Limbaugh: " Who cares if it's 10 times more lethal than flu"

So why are you paying attention to him? Im sure he appreciates your attention.

 

Sure smoking makes your lungs stronger, I hope YOU are a smoker and a vaper!

 

Somebody has to pay attention to his lies, his regular audience certainly doesn't pay attention!

 

You are incorrect. No one has to listen and those that choose to provide demand for the product. His success comes mainly from the opposition. Im sure he appreciates your help.

 

Strawman Argument Fallacy. I did not say that smoking makes your lungs stronger. I said that smoking does not CAUSE cancer. It is not a cause and effect relationship. It is, rather, a correlation.

Try to read what I actually type instead of assigning bogus positions to me.

 

Of course it does!!!
From the American Cancer Society:
Cancer types known to be caused by smoking include cancer of the liver, colon and rectum, lung, oral cavity and throat, esophagus, larynx (voice box), stomach, pancreas, bladder, kidney, and cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia.

 

I'm sure he doesn't consider me a helper.
I make a fool of him, see my sig!

 

No it doesn't.

The American Cancer Society is dead wrong then.

All it takes to falsify the theory "smoking causes cancer" is ONE smoker to never develop cancer over the course of their life. George Burns is a famous example. He died of cardiac arrest at 100 years old, not of cancer. He smoked cigars since he was a teenager. That's A LOT of smoking...

Smoking does not cause cancer.

 

Which explains their inability to grasp numbers and science.

 

Its the other way around. His income is not dependent on you agreeing, only listening.

 

Just because it does not have a 100% rate does not mean it doesn’t cause cancer in many people.

Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.
https://www.lung.org/lung-health-di...ancer/resource-library/lung-cancer-fact-sheet

You are basically saying shooting someone in the head doesn’t cause death because a few percent survive... which is absurd.

 

I am guessing that the OP represents nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy: to be precise, tying an assertion to a person who is unpopular (at least, among a certain segment of the American public), and arguing that simply because he said it and because he once said something else that was spectacularly wrong--why then, this, too, must be wrong.

 

From the CDC:
Smoking leads to disease and disability and harms nearly every organ system of the body. It is the leading cause of preventable death.

 

People who never smoked tobacco have gotten lung cancer. People who smoked 2 packs a day for 60+ years have lived without a trace of lung cancer.

With a source like mediamatters, it's guaranteed that the message has been taken out of context as usual.

 

That's what he said? Wow... You missed the point entirely.

 

Yes it does. It means that smoking is not causing the cancer.

Obviously there is a strong correlative relationship between the two, but that is NOT equivalent to a causal relationship. All it takes is one failed test against the null hypothesis for a theory of science to be completely and utterly destroyed. I've provided you with one such example.

Wrong. NOT a cause, as I have explained, but rather a strong correlation.

The bolded (note the underlined words) directly supports my argumentation about correlation as opposed to causation.

False Equivalence.

 

Already addressed this line of argumentation in prior responses.

 

Every Republican in the country will go down as a mass murderer if a liberal is writing the story. Y'all are confused like that.

 

You are joking, right? I mean you just admonished politically partisan leftists to get their facts straight. One might as well admonish a donkey to walk outside to poop.

 

B-B-But that is different because . . . well, just BECAUSE!

 

Gasp! Are you implying that a Gorge Soros funded media outlet would play partisan politics?

 

No! You can't say George Soros. It is anti-Semitic! Bad Goy! Bad!

 

What was the point then?

 

You addressed nothing, you only pontificated you know more then the entire medical profession.

 

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre