Re: virus: tabacco

Tony Hindle (t.hindle@joney.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:42:47 +0100


In message <33E8E231.41C6@amazon.com>, KMO <kmo@amazon.com> writes
>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:42:44 +0100
>From: Tony Hindle <t.hindle@joney.demon.co.uk>

> Then please explain why the tobbaco giants spend so much on
>their advertising/sponsorship campagns.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Cigarette companies do want to induce people to smoke, and more
>specifically, smoke their brand. You told someone else, "don't give me
>the market share argument," but beligerence does nothing to refute the
>argument. The drug dealer makes no money from the addict who's hooked
>an a competitor's product.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
OK. I realise that you are convinced by the tobacco plc,s market
share argument but I am not. I suspect that I am not alone on this point
at least.

>
>
>>> > Killing people would
>>> >trivialize any arguments against tabocco use that appealed the inherent
>>> >value of human life.
>>>
>>> Only for simple minded analysts.
>>
>>
>>Are you trying to convince the critical thinkers who are already
>>equipped to defend themselves against mal-adaptive mind-viruses, or do
>>you want to defend the hoi poloi who would be induced to smoke by
>>advertising?
>
> The hoi poloi of course.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Then what milage did you expect to get out of the claim that only
>simple-minded analysts would make the association?
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That "out there" there are critical thinkers that, if they got
terminal from tobacco would not be put off by simple soundbytes like
> Killing people would
>>> >trivialize any arguments against tabocco use that appealed the inherent
>>> >value of human life.


>
>
> I disagree. There arent all that many people involved in the pro
>tobbaco memetic campagn. Certainly far less than there are tobacco
>victims. The extra cost would quicken the demise of the tobacco meme
>significantly.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>The added cost would be minimal. The people can be replaced quickly.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

At first perhaps, but not when they are getting killed
everywhere.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>There's no contradiction. I did not concede that increased operating
>costs would bring down the tabacco cartels. I maintain that just the
>oposite is the case. If you increase their operating costs, they will
>pass that cost along to the addicts who will pay it. What's more,
>whatever price increase which accrued as a result of your campaign would
>be miniscule compared to the impact taxation has on the cost of the
>product to the addict.

If the costs of ciggys go up it is a disinsentive for people to
smoke. Plus, in this case the costs have to be met out of profits by
tobacco plc. I.e it costs them 1000 pounds to get out every 100 pounds
worth of memes.
>
>
>YOU seemed to think that increasing operating costs would drive the
>cartels out of business, and I argued that ***IF*** increasing operating
>costs is your goal ***THEN*** there are more effective means than murder
>of achieving that goal.

Do everything else as well.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Who says just a few, if thr virtuous killing virus replicates it
>will be a significant number, proportional to the no. of tobbaco
>victims.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Well, there certainly are some successful memetic-complexes that include
>the "virtuous killing" meme.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scarey eh?
>
>
>> and they may kindle your funeral pyre with what remains of the
>>bill of rights. Tabacco-lords employ master memetic engineers.
>
> These are the ones that should be first on the hit list.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To what does the pronoun "these" refer in the above sentence.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

master memetic engineers employed by tobacco plc.
>
> I gave up smoking so I could spend the money I saved
>on better, less adictive, safer drugs.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Which are your favorites?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

L.S.D.

Tony