Instead of meaningless remarks, how about you dig up a mathematical paper using the word "estimate" with the meaning of "guess"?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Printable View
Instead of meaningless remarks, how about you dig up a mathematical paper using the word "estimate" with the meaning of "guess"?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Weasel words! LULZ, he's just guessing guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Can't abide cigarettes - hated living with smokers at university, would never date one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
So you're pretty much wrong on all counts there.
I meant pretty definite as an euphemism for: bluntly asserting facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
If you read the quoted bit posted by ReluctantSamurai you don't find any qualifiers like maybe, probably or likely. You find bald assertions.
An estimate is not the same as a guess, either. It's probably a bit subtle for you but estimate refers to extrapolation of data. Whatever people colloquially use it for, in the context of statistics and reporting it has a very specific meaning and the difference with a guess is that you have data and used statistically sound techniques to back up your claims.
Now, if you want to argue that the techniques used to derive the estimate are either wrong (say, using a binomial distribution instead of poisson distribution in queuing theory) or the data is bad (using unrepresentative sample sizes) or that the CDC forgot to control for other causes which need to be taken into account... that's another issue entirely and I'm sure the CDC would be keen to share in your advanced understanding of second hand smoke.
Just because estimate is often colloquially used to refer to a wild guess does not mean the authors of a report on statistics make the same mistake.
Well put:bow:Quote:
Just because estimate is often colloquially used to refer to a wild guess does not mean the authors of a report on statistics make the same mistake.
In using the word "estimate" within the material quoted, it means there is a variance +/- from the number of deaths given. But....it's a FACT, that smoking kills and debilitates people with numerous cancers and other diseases.
Really? With all the hundreds (thousands?) of studies done that prove the link between smoking and lung cancer I cannot believe that anyone lives in such ignorant bliss as to make a claim like this. And no, I'm not going to waste my time finding you all kinds of links to such studies (which you obviously wouldn't believe anyway), you can do that for yourself if you wish. The CDC link I posted is as good as any......Quote:
There has never even been a proven link between lung cancer and smoking, never mind second hand smoking.
But I do agree with this:
Forcing ones beliefs on someone else is never going to work, in the long run.Quote:
Second, this stinks of "I know what's best for you, now go away, do as your told and shut up". Neither is good for a relationship.
With that type of proof, lead sweeteners are perfectly safe. So is radiation. Or anything outside acute posioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Studies estimate that about 95% of the people getting COPD in the UK are smokers, or about 15% of the total smoking population. About 50% of the smokers gets no lung problems at all. With all those weasel words, it's clear that there's no proof between smoking and COPD. I mean, you could be a chain smoker and would've gotten COPD even if you didn't smoke. So cause of death can't be 100% certain to be done by smoking. And since you can't write killing cause to be smoking, clearly smoking doesn't kill, even if COPD does.
Did I mention that the 1950 study got similar numbers? 93-95% of all lung cancer cases happened to smokers (who were about 37-40% of the population). Purely circumstancial evidences.
I can, in fact I am so good at it I can spot "weasel words" as well as anybody. From your own article:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Quote:
Their findings, published today in the online edition of Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, suggests that "nature" (in the form of protective longevity genes) may be more important than "nurture" (lifestyle behaviors) when it comes to living an exceptionally long life.
Quote:
The elderly participants were asked about their lifestyles at age 70, considered representative of the lifestyle they’d followed for most of their adult lives.
Quote:
In previous studies of our centenarians, we’ve identified gene variants that exert particular physiology effects
Quote:
"This study suggests that centenarians may possess additional longevity genes that help to buffer them against the harmful effects of an unhealthy lifestyle."
I also don't think you understood the article. Check out this paragraph, which kind of paints their findings in a different light from that which you presented:Quote:
While longevity genes may protect centenarians from bad habits
Quote:
"Although this study demonstrates that centenarians can be obese, smoke and avoid exercise, those lifestyle habits are not good choices for most of us who do not have a family history of longevity," said Dr. Barzilai. "We should watch our weight, avoid smoking and be sure to exercise, since these activities have been shown to have great health benefits for the general population, including a longer lifespan."
I think I had read somewhere that it had zero to do with harming anyone, except for triggering asthmatic symptoms in extant asthmatics. Now where did I read that bit....Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Never recall seeing this term before. Do all disciplines employ the term "weasel words?" Maybe my courses were in the wrong field.
RE: the OP topic - Seriously? You would consider dating a person if you reasonably believe you can change their lifestyle? Seems like you might have the cart way out in front of the horse there? Perhaps after a few more encounters you might find that smoking isn't a big part of their life? Perhaps you find out that they are really into torturing their mates. Either way I think before you go attempting to alter a persons lifestyle I think you should find out if they even give a flip for your opinion.
I think the OP has been misunderstood.
All he's saying is that he is hesitant to consider dating long-term smokers.
Well then, dont. Or do. Or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I found a fair rule of thumb is to not get together with a girl if you from the start want to change something about her. Plenty off time to find out about the little quirks later...
That's a good rule of thumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
5 sigma confidence? Either it's there or not! Get these weasel words out of my science!
Knew I had read it somewhere...
Source
Obviously this study only calls into question the carcinogenic character of second hand smoke, the numerous other health issues associated with it were not "debunkd" at all. Moreover, the more commonly held opinion based on other studies is that it IS carcinogenic.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's a big difference between being exposed to second-hand smoke from a partner/spouse that smokes half a pack a day, to one that chain smokes two or three packs a day. And that pales in comparison to working in a bar or bowling alley where the smoke is so thick you'd think there was a brush fire happening in the johns......Quote:
What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great
But then there's this:
Oops:creep:Quote:
The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease.
Bottom line for the OP was summed up pretty well by K AD: probably not a good idea to hook up with someone if you're looking to change something about that person right from the get-go....
~:smoking:
disagree. i hook up with people, change them for the better and then move on to another project that deserves my attention. Thats just how i roll, improving humanity, creating a better world for our offspring, 1 gall at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
marry me
Answer for the OP: Just take up chewing tobacco and spit on her porch, then she asks you what the **** you are doing, just compromise that you give up the chew if she gives up the cigs.
OR... you could move on.
tell me, how big are your flaws in comparison to your boobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't have boobs, but my penis is below-average. My flaws are as big as you want them to be, baby. Does that help?
That's a nice twist to getting rejected and self-awareness, improving humanity by not getting any ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
On to you mia muca
pm me, and we can work something out. i dont usually do guys, but i guess ill take on for team humanity.
I know we quite often get derailed from topic...
But turning a thread into a contact site for a homosexual meeting with small dick preference...
Yepp, it's a first.
The gods will cry, duo penoty from the tenth circle of hell. And Montmorency will like but that's normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
eh?
It will make sense eventuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
nothing you say has ever made sense... to anyone. including yourself
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
LOL, you clearly missed the Unicorn reference there, didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
You are such a "pick the yellow pill" guy.
Weasel words are a topic of study in sociolinguistics, particularly involving their use in marketing. Someone can use words to give customers a certain impression, which may very well be inaccurate, but in such a way that they can't really be called out for lying or false advertising either.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker Below
For instance, if you buy some tortillas or whatever with the words "25% Larger!" boldly printed near the top of the package. It gives the impression that they're big, but doesn't actually tell you anything. Larger than what? Competitors' tortillas? Which ones? Not all tortillas sold by competitors are the same size, so these can't be 25% larger than all of them. Or are they 25% larger than tortillas previously sold by the same company? Chances are that same company sells tortillas in multiple sizes, too. Are they 25% larger than the average tortilla on the market? They may not even be that big to begin with, because it doesn't matter how big they are. You can say tiny tortillas are 25% larger, or that enormous ones are, and it's just as appropriate because there's no frame of reference.
Or when Geico tells you you could save up to 15% or more on car insurance. Why is the number even there? "Up to 15%" includes everything from no savings at all (which is not very impressive to a consumer) all the way to 15%. "Or more" includes every number higher than 15%. So ultimately, it means the same thing as "you might be able to save some as yet unknown amount of money on your car insurance," which is kind of brainlessly obvious. 15% sounds like an impressive figure in a way that 1% doesn't, so even though it adds nothing in literal meaning to the ad, it makes people think of higher savings than they might otherwise.
In reference to product promotion any basic speech class will point out the strategies of marketing. It doesn't take a class with 5 syllables to get there. In reference to intellectual research using such a term seems rather demeaning, almost bullying. Show me a study with NO option for the exception and for me, it loses some of its credibility. My question was rhetorical. The point I wanted to forward but was avoiding being too forward in making it, was that replying to a post with "WEASEL WORDS! OMG! GTFO!" kind of responses is pointless, inane, demeaning, a waste of both the posters and readers time, etc...