annoyance which causes their knees to jerk.
And your facts are wrong: Tobacco smoke kills half a million people per year. The jury is out on whether or not vaping is quantifiably medically dangerous at all. There is absolutely no data on harm from 2nd hand vaping, so you cannot say (in good faith) that it’s causing harm.
Specifics matter in comparisons when the potential outcome is a total ban on a substance that has helped minimize harm for millions, and is mostly harmless in comparison.
In short - gnash your teeth elsewhere, you smug turd. You’re wrong.
Is that clear enough?