.... huh?

Do you have a different meaning for the word "evidence" than the rest of the world?

victor809 wrote:

Tail trust me in this one. There are always embargoed words. In this case you can keep saying it isn’t true. I disagree.

teedubbya wrote:

I was using your MO to argue the point.
Ban vs. embargo etc.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. Stop being victor.

tailgater wrote:

Evidence derived from faulty means is worthless.
Evidence needs to be qualified or quantified. Or at least it should be.
It's a ridiculous term to ban, and it's ridiculous to be particularly outraged if it is banned.
Because it's meaningless.

Of course, if you have an agenda then of course you're outraged.
As the evidence would suggest...

tailgater wrote:

Victor ties a 2x4 to his ass so he doesn't fall into TW's chute... Or so I heard... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Victor ties a board measured to be 2" x 4", based on science and in consideration with community standards and wishes, to the appendage identified as his ass, based on science in consideration with community standards and wishes, so he doesn't fall into TW's organ defined as his chute, based on science in consideration with community standards and wishes... Or so I heard, in consideration with community standards and wishes ... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I give other people a little more slack than you tail. You should know better. Maybe you don't. Maybe in this day of "alternative facts" you've gone all in.

Your problem is clear in your first sentence. "Evidence derived from faulty means is worthless."
Evidence derived from faulty means isn't evidence tail. The instance you can prove that the underlying data of any evidence is wrong, it isn't "evidence" any longer. The same way two photos of two separate inauguration crowds changes a claim about crowd size into a lie, not into an "alternative fact".

Remember, this is the CDC we are talking about. They publish scientific papers. When they use the term "evidence-based" it is with very specific intent. They aren't using it in some vague way that a lawyer might.

victor809 wrote:

... a suggestion that we not use terms "science based" or "evidence based" because it will trigger the republican congressmen.

F%cking idiots.

victor809 wrote:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/fake-news-no-trump-admin-conservatives-at-the-cdc-didnt-try-to-ban-words-like-fetus-and-transgender-n2424580


Skip down to the part where it tells who compiled the list.

It wasn't republican congressmen. Which you discerned from the "evidence" you've read. It was "career CDC officials" (ie. NON political).
Because they, like you, make an assumption that republicans would balk at those terms.



You're mad at republicans because of how others felt they might react.

Read that again.
Because that's the "evidence" you're using to justify your outrage.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has you so puckered up right now. It's adorable.

tailgater wrote:

You may be right on this tail (not the ridiculous trump derangement crap, because you're still an idiot for trying to claim evidence is anything other than evidence) but I did some more digging, and everything I was able to find indicates that this was more of an internal "we need to sell this to idiots, what words should we avoid" issue than an external "idiots telling people what not to say" thing.

Until further evidence is presented I think this is likely a nothing burger. (your attempt to defend evidence as potentially a word to avoid because it "could simply be incomplete. Or from too small a sampling. Or could simply be irrelevant or misleading." is idiotic however, as all you have done is describe something which is not evidence. At best you have described something a person would classify as "evidence is incomplete, but suggests"... )

victor809 wrote: