[lmm]

One counterexample is enough to contradict the "will destroy" claim in the grandparent.

[benlambert]

"Smoking will destroy your lungs"

Gonna give me a counterexample there too?

[benlambert]

Dear down voters: it should be obvious that just because smoking is not literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs, and you can find plenty of counter examples, it's still a very good idea to warn people that "smoking will destroy your lungs".

And it would have been a good idea to do that back in the 50s when doctors were calling it safe without the science to back up their claims. "You have no evidence" is what you say to justify avoiding something suspect, not what you say to justify consuming it!

[FeepingCreature]

Pretty sure smoking is literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs.

If you find a long-term consistent cigarette smoker with no lung damage, I believe you have a medical miracle on your hands.

[benlambert]

"Destroy" does not mean the same thing as "damage".

Destroy = something big enough ruin your quality of life.

[lmm]

Sure, counterexample: my grandfather. Hyperbolic claims like "it will destroy your lungs" are counterproductive in the long run; far better to give a measured, accurate description of the actual level of danger.