|
jt512
Jul 3, 2006, 4:57 PM
Post #77 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I just don't care to debate issues with people who are impervious to logic. Oh well. Stop posting to this thread then.
And thus with a single fatal sentence, Tradman admits that he is impervious to logic.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2006, 5:02 PM
Post #78 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Now that everyone's through taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke? What a stupid f---ing question. Jay So.... is that a "no"? :?
My response means what it says: it's a stupid fucking question. If neither you nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2006, 5:08 PM
Post #79 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Why hasn't the FDA stepped in and banned cigarettes?
Politics. I could be mistaken, but IIRC, the FDA atempted to assert jurisdiction over cigarettes, but they were overruled by a higher authority.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Jul 3, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #80 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
In reply to: Now that everyone's through taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke.
I will if you can produce one shred of evidence that anyone has actually been killed because of a car accident and not because of inattetive driving.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 3, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #81 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke? What a stupid f---ing question. Jay is that a "no"? :? My response means what it says: it's a stupid f---ing question. If neither you nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem.
There's an old saying - "A good defense is a good offense.”
Seems to apply here. :wink:
If secondhand smoke has killed millions of people, it seems reasonable that there would be actually examples.
Can someone give me another example of a cause of millions of deaths, where the proof of cause is only circumstancial?
BTW What did you mean by "If neither (me) nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem"?
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jul 3, 2006, 5:31 PM
Post #82 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
In reply to: Can someone give me another example of a cause of millions of deaths, where the proof of cause is only circumstancial?
The holocaust. I mean they found lots of dead people and lots of empty cans of Zyklon B but there is no actual proof that it happened. I mean it could all just be hearsay, we don't know because there is NO direct link. Just very very circumstancial evidence.
Fucking retrard.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 3, 2006, 5:31 PM
Post #83 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke? What a stupid f---ing question. Jay is that a "no"? :? My response means what it says: it's a stupid f---ing question. If neither you nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem. There's an old saying - "A good defense is a good offense.” Seems to apply here. :wink: If secondhand smoke has killed millions of people, it seems reasonable that there would be actually examples.
Numerous studies have shown that people exposed chronically to second hand smoke are about 25% more likely to get lung cancer or heart disease than people not chronically exposed. Those extra 25% are your examples.
In reply to: BTW What did you mean by "If neither ( me) nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem"?
I mistakenly thought my last response was to a post by Tradman. Can't imagine how I could have made that mistake.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 3, 2006, 5:41 PM
Post #84 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Now that everyone's through taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke. I will if you can produce one shred of evidence that anyone has actually been killed because of a car accident and not because of inattetive driving.
Like this?
In reply to: A man driving on U.S. 68 in Jessamine County was killed today when a large tree blew down on top of his sport utility vehicle. The man's identity was not immediately released, pending notification of family. Jessamine County Sheriff's Capt. Kevin Corman said the tree fell from the west side of the road onto a southbound late-model GMC Yukon Denali. "We had a real quick burst of wind. And it appears that just as he was driving by, the tree just fell across the driver's compartment," Corman said.
http://www.findarticles.com/..._200605/ai_n16397026
Boondock,
As always, you're a class act.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jul 3, 2006, 5:54 PM
Post #85 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne?
If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.
Feel free to argue.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jul 3, 2006, 6:18 PM
Post #86 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
Thorne and Tradman, go blow some smoke into your nieces/nephews or own children's face for a few years to demonstrate the lack of harmful effects caused by tobacco smoke. You guys sure know how to pick the righteous causes.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 3, 2006, 6:27 PM
Post #87 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne? If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die. Feel free to argue.
Actually the thing that caused him to die was probably force blunt trauma to the head.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Jul 3, 2006, 6:36 PM
Post #88 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
In reply to: How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne? If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die. Feel free to argue.
Boon, dont think to hard about this one, the simplest anologies and metaphors continue to elude him.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 3, 2006, 6:57 PM
Post #89 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: I will if you can produce one shred of evidence that anyone has actually been killed because of a car accident and not because of inattetive driving.
What are you saying here? That all traffic fatalities are due to inattentive driving?
I'd love to hear how the deaths tied to the Cyprus Street Viaduct collapse could have been avoided.
Trees fall on cars, roads washout, bridges collapse, earthquakes occur. How about mechanical failure? Unavoidable accidents happen all the time. The key word here is unavoidable. :wink:
What next? All soldier fatalities are a result of inattetive patrolling?
How about ALL victims of lightning strikes?
If you want specifics, I'll provide them. Then we can watch you backpedal again. :lol: :lol: :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 3, 2006, 7:01 PM
Post #90 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.
Do you have anything more than your opinion to back this up?
If so. Let's hear it.
Jred,
Go back and read the OP. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jul 3, 2006, 7:25 PM
Post #91 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
No ... I want you to show me how it WAS the trees fault.
Ah whatever, you won't do it so here:
What do you mean by opinion? It's a fact that if you don't pay any attention while driving you WILL crash your car. So this is all just a matter of how much the attention the guy was paying. given the circumstances.
So it is purely circumstancial evidence saying it was the trees fault. We don't know that unless we literally observe trees get pickthemselves up by the roots and crash themselves into parked cars.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jul 3, 2006, 7:40 PM
Post #92 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die. Do you have anything more than your opinion to back this up? If so. Let's hear it. Jred, Go back and read the OP. :roll: |
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Jul 8, 2006, 1:36 AM
Post #93 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
You can construct several causal networks which can explain the correlation between smoking and cancer (same for second hand smoke and cancer) which can explain the findings of a study indicating correlation between the two which rely on survey techniques. The problem is you can only prove correlations with a controled experiment, which is unethical and illegal in this situation. A survey study can only prove correlation given that certain assumptions of your causal model are correct.
The following lecture, from slide 28 on, illustrates this:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Health-Sciences-and-Technology/HST-951JMedical-Decision-SupportSpring2003/6047F8CC-9187-4A7B-AB59-553497C8B824/0/lecture6.pdf
But anyway, I think you would be hard pressed to construct a reasonable causal network which can explain a correlation between cancer and second hand smoke exposure without including a causal link. I could be wrong, and am certainly open to hearing ideas on non-causal explainations.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 8, 2006, 2:09 AM
Post #94 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: What are you saying here? That all traffic fatalities are due to inattentive driving? I'd love to hear how the deaths tied to the Cyprus Street Viaduct collapse could have been avoided.
Or driving on the overpass (or was it bridge?) in San Francisco that collapsed during an earthquake?
Or driving past the runway when the Southwest jet slid off the end last winter, killing that 6 year old boy?
Or any number of traffic fatalities that I've attended to. Sure, some were the driver's fault. Others were not. Boondock's assertion that ALL of them are due to inattentive driving simply points to his grotesque ignorance.
And Zozo, you really ought to come up with your own arguments.... standing behind others chirping "Yeah, what he said!" makes you look like the tiny dog standing underneath a bulldog in Saturday morning cartoons of old: "What're we gonna do today, Spike?!? Huh? Huh? Huh? What're we gonna do today, Spike?!?"
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2006, 2:56 AM
Post #95 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: You can construct several causal networks which can explain the correlation between smoking and cancer (same for second hand smoke and cancer) which can explain the findings of a study indicating correlation between the two which rely on survey techniques. The problem is you can only prove correlations with a controled experiment, which is unethical and illegal in this situation. A survey study can only prove correlation given that certain assumptions of your causal model are correct.
First of all, the studies in question are not "surveys," they are longitudinal epidemiologic studies, a subset of observational studies. Secondly, the observed relations between smoking (first- or second-hand) and cancer are not "correlations," at least not in the technical sense of the term. Third, any well-designed and analyzed observational study will include control of potentially confounding variables. Fourth, you can't prove, in a deductive sense, causal relations with either experimental or observational studies. Both types of studies provide statistical evidence only, it's just a question of how strong.
In general, randomized experimental studies provide stronger evidence of causation than non-randomized observational studies because, when the randomization is successful, the only source of error is random error. In contrast, systematic sources of error in observational studies must be controlled by other means that require the identification of specific sources of error by the investigators. If the investigator fails to identify and control a specific source of error, an observed assocication between the disease and the hypothesized cause can be spurious. However, results from experimental studies can be spurious too; random error is still error, and mistakes in study design or implementation can introduce systematic errors.
Conversely, in some cases the evidence from observational studies can be compelling. This was the case for (firsthand) smoking and lung cancer. The incidence of lung cancer among smokers was so much greater than among non-smokers that, realistically, there could be no other cause.
In reply to: But anyway, I think you would be hard pressed to construct a reasonable causal network which can explain a correlation between cancer and second hand smoke exposure without including a causal link. I could be wrong, and am certainly open to hearing ideas on non-causal explainations.
The relatively small increase in risk of cancer for those exposed to secondhand smoke admits a number of potential alternate interpretations. None have been argued by either of our hack epidemiologists in this thread, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do their arguing for them.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rainontin
Jul 8, 2006, 4:36 PM
Post #96 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne? If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die. Feel free to argue.
Or he could have chosen not to be driving on that road and respected the tree's right to fall whenever and wherever it damn-well pleases.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 10, 2006, 8:12 AM
Post #97 of 97
(1935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Moved
|
|
|
|
|
|
