Well, to be fair (and objective)
I can't really say what your blog is. I can see what you are though.

I'm guessing that you're not in favour of smoking. I get that from what you posted.

'Shill' is rarely ever used outside of a hysterical opinion, being masqueraded as a fact.

Is your blog about ethics?
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:56, 2 replies)

Shill means stooge - these people are paid to post these comments
Go on freelancer.co.uk and you can apply for these jobs yourself.

I think you might be thinking of 'shrill'.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:01, closed)

No, I'm well aware of what shill means, thanks
What are the job descriptions - do they ask for shills?

Or is it just a term used by a self obsessed windbag to dismiss any dissenting opinions to his own?
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:07, closed)

http://www.freelancer.co.uk/jobs/Forum-Posting/
No, but if you take one of these jobs, that's exactly what you are.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:13, closed)

I'm going to put this
argument down as willfully obtuse.
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:26, closed)

I give up
Although I still think you don't know what 'shill' means.

And here's my evidence: "It is a pejorative slang term, only ever used by someone who needs to quickly and easily dismiss another opinion."
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:28, closed)

I haven't looked it up in a dictionary
But I am quite sure about what it means.

You are, I think, talking about a person paid to support someone else opinion, regardless of whether they really believe it or not. I wouldn't disagree with that.

But if you use the term to describe everybody who disagrees with you - you are assuming they're representing someone elses opinion, which might not actually be the truth.

So, using the word shill is dangerous territory. If you're not talking about specific people, you're generalising and dismissing any other opinion.
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:50, closed)

The fact that the blog is about ethics can probably be deduced from the phrase "I run a blog about medical ethics".
In respect of being in favour of smoking - well, I'm no great defender of it, but there might be a liberty argument to be had when the only person harmed is the smoker. If others are put at risk, then the argument shifts slightly: it's no longer about smoking, but about exposing others to your smoke; and it's perfectly coherent to defend the right to smoke to the hilt, and at the same time defend the idea that exposing others to your smoke is morally iffy.

Had the commenters' tone been different - and had it engaged with the argument in any meaningful way - I would not have labelled them shills.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:03, closed)

I'm a smoker
I think it's a filthy habit, I don't do it in the house, and I don't smoke around my kids.

I wish I had never started, and although I personally find it inconvenient, I am totally OK with the ban in public places.

On the other hand, ask me if I agree to being stopped from smoking by myself, in my own car, and you'll get a negative reaction.

Am I a shill? Apparently so.
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:30, closed)

Again, unless you were paid to post that opinion
you're not a shill.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:32, closed)

Not on the strength of what you've just said.
But what you've just said is markedly different from a great many of the comments received.

On the face of it, you're making a claim about individual liberty - a claim that may or may not be tenable, and one that certainly could be investigated further. What you're not doing is wailing about how all this is symptomatic of puritanism, moralism, bigotry, and the systematic persecution of smokers. That's why you're not a shill.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:36, closed)

That depends on whether you're driving or not.
I vaguely remember a post about this on Facebook, or some other waste of time website.

The argument is, that smoking while driving is a distraction, particularly if you're clumsy enough to drop your cig, how would you react? Particularly if you drop it as a reaction to an accident where you need to react quickly.

In this case, you're a danger to other road users and not just harming yourself.

One guy replied, "Oh, I wouldn't do that, I'd just calmly pull over", but the point is, it's not just about one person, it's about how the general public would react in such a situation.

EDIT: For reference, I'm not a smoker, but I'm not against it either, as long as you don't force it on other people, bit like religion really!
(anonymousreality tickled your fancy on, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 12:09, closed)

So you should ban talking, eating,
radios, electric windows, air conditioning, sat nav, passengers and manual gearboxes.

All of these require pretty much the same attention as smoking does.
(username failed moderation, Mon 28 Nov 2011, 16:52, closed)

Ooh. Someone likes that so much they're posted it
as a story.

That's me put in my place!
(username failed moderation, Fri 25 Nov 2011, 12:29, closed)