Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Metaphor]

Frankly, the "Oh so many people around here claim Trump did it" is a sneaky way to insert an attack on other posters. And when we examine those claims by looking at posts we can see that those were exaggerations by Metaphor.

They are not exaggerations. There are people in this thread right now who blame 190,000 deaths on Trump.

Now, besides this, if one looks further at the article and all the context provided by drilling down into the facts, one can see that other countries are looked at where even when the policies were good, they still resulted in deaths, and so again, one has to make an inference that SA does NOT believe Trump is the cause of 100% of deaths if those exemplar countries are lauded....and all in the context that even with good policies countries and systems will be strained...they write: "[t]he pandemic would strain any nation and system..."

I already said I don't believe SA think Trump caused 190,000 deaths. I think they were recklessly indifferent to the sloppiness of their grammar.

The TFT forum, previously FRDB, and previous to that IIDB, has a rich history. This history includes increasing awareness of science and logic, increasing awareness of logical fallacies...debates...debates against Creationists. An exploration of Creationist propaganda--to include frowning upon quote-mining. As rational people we ought not accept biased interpretations based on taking a sentence out of context, but instead in our tradition of logic and analysis, we ought to look at context and use Reason.

You've twice misrepresented me and the facts in your above post alone.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They are not exaggerations. There are people in this thread right now who blame 190,000 deaths on Trump.



I already said I don't believe SA think Trump caused 190,000 deaths. I think they were recklessly indifferent to the sloppiness of their grammar.

The TFT forum, previously FRDB, and previous to that IIDB, has a rich history. This history includes increasing awareness of science and logic, increasing awareness of logical fallacies...debates...debates against Creationists. An exploration of Creationist propaganda--to include frowning upon quote-mining. As rational people we ought not accept biased interpretations based on taking a sentence out of context, but instead in our tradition of logic and analysis, we ought to look at context and use Reason.

You've twice misrepresented me and the facts in your above post alone.

They weren't recklessly sloppy with their grammar. Anyone reading the sentence ought to be reading the whole article and the attached link. No one should exclude that the word "pandemic" is a noun. And you called me "unhinged" and you know why. So don't even start with your BS.

I am done with you. Welcome to ignore.

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing ambiguous about it. In what universe does "a curious exhibit was the jewelled hat made for the Queen's beagle" mean that the curious exhibit was the Queen's beagle?

You really do have a problem with the English language. It is a legitimate interpretation that the beagle not the jewelled hat is the curious exhibit. That does not mean it it is preferred or common interpretation.

Okay. My English teachers K-12 have a lot of 'splaining to do.

Maybe, but then again teachers are not necessarily responsible for their students lack of learning.

 

[Metaphor]

They are not exaggerations. There are people in this thread right now who blame 190,000 deaths on Trump.



I already said I don't believe SA think Trump caused 190,000 deaths. I think they were recklessly indifferent to the sloppiness of their grammar.

The TFT forum, previously FRDB, and previous to that IIDB, has a rich history. This history includes increasing awareness of science and logic, increasing awareness of logical fallacies...debates...debates against Creationists. An exploration of Creationist propaganda--to include frowning upon quote-mining. As rational people we ought not accept biased interpretations based on taking a sentence out of context, but instead in our tradition of logic and analysis, we ought to look at context and use Reason.

You've twice misrepresented me and the facts in your above post alone.

They weren't recklessly sloppy with their grammar. Anyone reading the sentence ought to be reading the whole article and the attached link. No one should exclude that the word "pandemic" is a noun. And you called me "unhinged" and you know why. So don't even start with your BS.

I am done with you. Welcome to ignore.

Bye.

 

[ZiprHead]

My priorities are not yours. I do not rank-order my priorities based on what Don2 thinks they ought be. That's the latest attack directed at me - my 'priorities' are not someone else's. It's such an absurd attack. Someone, somewhere, is lobbying their local council right now to get a 'STOP' sign added to a certain T-junction. Priorities! People are dying and you want a 'STOP' sign installed!

Everyone here knows your bullshit priorities.

You're not fooling anyone.

What, precisely, do you imagine my priorities to be, and what actions have I taken that are evidence I am trying to "fool" people?

In response, I'll ask this again:

You're big on calling out lies and hypocrisy, you start a new thread or jump on a subject almost daily, yet not one thread started by you on Trump's monumental lies and hypocrisy.

What are we supposed to think about this?

 

[Metaphor]

What, precisely, do you imagine my priorities to be, and what actions have I taken that are evidence I am trying to "fool" people?

In response, I'll ask this again:

You're big on calling out lies and hypocrisy, you start a new thread or jump on a subject almost daily, yet not one thread started by you on Trump's monumental lies and hypocrisy.

What are we supposed to think about this?

You are supposed to think that I am calling out lies and hypocrisy that other people on this board consistently overlook?

I don't know what you're supposed to think about it. What do you think about people who start multiple threads about Trump's lies, or Republican lies, but don't start multiple threads about Democrat lies?

For example, what do you think about Elixir flaunting his phantasia - originating multiple threads including one thred title that references me personally for some reason - about Trump taking over America as dictator after losing the November election?

 

[Patooka]

In response, I'll ask this again:

You are supposed to think that I am calling out lies and hypocrisy that other people on this board consistently overlook?

I don't know what you're supposed to think about it. What do you think about people who start multiple threads about Trump's lies, or Republican lies, but don't start multiple threads about Democrat lies?

For example, what do you think about Elixir flaunting his phantasia - originating multiple threads including one thred title that references me personally for some reason - about Trump taking over America as dictator after losing the November election?

Do you think we should disregard everything Scientific American wrote because of one example of rhetorical hyperbole you disagree with? If so, why? I'm not fucking about, I genuinely want to know where you are coming from.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think we should disregard everything Scientific American wrote because of one example of rhetorical hyperbole you disagree with? If so, why? I'm not fucking about, I genuinely want to know where you are coming from.

No. I didn't write the OP. I brought up SA's wording because I noticed it was part of a pattern: the casual use of language, by people on this board, by people on Twitter, by the media, to imply Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death.

And indeed, Biden himself has said it:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1306763697772085250

"If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people — I’m not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data."

From what I can tell, exactly zero people on this board spoke about this outrageous comment from Biden. Even the fucking media did its job for once and fact-checked it.




No doubt this too shall pass uncommented, or perhaps it will be excused with 'it was a gaffe', or perhaps I'll be scolded for bringing up Biden and not Trump, as if there were not already 99% of posters on this board doing nothing but posting Trump shit day in and day out, endlessly and relentlessly, and it's my duty to either add to that glorious chorus or get the fuck out.

 

[Patooka]

I guess it is down to equivalence then, and it's pretty fucking clear clear what you and I describe as equal in measurement are very different things, I hope there is enough oxygen in the bubble you live in.

 

[Metaphor]

I guess it is down to equivalence then, and it's pretty fucking clear clear what you and I describe as equal in measurement are very different things, I hope there is enough oxygen in the bubble you live in.

The bubble? Gospa moja, are you serious?

Let me get this straight: I am a dissenting voice on this message board, a message board where the vast majority of posters more or less agree with each other on every economic, political, and social issue that's raised, but I'm the one in a bubble?

 

[Angry Floof]

I guess it is down to equivalence then, and it's pretty fucking clear clear what you and I describe as equal in measurement are very different things, I hope there is enough oxygen in the bubble you live in.

The bubble? Gospa moja, are you serious?

Let me get this straight: I am a dissenting voice on this message board, a message board where the vast majority of posters more or less agree with each other on every economic, political, and social issue that's raised, but I'm the one in a bubble?

Being the only "dissenting" voice doesn't make you right. Isn't there a formal fallacy about this? Even if not, I know it's a fallacy that the religious often rely on. "We're going against the mainstream, so therefore we're right."

 

[Patooka]

I guess it is down to equivalence then, and it's pretty fucking clear clear what you and I describe as equal in measurement are very different things, I hope there is enough oxygen in the bubble you live in.

The bubble? Gospa moja, are you serious?

Let me get this straight: I am a dissenting voice on this message board, a message board where the vast majority of posters more or less agree with each other on every economic, political, and social issue that's raised, but I'm the one in a bubble?

That's right, you live in a bubble. Your lack of comment on equivalence speaks volume. My attitude towards Biden is very different to most posters. I have made my stance on that very clear. You, on the other hand are propagating am assertion the is basically, "Only 99% of what Scientific American is accusing Trump is accurate so we must dismiss everything!". That is Charlie Kirk thinking.

Also, you have provided no argument differentiating the two attitudes I have provided.

 

[Metaphor]

Being the only "dissenting" voice doesn't make you right.

When did I say or imply that it did? I was defending myself against the absurd claim I was in a bubble, that I was cocooned in my own echo-chamber where dissenting views are neither sought nor given a chance. This coming from somebody who, inasmuch as I can tell, is the one in the 'bubble', the one on a messageboard where more or less the vast majority of posters agree with Patooka's general sentiment on any political, social, or economic topic.

Isn't there a formal fallacy about this?

Is there a word for constantly and relentlessly assuming somebody is saying something he hasn't said and didn't imply and doesn't believe, as long as that person is an ideological enemy? Because you are doing whatever that word is.

 

[Metaphor]

That's right, you live in a bubble. Your lack of comment on equivalence speaks volume. My attitude towards Biden is very different to most posters.

Really? Is it different enough to say you want Trump to win over Biden? I suspect not.

I have made my stance on that very clear. You, on the other hand are propagating am assertion the is basically, "Only 99% of what Scientific American is accusing Trump is accurate so we must dismiss everything!".

The fuck I did. The FUCK I said we must dismiss everything.

I said nothing else about SA's post, because I didn't see anything in particular to say about it. I took issue with its framing of Trump as responsible for every single COVID death, a stance I was thoroughly excoriated for, a stance I was told was ludicrous to think other people thought it, even though other people do think it, other people say it, and Joe Biden himself has said it.

But I'm the one in the bubble.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I guess it is down to equivalence then, and it's pretty fucking clear clear what you and I describe as equal in measurement are very different things, I hope there is enough oxygen in the bubble you live in.

The bubble? Gospa moja, are you serious?

Let me get this straight: I am a dissenting voice on this message board, a message board where the vast majority of posters more or less agree with each other on every economic, political, and social issue that's raised, but I'm the one in a bubble?

That's right, you live in a bubble. Your lack of comment on equivalence speaks volume. My attitude towards Biden is very different to most posters. I have made my stance on that very clear. You, on the other hand are propagating am assertion the is basically, "Only 99% of what Scientific American is accusing Trump is accurate so we must dismiss everything!". That is Charlie Kirk thinking.

Also, you have provided no argument differentiating the two attitudes I have provided.

Kinda have to agree with you there. Your bubble is safe for you moment

 

[Angry Floof]

Being the only "dissenting" voice doesn't make you right.

When did I say or imply that it did? I was defending myself against the absurd claim I was in a bubble, that I was cocooned in my own echo-chamber where dissenting views are neither sought nor given a chance. This coming from somebody who, inasmuch as I can tell, is the one in the 'bubble', the one on a messageboard where more or less the vast majority of posters agree with Patooka's general sentiment on any political, social, or economic topic.

Isn't there a formal fallacy about this?

Is there a word for constantly and relentlessly assuming somebody is saying something he hasn't said and didn't imply and doesn't believe, as long as that person is an ideological enemy? Because you are doing whatever that word is.

No, you are not our enemy. That's in your head.

 

[bilby]

Could someone move the seven derail posts at the beginning of this thread about Metaphor, into a new thread? They seem to be discussing Scientific American, and their endorsement of Joe Biden for President, and are in jarring contrast with the hundred and twenty eight subsequent posts.

I am a little concerned that Metaphor might be upset at these first seven posts, as they aren't even tangentially about him.

 

[Metaphor]

Could someone move the seven derail posts at the beginning of this thread about Metaphor, into a new thread? They seem to be discussing Scientific American, and their endorsement of Joe Biden for President, and are in jarring contrast with the hundred and twenty eight subsequent posts.

I am a little concerned that Metaphor might be upset at these first seven posts, as they aren't even tangentially about him.

So, let's break this down.

The first post is by Angry Floof is posted in agreement with SA's op-ed.

Then the next three are agree, agree, agree.

Then we get another "implied" agree, but the substance of the post is bashing right-wingers.

Another 'agree' and speculation on voter effect, again bashing right-wingers.

Another implied 'agree', again bashing right-wingers.

Then, I make a post, the first of the posts that are 'about Metaphor', according to bilby. Now, I thought I had commented on the OP, and I admit there was an 'I've' in there - but I didn't particularly think it was 'about Metaphor'.

Now, some cynic somewhere might observe that bilby has no interest in actually moving any posts anywhere. If he did, the cynic would say, bilby'd've have posted something on the mod board. No, the cynic continues, bilby contributes to the problem of the thread being 'about Metaphor' by making a post about Metaphor, to mock Metaphor, because Metaphor is a narcissist who wants everything to be about him, unlike bilby, who doesn't want to score snarky points at all, he's just thinking of the health of the message board.

Don't worry, I blocked that cynic.

 

[Angry Floof]

Could someone move the seven derail posts at the beginning of this thread about Metaphor, into a new thread? They seem to be discussing Scientific American, and their endorsement of Joe Biden for President, and are in jarring contrast with the hundred and twenty eight subsequent posts.

I am a little concerned that Metaphor might be upset at these first seven posts, as they aren't even tangentially about him.

So, let's break this down.

The first post is by Angry Floof is posted in agreement with SA's op-ed.

Then the next three are agree, agree, agree.

Then we get another "implied" agree, but the substance of the post is bashing right-wingers.

Another 'agree' and speculation on voter effect, again bashing right-wingers.

Another implied 'agree', again bashing right-wingers.

Then, I make a post, the first of the posts that are 'about Metaphor', according to bilby. Now, I thought I had commented on the OP, and I admit there was an 'I've' in there - but I didn't particularly think it was 'about Metaphor'.

Now, some cynic somewhere might observe that bilby has no interest in actually moving any posts anywhere. If he did, the cynic would say, bilby'd've have posted something on the mod board. No, the cynic continues, bilby contributes to the problem of the thread being 'about Metaphor' by making a post about Metaphor, to mock Metaphor, because Metaphor is a narcissist who wants everything to be about him, unlike bilby, who doesn't want to score snarky points at all, he's just thinking of the health of the message board.

Don't worry, I blocked that cynic.

Or maybe nobody cares that it's you, just that your commentary on this topic is ridiculous.

 

[Metaphor]

Could someone move the seven derail posts at the beginning of this thread about Metaphor, into a new thread? They seem to be discussing Scientific American, and their endorsement of Joe Biden for President, and are in jarring contrast with the hundred and twenty eight subsequent posts.

I am a little concerned that Metaphor might be upset at these first seven posts, as they aren't even tangentially about him.

So, let's break this down.

The first post is by Angry Floof is posted in agreement with SA's op-ed.

Then the next three are agree, agree, agree.

Then we get another "implied" agree, but the substance of the post is bashing right-wingers.

Another 'agree' and speculation on voter effect, again bashing right-wingers.

Another implied 'agree', again bashing right-wingers.

Then, I make a post, the first of the posts that are 'about Metaphor', according to bilby. Now, I thought I had commented on the OP, and I admit there was an 'I've' in there - but I didn't particularly think it was 'about Metaphor'.

Now, some cynic somewhere might observe that bilby has no interest in actually moving any posts anywhere. If he did, the cynic would say, bilby'd've have posted something on the mod board. No, the cynic continues, bilby contributes to the problem of the thread being 'about Metaphor' by making a post about Metaphor, to mock Metaphor, because Metaphor is a narcissist who wants everything to be about him, unlike bilby, who doesn't want to score snarky points at all, he's just thinking of the health of the message board.

Don't worry, I blocked that cynic.

Or maybe nobody cares that it's you, just that your commentary on this topic is ridiculous.

Do you ever address anything I actually say, or are you content to simply label everything I say ridiculous?

I cannot create the counterfactual universe now, but I'd have liked to see this thread if I'd never written a word about SA's sloppy sentence. I think it would be about twenty posts agreeing with the OP and/or bashing right-wingers, and then fin.