Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Does name-calling even belong on that graphic?

You can easily call someone a cunt while refuting their central point, as long as you're not relying on that as being your argument (which would make it an ad hominem instead).

In effect, it's saying that someone's argument is flawed because they're using bad words, in spite of profanity not making a fallacy by itself.

The silly names are silly though.

Also how are quotes more potent than evidence and/or reasoning?

I'm saying that, as a generalisation, the posts that contain silly nicknames for the people they're mentioning tend not to reach as high up that chart as posts that don't contain silly nicknames.

The equivalent would be knowing that there's unlikely to be any startlingly insightful comment in a sentence that begins "I'm not racist but..."

'You are an ass hat' is an excellent example to use though.

I tend to stop reading a comment if someone refers to "Dildo" or "Hattie Mancock" or "de Pfeffel", etc.

This. It's like my own automatic content filter which identifies the poster has a pre-disposed anti- agenda and I immediately dismiss their comment. See also use of B. Liar, Golden Brown, Hameron, Theresa Maybe etc etc. BEEEP goes my emergency bullshit alarm, dismiss content.

Mean words may be a flag for other bad arguments, and they may be commonly found alongside bad arguments, but they don't make a bad argument on their own. They're neither necessary nor sufficient.

It may make people less receptive to good arguments, but if they're unable to get beyond the mean words, that's on them.

I don't see there being an equivalence with the "I'm not racist, but here's a racist argument" trope.

But, saying that, I'm pretty much with you when the B.Liar etc... crap come out, and I'll stop reading. I don't see those sort of "clever" names being in the same category as calling someone a cunt.

* Your a ass hat.

But, saying that, I'm pretty much with you when the B.Liar etc... crap come out, and I'll stop reading. I don't see those sort of "clever" names being in the same category as calling someone a cunt.

Yes, we're saying the same thing.

It's like my own automatic content filter

Bingo.

Including name calling in your argument selects your audience a bit.

A name-caller is less likely to get any credible push back because why would anyone bother?

This. It's like my own automatic content filter which identifies the poster has a pre-disposed anti- agenda and I immediately dismiss their comment. See also use of B. Liar, Golden Brown, Hameron, Theresa Maybe etc etc

I think that Hameron is fair game. I haven't heard that it was his parents that forced him to fuck that pig's head, was it?

i am suspicious of people that refer to boris johnson as "boris" or the execrable "bojo".

Sleepy/Creepy Joe is a useful keyword for your filter now days.

Insert “are we the bad guys?” meme

In a similar way it’s annoying as when people bang on about the Trump/Drumpf thing. His great grandfather changed his name? So we’re going to mock the man for that? Real strong political discourse there.

• Your a arse hat.
  

Is that a but plug?

Since when do you insert a hat?

To put it into a phrase you would understand, you would just call it a hat.

In a similar way it’s annoying as when people bang on about the Trump/Drumpf thing. His great grandfather changed his name? So we’re going to mock the man for that? Real strong political discourse there.

"Drumpft", actually. I didn't know that until you prompted me to look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

No account is given of how the name change came about, only that it was a much more remote ancestor than his great-grandfather. Maybe someone else is in the mood to count the generations.

In Kallstadt, they pronounce the name 'Trump' as "de Drump" ("de" being 'the'), and the 'u' is as the 'oo' in 'boom' would be if you shortened it.

Of all the millions of articles, I found this one worth reading--a useful summary of the virus differentiating into more and less dangerous strains, and an argument against 'herd immunity'.

Letting the virus that causes Covid-19 circulate more-or-less freely is dangerous not only because it risks overwhelming hospitals and so endangering lives unnecessarily, but also because it could delay the evolution of the virus to a more benign form and potentially even make it more lethal.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/19/coronavirus-evolving-deadlier-evidence-social-distancing-covid-19

Brilliant article.

'Though the data is still sketchy...'

Translation: This is total guesswork, but I'll get paid for an article in the Guardian, so what the hell, let's just speculate and bank the cheque.

Emphasis also on the word 'could'. I could grow wings and fly, but it's pretty fucking unlikely. I don't trust 'could'.

Haha ripped to shreds.

I’m a scientist and enjoyed the article, made a lot of sense to me and was quite a convincing story.

The term sketchy data should definitely have set alarm bells ringing though tbf.

Thanks. Certainly seems to have caused a fuss!

The Grauniad really is just click bait now. I bought it daily for 20 years. Quite sad when an institution fails. I blame Rusbridger.

What newspaper do you buy daily now?

Newspaper history should be a separate topic.. I grew up in a house where newspapers were a serious thing.. The Dundee Courier, the Press and Journal and the Scotsman were delivered daily. The Scotsman delivery changed to the Glasgow Herald when I was about 12. I pushed for the Guardian when I was about 14. Left home in 1992. Bought the Guardian till about 2013. Switched to the FT kindle subscription. Cancelled that due to brexit coverage. Bought the Times until lockdown ended my long commute. Now buy the Times and FT on Saturday. Occasionally buy the Sunday Mail (scottish tabloid) and the Sun.