Well, Biden does feel like he's competing with himself and losing
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors
- Thread starter Troast
- Start date
Well, Biden does feel like he's competing with himself and losing
The author's explanation of his findings constitute evidence in support of Sanders claim, because it is merely an interpretation of the data that the author is presumed to be capable of parsing, and that interpretation is saying what Sanders is saying. The global warming equivalent would be an author of the study saying "this data shows that humans aren't responsible for climate change". The evidence might contradict other evidence, but it is still evidence. This is very similar to expert testimony in court. That testimony counts as evidence even if it is a complete lie.
And you're right, you don't understand, because the author's data is based on cited reasons for declaring bankruptcy by the bankruptcy filers, not solely just picking out bankruptcy filers that had medical bills. 66% of those filers cited the reason for their bankruptcy filing was for medical reasons. Somehow you keep overlooking this fact.
Besides the point. It was completely irresponsible for WaPo to leave that quote in without challenging it, because it is patently false; it's not even debatable.
Oh ok, so as long as you cite anything, regardless of quality or validity, a claim can't be marked false.
That's not what the research actually said and this exact stat is literally what we've been talking about the whole time. Don't say it's being ignored because you can't figure out what's going on.
The question was if medical expenses or loss of work related to illness contributed to their bankruptcy. 66.5% said one or both factors contributed somewhat or very much("somewhat" including "slightly", "fairly", and "moderately"). Therefore "contributed" very explicitly does not mean caused given the broad range assigned to its definition. Therefore stating 66.5% of bankruptcies were caused by medical bills is not supported by the data.
Huh? The editor doesn't even say this editorial wasn't reviewed. It just says a lack of review doesn't imply inaccuracies. WaPo, when referring specifically to the editorial in question before that quote, merely states it didn't receive the same review research papers do.
Nope. But if a citation supports a claim, you saying that it doesn't support it is a non-sensical argument.
Did you read the study?
There were multiple data points that led them to their conclusion, not a single question.
"Lack of peer review" is irrelevant when there is no lack of peer review and carries the implication that there wasn't. The author of the study has asked them to retract it for those reasons, as he claims it besmirches his reputation.
The delagates were the trigger, but it's using loaded language and weasel words throughout. I have up on Salon years ago for this reason. Disingenuous slant is their brand, like a Fox News of the left.
A bad source doesn't support a claim. This is not hard. If I cite a paper that's wrong I haven't supported my claim.
Did you read the study?
There were multiple data points that led them to their conclusion, not a single question.
The definitions I cited are from the study being discussed. The quote you have here is in reference to the CBP study, not this one.
WaPo said it didn't receive the same review. The person directly responsible for editorial content at the journal that published this editorial said that no peer review doesn't mean inaccurate.
The author claims many things.
Support for a claim doesn't mean that the claim is true. Doesn't change the fact that the author of the study is saying what Sanders is saying (even if they were both wrong, which the evidence doesn't suggest that they are)
And there's a lot more that went into the study and their conclusions than the question you quoted, including the basis for their investigation.
And if we're chiefly concerned about the veracity of the claim, then other data like the data from the CBP surveys should not be ignored.
Let me know when you can demonstrate what is being argued here because this is yet again missing the point and I despise arguing in circles.
If they're both wrong the claim isn't true. WaPo is saying they're both wrong. WaPo cites experts who agree they're both wrong.
You cited the figure brainchild. I explained what that figure represented and how it was collected.
And again, no one is saying the data is wrong. I'm sure the data they have about people declaring bankruptcy who had medical bills is great. Suggesting that data is sufficient to show they all declared bankruptcy because of medical bills makes no sense.
Disagreeing is not missing the point. WaPo does not claim the paper was not reviewed. The editor also doesn't claim the paper was not reviewed.
KHarvey16 I really do try to have good faith discussions with everyone, but when the discussion continues to pivot around strawmen and circular logic, it just becomes an unproductive use of my time.
Maybe take the issue up with Elizabeth Warren (one of the co-authors of the CBP survey) and she'll be willing to indulge you, but I'm done with this conversation.
For further reading on this debate that Warren has been involved in for years, check out this piece:
Maybe take the issue up with Elizabeth Warren (one of the co-authors of the CBP survey) and she'll be willing to indulge you, but I'm done with this conversation.
For further reading on this debate that Warren has been involved in for years, check out this piece:
Last edited:
That's just as well brainchild, because I don't don't enjoy having discussions with people that use unfounded accusations to justify bailing out when they're losing.
I don't need to justify bowing out of a discussion. I could have just left without responding to you at all, but I did not because I would rather be transparent about my intent.
I'm sure if you found yourself arguing with a flat-earther, for instance, there would come a point where you realize that nothing productive would come from the discussion and you're better off dropping the argument. Same deal here. Anyone who knows me here knows that I have no problems with heated discussions, or admitting when I'm wrong about something.
And now that I've set the record straight on that, I'm ending my communication with you. Have a good day.
You made unfounded accusations so you could bail without acknowledging that your position fails basic scrutiny. Call that whatever you want.
Now that I've set the record straight you can keep ending that communication. If you want to continue I remain right here, ready to maintain the better argument.
User Banned (1 day): hostility and personal attacks
You get tired stroking your ego? Holy shit lol.
Oh boy don't even get into Australian media. We've got a popular radio guy, Alan Jones, who has used the n word on air and threatened to backhand the New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern and hasn't been fired.
I can see you've been following closely and definitely read what I responded to. Clearly my ego is the issue here.
It's very unfortunate, especially because his argument hinges nearly entirely on the use of a single word ("contribute") in a single question that he doesn't seem to understand the definition of which actually supports the findings of the study:
It's very unfortunate, especially because his argument hinges nearly entirely on the use of a single word ("contribute") in a single question that he doesn't seem to understand the definition of which actually supports the findings of the study:
Keyword "help." Bernie doesn't say medical bills will contribute to those bankruptcies, he says they will cause them. He's wrong and so are you.
But you're done though.
Yeah your argument is technically right but what's the point in being that pedantic? It would be like criticizing someone who said smoking kills 400,000 people a year by saying well, actually, you're wrong, diseases linked to smoking killed 400,000 people each year. It's not a mistake worthy of three pinnochios. It's only worth arguing if you are trying to distract from the main point that nobody should be worried about going bankrupt from medical debt.
Had Bernie said "contributes" or "helps to cause" or something else, there would be no argument here. Maybe his statement would be worth one pinnochio instead.
It seems like the number of pinnochios here is more important than the issue of medical care, at least as far as WaPo Fact Checker is concerned.
Which is why it (corporate media fact checkers) are kind of useless as an branch of the media. They spend too much time policing language usage like the worst kind of pointless internet threads where people try to catch others on technical definition failure.
Yelling "correlation is not causation" over and over again is not a compelling argument, nor is it meaningful towards establishing medical care for the needy.
It seems like the number of pinnochios here is more important than the issue of medical care, at least as far as WaPo Fact Checker is concerned.
Which is why it (corporate media fact checkers) are kind of useless as an branch of the media. They spend too much time policing language usage like the worst kind of pointless internet threads where people try to catch others on technical definition failure.
Yelling "correlation is not causation" over and over again is not a compelling argument, nor is it meaningful towards establishing medical care for the needy.
Or you give a shit about accuracy when it comes to important issues. The "it argues in the right direction and that's all I care about" doesn't satisfy everyone.
And your analogy isn't accurate. It's like saying smoking kills 400,000 people when the data is that 400,000 who died were smokers.
fact-checking is completely useless. Not a single fact-checked curbed conservative propaganda
Alternatively, toning down being so pedantic about everything. "Fact checking" can turn into "Well, Ackshually..." real fast.
Let's get some perspective here. brainchild isn't an enemy just because he's bullish on Bernie. Like...come on guys 😞
That's also not a good analogy. Smoking directly leads to many health conditions including respiratory illness. Cancers of various types are also results of smoking, and all can kill you. A direct line can be drawn from smoking through the resulting illnesses straight to death. Remove smoking and those causes of death don't exist. In contrast, removing medical debt for an unknown number of these respondents would not prevent bankruptcy.
Are you asserting that lung cancer wouldn't exist without smoking? Or perhaps, pneumonia?
And let me just say, the reason I might seem so aggressive in defending Bernie in many cases is because I know for a fact that if I didn't actively investigate disingenuous claims about him on the internet, places like this very forum would be rife with misinformation about him. How do I know this? Because I've seen/let it happen just to see how long it would go unaddressed, and it remained as such until I stepped in to challenge/dispel that misinformation.
Trust me when I say I would very much rather not have to be vigilant about these things, but somebody has to do it.
this whole line of discussion is really just about priorities and which side of the see saw dips
In the cases of cancer, heart disease, pneumonia or diabetes, it is not the case that smoking kills, it's those individual diseases that kills. For lung cancer, it is the metastasizing of tumors. For pneumonia, it is the viral infection. Smoking merely increases the chance of you acquiring those diseases. That's why sometimes non-smokers get lung cancer and frequent smokers can go through their entire life without fatal respiratory problems. Diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, happen independent of smoking as well, to my knowledge.
I'm unsure which "causes of death" you're referring to that would be removed with the removal of smoking. All smoking-related illnesses I know of exist even without the need for the person in question to have smoked in their life.
I should note that I, personally, don't believe there's a meaningful distinction between "smoking kills" and "many respiratory fatalities are exacerbated by smoking". It is only relevant in a philosophy/linguistics class where you're discussing Hume and Wittgenstein. Which is fine! I like philosophy and linguistics, but I'd rather not have my media-informed politics bogged down by semantic debate. It is like saying "climate change isn't meaningful because climate always changes". This kind of pedantry is pretty much never productive.
LOL what? You "have to be" vigilant about defending a political candidate on a somewhat obscure video game forum? That's your calling? And LMAO at your casting it as some noble pursuit and service to humanity.
This is goofy.
Yes, in fact there was an article on the latter on the top bar of wapo.com as you typed this post.
In the cases of cancer, heart disease, pneumonia or diabetes, it is not the case that smoking kills, it's those individual diseases that kills. For lung cancer, it is the metastasizing of tumors. For pneumonia, it is the viral infection. Smoking merely increases the chance of you acquiring those diseases. That's why sometimes non-smokers get lung cancer and frequent smokers can go through their entire life without fatal respiratory problems.
I'm unsure which "causes of death" you're referring to that would be removed with the removal of smoking. All smoking-related illnesses I know of exist even without the need for the person in question to have smoked in their life.
I should note that I, personally, don't believe there's a meaningful distinction between "smoking kills" and "many respiratory fatalities are exacerbated by smoking". It is only relevant in a philosophy/linguistics class where you're discussing Hume and Wittgenstein. Which is fine! I like philosophy and linguistics, but I'd rather not have my media-informed politics bogged down by semantic debate. It is like saying "climate change isn't meaningful because climate always changes". This kind of pedantry is pretty much never productive.
A person who smokes may develop an illness they would not have received had they not been a smoker. There is potentially a direct line between smoking, illness and death. You're trying hard to salvage a poor analogy but it's not working.
A good analogy to this study would be taking the number of people who died from cancer, seeing how many smoked, and saying that number were killed by smoking. Never mind what kind of cancer it was. But hey, it supports the point smoking is bad and we all agree on that, so who cares if we fudge things a little?
Another mis-characterization of what I said. How surprising /s.
First, I don't believe in a "calling" let alone suggest that I have one. Second, I'm not just talking about resetera, that was just an example. And finally, helping the world to be less ignorant about many things (something that I try to do often in many aspects of my work/life) is a noble pursuit, though I wasn't arguing that what I do should be commended for being noble.
You're seeing what you want to see in my words, based on your perception of me.
It's a perfectly good analogy, watch:
A person who has medical debt may have bankruptcy they would not have received had they not had medical debt. There is potentially a direct line between medical debt, and bankruptcy.
Of course! The whole point is this study does not identify those cases exclusively.
Yeah I don't know what the Fact Checker column has run on Biden, I'd have to search.
hence the analogy of being pendantic about saying smoking kills
Huh? No. The study doesn't identify those people. It identifies a lot of people for which that more exclusive group is a subset, but then tries to describe the entire larger group as if it were the smaller. Do you understand? I feel you're not really seeing the disconnect here.
It's not about needing to vote someone down, it's about avoiding 1968 and the violence there again. Ironically the first guy they nominated in the modern primary system was *probably* someone the backroom bigwigs needed to shut down, but couldn't.
Addressing disingenuous pedantry and not allowing sophistry to flourish is incredibly draining, and since the whole point of these corrections/demerits/attacks on Sanders are put forth under the guise of being for "clarity", it's an important thing to stop the spread of misinformation. Misinformation about political candidates and policies shouldn't be allowed to spread— because tangibly bad things can result—no matter what forum or social media platform it's being perpetuated on.
The goof is you.
Keep up the good work, brainchild
And that violence was a direct result of the way in which the nominee was selected, and that method was changed for that reason.
My point is, having superdelegates use the "emergency kill switch" option doesn't necessarily avoid that kind of response, and may actually cause it, as it is inherently undemocratic.
When people say smoking kills they take everyone who has died from smoking related diseases (which you can get from other things besides smoking) as a smoker and attributes it to smoking. Much like when Bernie sanders says 500,000 people go bankrupt from medical debt, he has taken everyone who has gone bankrupt (which you can go into with other reasons) with medical debt and attributes it to medical debt because in both cases, as you say:
A person who smokes may develop an illness they would not have received had they not been a smoker. There is potentially a direct line between smoking, illness and death.
Similarly:
A person who has medical debt may have bankruptcy they would not have received had they not had medical debt. There is potentially a direct line between medical debt, and bankruptcy.
KHharvey feels like the exact example of what the Sanders people have been referencing and what we have been pointing out. How can you respond to evidence of bias and narratives in the media by just doing the exact same thing that media is accused of?
Stop the semantics game to hold up a strawman argument and look at reality of how things operate
Stop the semantics game to hold up a strawman argument and look at reality of how things operate
You're not following.
If I said 400,000 people who died were smokers, would it be accurate to say smoking killed 400,000 people?
Of course it wouldn't. This is what those people who take a look at those declaring bankruptcy, find a certain percentage had medical debt, and claim therefore that percentage of people declared bankruptcy because of medical debt. There exists the potential for a direct line between medical debt and bankruptcy, but the method this study used does not solely identify these people. It's using the "400,000 people who died were smokers therefore smoking killed 400,000 people" reasoning.