Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Metaphor]

Um..read the quote again

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.

The meaning could (not) be plainer.

If instead, Scientific American had meant to say:

"The COVID-19 death toll in America, at more than 190,000 lives, is undoubtedly higher than it could have been but for Trump's dishonest and inept response".

Then they should have said that.

See what I did to your quote? I'll give you a minute to think about it.

What you did was highlight words in my response in order to dishonestly imply I said the opposite of what I said. You also put "not" in brackets implying that it wasn't part of the quote when it was.

What I did was highlight words to make Scientific American's sentence actual meaning more plain to the people who have lower English comprehension, or are so desperate to defend a dishonest and inept sentence because it says something they already believe that they need to believe it has a meaning other than its actual meaning.

Scientific American wrote:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives".

Here is a Year 8 English comprehension exercise. There is only one correct answer.

According to the sentence in the quote box, what cost 190,000 Americans their lives?

a) the COVID-19 pandemic
b) Devastating examples
c) Trump's dishonest and inept response to COVID-19
d) all of the above
e) magical brownies

Answer: (c)

 

[Metaphor]

I seriously doubt that Scientific American could have worded that statement to avoid the outrage of some pedant somewhere in the world.

laughing dog, you will call out your ideological enemies for a misplaced comma, so count yourself among the selective pedants you are dismissing.

I'm glad to see, however, that you are vaguely honest enough to understand that Scientific American did indeed blame Trump for every single COVID death in America.

 

[Patooka]

I seriously doubt that Scientific American could have worded that statement to avoid the outrage of some pedant somewhere in the world.

laughing dog, you will call out your ideological enemies for a misplaced comma, so count yourself among the selective pedants you are dismissing.

I'm glad to see, however, that you are vaguely honest enough to understand that Scientific American did indeed blame Trump for every single COVID death in America.

So what do you think? Should we dismiss everything else that was written? I'll give you an out; Scientific American did imply Trump was responsible for 190,000+ deaths. My opinion is that Trump is so anti science that Scientific American's thumb on the scale on one particular issue is almost irrelevant. I believe that is the only flaw in the argument provided so you grabbed on to it with both hands and so I disagreed with you in bad faith.

Why am I wrong?

 

[laughing dog]

I seriously doubt that Scientific American could have worded that statement to avoid the outrage of some pedant somewhere in the world.

laughing dog, you will call out your ideological enemies for a misplaced comma, so count yourself among the selective pedants you are dismissing.

That is absurd because most comma usage is a matter of aesthetics.

I'm glad to see, however, that you are vaguely honest enough to understand that Scientific American did indeed blame Trump for every single COVID death in America.

The fact that I observe that there is a lack of absolute clarity in a statement does not logically mean I approve of anyone's interpretation of the statement. As usual, you glom onto a conclusion that fits your ideology not the facts of the situation.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

You're absolutely right. We should ignore the other five points made and completely disqualify the endorsement because of your throbbing erection for semantics. That's the honest way to go about this isn't it?

I didn't even disqualify the endorsement. I don't know what it means to disqualify an endorsement. I am saying that blaming every COVID death in America on Trump, as SA has done and some people on this board do repeatedly, is dishonest.

In fact, it beggars belief you are talking about honesty when this thread is already desperate to dishonestly pretend Scientific American's response is honest.

i) Scientific American blamed every single COVID death in America on Trump, because they either can't logic, or are so hatebonered for Trump they are recklessly indifferent to the truth.
ii) People in this thread denied that that's what Scientific American did, despite the fact that SA clearly did it.
iii) People in this thread then vaguely acknowledge I am right that SA did it, but then accuse me of dishonesty for pointing it out.

I don't know where the next goalpost will be shifted, but I do admire the ingenuity of people who can keep finding a new home for it.

 

[Metaphor]

So what do you think? Should we dismiss everything else that was written? I'll give you an out; Scientific American did imply Trump was responsible for 190,000+ deaths.

I don't need an 'out'. I don't want people to pretend that I was right if they don't think I was right.

My opinion is that Trump is so anti science that Scientific American's thumb on the scale on one particular issue is almost irrelevant. I believe that is the only flaw in the argument provided so you grabbed on to it with both hands and so I disagreed with you in bad faith.

Why am I wrong?

I did not dismiss everything else that was written, but many of the statements are simply matters of values, not 'facts'. For example:

Scientific American criticizes Trump's continued efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act while failing to offer an alternative,

This presupposes that the ACA is fit-for-purpose and is better than what it replaced, and that something that is repealed must somehow be 'replaced'.

When people stop believing in God, they are often asked by religionists "but what did you replace your belief with?". The answer is nothing. I don't need to replace a belief in God with some other belief.

along with the president's proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I don't doubt the veracity of this statement, but whether you think a billion dollar cut to these institutions is a good or bad thing is surely less a matter of fact and more a matter of values.

 

[Metaphor]

That is absurd because most comma usage is a matter of aesthetics.

"Sydney girls who are promiscuous are bound to run into trouble"

"Sydney girls, who are promiscuous, are bound to run into trouble".

An errant comma in the published text of a Catholic homily sure caused a lot of non-aesthetic angst.

The fact that I observe that there is a lack of absolute clarity in a statement does not logically mean I approve of anyone's interpretation of the statement. As usual, you glom onto a conclusion that fits your ideology not the facts of the situation.

It isn't a lack of absolute clarity. Its meaning is plain. If, however, an English linguistics expert could explain to me how the meaning could be something else, I'd welcome that explanation.

 

[JohnG]

The statement only says what you think it does because you want it to, in order to reinforce your point, and you were triggered before you fully grasped it.

SA is stating the seriousness of the pandemic that DT mishandled.

No one can say exactly how many deaths DT is responsible for - that’s why no one is giving that number. Some are comparing US deaths to Canada (1150/50) but that’s just a guess too.

What we do know is that 190 000 + people died, and DT is responsible for that number being as high as it is.

 

[Metaphor]

The statement only says what you think it does because you want it to, in order to reinforce your point, and you were triggered before you fully grasped it.

The statement says what it says, that Trump's dishonesty and ineptness caused 190,000 deaths.

SA is stating the seriousness of the pandemic that DT mishandled.

No one can say exactly how many deaths DT is responsible for - that’s why no one is giving that number.

Nobody is giving a number because they either genuinely think Trump is responsible for every single COVID death in America, or they hate Trump so much they haven't really thought about what they are saying, or they've thought about it and don't care, because saying "Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has probably led to more deaths than there would have been if he'd done x, y, z", which is probably more honest but also less catchy.

Some are comparing US deaths to Canada (1150/50) but that’s just a guess too.

What we do know is that 190 000 + people died, and DT is responsible for that number being as high as it is.

You don't know the counterfactual nor has anyone even tried to make a case for a counterfactual. Indeed, Trump created a coronavirus task force in January and put in a travel ban in January.

What's the counterfactual here? What would Biden have done? What would Pelosi have done (in retrospect, probably not encourage people to visit Chinatown in late February)? If Biden had been president, what would the COVID-19 death toll in America be now?

 

[Treedbear]

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

You're absolutely right. We should ignore the other five points made and completely disqualify the endorsement because of your throbbing erection for semantics. That's the honest way to go about this isn't it?

I didn't even disqualify the endorsement. I don't know what it means to disqualify an endorsement. I am saying that blaming every COVID death in America on Trump, as SA has done and some people on this board do repeatedly, is dishonest.

In fact, it beggars belief you are talking about honesty when this thread is already desperate to dishonestly pretend Scientific American's response is honest.

i) Scientific American blamed every single COVID death in America on Trump, because they either can't logic, or are so hatebonered for Trump they are recklessly indifferent to the truth.
ii) People in this thread denied that that's what Scientific American did, despite the fact that SA clearly did it.
iii) People in this thread then vaguely acknowledge I am right that SA did it, but then accuse me of dishonesty for pointing it out.

I don't know where the next goalpost will be shifted, but I do admire the ingenuity of people who can keep finding a new home for it.

I salute your veracity and genuine respect for honest discourse. I can only take it as a reflection on how this one misleading comment by an otherwise highly respected representative of the scientific establishment can be so disturbing to you in an era when the highest representative of the most powerful nation on Earth continuously misrepresents the truth to the point that it is now considered merely a form of political rhetoric. There are no longer any goalposts. Trump doesn't need no stinkin' goalposts. But the fact that his opponents can still be expected to respect them says something important.

 

[bilby]

See what I did to your quote? I'll give you a minute to think about it.

What you did was highlight words in my response in order to dishonestly imply I said the opposite of what I said. You also put "not" in brackets implying that it wasn't part of the quote when it was.

What I did was highlight words to make Scientific American's sentence actual meaning more plain to the people who have lower English comprehension, or are so desperate to defend a dishonest and inept sentence because it says something they already believe that they need to believe it has a meaning other than its actual meaning.

Scientific American wrote:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives".

Here is a Year 8 English comprehension exercise. There is only one correct answer.

According to the sentence in the quote box, what cost 190,000 Americans their lives?

a) the COVID-19 pandemic
b) Devastating examples
c) Trump's dishonest and inept response to COVID-19
d) all of the above
e) magical brownies

Answer: (c)

English as she is writ is highly ambiguous here, and both a and c are plausible interpretations in the absence of any contextual clues.

To decide that ONLY the interpretation that makes the writer out to be hyperbolic at best, and insanely unfair at worst, MUST be the intended meaning, and to rule out the possibility that there may be a misplaced comma, is the action of a raving lunatic with a desperate desire to find fault; a person so petty that they assume vile malice, where a trivial and commonplace error is a far more plausible explanation.

If you genuinely believe that your take on this is the only possible one, then you are a lot stupider than you appear. But you can, of course, choose to take the appropriate action to show your dislike for Scientific American.

 

[Metaphor]

English as she is writ is highly ambiguous here, and both a and c are plausible interpretations in the absence of any contextual clues.

It isn't highly ambiguous, and neither is it a surprising, if a nevertheless outrageous, claim.

To decide that ONLY the interpretation that makes the writer out to be hyperbolic at best, and insanely unfair at worst, MUST be the intended meaning, and to rule out the possibility that there may be a misplaced comma, is the action of a raving lunatic with a desperate desire to find fault; a person so petty that they assume vile malice, where a trivial and commonplace error is a far more plausible explanation.

Well, is it an error or not? According to you, either "COVID-19", or "Trump's response to COVID-19" caused 190,000 deaths, are both plausible interpretations, so there's no error on SA's part (or, the error is mine in my understanding of English-language subjects and predicates.)

And, if it is an error on SA's part, if they didn't mean to attribute 190,000 deaths to Trump's response (and therefore to Trump), why did they make the error so easily? Indeed, it seems to me, since people on this very board routinely attribute every COVID-19 death in America to Trump, why should I assume Scientific American thinks any different? You speak about context: the context is that of an op-ed denouncing Trump.

If you genuinely believe that your take on this is the only possible one,

My take? My take is that the sentence, as written, states that Trump's dishonesty and ineptness caused 190,000 COVID-19 deaths.

Now, if I asked the person at SA who wrote that sentence "did you really mean to attribute every single COVID-19 death in America to Trump's actions and attitude?", I reckon they'd say "no". But I also reckon they wrote the sentence in the way they did because they want to imply he is responsible, to make an association with every single COVID death in America as somehow Trump's personal responsibility, because that is what the sentence literally says.

then you are a lot stupider than you appear. But you can, of course, choose to take the appropriate action to show your dislike for Scientific American.

Of course, anybody who wants to is free to buy, or refrain to buy, SA. I have always supported consumers spending as they please. If I did subscribe to SA (I do not), I don't think I would unsubscribe for that dishonest and inept sentence alone.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Try reading it like this then. Covid-19 has costed more than 190,000 US lives and Trump's response was dishonest and inept. Feel better?

No, I don't feel better. I feel worse that people understand why Scientific American's sentence is inept and dishonest, but they don't care.

Should we set our hair afire now? The Woodword book demonstrates Trump knew covid was deadlier than the flu, but lied to America about that. and has systematically been gutting government agencies that handle such things. Somehow, we should concentrate on SA's clumsy worded statement and be all upset? Don't care.

 

[JohnG]

How about this?

“Metaphor is upset with SA, a science magazine that stood up for science”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don't know the counterfactual nor has anyone even tried to make a case for a counterfactual. Indeed, Trump created a coronavirus task force in January and put in a travel ban in January.

We'll ignore the ban was BINO, "ban in name only". In early February the Admin was moving forward on vaccine stuff. In general, the Trump Admin hasn't fucked up the vaccine route (yet). Otherwise, he did shit about the virus he said was dangerous on Feb 7 to Woodward. US states of Ohio and Maryland (Republican led) announced closures of schools. It would be after that that Trump says people should stay distanced and the CDC enacted hospital protocols regarding visitors and patients. Trump ignored the virus coming from Europe, closed the door way too late... and also way too out the blue leading to who knows how much transmission on flights and the long lines at Kennedy to get back into the US. Nothing in January or February or March regarding PPE stockpiling or ramping up mask production. And Trump's public statements spoke to a narrative that the virus wasn't a big deal and repeatedly stoked flames of people that wanted to go to bars, and propagated bullshit claims about a pair of drugs with dubious records on Covid-19.

Trump's call to reopen too early cost ten thousand plus American lives directly in the South and even limited hospital access for people who didn't have Covid in several US Cities in the south.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It isn't highly ambiguous, and neither is it a surprising, if a nevertheless outrageous, claim.



Well, is it an error or not? According to you, either "COVID-19", or "Trump's response to COVID-19" caused 190,000 deaths, are both plausible interpretations, so there's no error on SA's part (or, the error is mine in my understanding of English-language subjects and predicates.)

And, if it is an error on SA's part, if they didn't mean to attribute 190,000 deaths to Trump's response (and therefore to Trump), why did they make the error so easily? Indeed, it seems to me, since people on this very board routinely attribute every COVID-19 death in America to Trump, why should I assume Scientific American thinks any different? You speak about context: the context is that of an op-ed denouncing Trump.

If you genuinely believe that your take on this is the only possible one,

My take? My take is that the sentence, as written, states that Trump's dishonesty and ineptness caused 190,000 COVID-19 deaths.

Now, if I asked the person at SA who wrote that sentence "did you really mean to attribute every single COVID-19 death in America to Trump's actions and attitude?", I reckon they'd say "no". But I also reckon they wrote the sentence in the way they did because they want to imply he is responsible, to make an association with every single COVID death in America as somehow Trump's personal responsibility, because that is what the sentence literally says.

then you are a lot stupider than you appear. But you can, of course, choose to take the appropriate action to show your dislike for Scientific American.

Of course, anybody who wants to is free to buy, or refrain to buy, SA. I have always supported consumers spending as they please. If I did subscribe to SA (I do not), I don't think I would unsubscribe for that dishonest and inept sentence alone.

Your argument is the equivalent of simultaneously masturbating and rearranging the Titanic’s deck chairs. Have fun with that.

 

[Worldtraveller]

OMG, y'all. He's not responsible for every single COVID death!

Scientific American's statement certainly attributes every single death to him. Here is its statement, again:

“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives,” the editors wrote.
Now, Scientific American isn't doing anything that I haven't seen a dozen times already - including people on this board - blithely blaming every single COVID death on Trump. By that reasoning, every leader in every country in the world is responsible for the exact number of deaths by COVID in their own countries.

Really? You're really concerned about that number? No one can know the actual number who would have died had Trump been at all competent or self aware, or had he not been obliviously senile, not to mention utterly callous and without conscience. But we do know that the number would be far fewer if we had an actual leader in our country when this pandemic hit. You know it, too. What exactly are you defending anyway?

OMG this microscopic thing is not 100% accurate!11!!!!11!! OUTRAGE.

Also, did you know that Pelosi got a haircut?

FYI, I highly recommend putting 'metaphor' on ignore.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How about this?

“Metaphor is upset with SA, a science magazine that stood up for science”

Grammar Nazi?

 

[laughing dog]

That is absurd because most comma usage is a matter of aesthetics.

"Sydney girls who are promiscuous are bound to run into trouble"

"Sydney girls, who are promiscuous, are bound to run into trouble".

An errant comma in the published text of a Catholic homily sure caused a lot of non-aesthetic angst.

Cool story. Totally irrelevant to my response to your absurd allegation.

It isn't a lack of absolute clarity. Its meaning is plain. If, however, an English linguistics expert could explain to me how the meaning could be something else, I'd welcome that explanation.

It has been explained to you. Either you refuse to entertain the notion that there is more than one legitimate interpretation or you are incapable of comprehending that there is more than one legitimate interpretation,

What I find interesting is that you are claiming the statement is "inept and dishonest". If it statement is inept is not likely it is also dishonest . Dishonesty is usually associated with an intent to deceive. If SA meant that Trump is responsible for all the covid-19 deaths, then the statement is not dishonest but inept.

Coming from such rigorous pedant as yourself, your claim of "inept and dishonest" is either incredibly sloppy (inept) or dishonest. After all, if you meant "inept OR dishonest", you should have written it that way.

 

[JohnG]

How about this?

“Metaphor is upset with SA, a science magazine that stood up for science”

Grammar Nazi?

Can this be construed as Metaphor being the magazine that stood up for science?