what i was saying is that if you look at the studies and understand how an experiment works (which is pretty much where 'causal interpretation' comes from) you'd understand that it's practically impossible to set up a study to show that smoking tobacco causes cancer.
you'd have to randomly assign participants and manipulate one groups of smokers or non smokers and get a sample size that's representative of the population which is practically impossible.
so to say it causes cancer is wrong. it is heavily correlated with cancer along with pollution and other factors.
so it technically doesn't 'cause' cancer but is associated with it and has a strong correlation.
you will find it hard finding a good study with control of confounds to show that cancer is caused by smoking.
but by all means, if you can then show me. just know that the data collection methods are impossible for true causal interpretation.
So what I'm reading is that there's no clear evidence for tobacco causing cancer per your scientific standards, but is there clear evidence confirming that it doesn't? And if there isn't, would it not be wise to assume that in the absence of information, a strong correlation would be sufficient between the two to make the claim that one can cause the other (and understand that no one's saying it's the sole cause of all cancers by any means?)
idk, man, I'm not going study searching because it ultimately doesn't matter to me. I smoke cigarettes and, most likely, they'll help snuff my life out sooner than if I had never picked up the habit-- and yeah, cancer risk is most definitely increased. This is one of those fact of life things to me that I find it hard for others to disregard as false. When stuff like that happens I just can't help but try to see that other perspective, or at least have it explained to me.
[EDIT: god damnit tater, you've piqued my fucking interest. I was about to smoke some weed and play fucking Diablo 2 but now I'm drawn to Google and I'm about to read through this bullshit:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/index.htm
idk what the fuck's in there but I'ma find out]
Ok do accents determine if your articulate? Some yankees are hard to understand to other people and some hicks are hard to understand. What does articulation come from? How well and clear u speak? Do new yorkers or southerners speak more clear?
Either can be articulate. If you speak a language fluently and the people listening can clearly understand you, you're being articulate. If you stutter and stall and use filler words every 3 seconds and nobody can hear you, then you're not being articulate.
Also... you ask a lot of fuckin' questions, man. Way too many.... but this
is your thread, though, but I mean shit, dude. Fuck.