The Gaming Den

Just to be clear, I was not arguing that the overall number should be smaller. Just that the way it was derived seemed off.

There are a lot of factors to take into account, lower death tolls overall due to smaller populations versus much higher rates of denial of care, versus the difference in care today and in the past (being denied care today is likely worse on survival rates since there are much better standards of care).

Considering that a large chunk of population is not even included in the studies and taking into account all those above factors and more it is quite probable that the number as Frank suggests is closer to 3-6 million in the last 60 or so years. I just like having a transparent method of deriving the numbers so that nobody can go whacko and dismiss likely numbers because of misunderstanding the methods.

tzor wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:Yeah Frank how dare you make a ball park estimate.

Yea I mean it's 45K/Year as a result of lack of insurance.
And it's 440K/Year as a result of smoking.
And it's 1,370K/Year as a result of abortions.

Translation: It's OK if I kill this hobo over there, other people kill more hobos than me. You are missing the trillions killed each day by not using up each and every sperm though, Tzor. That would give you a nice baseline to compare to that makes even the Holocaust, Japanese war crimes, Stalin's insanity and the slaughter of the American native people seem tame.

But even if I would agree with your way of thinking you are still wrong. First, abortions are not necessarily preventable (a clothes hanger will do after all), are arguably not deaths at all (not of independent life anyway) and do not even mean there are less babies in the world (the same woman who aborts today may well decide to have a child two years later). So that part is absolute bullshit. Smoking on the other hand isn't. But while I am all in favor of completely banning smoking in public places there is a big difference between someone dying from lack of health care and someone dying from smoking: deaths from lack of health care are unnecessary and involuntary. If someone decides to smoke twenty cigarettes a day and the risks are worth it to him, that is fine with me. I still worry about impressionable youths, secondhand smoke and the burden placed on the health care system, but in principle people poisoning themselves for pleasure are fine with me. Killing off the poor on the other hand is preventable and I am damn sure each and every one of them would love to have insurance. Comparing them to smoking deaths is just insane.

clikml wrote:Considering that a large chunk of population is not even included in the studies and taking into account all those above factors and more it is quite probable that the number as Frank suggests is closer to 3-6 million in the last 60 or so years. I just like having a transparent method of deriving the numbers so that nobody can go whacko and dismiss likely numbers because of misunderstanding the methods.

The thing is that the whackos dismiss every set of numbers, no matter how explicitly derived. Challenges on individual reports will be for any of a number of reasons, and almost all of them will be disingenuous.

Let's take the Global Warming numbers for example. The NASA and NOAA numbers are available and have been available for decades. The denialists never use them for anything, because they tell a pretty clear story about AGW. However, some of the European national weather services give out numbers without giving reprinting rights (in the same manner as photographers license the usage of copyrighted photos). And because the Climate Study units don't have a legal right to release that data, the Denialosphere is ripe with conspiracy theories about how Climate Scientists are hiding "the data." Even though not all of the studies even use that data - you get the same story out of the open source data from the American sources.

It's just an example of shifting goalposts. Tzor is going to deny any assertion about how there is a moral imperative to reform our healthcare and energy system to stop killing so many of our people. His posts will be argued based on the latest memes floating in the denialosphere, and they will usually have nothing whatever to do with the facts at hand.

If anything, throwing out a conservative and very defensible figure with no attribution is a great strategy. Because as you noticed, Tzor's response was not something reasonable like "I don't know where you got that number and I don't know if I can trust it." but was instead that giant piece of crazy, because he thought he smelled blood in the water and ran in all half-cocked. So if anyone was on the fence about whether Tzor was interacting with the reality-based community, that particular exchange should have settled it.

I didn't go for a larger number, because I frankly didn't have to. And because Tzor would run in and rant about how any number is nothing but lies spread by extremists (extremists led by Al Gore and Margaret Thatcher apparently), and in doing so he exposed himself as the out-of-touch extremist that, let's face it: he is. I can make an argument that we've killed 6 million or even 10 million, but it's all statistics at that point - once it stops being a million it stops being a crime and starts being a mistake.

-Username17

In spite of the fact that most of you seem to have ignored my original point; I’m going back to it again. Frank pulls this big number out of the air and says that this big number is the number of people who our current health policy killed, without giving it in context or explaining that this is a 60 year sum. Instead it’s a McCarthy like pulling out this “big number” and expecting to win the argument because it’s a big number.

But if you then compare like to like, it’s a small number. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but at least it can be seen and discussed in context.

(And yes, every abortion – or almost every abortion – results in one death; the numbers of abortions that are actually performed on already brain dead fetuses are relatively small. I don’t care if it is a mercy killing, I don’t care if the mother’s life is in danger; it is still a killing. When you are talking about numbers, you talk about numbers. Now if you want to talk about numbers in context; I will if Frank will, but he doesn’t so why should I?)

And again, these numbers are bullshit. You can’t compare A in a vacuum; you need to compare A with something. If you state that the current system is killing people you need to prove that these people would not have died had X, Y, or Z been implemented way back when. Yes I’m sure we would all be living happier lives if Teddy Roosevelt had his way back when, or if FDR had the guts to add it to Social Security. At least I think we would, I certainly can’t prove it one way or the other. But what is the old saying, “that was then.” Now you have to compare the current system with the proposed system. You need to ask if you are merely trading one set of causes of death with another set of causes of death.

But that is not how people like Gore and Trollman argue; they prefer to use the power of fear and elite superiority to bully their way in an argument. It’s a pity; sometimes these snake oil salesmen are actually promoting a good cause.

FrankTrollman wrote:Our Healthcare policy already killed more than 2.7 million Americans. So you'll forgive me for not giving rightwing dismissals any credit at all.

FrankTrollman wrote:It's just an example of shifting goalposts. Tzor is going to deny any assertion about how there is a moral imperative to reform our healthcare and energy system to stop killing so many of our people. His posts will be argued based on the latest memes floating in the denialosphere, and they will usually have nothing whatever to do with the facts at hand.

If anything, throwing out a conservative and very defensible figure with no attribution is a great strategy. Because as you noticed, Tzor's response was not something reasonable like "I don't know where you got that number and I don't know if I can trust it." but was instead that giant piece of crazy, because he thought he smelled blood in the water and ran in all half-cocked. So if anyone was on the fence about whether Tzor was interacting with the reality-based community, that particular exchange should have settled it.

That’s bullshit Frank. You fucking pulled this number out and slammed it down without context as some sort of stone tablet you just got carved for you by some nameless god. This was in the context of Al Gore pulling the same shit with his doomsday scenario of the week. It is bullshit arguments like that I object to.

Now, for a brief word on Frank’s assertion “Tzor is going to deny any assertion about how there is a moral imperative to reform our healthcare and energy system.” Well that is so much bullshit I don’t know where to begin, so I’ll start from the first point and move on to the second.

I think there is a definite moral imperative to reform our healthcare system! I just think it needs a different set of reforms than what is being proposed.

I don’t think there is a “moral” imperative to reform our energy system; I think there is a practical one. But like healthcare, this requires more than just a very large band-aid; this requires a significant rethinking of everything about the whole energy ststem.

So if you want a discussion; fine. If you want to pull a McCarthy/Gore I’m going to call you on it; every time!

But as we have already gone over, at length Gore's statement wasn't inaccurate or pulled out of his ass. It, like my own, was an entirely true statement. One which you, Tzor, uncritically rejected without any fact checking whatsoever.

McCarthy's famous list numbers were just lies pulled out of nowhere. The famous picture of him shaking a list of communists is actually a grocery list. It's not the same thing at all.

In fact Tzor, your arguments have been wholly uncritical and completely unreasonable. You've scoured the internets for bizarre screeds about how Margaret Thatcher created Global Warming as a policy issue. And then you posted them, completely uncritically. And when people showed the basic before/after problem where larger and richer countries had seriously passed legislation on the issue before Thatcher spoke about it, you... continued to use that talking point.

McCarthy isn't famous for using a talking point in a discussion that he didn't source in the middle of his sentence, he's famous for lying. That is: using a talking point that is false. Like you did with the Margaret Thatcher / Global Warming talking point. And completely unlike the stuff that you're complaining about Al Gore doing, because the stuff Al Gore said that you're complaining about is still actually true.

So in this conversation, Al Gore and McCarthy are very different people, as they are in almost every other context. And in the metaphor of this conversation, I get to be Al Gore, and you get to be McCarthy.

-Username17

How do you say that Gore's statements were all entirely true statements, Frank?

Having watched the movie and other speeches, he peppers them with rather fake vagaries and half-lies, in my opinion.

The bottom line of what he says is true but he gets there by telling a few lies. Which really does suck in my opinion.

I'll try to look up what I"m talking about but I don't have access to the movie right this minute.

I'm just curious as to what you mean?

tzor wrote:(And yes, every abortion – or almost every abortion – results in one death; the numbers of abortions that are actually performed on already brain dead fetuses are relatively small. I don’t care if it is a mercy killing, I don’t care if the mother’s life is in danger; it is still a killing.

Call it a death or killing or whatever if you must insist on being a screeching twit, it still doesn't change the fact that potential existence < mother's choice. I'm not saying whether or not it's a life, I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether or not it is.

Where do the realities of the people in the here and now trump the rights of the potential people of the future in your world? If all abortions are banned, do you now start going after people that refuse to have children? (They're denying their potential offspring the right to existance!) If someone is killed and it is known by friends and family that they wanted to have/sire 5 children, is it reasonable to charge the killer for the 5 people that won't be? Is it wrong to abort a Downs baby, as the error of biology that it is, and start over because you recognize that you're not willing to sacrifice your life like that?

We have an obligation to the needs and wants of the people that are here right now. We can certainly work to accomodate the people that will be here after us, and attempt to make things better for them, but not at an unreasonable expense to ourselves. There are very good arguments for providing food, shelter, health, and security to the people (metaphorically) living next door, but there is no call for facilitating the children they may or may not have, regardless of how much they might want them.

Isn't that what you conservatives rail against all the time anyway--the mythical welfare mother spitting out kids like the alien queen in order to siphon the system? Why the fuck would you want to prevent that woman from deciding that she doesn't need another kid? Why the fuck is your preferred method to be willing to inflict hardship on her existing kids, by cutting, denying, or defunding services (little bastards should have picked a better mother!), in order to punish her?

Regarding U.S. Healthcare
The basis behind 45000 deaths a year (current).
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... hs-a-year/

With the study paper link embedded in the article:
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-ins ... adults.pdf

Plain english? Not having insurance kills people. It was a strongly suspected correlation that is consitently being proven as fact. Seriously, any debate about not wanting total coverage for people is truly a debate about how many people that you wish to die.

This, in fact, is fine...we debate how much people are worth and how many we feel will die whenever we design a highway. The kicker comes in when you realize the current system:
A) Costs more than other plans availabe for plagiarism and
B) Provides coverage to less people than those systems
http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992- ... -countries

As a business plan it is full of fail. There is no reason that legislators should not be revamping it, other than being incompetent, corrupt or both (lazy may fit in there too).

Cynic wrote:How do you say that Gore's statements were all entirely true statements, Frank?

Because:

A) Gore's statement included the detail that it was a remark, not a scientific estimate.

B) The guy really did say that, even if he was cornered into retracting it.

C) '80% reduction' and 'chance of weather condition' are not conflicting statements in meteorology.

D) It still may come true.

You may find the recording of his climate talk 'peppered with half-truths' but the majority of scientists do not.

-Crissa

Cynic wrote:How do you say that Gore's statements were all entirely true statements, Frank?

Because they worship him. It's sad; really.

There is a very thorough discussion about Al Gore's movie by climate scientists Here.

If they don't see any of these malicious lies that conservatives are always whining about, I don't either. I mean fuck, he said changes in "aerosols" were visible in the ice cores just two years after the clean air act. When really the visible changes are lead dust. What-fucking-ever.

Tzor was on this very thread claiming that CO2 was a minor greenhouse gas that couldn't be measurably raising the temperature of the world. One is wording choice that experts in the field grumble about slightly, the other is an outright lie. It's really obvious which side of the debate reality and truth side with.

-Username17

Monkeys trained in Taekwondo turn against their master :

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... onkey.html

Did you notice how he skipped the answers and didn't refute them? Going straight to an insult?

tzor wrote:

Cynic wrote:How do you say that Gore's statements were all entirely true statements, Frank?

Because they worship him. It's sad; really. :mantears:

Also, definitionally, the lead dust in the ice cores came from lead aerosol, as it was in a suspended liquid and then launched into the atmosphere as a gas, and then came back down as a solid.

No one seems to complain that if you spray a water aerosol that it might come out of the atmosphere as a solid!

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Also, definitionally, the lead dust in the ice cores came from lead aerosol, as it was in a suspended liquid and then launched into the atmosphere as a gas, and then came back down as a solid.

Yeah, to people outside the climate science community, to whom he was actually talking, the statement isn't inaccurate at all. Within the climate science community, they have a specific meaning when they use the word "aerosol" referring to Nitrites and such. So they grumble because Gore was probably using the word in its normal meaning rather than in the specific trade-speak that would be used in an actual climate science publication.

But that's what we're left with as far as actual Gore "errors." Him using words in their Natural English meaning in a presentation for a general audience. This would be like him describing a D&D character and speaking about Regeneration as one of his defenses - when of course people in the D&D community know that "defenses" refers to AC, Will, Fort, and Ref.

-Username17

Data Vampire wrote:Women kills newborn and cannot be charged!

That's cold.

Crissa wrote:Did you notice how he skipped the answers and didn't refute them? Going straight to an insult?

tzor wrote:

Cynic wrote:How do you say that Gore's statements were all entirely true statements, Frank?

Because they worship him. It's sad; really.

Really? Then I take it you don't like Al Gore at all then? That you consider the notion that you regard him with respect or honor in insult?

As to the "accuracy" of Al Gore's inconvenient truth, I'll defer to the United Kingdom, a land where "green" is practically the color of education, who declared that the movie had at least "nine" major errors and could not be shown to children without guidance giving the other side of the argument. The BBC article listed three of those nine errors.

• Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".
• Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
• Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

(referencing the baby-killing mom story... though in retrospect, it looks like my post applies to tzor's as well)

It's probably also bullshit. The story doesn't add up and it has all the polish and investigation you might expect from local news hacks.

Hasbro Sues Atari

Al Gore, mega rock star of the left.

He can't go anywhere without hot young women throwing their panties, and then their pantie free bodies at his feet.

He can turn even men into quivering giggling school girls.

He commands everyone left of Donald Rumsfield with the authority of a cult leader. His wish is our command and we would die for his whim.

...

Or maybe in anyone's world other than Tzor's Al Gore is a bland as all heck inoffensive unremarkable main stream politician who is in no way especially charismatic or personally popular.

I'm pretty sure most of the left would much rather give either of the Clinton's a blow job. And frankly they aren't exactly political pop sensations either.

I mean me personally you've got to bring out a hotty like Hugo Chavez before I'm prepared to go on a hot steamy man date.

He quoted me... But didn't face the refutation, still.

Also, perhaps one of his Republican leaders did poorly today, so he's grumpy.

-Crissa

1) Bill Clinton is in fact exactly a pop political sensation. And more and more people are really wishing we could have him back. Probably nostalgia a little bit, but it's there.

2) Notice how Tzor starts by saying you worship him, and then switches to every possible word except worship for his later part. Because those words mean different things, and claiming someone worships someone else is clearly and obviously an insult.

Bill Clinton isn't exactly Che Guevara.

And Al Gore is no Bill Clinton.

On the pop star scale these elderly white male Americans rank lower than Cliff Richards. Lower than Cliff Richards now.

See Phone Lobster, that's my point.

In America, you know, the place we are talking about, it goes:

Bill Clinton




Che Guevara


Al Gore.

So yes, Bill Clinton is exactly the biggest pop Icon of politics in America for the sort of left (because there is no actual left) before Obama. Much bigger than any Che Guevara or Hugo Chavez.

You guys forgot that he invented the internet and also is the discoverer of the ManBearPig!

I love Al Gore, I think he also twinkles like Edward. :sigh:

In all fairness, he's a decent enough guy.