Would you pay money NOT to smoke?

[Lemon Merchant]

I claim Idaho. It's pretty.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I always wanted to go to the Grand Canyon, so I call dibs on that.

 

[sophie]

I see how the thread can be read as "Choose between the two.", but it's not made explicit, and I think my reading that he's just giving the framework of the law as it is implemented is entirely valid, too, maybe even the more reasonable reading of the post.

I mean, the title of the thread is "Would You Pay Money NOT to Smoke?" (as in not: "would Trump do this" or "is it legal for Trump to do something like this", etc.) so clearly the crux of the hypothetical is "how valuable to you is the privilege of not having to smoke tobacco?" So at least from where I'm standing, any non-answer to that specific point is being intentionally obtuse and ergo: Fifty's post.

 

[Ryika]

I mean, the title of the thread is "Would You Pay Money NOT to Smoke?" (as in not: "would Trump do this" or "is it legal for Trump to do something like this", etc.) so clearly the crux of the hypothetical is "how valuable to you is the privilege of not having to smoke tobacco?" So at least from where I'm standing, any non-answer to that specific point is being intentionally obtuse and ergo: Fifty's post.

That's just what you've concluded, and again, I contest that that's the only way to read the hypothetical, which is already proven by the fact that I did not read it like that. I read it as basically: "If a law existed that forces you to pay for not smoking, would you abide by it?" - a hypothetical which I clearly answered with no, and then gave my reasoning for why, because I would protest against it by doing something unlawful.

This "If you had only those two choices" that you've read into the hypothetical just isn't there, and the hypothetical still makes sense without it, because instead of "Which one of those two would you choose?" which is what you think the hypothetical is about, the hypothetical I was thinking about was: "Would you accept such a law?", which again I would claim is a perfectly valid way of reading of the OP and it itself an interesting hypothetical. Given his other responses in the thread you're probably right about about what he meant, but that does not change the fact that the way I read it is a perfectly legit way of reading it, too.

Overall, no matter what you think the hypothetical is about, I answered it the way I understood it, so Fifty's post is utterly meaningless as I did not try to evade the hypothetical, if I evaded it, then I did so by accident, while giving an honest answer about the hypothetical as I understood it.

If of course you want an answer to the "Either-Or"-hypothetical where no other alternatives exist: Yeah, I would probably pay for not having to smoke.

Well, that's under the assumption that I could even afford it of course.

And of course you've also liked Perfection's post which is in itself avoiding the hypothetical, and doing so intentionally, too... so not much consistency on your part.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I claim Idaho. It's pretty.

You should rename it Potataho.

 

[sophie]

And of course you've also liked Perfection's post which is in itself avoiding the hypothetical, and doing so intentionally, too... so not much consistency on your part.

Most of my likes are made on the basis of "did this make me chuckle?", so if you're fishing for my likes, at least be a bit more clever in your obtuseness

 

[tuckerkao]

I claim Idaho. It's pretty.

The population is growing in that state especially around the downtown Boise area.

 

[Ryika]

Most of my likes are made on the basis of "did this make me chuckle?"

I'm glad we both agree that you're a hypocrite then.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I always wanted to go to the Grand Canyon, so I call dibs on that.

Wouldnt the rich Blue states that pay the no-smoking tax and have healthy population take over all the poor Red states filled with aging cancer ridden population
Then again Big tobacco would make a windfall, and I'd imagine healthcare will collapse

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Been smoking for like 8 years but never touched a cigarette I would much rather pay the 100$, cigs are disgusting, make you smell like ass and kissing smokers feels like licking out an ashtray.

I love, love, love that show.

View attachment 478449
My response clearly stated that no, I would not do it, and instead choose to protest against it, because that policy would be a serious infringement on the rights of every American Citizen. That's an option within the hypothetical as it was stated, as the op has not specified that I need to choose exactly between the two, he has merely outlined the situation of the law as it is being implemented and then asked if I would abide by the new law by "buying" my way out.

Woah, calm down there, Thoreau!

 

[Mise]

No way I'd smoke, even if it cost me $100 per month. I used to smoke, gave up, and I'm never going back.

Would I pay $100 p/m not to get lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease, or bronchitis?

 

[aelf]

Not sure why your post makes me so angry

Because you hate it when you're wrong.

 

[Ryika]

Because you hate it when you're wrong.

"Being wrong" is not even part of the issue though, I didn't say anything that is "wrong", I merely misunderstood the idea behind the hypothetical (btw, am I using the word wrong here? Should it be "hypothesis"? "Hypothetical question"? Or is "hypothetical" as a noun acceptable in English?).

If I had to self-analyze, I would come to the conclusion that it was Owen's smarmy attitude with which they assigned malice to my behavior, when in reality I had just misinterpreted the intent of the thread.

 

[Zkribbler]

I watched my bed-ridden mother die as a result of smoking throughout her adult life. It took six years, during which she was in ever-increasing pain. Near the end, not even unlawfully large amounts of morphine couldn't block the pain. So, I'm not smoking.

Should it be "hypothesis"? "Hypothetical question"? Or is "hypothetical" as a noun acceptable in English?).

I've always heard hypothesis refer to a system, while hypothetical is used to refer to a single question.

 

[aelf]

"Being wrong" is not even part of the issue though, I didn't say anything that is "wrong", I merely misunderstood the idea behind the hypothetical (btw, am I using the word wrong here? Should it be "hypothesis"? "Hypothetical question"? Or is "hypothetical" as a noun acceptable in English?).

If I had to self-analyze, I would come to the conclusion that it was Owen's smarmy attitude with which they assigned malice to my behavior, when in reality I had just misinterpreted the intent of the thread.

Oh, I don't mean to say that you think you're objectively wrong, but that there's actually a real possibility that you might be.

It's simple enough. A hypothetical situation might be intended as a thought experiment that reduces the realm of choice to simple binaries. Of course, not all hypotheticals must be like that, but some are. As you say, it's a matter of intent, which opens up the possibility that refusing to make a binary choice makes you participate in an unintended and hence wrong way. This is clearly a logical and self-evident possibility, so you can't in all honesty deny that you could be wrong. However, your ego cannot initially accept this, so you start spinning words as usual, and when it's particularly difficult to do so, you feel frustrated and angry.

It's quite a human reaction.

 

[caketastydelish]

Marijuana or tobacco cigarettes?

Tobacco.

 

[Ryika]

This is clearly a logical and self-evident possibility, so you can't in all honesty deny that you could be wrong.

And I never did. Quite the opposite, I acknowledged immediately that the way Owen read the hypothetical makes sense as well, and later on added that I seem to indeed misinterpreted the OPs intent after I had read through his other responses in the thread.

That's not the important part however, the important part is that Owen immediately moved to the conclusion that I had intentionally avoided the hypothetical instead of participating in it (that's what the thread he linked is all about, in case you missed that bit of information), which is why I explained that I had read the thread differently, and that he has ascribed intentions to the op, which is why he did not see that the thread can be read in a different way. And about that, I am still right, the thread can be read both ways, and there's no denying it, as I have initially read it differently from how most people read it in this thread. It's interesting to acknowledge that I moved into a different direction than everybody else on this, but there's nothing to be angry about in that.

Had Owen's post been: "Hey, I think you misunderstood the hypothetical, you're supposed to choose between the two.", then my response would have simply been: "Oh yeah, I can see that that might be the case, so let me give that answer too."

Instead, Owen ruled out the possibility that my attempt to contribute was built on an understanding of the hypothetical that was different from the intended one, and instead immediately assumed the worst possible reasons of my behavior, which is what I think made me angry. Of course that's still a really silly reaction, looking back at it, I should probably have been like: "Oh yeah, you could have been a bit less of an assvogel there, but I can see that that might be the case, so let me give that answer too." - but hey, I'm young. Plenty of years left to reach OT VIII!

 

[sophie]

I mean my response wasn't really intended with any kind of malice. And I didn't see your firing back as anything mean or uncalled-for either. Your initial post came across as an edgy non-answer so I snarkily pointed out that you were doing so. You fired back with some snark of your own, to which you were perfectly entitled (quality gif choice, btw), and that really should have been the end of it. And yet here we are for some reason?

 

[bernie14]

I initially read it the same way as @Valessa ...sure the question asked is "Would you pay money NOT to smoke?" but the scenario goes on to describe some sort of law enforcing a certain behavior and then asks "would you do it?"....when I initially read it, my first thought was how can I circumvent this law? people break the law all the time, no? the bigger picture may involve binary thinking itself....you see, the extremists (moral absolutists, political zealots, etc) actually see things as black and white, right or wrong....that is their default. binary. it would take something truly extraordinary to get these people to look out of their little box. to these people, everyone is an extremist and you should never talk to someone who has used the word "midget".. EWWW

 

[Zelig]

I already ignore laws that I don't consider to be just. I would ignore law, then escalate as necessary to lawyering up, or fleeing the country.