Scientific American endorses Joe Biden

[Elixir]

Do you ever address anything I actually say ...

YOU won't address the stupid shit you say - why should anyone else?

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

Way to dodge half, and the most pertinent half at that, the question.

 

[Patooka]

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

If I were a pedant, I would ask if what you meant to say was 'Your bubble is safe for you for this moment"

But you are not Scientific American. And I also understand nuance. I like my bubble. It holds reality.

 

[Angry Floof]

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.

You've trashed this entire thread for fucking days now because you need our validation that SA wrote a sloppy sentence??? Yes, they wrote a sloppy sentence. Probably could have been done better.

There. All done. What other validations and pats on the head do you need here, Metaphor? You're waging this ridiculous war, yes, ridiculous, childish, petty fucking war on a message board because no one cares about your microscopic, irrelevant issue with a sloppy sentence.

Everyone, let's all look at Metaphor and together say, "SA wrote a sloppy sentence." Otherwise, we're all in a left wing, hive mind conspiracy against him as he fights the valiant fight of dissent because no one fucking cares that the sentence was sloppy and nothing could be more irrelevant to the god damn point.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

This is a hard year on irony meters.

 

[ZiprHead]

SA wrote a sloppy sentence.

Feel better now, M?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Sorry to respond to this so late in the thread, but you called for a linguist. I can explain the nature of the problem to you, Metaphor. What you are looking at is a structural ambiguity, and your interpretation is just one way to parse the sentence.

“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.

I have underlined the two possible antecedents for "which" in the non-restrictive relative clause. You took "response" as the antecedent, but the authors intended "pandemic" as the antecedent. You were predisposed to interpret the ambiguity that way because of your focus on Biden's awkward phrasing in a different context. Everyone else is jumping on you, because you were unable to see the intended antecedent right away. This really has nothing to do with the comma, which would still be there with either interpretation.

 

[Metaphor]

SA wrote a sloppy sentence.

Feel better now, M?

It depends.

Is that something you genuinely believe now after I pointed it out, and can you see how it might have arisen because people are so ready to blame every COVID death in America on Trump, that they become sloppy? Note that it isn't a post on a messageboard, the piece would have had multiple drafts and editors.

Or, do you not actually believe it was sloppy still, and are lying to me? No, that would not make me feel better.

Or, did you recognise it was sloppy at the start but did not want to concede any point, no matter how minor, to me? No, that doesn't make me feel better.

 

[Metaphor]

"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.



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.

Sorry to respond to this so late in the thread, but you called for a linguist. I can explain the nature of the problem to you, Metaphor. What you are looking at is a structural ambiguity, and your interpretation is just one way to parse the sentence.

“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.

I have underlined the two possible antecedents for "which" in the non-restrictive relative clause. You took "response" as the antecedent, but the authors intended "pandemic" as the antecedent. You were predisposed to interpret the ambiguity that way because of your focus on Biden's awkward phrasing in a different context. Everyone else is jumping on you, because you were unable to see the intended antecedent right away. This really has nothing to do with the comma, which would still be there with either interpretation.

Thank you for this response.

For the avoidance of doubt, the comma has nothing to do with SA's sentence. I brought up the use of a comma (with a different sentence) as an example of how important commas can be to the meaning of a sentence.

I was not predisposed to interpret an ambiguous reference because of Biden's attribution of every COVID death to Trump - I only found out about that later. I read the sentence as being about and focused on a single noun - "response to the COVID-19 pandemic", and that's how I'd read any similarly constructed sentence. And, despite the protestations of most responders, it is not at all obvious to me that SA must have meant COVID-19 rather than Trump's response, since the sentiment that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death in America appears to be held by a large number of people.

 

[Treedbear]

... And, despite the protestations of most responders, it is not at all obvious to me that SA must have meant COVID-19 rather than Trump's response, since the sentiment that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death in America appears to be held by a large number of people.

We on this forum are not the SA editorial board. And having been around here for many years I wouldn't think many posters actually believe that Trump is responsible per se for all 190,000 deaths. It's plainly illogical, and I haven't seen that being claimed in this thread nor in the new media (and I always catch Maddow). And what we might think of Biden's statement is a separate issue.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now that RBG has died, it has awakened me to just how much time I lose dealing with useless drama. We need to use time wisely. If we engage in discussion, there are big issues....

As far as Trump, he doesn't hate science. He just loves himself. He will do anything to stay in power but he has to control everything. He sometimes cannot deal with a fact-based system that tells him he is wrong or incapable of understanding something.

The specifics of why Scientific American has endorsed Biden are clear. It would be irresponsible for SA not to say something where it has expertise...is acutely aware of dishonesty and the risks to tens of thousands more lives.

SA isn't being reckless. They are doing their duty.

 

[Copernicus]

"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.



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.

Sorry to respond to this so late in the thread, but you called for a linguist. I can explain the nature of the problem to you, Metaphor. What you are looking at is a structural ambiguity, and your interpretation is just one way to parse the sentence.

“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.

I have underlined the two possible antecedents for "which" in the non-restrictive relative clause. You took "response" as the antecedent, but the authors intended "pandemic" as the antecedent. You were predisposed to interpret the ambiguity that way because of your focus on Biden's awkward phrasing in a different context. Everyone else is jumping on you, because you were unable to see the intended antecedent right away. This really has nothing to do with the comma, which would still be there with either interpretation.

Thank you for this response.

For the avoidance of doubt, the comma has nothing to do with SA's sentence. I brought up the use of a comma (with a different sentence) as an example of how important commas can be to the meaning of a sentence.

I was not predisposed to interpret an ambiguous reference because of Biden's attribution of every COVID death to Trump - I only found out about that later. I read the sentence as being about and focused on a single noun - "response to the COVID-19 pandemic", and that's how I'd read any similarly constructed sentence. And, despite the protestations of most responders, it is not at all obvious to me that SA must have meant COVID-19 rather than Trump's response, since the sentiment that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death in America appears to be held by a large number of people.

But "[dishonest and inept] response to the COVID-19 pandemic" is not a single noun. It is a phrase consisting of a noun phrase (build up around the head noun "response") and a prepositional phrase (with a noun phrase object whose head noun is "pandemic"): "dishonest and inept response" and the post-modifying prepositional phrase "to the COVID-19 pandemic". The relative clause can modify either the entire "dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic" or the object of the preposition--just "COVID-19 pandemic". I can understand why you preferred to see it as referring to the full phrase rather than prepositional object, but the rest of us do not share your belief that a large number of people believe that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death. That is a totally absurd claim and anyone who would make such an exaggerated claim is clearly just trying to bash Trump supporters. You know that, and you are trying to bash Biden supporters with your equally absurd claim. If you made a sincere effort to understand the sentence, then you would see clearly that it is only claiming that the pandemic is responsible for the deaths, not the dishonest and inept response. In linguistics, we call a structural ambiguity of this sort an "attachment ambiguity". The question is what kind of antecedent phrase the relative clause attaches to.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The specifics of why Scientific American has endorsed Biden are clear. It would be irresponsible for SA not to say something where it has expertise...is acutely aware of dishonesty and the risks to tens of thousands more lives.

SA isn't being reckless. They are doing their duty.

Their duty and purpose as they must and need to see it is to promote the scientific perspective. That's why for the past 175 years it's made sense for them not to be seen as having a political bias on specific issues, and also why at this moment it became necessary for them to express their opinion in no uncertain terms. If you know who is making the statement there is only one way in which it can be interpreted, notwithstanding Joe Biden's or anyone else's agenda.

 

[Treedbear]

On the other hand the issue of whether Trump is responsible for all 190,000 deaths does suggest that there actually may be some number of deaths that he is directly responsible for. Do I have a bid? 50,000 lives? 25,000? SOLD at 10,000 lives US!

 

[Metaphor]

but the rest of us do not share your belief that a large number of people believe that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death. That is a totally absurd claim

There are people on this very message board who believe it, or believe something close to it, or at least they write things indicating they believe it. Whether it is a 'large' number is subjective, granted.

 

[Brian63]

If they stated more explicitly and emphatically that Trump has literally killed 190,000 people himself, then I would find more merit in this view of yours, Metaphor. They do not state that, however. The corrupt and incompetent mismanagement of the pandemic is the more relevant point. That is how I interpreted it when reading it as well. This is much ado about nothing.

 

[fromderinside]

Speculation Metaphor. Speculation. Actually it may all be just your imaginings.

Trump certainly is responsible for fueling the very bad social response to preventive and avoidance measures. Even causal observers know that their president saying or implying the virus is a hoax and "masks are dangerous" is not helping fight the virus. Nor is the President, showing up without mask in public or holding meetings in violation of state dictates that such should not be held, providing evidence of one supporting best scientific practices.

Your straw man is toast.

What your Fake President IS doing is serving his own personal interests in finding worship among his minions. Never in the history of the world has one who is responsible for so much done so little for those to whom he is responsible.*

*^{_{Look a twist of a famous Churchill moment. He made it about himself.}}

 

[Metaphor]

Speculation Metaphor. Speculation. Actually it may all be just your imaginings.

Trump certainly is responsible for fueling the very bad social response to preventive and avoidance measures. Even causal observers know that their president saying or implying the virus is a hoax and "masks are dangerous" is not helping fight the virus. Nor is the President, showing up without mask in public or holding meetings in violation of state dictates that such should not be held, providing evidence of one supporting best scientific practices.

Your straw man is toast.

I have not suggested anywhere that Trump's response to the pandemic was the best one possible, or the best one possible without using hindsight. I am stating that I have seen people talk about the pandemic deaths in America as if Trump was responsible for all of them.

What your Fake President IS doing

He's your president, not mine.

 

[ZiprHead]

but the rest of us do not share your belief that a large number of people believe that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death. That is a totally absurd claim

There are people on this very message board who believe it, or believe something close to it, or at least they write things indicating they believe it. Whether it is a 'large' number is subjective, granted.

It was February 4th when Trump told Woodward the truth about the virus while lying to the American people. So we know at the very latest Trump knew how dangerous it was at that time. By continuing to lie from that time forward, he is responsible for the majority of any deaths or injuries from two weeks after the 4th.

You do the math.

Not to mention the health professionals who have died due to lack of PPE because Trump refused to invoke the defense production act and outright stealing PPE shipments to hospitals.

 

[Elixir]

but the rest of us do not share your belief that a large number of people believe that Trump is responsible for every single COVID-19 death. That is a totally absurd claim

There are people on this very message board who believe it, or believe something close to it, or at least they write things indicating they believe it. Whether it is a 'large' number is subjective, granted.

It was February 4th when Trump told Woodward the truth about the virus while lying to the American people. So we know at the very latest Trump knew how dangerous it was at that time. By continuing to lie from that time forward, he is responsible for the majority of any deaths or injuries from two weeks after the 4th.

You do the math.

Not to mention the health professionals who have died due to lack of PPE because Trump refused to invoke the defense production act and outright stealing PPE shipments to hospitals.

As a card carrying "I'm not a Trumpsucker", Meta has an obligation to try to minimize any and all criticism of Dear Leader. He does not seek accurate representation of culpability, but rather to paint Trumps actions and inaction as ultimately reasonable and acceptable. I find that concerning. It intimates that the polls could be far out of whack with voters' actual voting intent.