Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Angry Floof]

What are you defending here then?

Cue "I'm not a Trumpsucker, but ..."

Kinda like "I'm not saying it's aliens, but ... aliens".

"I'm not a racist, buuuuuuuuuut... all lives matter."

 

[laughing dog]

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. Contrary to what you think, you cannot possibly know what the writer believed at the time of the writing.

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.

No, something can be inept and dishonest at the same time. In this case, it's an ineptly constructed sentence that does not convey what the writer actually believes, because the sentence writer was recklessly indifferent to evaluating the sentence for truth-value. For the sentence writer, it was better to associate Trump with 190,000 deaths than some more accurate number, or simply with an unspecified number of deaths.

Dishonesty requires intent which you have yet to demonstrate. Contrary to your belief, you cannot possibly know what the writer believed at the time they wrote the piece.

 

[Elixir]

the sentence would not actually be true at the time that SA wrote it, since there have been 190,000 deaths in total, not 190,000 extra deaths

There are well in excess of 200,000 "excess deaths" beyond expected norms. The 201,348 figure (as of now 9/16), represents only REPORTED Trumpvirus deaths. We know that deaths are under-reported. Maybe vastly.

I know you're an "I'm not a Trumpsucker", but ... sheesh. Get real.

 

[Angry Floof]

the sentence would not actually be true at the time that SA wrote it, since there have been 190,000 deaths in total, not 190,000 extra deaths

There are well in excess of 200,000 deaths. The 195k figure as of now, is REPORTED Trumpvirus deaths. We know that it is under-reported. Maybe vastly.
I know you're an "I'm not a Trumpsucker", but ... sheesh. Get real.

As you said earlier, that number is going to be true soon enough because of Trump's incompetence, greed, and utter lack of empathy or leadership skill.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Well, it's a true statement, unlike SA's sentence about 190,000 deaths being due to Trump's dishonesty and ineptness.

What are you defending here then? That microscopic issue is not worth all this.

Even somebody guilty of dishonesty and ineptness doesn't deserve to be accused of things he didn't, and logically couldn't, have done.

But, more to the point, I'm not actually defending Trump by pointing out his detractors will accept any disparaging remark about him as true, even when the remark could not possibly be true. This thread is a case in point.

What you have said is that "little lies" (a "microscopic issue") doesn't matter, as long as the people who are the target of them deserve contempt and hatred. At the same time, little lies against your own side are called out and the little liar is attacked for them.

Well, I think little lies do matter. Though I think attributing every single COVID-19 death in America to one person isn't a little lie. It's a plain fat big one.

>snip pointless tirade<

Yeah, don't worry, I can see the writing on the wall. I can see that the feelings of your ideological enemies, and your demeaning and dehumanising behaviour towards them, are outside the sphere of your moral concern.

 

[Elixir]

Well, I think little lies do matter.

But the great big fat ones that Trump tells, those are another story. Because you're not a Trumpsucker, but...

Also, as has been pointed out you have proven nothing about SA lying. At best you have proven a syntactical error.

 

[Angry Floof]

>snip pointless tirade<

Yeah, don't worry, I can see the writing on the wall. I can see that the feelings of your ideological enemies, and your demeaning and dehumanising behaviour towards them, are outside the sphere of your moral concern.

And we can see your rabid fixation on irrelevancies, so I don't know how you could possibly assess anyone's behavior from that frenzy you're locked in. Maybe you should step away from the interwebs for a while.

 

[Metaphor]

the sentence would not actually be true at the time that SA wrote it, since there have been 190,000 deaths in total, not 190,000 extra deaths

There are well in excess of 200,000 "excess deaths" beyond expected norms. The 201,348 figure (as of now 9/16), represents only REPORTED Trumpvirus deaths. We know that deaths are under-reported. Maybe vastly.

I know you're an "I'm not a Trumpsucker", but ... sheesh. Get real.

So, you are in fact saying Trump is responsible for every single one of those 201,348 deaths. If not, what are you saying?

 

[Metaphor]

>snip pointless tirade<

Yeah, don't worry, I can see the writing on the wall. I can see that the feelings of your ideological enemies, and your demeaning and dehumanising behaviour towards them, are outside the sphere of your moral concern.

And we can see your rabid fixation on irrelevancies. Maybe you should step away from the interwebs for a while.

Not from the internet, no. You don't get to control how I spend my time. But stepping away from the relentless and demeaning treatment I get on this message board - you may well have played your part in enabling that, yes.

 

[Elixir]

the sentence would not actually be true at the time that SA wrote it, since there have been 190,000 deaths in total, not 190,000 extra deaths

There are well in excess of 200,000 "excess deaths" beyond expected norms. The 201,348 figure (as of now 9/16), represents only REPORTED Trumpvirus deaths. We know that deaths are under-reported. Maybe vastly.

I know you're an "I'm not a Trumpsucker", but ... sheesh. Get real.

So, you are in fact saying Trump is responsible for every single one of those 201,348 deaths. If not, what are you saying?

Do you even math?
Take the 201,000+ deaths we know about, subtract the 10k that I posited Boden would have allowed and there ya have it. Ask someone to perform the subtraction for you.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, I think little lies do matter.

But the great big fat ones that Trump tells, those are another story. Because you're not a Trumpsucker, but...

Also, as has been pointed out you have proven nothing about SA lying. At best you have proven a syntactical error.

SA was either lying, or they were recklessly indifferent to the misleading meaning of their sentence, or they are hopeless with grammar. The last is probably not true, given they appear to be able to compose comprehensible sentences in English. I suspect it is the second: a reckless indifference no doubt caused by their hatred of Trump.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you are in fact saying Trump is responsible for every single one of those 201,348 deaths. If not, what are you saying?

Do you even math?
Take the 201,000+ deaths we know about, subtract the 10k that I posited Boden would have allowed and there ya have it. Ask someone to perform the subtraction for you.

I see. If Biden had been president, there would have been 190,000 fewer COVID-19 deaths in America (or 10k deaths in total, I'm not sure which you are stating).

 

[Angry Floof]

And we can see your rabid fixation on irrelevancies. Maybe you should step away from the interwebs for a while.

Not from the internet, no. You don't get to control how I spend my time. But stepping away from the relentless and demeaning treatment I get on this message board - you may well have played your part in enabling that, yes.

I'm not trying to control how you spend your time. Jesus. I'm telling you that you are obsessed with a non-issue here.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

the sentence would not actually be true at the time that SA wrote it, since there have been 190,000 deaths in total, not 190,000 extra deaths

There are well in excess of 200,000 "excess deaths" beyond expected norms. The 201,348 figure (as of now 9/16), represents only REPORTED Trumpvirus deaths. We know that deaths are under-reported. Maybe vastly.

I know you're an "I'm not a Trumpsucker", but ... sheesh. Get real.

So, you are in fact saying Trump is responsible for every single one of those 201,348 deaths. If not, what are you saying?

Brain damaged preachers who hold services and refuse to practice social distancing or enforce wearing masks merrily spread that church virus around get a lot of blame. Young punks who insist on partying wearing no masks get a lot of blame. Trump is complicit in all of this, because he lied to them all about how bad covid was, and encourage subtly and not so subtly resistance to reasonable measures to battle covid. His slash and burn policies sidelining and silencing medical experts help fuel the kooks I list above. The obnoxious Karens marching into stores without masks and their cute little printed out cards claiming they are exempt form laws mandating masks in public places get a lot of credit for spreading viruses around with gay abandon, and vociferously demanding others do the same.
No, the useless Karens and Bubbas who think covid is a hoax, masks do not work and refuse to wear them, and are vowing never ever to get a vaccination when that comes available, get a lot of the blame.

But Trump could not have achieved this mass death rate without out the zealous help of these benighted and ignorant anti-intellectual, anti-science forces. Trump had a lot of help.

 

[bilby]

Well, I think little lies do matter.

But the great big fat ones that Trump tells, those are another story. Because you're not a Trumpsucker, but...

Also, as has been pointed out you have proven nothing about SA lying. At best you have proven a syntactical error.

SA was either lying, or they were recklessly indifferent to the misleading meaning of their sentence, or they are hopeless with grammar. The last is probably not true, given they appear to be able to compose comprehensible sentences in English. I suspect it is the second: a reckless indifference no doubt caused by their hatred of Trump.

The last is what the majority of people in this thread, and likely the vast majority of all who read their statement, understood them to mean.

If you are determined to cling to your pedantry and to refuse to understand something that most people have no problem with understanding, then nobody can help you, and any problems that arise from your deliberate misinterpretation are yours alone.

 

[Treedbear]

Speaking for myself---when I read the sentence, I read it as COVID being responsible for the killing of 190,000+ Americans, and Trump mishandled the response. It was not that Trump himself killed 190,000+.

The oh-so controversial sentence for repeat is "“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."

It is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The president has lied, misinformed the public about this crisis. That is the essence behind the criticism (among other scientific issues). Let's not lose sight of that by instead focusing on the placement of a comma.

I finally decided to look at the original SA editorial and I think you are exactly right. It's not blaming Trump for 190,000 deaths per se. The issue is his anti-science stance. That is (and quite appropriately so given the mission of the journal) what they are so concerned about. Here's the text -

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, ...

(emphasis mine)

The important issue is his rejection of science, not the 190,000 deaths. I think that grammatically that figure just appears as an example, among several they go on to list. And as the most dramatic example they needed to explain why that was so. They could have omitted that detail, but as they said it was just the tally through September, implying that the number will surely be getting much worse. When you look at the entire paragraph the sentence structure is very concise and forthright about why they oppose Trump's presidency. They're concerned with the dumbing down of the American public with the anti-reason, anti-news media, and anti-intellectual propaganda that Trump is spewing.

I think the Forbes article cited in the OP which quotes the SA editorial is confusing the intended meaning (maybe intentionally) by needlessly interjecting their own editorializing remarks as a bullet point, disconnecting the COVID example from the main point of the argument.

 

[Metaphor]

SA was either lying, or they were recklessly indifferent to the misleading meaning of their sentence, or they are hopeless with grammar. The last is probably not true, given they appear to be able to compose comprehensible sentences in English. I suspect it is the second: a reckless indifference no doubt caused by their hatred of Trump.

The last is what the majority of people in this thread, and likely the vast majority of all who read their statement, understood them to mean.

The people on this thread understood SA was hopeless with grammar? I don't think so: nobody has said they were hopeless with grammar, they have said I am hopeless with grammar. Note that not a single response has explained exactly what is wrong with my semantic understanding of the sentence.

If you are determined to cling to your pedantry and to refuse to understand something that most people have no problem with understanding, then nobody can help you, and any problems that arise from your deliberate misinterpretation are yours alone.

I don't find appeals to popularity a persuasive argument, but you are right that it is my problem to have what appears to be a minority viewpoint in a sea of metoos. But I would like to know if there is a single person on this board, somebody who is a linguist or grammarian, or anybody who has the requisite knowledge, to explain to me how I am wrong. It's been many years since I was in high school, but I still cannot see how any 'alternative' understanding of the subject or predicate of the sentence is possible.

 

[bilby]

The people on this thread understood SA was hopeless with grammar? I don't think so: nobody has said they were hopeless with grammar, they have said I am hopeless with grammar. Note that not a single response has explained exactly what is wrong with my semantic understanding of the sentence.

If you are determined to cling to your pedantry and to refuse to understand something that most people have no problem with understanding, then nobody can help you, and any problems that arise from your deliberate misinterpretation are yours alone.

I don't find appeals to popularity a persuasive argument, but you are right that it is my problem to have what appears to be a minority viewpoint in a sea of metoos. But I would like to know if there is a single person on this board, somebody who is a linguist or grammarian, or anybody who has the requisite knowledge, to explain to me how I am wrong. It's been many years since I was in high school, but I still cannot see how any 'alternative' understanding of the subject or predicate of the sentence is possible.

Oh, that's simple: Prescriptivism is fucking stupid horseshit that bears no relationship to how real people use language to communicate ideas. English has no rules, other than those mutually agreed from moment to moment by its users.

I am glad I could clear that up so easily for you.

 

[Metaphor]

The people on this thread understood SA was hopeless with grammar? I don't think so: nobody has said they were hopeless with grammar, they have said I am hopeless with grammar. Note that not a single response has explained exactly what is wrong with my semantic understanding of the sentence.

If you are determined to cling to your pedantry and to refuse to understand something that most people have no problem with understanding, then nobody can help you, and any problems that arise from your deliberate misinterpretation are yours alone.

I don't find appeals to popularity a persuasive argument, but you are right that it is my problem to have what appears to be a minority viewpoint in a sea of metoos. But I would like to know if there is a single person on this board, somebody who is a linguist or grammarian, or anybody who has the requisite knowledge, to explain to me how I am wrong. It's been many years since I was in high school, but I still cannot see how any 'alternative' understanding of the subject or predicate of the sentence is possible.

Oh, that's simple: Prescriptivism is fucking stupid horseshit that bears no relationship to how real people use language to communicate ideas. English has no rules, other than those mutually agreed from moment to moment by its users.

I am glad I could clear that up so easily for you.

You are mistaken. You didn't clear anything up, except perhaps something like "the sentence means what the majority of people who already agree with bilby say it means".

 

[Gospel]

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.

BTW - Give Covid-19 more time and you'll be thanking them for only saying 190,000.