[Pants-of-dog]

How does that affect my argument?

[Deutschmania]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/09/cuba-has-lung-cancer-vaccine-many-u-s-patients-cant-get-without-breaking-law/1019093001/ As an aside , Rush Limbaugh was merely regurgitating the propaganda of the Ayn Rand Objectivist cult .

Rational Tobacco

The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement's position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: “Well, I can't quite understand their position on smoking.” Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: “They have a position on smoking? What is it?” The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, “How is it that you don't smoke?” When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: “Oh, that's OK, then.” The official justification for making smoking a moral obligation was a sentence in Atlas where the heroine refers to a lit cigarette as symbolizing a fire in the mind, the fire of creative ideas. (One would think that simply holding up a lit match could do just as readily for this symbolic function.) One suspects that the actual reason, as in so many other parts of Randian theory, from Rachmaninoff to Victor Hugo to tap dancing, was that Rand simply liked smoking and had the need to cast about for a philosophical system that would make her personal whims not only moral but also a moral obligation incumbent upon everyone who desires to be rational

https://tamingcynicism.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/making-smoking-a-moral-obligation-1972-rothbard-on-why-ayn-rand-was-not-a-libertarian/ , https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/

Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

https://www.salon.com/2018/11/26/how-author-ayn-rand-contributed-to-americas-greed_partner/ , https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/06/atlas-shrugged-the-invention-of-fire/

[BigSteve-3]

How does that affect my argument?

You mean other than the part where you said "It is defined as someone who uncritically agrees with Limbaugh"?

It's not defined as that at all.

[BigSteve-3]

Exactly.

Their very existence disproves the idea that all of his listeners are smart enough to know when Limbaugh presents misleading information.

And since many Limbaugh listeners are that unintelligent, it is logical to assume that some of them also believed him when he made misleading claims about smoking.

And if some people believed his incorrect claims about smoking, it is logical to assume that the rates of pulmonary disease among this group were higher than they otherwise would have been.

You're making a lot of unsupported assumptions to reach your conclusion.

That's not a very intelligent way to approach an intelligent conversation.

[Pants-of-dog]

You mean other than the part where you said "It is defined as someone who uncritically agrees with Limbaugh"?

It's not defined as that at all.

Yes, it is defined that way. Go look at the definition I already posted, Steve.

But even that does not matter, since there would be a certain number of his listeners who did unquestionably support whatever he said no matter how words are defined.

You're making a lot of unsupported assumptions to reach your conclusion.

That's not a very intelligent way to approach an intelligent conversation.

Show how my assumptions are wrong.

[BigSteve-3]

Yes, it is defined that way. Go look at the definition I already posted, Steve.

You're addressing the wrong person.

I'll accept the explanation on Limbaugh's own site, just as your "Steve" person did.

But even that does not matter, since there would be a certain number of his listeners who did unquestionably support whatever he said no matter how words are defined.

On what basis would you make that statement?

Show how my assumptions are wrong.

I don't have to. That's how this works. You have to show how your assumptions make sense if you want someone to believe them. You haven't done that.

You've not proven your assumptions to be right, so there's no reason to believe they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have no argument or intelligent criticisms.

If you come up with any, let me know.

[BigSteve-3]

You have no argument or intelligent criticisms.

I don't need them. You haven't made a valid point to argue. You've been clear that you have nothing but assumptions. I don't argue against assumptions. That's a waste of time.

When you can present an argument that consists of more than "Limbaugh's listeners are stupid" let me know.

[late]

I don't need them. You haven't made a valid point to argue. You've been clear that you have nothing but assumptions. I don't argue against assumptions. That's a waste of time.

When you can present an argument that consists of more than "Limbaugh's listeners are stupid" let me know.

People that listen to Rush listen because they want lies.

It's a personality defect.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't need them. You haven't made a valid point to argue. You've been clear that you have nothing but assumptions. I don't argue against assumptions. That's a waste of time.

When you can present an argument that consists of more than "Limbaugh's listeners are stupid" let me know.

I did not assume that all Limbaugh fans are stupid.

I assumed that some Limbaugh fans accept what he says as truth at least some of the time, even when it is contradicted by evidence.

And I also assumed that some of these people believed him when it came to smoking, and decided to continue smoking partly because of Limbaugh.

Since these assumptions are plausible, the conclusion itself (that Limbaugh contributed to deaths due to pulmonary diseases) is also plausible.

[BigSteve-3]

People that listen to Rush listen because they want lies.

It's a personality defect.

People listen to Rush, Brian Kilmeade, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etal because no one can really stomach listening to liberal talk radio.

Remember Air America? If you do, congrats. Very few people do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network)

Personally, I can't stand the likes of those listed above and prefer other, more local hosts.

[Rancid]

People that listen to Rush listen because they want lies.

It's a personality defect.

Everyone lies.

They go to him, because he's respected within that community.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think that there is a leftist or left leaning counterpart to Limbaugh et al that has a similar track record in terms of broadcasting misleading information.

[late]

Remember Air America?

Yes, we know how to read, we don't need AM style radio.

[late]

Everyone lies.

But not everyone is a compulsive liar...

[BigSteve-3]

Yes, we know how to read, we don't need AM style radio.

There were FM stations which carried it, as well.

[late]

There were FM stations which carried it, as well.

So not the point.

[BigSteve-3]

So not the point.

The point is that Air America proved that Americans have neither the patience or the stomach for liberal talk radio.

[late]

The point is that Air America proved that Americans have neither the patience or the stomach for liberal talk radio.

Now that was funny.

We have hundreds of periodical publications, and thousands upon thousands of books.

Why eat gruel when you can dine on steak.

[BigSteve-3]

Now that was funny.

We have hundreds of periodical publications, and thousands upon thousands of books.

Please don't tell me that you're so naive that you're unaware that conservatives have those, too.

Please don't tell me that.