Simon Chapman and some of his followers have responded to yesterday's post with a series of tweets.
Explaining his decision to decline an invitation to take part in an Oxford Union debate about the tobacco industry (‘This House believes that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’), Chapman wrote:
I don't assist anti-vaxers, climate change denialists & other miscreants to get platforms either.
That was rather different to his initial response to the Oxford Union:
Thanks, xxxx. I've no financial support to attend sorry, and some clashes too. Very nice of you to think of me.
No hifalutin argument there. Just a simple reference to cost and other commitments.
Ignoring this Fran Barlow, a "green and left-wing school-teacher", tweeted her support for Chapman:
Denying credibility to faux debates can be seen as supportive of healthy discourse.
Others responded:
Some debates are useful. Others should not be lent credibility.
You can't debate science with passionate, irrational "beliefs". Life's too short.
From that we can deduce that tobacco controllers will debate but only on their terms - and their idea of "healthy discourse" is more akin to a one party state.
Meanwhile, if anyone is driven by irrational "beliefs" it's the more extreme anti-smokers who believe the merest whiff of tobacco smoke can endanger someone's health, while the sight of a complete stranger smoking in public will condemn a child to a lifetime addiction and an early grave.
Neither argument is supported by evidence yet I rarely if ever hear them disputed by public health campaigners who will happily support any anti-smoking sentiment if it edges us closer to a 'smoke-free' (sic) world.
As for Chapman, I'd have enjoyed crossing swords with this egotistical popinjay but it's his choice. His absence, and the arguments put forward by his disciples on Twitter, say more about tobacco control than I ever could.
.@simonclark_ @OxfordUnion I don't assist anti-vaxers, climate change denialists & other miscreants to get platforms either
— Simon Chapman AO (@SimonChapman6) April 10, 2015@MorphRv @simonclark_ @OxfordUnion @SimonChapman6 Denying credibility to faux debates can be seen as supportive of healthy discourse.
— Fran Barlow (@fran_b__) April 10, 2015@MorphRv @simonclark_ @OxfordUnion @SimonChapman6 That's his right. Some debates are useful. Others should not be lent credibility.
— Fran Barlow (@fran_b__) April 10, 2015@SimonChapman6 @simonclark_ @OxfordUnion Nor should you. You can't debate science with passionate, irrational "beliefs". Life's too short.
— Leigh Miranda (@LeighMiranda4) April 10, 2015