@SavoirFaire Actually his [@Mikewlf337] fallacy is a Straw-Man fallacy – with elements of a Slippery Slope.
Straw-Man Fallacy:
Person A has Argument A; Person B has Argument B.
Person A makes points regarding Argument A, while Person B makes points regarding Argument B.
Person B then makes Argument X while purporting that it is actually Argument A.
Person B defeats Argument X, and believes he has defeated Argument A.
The Slippery Slope appears just as you described.
The problem, @Mikewlf337, is that you have not been participating in the debate by answering questions.
Please answer these, without commenting on future possibilities, and keeping in mind that most people do not smoke:
– Is it acceptable for non-smokers to inhale smoke?
– Is it acceptable for smoking to occur in public spaces?
– Is it acceptable for bars et al. to be smoke environments?
@iphigeneia: I agree! I’d like to add, that as more and more people become aware of how harmful smoking is, and become used to living in a world where smoking is scarce [in their public spaces], people will begin to react negatively to persons smoking in their vicinity. Non-smokers will become very jealous and territorial of their airspace, no longer bullied into submission by those who smoke.
For me, I look forward to the day when I can calmly ask a person to smoke elsewhere, or even speak to them about their smoking [only to say – “can you move elsewhere?”] As it stands now, If I’m reading on a parkbench, or at a bus stop, and a smoker comes and stands nearby and lights up – I’m the one who is expected to move “if I don’t like it”.
I readily accept this change of power that will allow me to ask the smoker to “Move elsewhere, because I don’t like it.”