Originally Posted by
wibblefox
It's declining for one thing, for another the advent (and the height) of smoking has since passed.
Grammatically "threat" isn't usually something that has already happened, and certainly isn't something that of which the worst has passed.
Eg you threaten to kill someone.
But once you kill them, it's not a threat any more.
There is a threat of future terrorist attacks. There is not a threat of future smoking deaths. It's logically nonsense.
I know I've said this before, I'm not sure if you are a non-native speaker or if you do this on purpose, but either way that's not how English works.
Its not nonsense at all, peoples lives are at risk ergo it is a threat.
Thats exactly how english works in terms of the word threat.
If you have been burgled and had all your possessions stolen, you manage to retrieve half of them - then you get told by the thief that they will steal the possessions you managed to retrieve its a threat. Just because the impact isnt going to be as big as the first time it doesnt make it not a threat which seems to be what youre arguing.
The google definition of threat is:
a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.
By this definition smoking is undeniably a threat, so can you kindly refrain from arguing nothing but the semantics of my posts?
Last edited by SmallBowl; Aug 29, 2016 at 01:29 PM.