Hub of Reason

« first day (3770 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1015 days later) »

5:10 AM

@LаngLаngС I would prefer you flag inappropriate comments when you first see them, rather than time how long they stay undeleted.

I only saw those comments because I read your quote of it here.

fredsbend

5:21 AM

@LаngLаngС I'm trying to figure out the charge you're putting on that comment. Are they not your own words in your question ("as they firmly deny that the currecnt crop of vaccines would not be vegan")? And isn't that sentence formulation a bit confusing? I know I certainly struggle parsing it and should perhaps comment for clarification. So is that not what Daniel is doing?

The question itself perhaps needs a sizable edit. Would you mind?

I understand it as "there are conflicting sources on whether vaccine is vegan, thus 'is it vegan?'."

Oddthinking

@LаngLаngС There are no heroes in this story.

You posted "they firmly deny that the currecnt crop of vaccines would not be vegan"

There is a simple error in the double-negation. It is a common mistake. The Language Log blog call it "over negation", and track publish examples of it.

Rather than hitting the edit button and quietly fixing it, a commenter decided to leave a smart-arse comment.

Rather than acknowledging the error and fixing it, you decided it was evidence of a campaign against you, and accused them of deplatforming.

I have edited the error away (amongst other copy-edits to make your question more focussed) and deleted the comment.

13 hours later…

LаngLаngС

6:13 PM

Just a reminder: an effect of the two of us agreeing much over many things is that when we argue here it may seem as if we wouldn’t agree that very often or at all. Sample error, as the most agreements will be expressed in silent votes?

@Oddthinking Here: You name one aspect: the comment. Another is the immediate DV, as seen from that very user in the manner I described previously. For the purpose of transparency, I left that as it to discuss it. And since that very user now returned: if that grammar lapse would have been ‘the reason’ for DV it would have now been a nice chance to reverse that vote?

Didn’t happen.
And I say frankly, I am sure I know the reason for that. Same reason as for the popularity of the argumentum ad auctoritas answer vs a more detailed analysis that clearly documents some problems in the approval process and the communication afterwards.
The issue in question is a complicated mess and quite obviously not adequately answered by the currently trending answer. It basically just repeats one claim, without much evidence provided, when there are two mutually exclusive claims competing.

All I wait for now is the explicit accusation of ‘anti-vax’ below either of my posts.

4 hours later…

Nostradamus

10:23 PM

Q: Does a question that only links a notable report about a claim count as having a notable claim?

Inspired by this recent question, if a question only links a notable report about a claim, rather than the claim itself, is that enough to satisfy our notable claim requirement? That question is asking about recent claims from some anti-vaxxers who say that the covid vaccines can cause magnets to...