Rush Limbaugh - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

By skinster
#15068179
Pants-of-dog wrote:Just making people angry. That is all Limbaugh did.


He did much more than that. He is a neocon scumbag who spent a long time selling the war on Iraq alongside his neocon buddies, and look at the results today, many millions (likely) dead, displaced etc. and no end in sight.

His death whenever it happens will be celebrated. :excited:
By BigSteve-3
#15071713
I've lost loved ones to cancer, and it's insidious. I wouldn't wish that n my worst enemy.

Certainly not on a talk show host with different politics than me.
By Patrickov
#15071727
ProPhoto wrote:I've lost loved ones to cancer, and it's insidious. I wouldn't wish that n my worst enemy.

Certainly not on a talk show host with different politics than me.


Agree, it is stupid. Even if
1. What the person did is harmful to numerous innocent people, e.g. taking away their hopes or making their lives vulnerable to existential or spiritual threats
2. The person in concern is not willing to step down voluntarily, and thus, "beyond redemption and has to be removed",
I still think making the process as quick and painless as possible to all parties concerned is the best.

EDIT: I know I wished some wicked people have coronavirus near the start of this thread. In my defence, it tackles a person much quicker than cancer.
By BigSteve-3
#15071729
Patrickov wrote:Agree, it is stupid. Even if
1. What the person did is harmful to numerous innocent people, e.g. taking away their hopes or making their lives vulnerable to existential or spiritual threats
2. The person in concern is not willing to step down voluntarily, and thus, "beyond redemption and has to be removed",
I still think making the process as quick and painless as possible to all parties concerned is the best.

EDIT: I know I wished some wicked people have coronavirus near the start of this thread. In my defence, it tackles a person much quicker than cancer.


Did Limbaugh do any of those things?
By Patrickov
#15071732
ProPhoto wrote:Did Limbaugh do any of those things?


My post was not about him -- I have no information to make any judgement for or against him.

I was talking a general case on "whether wishing cancer on someone is justified", because I assume the post I replied / quoted was also about the same broader topic.
By BigSteve-3
#15071840
Pants-of-dog wrote:He did make it more likely for people to get lung cancer.


People make their own choices, and they alone should either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of those choices.

Links between smoking and cancer were seen as early as the late 1940's. When I started smoking it was because a girl I liked in school smoked. I knew it was bad, but I did it anyway. A stupid decision, of course, but I just as easily could've decided not to smoke, despite the fact that, back then, cigarette ads were still allowed on television.

Limbaugh didn't make anything more likely.
By Pants-of-dog
#15071880
He spread misleading information about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The only way that he could not have been at least partly responsible for deaths is if no one listened to him.
By BigSteve-3
#15071977
Pants-of-dog wrote:He spread misleading information about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The only way that he could not have been at least partly responsible for deaths is if no one listened to him.


Not so.

You'd have to prove that people who died from cancer as a result of smoking either decided to start smoking or declined to quit because of what Limbaugh said. How on earth could you possibly prove that? Well, you can't. It's a nice theory, and it might even be accurate from some. But you'd never be able to prove it.

Like I said earlier, the link between cancer and smoking was known back in the 1940's, before Rush Limbaugh was even born.
By Pants-of-dog
#15072052
My claim only requires the assumption that some Limbaugh listeners were stupid enough to believe him about smoking, and kept smoking because they thought it was harmless.

This is a reasonable assumption.
By BigSteve-3
#15072056
Pants-of-dog wrote:My claim only requires the assumption that some Limbaugh listeners were stupid enough to believe him about smoking, and kept smoking because they thought it was harmless.

This is a reasonable assumption.


I don't believe it is.
By Pants-of-dog
#15072089
If it were the case that every single one of his listeners critically and correctly analyzed Limbaugh's claims, there would be no dittoheads.
By BigSteve-3
#15072095
Pants-of-dog wrote:If it were the case that every single one of his listeners critically and correctly analyzed Limbaugh's claims, there would be no dittoheads.


Are you aware of the origin of "dittohead"?

It doesn't have anything to do with critically or correctly analyzing anything.
By Pants-of-dog
#15072102
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.
By BigSteve-3
#15072128
Pants-of-dog wrote: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 didn't answer my question.

The term "dittoheads" has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him, or with believing what he says is true.
By BigSteve-3
#15072136
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/dittohead

It is defined as someone who uncritically agrees with Limbaugh.


This is from Limbaugh's own website, which is probably more on-point than Wiktionary:

"So ditto means, ‘I love the program. Don’t ever go away.’ It doesn’t mean, ‘I agree with you.’ It doesn’t mean, ‘You’re always right.’ It means, ‘I love the program.’

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/05/19/the_limbaugh_lexicon_dittos/
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
So how deadly is it?

This line of thought - that evil for'ners are beh[…]

While Putin has said that the rich in Russia will […]

I give it a week 2 weeks tops before people are l[…]

I would thank them, I wouldn't. It would provi[…]