Re: virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #207

Tony Hindle (
Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:42:44 +0100

In message <>, KMO <> writes
>The social buzz a teenager gets the first time she lights up with her
>friends is immediate and powerful. Smoking is not attractive to
>children because they see Joe Camel smoking on a billboard. It is
>attractive to them because it is forbidden.

Then please explain why the tobbaco giants spend so much on
their advertising/sponsorship campagns. And remember, the only anonymous
donor is the guy who knocks up your daughter.
>> Im not convinced that all the pro-tobacco spokespeople are
>> killers, some simply havent thought through exactly what the
>> consequences of their actions are. Having a life threat atatched to
>> their job description would wake them up.
>The financial incentive to for them to keep from "thinking it through"
>is very strong. They're more likely to engage their rationalization
>skills then their introspective ones when it comes time to respond to
>your first strike.

I am envisaging an ever growing percentage of tobbaco victims
turning to murder, I think this makes a difference to your argument.

>> > 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

The hoi poloi of course.

> Sophisticated analysts don't need you to kill for them.
>Their increased operating costs would be miniscule, and any resulting
>price increase would be insignificant compared to the taxes the
>government has and will continue to impose on the sale of tobacco. If
>your aim is to increase their operating costs, then taxation or
>industrial sabotage would be a more effective strategy than murder.

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

>> Agian, costs up, less money to be made.
>Costs to the drug-lords up, street price of the product up. Addicts
>detered? Not likely.

But you also said above:
> If
>your aim is to increase their operating costs, then taxation or
>industrial sabotage would be a more effective strategy than murder.

You cant have it both ways, I think you are arguing against me
without thinking all this through.

>> If you want to stop a lethal mind virus then get it to turn on
>> itself.
>Killing a few cells

Who says just a few, if thr virtuous killing virus replicates it
will be a significant number, proportional to the no. of tobbaco

> in the tabacco super-organism will not cause the
>beast to turn on itself. It will prompt the beast to eradicate you

If you only have a couple of weeks to go then there is no loss

> 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.

> They
>could slap the "terrorist" label on you so fast you wouldn't have time
>to scream before the masses you'd hoped to save ripped you to shreds.

As I say, if you only have a couple of weeks to go, who gives a
flying fuck.

>Take care. -KMO

And you.

I gave up smoking so I could spend the money I saved
on better, less adictive, safer drugs.