3000 dead Puerto Rico, 7 dead in NC-Trump's racist response?

[canceled.2021.2]

The 3000 dead number in Puerto Rico has been thoroughly debunked by me.

Case closed

If you are still pushing that number you are either stupid or a partisan hack. I recognize that they are not mutually exclusive

[PoliTalker]

Hello Into the Night,

No information was used. It was created out of thick air.

And that is where your argument falls apart.

Information was definitely used.

They took the death rate prior to the storm and compared it to the death rate after the storm.

Either the storm is responsible for the additional deaths or something else is.

Social science, (in the broadest sense of the term science,) looks at the knowledge of social phenomena.

This estimate was performed as a part of social science.

Every individual is free to reject this estimate if they please, but it is accepted by our government and most of society as the most accurate estimate possible, and in all reality, probably very accurate.

Unless an explanation which accounts for all the additional deaths is presented, I choose, just like most of the nation, to accept this estimate.

[Into the Night]

Let me guess -- he ate your furniture, made your ears bleed, and left his underwear lying all over the house? lol They're amazing critters, but not for everyone.

No, I gave him other wood to munch.He didn't eat my furniture. He actually was fairly quiet (for a parrot). He did like to beat the hell out of the cat.

[ThatOwlWoman]

No, I gave him other wood to munch.He didn't eat my furniture. He actually was fairly quiet (for a parrot). He did like to beat the hell out of the cat.

Poor kitty. lol We have two macaw; they used to terrorize my daughters' poor kitty too. He quickly learned to never come if he heard "Here kitty kitty kitty!"

[Into the Night]

Hello Into the Night,
And that is where your argument falls apart.

It doesn't fall apart.

Information was definitely used.

None.

They took the death rate prior to the storm and compared it to the death rate after the storm.

That tells you nothing. Deaths rate also did not increase by 3000.

Either the storm is responsible for the additional deaths or something else is.

No, it's a completely fabricated number.

Social science, (in the broadest sense of the term science,) looks at the knowledge of social phenomena.

It is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

This estimate was performed as a part of social science.

There is no such thing as 'social science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data, not fabrications.

Every individual is free to reject this estimate if they please, but it is accepted by our government and most of society as the most accurate estimate possible, and in all reality, probably very accurate.

Argument from randU. You don't know what 'most of society' accepts. The media is not 'most of society'. The government is a lot of people. Some accept it, others do not. To say they all accept something is a compositional error.

Unless an explanation which accounts for all the additional deaths is presented,

This is a fallacy known as a base rate fallacy.

I choose, just like most of the nation,

Argument from randU fallacy.

to accept this estimate.

I know you accept this 'estimate'. That is obvious.

Here's the problem: Comparing two death rates (which have no been published yet!) before and after an event does NOT mean any difference was caused by that event. To say that it was is leaping to a conclusion, which is a fallacy. The 3000 figure is an estimate generated by a study at George Washington University by researches that never went to Puerto Rico. Hurricanes are chaotic events. At first, the initial toll was 64. Funeral homes in the area put the number closer to some 500, and even that is an estimate of the cause of death. This 3000 figure is an absolute fabrication. It is the same number used in other reports of hurricane deaths elsewhere, including Katrina.

[evince]

It doesn't fall apart.

None.

That tells you nothing. Deaths rate also did not increase by 3000.

No, it's a completely fabricated number.

It is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

There is no such thing as 'social science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data, not fabrications.

Argument from randU. You don't know what 'most of society' accepts. The media is not 'most of society'. The government is a lot of people. Some accept it, others do not. To say they all accept something is a compositional error.

This is a fallacy known as a base rate fallacy.

Argument from randU fallacy.

I know you accept this 'estimate'. That is obvious.

Here's the problem: Comparing two death rates (which have no been published yet!) before and after an event does NOT mean any difference was caused by that event. To say that it was is leaping to a conclusion, which is a fallacy. The 3000 figure is an estimate generated by a study at George Washington University by researches that never went to Puerto Rico. Hurricanes are chaotic events. At first, the initial toll was 64. Funeral homes in the area put the number closer to some 500, and even that is an estimate of the cause of death. This 3000 figure is an absolute fabrication. It is the same number used in other reports of hurricane deaths elsewhere, including Katrina.

just saying Nu HUH

is not an effective debate

[evince]

Poor kitty. lol We have two macaw; they used to terrorize my daughters' poor kitty too. He quickly learned to never come if he heard "Here kitty kitty kitty!"

LOL

[Into the Night]

it would not mean a thing to you. they, however, kept track of the dead count and subtracted how many would normally die. Even a righty can understand deaths above the normal rate would would be correctly counted as hurricane reltaed.

No, they never looked up the actual death count from anywhere in Puerto Rico due to the storm. A generic death rate was used at a point before and again at a point after the storm. Trouble is, these rates are not yet published. The latest published death rates in Puerto Rico are the 2016 annual rate. They publish a normalized rate per 1000 people. No actual count has ever been published by Puerto Rico.

[Into the Night]

Poor kitty. lol We have two macaw; they used to terrorize my daughters' poor kitty too. He quickly learned to never come if he heard "Here kitty kitty kitty!"

Heh.My cat was stupid. She never learned. My cat was picked on by every cat in the neighborhood too. She even got beat up by a bunny next door (she was trying to stalk it).

[Into the Night]

just saying Nu HUH

is not an effective debate

Just saying "uh HUH" is not an effective debate either.

[evince]

Hello Into the Night,



And that is where your argument falls apart.

Information was definitely used.

They took the death rate prior to the storm and compared it to the death rate after the storm.

Either the storm is responsible for the additional deaths or something else is.

Social science, (in the broadest sense of the term science,) looks at the knowledge of social phenomena.

This estimate was performed as a part of social science.

Every individual is free to reject this estimate if they please, but it is accepted by our government and most of society as the most accurate estimate possible, and in all reality, probably very accurate.

Unless an explanation which accounts for all the additional deaths is presented, I choose, just like most of the nation, to accept this estimate.

they don't like science

or history


or math


or dictionaries


or encyclopedias


or facts




I sometimes give them mountains of facts to prove my debate and they try to argue with me about them

I tell them their arguement is not with me but with every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world

[evince]

Just saying "uh HUH" is not an effective debate either.

well then stop using it


you are nit a fount of facts are you


back your silly na uhs with some verifiable facts instead of some Internets idiot blather like you have so far

[ThatOwlWoman]

Heh.My cat was stupid. She never learned. My cat was picked on by every cat in the neighborhood too. She even got beat up by a bunny next door (she was trying to stalk it).

LOL. Maybe she had an invisible Kick Me sign on her back.

[Into the Night]

well then stop using it

I'm not.

you are nit a fount of facts are you

Inversion fallacy.

back your silly na uhs with some verifiable facts instead of some Internets idiot blather like you have so far

Burden of proof fallacy and inversion fallacy.

Habeas Corpus, dude. It is YOU that is believing this poor comparison using preconclusions is valid! It is YOU that has to show that this number is more than this!

[Into the Night]

LOL. Maybe she had an invisible Kick Me sign on her back.

You could say that! She really had a tough time in the neighborhood. She could leap though! She would jump up and ring the doorbell to get let in.