Media Bias

[Cunt]

Just as a caution against carelessly trying that 'argue from the right side' idea.

Incautious speech could get one sanctioned in some countries.

[Brian Peacock]

Incautious acts are often sanctioned by society. Speech is an act. If speech does not warrant social sanction then the argument has to be made as to why the act of speaking has to be treated as a special case.

[Scot Dutchy]

Absolutely!

Got to get rid of all that Kool-Aide somehow...

Yeahbut, gravity.

Wear je wellies.

[Scot Dutchy]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again. All data is open to political influence and some less than others. You and Joe seem to have problems with this concept. That you never make a mistake is really as laughable as you accept the Covid data without question. As I have shown especially with Covid data many people especially those dealing with the pandemic do not consider the data worthy and in fact called it a mess.
But yet getting one fact wrong is a terrible crime when you accept the Covid data without any doubt when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary is not? The fact that you keep on repeating it just shows how insecure you are of your position. Do you accept African, Indian and Asian Covid data without question? Go on admit you do. Read this:

Coronavirus: Why are international comparisons difficult?

Everyone wants to know how well their country is tackling the coronavirus pandemic, compared with others.

But there are all sorts of challenges in comparing countries, such as how widely they test for Covid-19 and whether they count deaths from the virus in the same way.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

So, when it comes to comparing countries, what factors do you need to take into account?\

Counting deaths

First of all, there are differences in how countries record Covid-19 deaths.

France and Germany, for example, have been including deaths in care homes in the headline numbers they produce every day.

But the daily figures for England referred only to deaths in hospitals until 29 April, when they started factoring in deaths in care homes as well.

A further complication is that there is no accepted international standard for how you measure deaths, or their causes.

Does somebody need to have been tested for coronavirus to count towards the statistics, or are the suspicions of a doctor enough?

Germany counts deaths in care homes only if people have tested positive for the virus. Belgium, on the other hand, includes any death in which a doctor suspects coronavirus was involved.

The UK's daily figures only count deaths when somebody has tested positive for the virus, but its weekly figures include suspected cases.

Also, does the virus need to be the main cause of death, or does any mention on a death certificate count?

Again, different countries do things differently. So, are you really comparing like with like?

Getting the picture. How futile your pissing up the wall game is?

[Hermit]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again.

The fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth, and that one doesn't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90.

[Scot Dutchy]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again.

The fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth.

Once again a misquote but there you. You never answered the rest of the post because it does not suit you. Covid data is worthless but that is not what you claim is it? Comparing countries is impossible but that is not what you claim for your pissing contest is it? You go on about a mistake I made but your mistakes are huge in comparison.
I have produced more than enough evidence to back my position so how about doing the same and stop repeating a one time mistake of no consequence.
Do you accept the African, Indian and Asian Covid data without question? Go on answer it?

[Hermit]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again.

The fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth.

Once again a misquote but there you.

It is not. I was going about the fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. We discussed Covid data elsewhere.

[Joe]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again. All data is open to political influence and some less than others. You and Joe seem to have problems with this concept. That you never make a mistake is really as laughable as you accept the Covid data without question. As I have shown especially with Covid data many people especially those dealing with the pandemic do not consider the data worthy and in fact called it a mess.
But yet getting one fact wrong is a terrible crime when you accept the Covid data without any doubt when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary is not? The fact that you keep on repeating it just shows how insecure you are of your position. Do you accept African, Indian and Asian Covid data without question? Go on admit you do. Read this:

Coronavirus: Why are international comparisons difficult?

Everyone wants to know how well their country is tackling the coronavirus pandemic, compared with others.

But there are all sorts of challenges in comparing countries, such as how widely they test for Covid-19 and whether they count deaths from the virus in the same way.

]Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

So, when it comes to comparing countries, what factors do you need to take into account?\

Counting deaths

First of all, there are differences in how countries record Covid-19 deaths.

France and Germany, for example, have been including deaths in care homes in the headline numbers they produce every day.

But the daily figures for England referred only to deaths in hospitals until 29 April, when they started factoring in deaths in care homes as well.

A further complication is that there is no accepted international standard for how you measure deaths, or their causes.

Does somebody need to have been tested for coronavirus to count towards the statistics, or are the suspicions of a doctor enough?

Germany counts deaths in care homes only if people have tested positive for the virus. Belgium, on the other hand, includes any death in which a doctor suspects coronavirus was involved.

The UK's daily figures only count deaths when somebody has tested positive for the virus, but its weekly figures include suspected cases.

Also, does the virus need to be the main cause of death, or does any mention on a death certificate count?

Again, different countries do things differently. So, are you really comparing like with like?

Getting the picture. How futile your pissing up the wall game is?

Well, since the topic was wealth distribution in the US, this isn't very relevant.

However, if you are citing this as a refutation to Hermit's comparison of countries doing poorly at managing the virus to those doing well, the part I bolded in red suggests Dr. Spiegelhalter sees such a good/bad comparison as feasible.

Having made this point to you earlier myself, you may want to consider it before you buy a taller set of Wellies.

[Scot Dutchy]

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

Wtf are you on about again.

The fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth.

Once again a misquote but there you.

It is not. I was going about the fact that when you eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" you pulled out of your arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. We discussed Covid data elsewhere.

So all a sudden we cant talk about it here? The Media Bias thread because it does not suit you and Joe but you and keep on misquoting me here because you want to do it here. You have lost in a huge way so why should we listen to you. You are totally wrong about Covid data and making country comparisons but you dont have the guts to admit it. The data is untrustworthy and making country comparisons is useless. Your country is not the good little boy in class because there is no class to start off with! Talk about whistling down the wind.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well, since the topic was wealth distribution in the US, this isn't very relevant.

However, if you are citing this as a refutation to Hermit's comparison of countries doing poorly at managing the virus to those doing well, the part I bolded in red suggests Dr. Spiegelhalter sees such a good/bad comparison as feasible.

The thread topic is Media Bias nothing to do with inequality in the US. Where does he say that?

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

So how do you interpret that a good/bad comparison is feasible?

[Cunt]

Incautious acts are often sanctioned by society. Speech is an act. If speech does not warrant social sanction then the argument has to be made as to why the act of speaking has to be treated as a special case.

I understand that you don't support free speech.

It's a good reason to sanction your 'speech' here, by not weighting it very much for contexts outside your community/country.

Free speech enabled the enlightenment. I think it's more important than any other issue facing the world.

I mean, imagine if a serious issue were verboten, and no-one could talk about it aside from a few government-approved voices...THAT would be dangerous. I mean, if any government wasn't such a good group of ethical folks.

[Brian Peacock]

Incautious acts are often sanctioned by society. Speech is an act. If speech does not warrant social sanction then the argument has to be made as to why the act of speaking has to be treated as a special case.

I understand that you don't support free speech.

It's a good reason to sanction your 'speech' here, by not weighting it very much for contexts outside your community/country.

Free speech enabled the enlightenment. I think it's more important than any other issue facing the world.

I mean, imagine if a serious issue were verboten, and no-one could talk about it aside from a few government-approved voices...THAT would be dangerous. I mean, if any government wasn't such a good group of ethical folks.

I'm all for free speech -- so please don't put words in my mouth -- but the point I was making was that as societies we generally hold people responsible for their acts, and speaking is an act. So I think you have to make some additional argument as to why we shouldn't hold people responsible for their speech in the same way we would for any other of their acts.

[Cunt]

I'm all for free speech -- so please don't put words in my mouth -- but the point was that as societies we generally hold people responsible for their acts, and speaking is an act. So I think you have to make some additional argument as to why we shouldn't hold people responsible for their speech in the same way we would for any other of their acts.

Mr. P, forgive a bit of fuckity-ness, cancer just appeared in my favourite people. Let me try again.

Free speech is more important than everything else, as far as issues go.

Is that firm/clear enough? I'm trying to take a good, firm stand.

Now, your question is a bit beside the issue. You suggest that someone (society?) should hold people responsible.

What does that mean? Should I hold YOU responsible?

I ask that way because I would guess that you would not think me qualified to hold you responsible.

Who IS qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say, or if you should be silenced if you do say something?

[Joe]

Well, since the topic was wealth distribution in the US, this isn't very relevant.

However, if you are citing this as a refutation to Hermit's comparison of countries doing poorly at managing the virus to those doing well, the part I bolded in red suggests Dr. Spiegelhalter sees such a good/bad comparison as feasible.

The thread topic is Media Bias nothing to do with inequality in the US. Where does he say that?

You can't read the quoted portions you edited out of the post you just quoted?

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

He isn't talking about Media Bias or Covid here, just Kool-Aide and national wealth distribution in the US, and yes he could have skipped the Kool-Aide.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

So how do you interpret that a good/bad comparison is feasible?

That's easy, I don't interpret that at all because that's the part you bolded. Again, in editing the post you just quoted, you missed the part I bolded,

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

even though it's the very next sentence after what you bolded,

This is what Hermit did in the Corona Virus thread in comparing the US, Sweden, and the Netherlands to Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. It's obvious that the first group is "way above, in terms of their mortality" the second group, and I notice Spiegelhalter didn't single that type of comparison out as a completely fatuous exercise.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm all for free speech -- so please don't put words in my mouth -- but the point was that as societies we generally hold people responsible for their acts, and speaking is an act. So I think you have to make some additional argument as to why we shouldn't hold people responsible for their speech in the same way we would for any other of their acts.

Mr. P, forgive a bit of fuckity-ness, cancer just appeared in my favourite people. Let me try again.

Free speech is more important than everything else, as far as issues go.

Is that firm/clear enough? I'm trying to take a good, firm stand.

Now, your question is a bit beside the issue. You suggest that someone (society?) should hold people responsible.

What does that mean? Should I hold YOU responsible?

I ask that way because I would guess that you would not think me qualified to hold you responsible.

Who IS qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say, or if you should be silenced if you do say something?

As I've mentioned, speaking is something we do - an act. Are we not responsible for what we do? Are we not accountable for our acts?

So I'd put it this way: Who IS qualified to decide what we should be allowed to do, or if we should be sanctioned if we do do that something? I think you know the answer to that one.

Let's accept that "free speech is more important than everything else", but I'll still ask you again, what makes speaking a special case compared to any other thing we might do? Any ideas? Or is free speech simply being able to say whatever you like to or about anyone you like whenever or wherever you like without consequence?