" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:50:14 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:57:56 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:13:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Tobacco and slavery are immoral.

Tobacco can't be immoral. How can a plant have morals?

growing and producing a product for sale that's KNOWN to be
addictive,toxic and polluting is not immoral? Tobacco has no
good use.

Again, your opinion. People pay good money for it so it does
have good use, by definition.

Whose definition.

Was the money good? It was traded for something of equal value,
BY DEFINITION.


faulty logic;
as if paying "good" money for something automatically makes the
product "good".

Are you taking DimBulb lessons?

All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and the person who had the tobacco, are the only people
who mattered.

perhaps in an anarchy. in civilized societies,no.

The purchase is perfectly legal; no anarchy at all.

it IS anarchy;

You ARE related to DimBulb.


another sure sign of a lost argument.

you would allow anything as long as "good" money is exchanged,no
rules,anything goes.
Societies DO have rules,and behaviors that are prohibited.
smokers trample all over other people.They pollute the air,leave big
messes,start fires.THOSE are FACTS.

Is tobacco illegal? One word answer only: yes or no?

doesn't matter,it's still immoral.


No discussion of
goodness or badness. Just because something is being sold doesn't
mean anything in this area, by definition.

I see you didn't take even Econ 101. what a moron


Namecalling is a good sign of a lost argument.

Facts are facts.

you have no facts.just allegations.

You're full of ****. You claim an inanimate object has morality.
That IS moronic.


more sign of a lost argument.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com