I'm not a "non-drug user" nor am I a "non-smoker" which implies that drug users and smokers are natural. I'm a "clean air" breather and a "all natural" thinker without any artificial additives.
P.S now you understand the "Hello??"
Time to End the "War on Drugs"?
- Thread starter lovett
- Start date
P.S now you understand the "Hello??"
Would you be comfortable being called a food eater?
btw, your thinking's gone sour. You went bad.
Add in some preservatives next time.
Benefactor
Beneficial
OK, do you want to be blamed and punished because your an "all natural thinker" and some "all natural thinkers" hurt others?
"all natural" as just plain human. I never read in the paper where it states that someone was killed by a "non-drunk" driver but I have read in the paper someone was killed by a drunk driver. You still trying to classify me by actions of others that doesn't apply to me.
Well, no. To be a non-smoker you need to be alive and not have the habit of smoking. A dead person can be a non-smoker before he is dead, but it's undefined after he's dead, because it's only referring to the habits of life humans. You refer to people who are dead as "he was a non-smoker" or "he was a smoker", not "he is a non-smoker because he is dead", because the ability to be alive is important in talking about what one does. You don't have to do absolutely nothing. You have to know of the habit, and consciously choose to not form the habit.
It makes no sense to call someone a "slurmaholic" or "non-slurmaholic" because the soft drink Slurm, a secretion form the Slurm Queen, has not yet been invented and distributed to Earth from the planet Wormulon. However, when it does in the year 3000, when it becomes a genuine addictive soft drink, it would make sense to make that distinction. The distinction is relevant when the it is necessary to inquire whether or not a person has the property of Slurm addiction.
You don't seem to understand how the world in the past tried to portray smokers as the norm by implying those who didn't as "non-smokers". There is no such thing as a "non smoker" without throwing in a people who smoke in the group. It's trying to identify someone by an action of someone else which doesn't apply to them.
Of course. This is because whether or not someone smokes is important in determining one's health. That does not mean the group doesn't exist. We group objects by the lack of a property all the time. Darkness is the lack of light. Coldness is the lack of heat. In binary computation, 0 is the lack of a certain voltage level that is designated as 1. It also says nothing about whether or not smokers are normal; it merely says that a person either has or lacks the property of a smoking habit.
Besides, you can't define a normative definition such as "normality" in term of a descriptive definition such as "smoking"or "non-smoking" anyway - that's the naturalistic fallacy. So your discussion is irrelevant and a strawman. Calling someone "smoker" most certainly does not imply that smoking is natural, any more than calling someone synthetic rubber implies that synthetic rubber is natural.
Eukaryote
Deity
Smidlee don't you think you're milking this technicallity just a little?
