Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 hours ago, DrownedBoy said:

Flunked second grade arithmetic, eh?

24 + 17 = 41

Wrong. You and @caliguy are the ones who flunked arithmetic.

You're not reading the actual sentences correctly. It's not a simple second-grade addition of 24 + 17. It's a fifth-grade multiplication of .24 x .17😇

Take a look at the phrase "17 percent of that group." That group refers only to the 24 percent of those aged 18-29 who thought the murder was "somewhat acceptable." It does not refer to the total number of respondents.

So 17% of 24% means that only 4% of all respondents found his actions "completely acceptable."

But most importantly, your invented phrase "morally justifiable" never appears in the Emerson poll.

Epic arithment fail for you! 🎯

Posted
2 hours ago, 56harrisond said:

Or at least Luigi should be shirtless, and give the people what they want.

He is no longer yelling at the press during his transfers.  I think it is starting to sink in that he's never going to be free again. That must be a totally demoralizing and defeating realization; that your once privileged and wealthy life is immediately burnt toast.  The look on his face, his eyes tell the story.   I see fear and realization.

Posted
13 minutes ago, augustus said:

He is no longer yelling at the press during his transfers.  I think it is starting to sink in that he's never going to be free again. That must be a totally demoralizing and defeating realization; that your once privileged and wealthy life is immediately burnt toast.  The look on his face, his eyes tell the story.   I see fear and realization.

And he is now represented by counsel who would advise to say nothing and behave.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Wrong. You and @caliguy are the ones who flunked arithmetic.

You're not reading the actual sentences correctly. It's not a simple second-grade addition of 24 + 17. It's a fifth-grade multiplication of .24 x .17😇

Take a look at the phrase "17 percent of that group." That group refers only to the 24 percent of those aged 18-29 who thought the murder was "somewhat acceptable." It does not refer to the total number of respondents.

So 17% of 24% means that only 4% of all respondents found his actions "completely acceptable."

But most importantly, your invented phrase "morally justifiable" never appears in the Emerson poll.

Epic arithment fail for you! 🎯

No one said it was 41% of everyone. It's been reported in almost every newspaper as 41% of the 18-29 year old's in that survey thought the killing to be acceptable. That's all I was going by. 

I think you missed your calling though.

Screenshot 2024-12-20 134146.jpg

Edited by caliguy
Posted
3 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Take a look at the phrase "17 percent of that group." That group refers only to the 24 percent of those aged 18-29 who thought the murder was "somewhat acceptable." It does not refer to the total number of respondents.

So 17% of 24% means that only 4% of all respondents found his actions "completely acceptable."

I have to disagree. To start with, completely acceptable is not a subset of somewhat acceptable, they are separate subsets of the total group of people polled. This commentary is talking about one age cohort of the overall number of respondents, those aged from 18 to 29. 'That group' referred to this cohort, not the subset of it that thought his actions were somewhat acceptable. The 41% figure is the total number in that age cohort who made either of those two responses (it's additive of the 17% and 24% for the two responses). So yes, 41% of respondents aged from 18 to 29 thought his actions were either acceptable or somewhat acceptable.

This was not a calculation where multiplication of percentages was relevant. If the premise of your 17% of 24% calculation had been correct, 4% would have not have been the proportion of all respondents who thought his actions were completely acceptable. It would have been the proportion of respondents who were both aged from 18 and 29 and found his actions completely acceptable.

Perhaps the percentages of all respondents who shared that assessment is different, but that was not the point of the post that was made, nor were any relevant numbers cited.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, mike carey said:

That group' referred to this cohort, not the subset of it that thought his actions were somewhat acceptable.

Therein lies the problem:  the pronoun "that".  It is being interpreted different ways.  As we all know, in today's world people choose a pronoun regardless of its definition.  One should ask each "group" if it identifies as "that" 😆 

Edited by Vegas_Millennial
Posted
7 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Hopefully not.

With 25% of the ENTIRETY of the wealth of the American middle class floating to the top 1% over the last four years....Corporate greed is a HUGE problem that could use a symbolic martyr to keep the public awareness alive.

This. A lot of people who are relatively well off really have no idea how much things have gotten worse for the have nots. Life in this country is increasingly a lottery of birth. I think part of the problem is that there are a number of visible things that are vastly better and people incorrectly infer that therefore everything is similarly better.

To wit: when I was a kid a 25 inch color TV cost 500 bucks. Today you can get a 50 inch flat-screen for half that. Vast improvement. But housing relative to income is vastly more expensive. 

Average income doubling means nothing if all of the aggregate increase went to 10 families at the top.  And then if prices went up, the country as a whole is worse off, not better. 

I'm one of 6 kids raised by parents who fell almost out of the middle class when I was about 5. They cobbled together enough income from two shitty jobs each to keep the roof over our heads and we all managed to go to college. 5 of us graduated. I look at the cost of living in my town now and don't see how it would be possible for a couple to do what my parents did. And of the 6 kids, I and my younger sister are the only ones likely to be really financially stable in retirement. One will pretty much certainly be relying on me to keep her off the street, another is a cheapskate and resourceful so he'll manage, and another will probably scrape by. The other is already in a nursing home on Medicaid, and I'm terrified of what havoc is going to be wreaked on that system, because it would take me down too if her care suddenly stopped being covered.

 

Posted
21 hours ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

Therein lies the problem:  the pronoun "that".  It is being interpreted different ways.  As we all know, in today's world people choose a pronoun regardless of its definition.  One should ask each "group" if it identifies as "that" 😆 

When discussing numbers, science, and statistics, writers use the word "that" to refer to what immediately preceded it. So it means the same as "latter."

I stand by my assertion. 😀

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sniper said:

...To wit: when I was a kid a 25 inch color TV cost 500 bucks. Today you can get a 50 inch flat-screen for half that. Vast improvement. But housing relative to income is vastly more expensive...

But who wants to buy a house today that was typical 50 years ago?  No garage, no indoor laundry room, no central air conditioning, poor insulation, no en-suite master bathroom, no marble counter tops, no stainless steel appliances.  Homebuyers today are spoiled.  First time homebuyers complain they can't find an affordable home, but insist their first home have all the amenities I listed above.  The problem is the mindset:  live with an attitude of gratitude.

None of this relates to the topic of the CEO being hunted down and murdered in the streets of NYC, so I'll try to being this back on topic.  I'm thankful that the medical technology exists that allow a young man with a broken spine to be ambulatory and travel across continents.  This was unthinkable years ago.  And the young man will probably get what he wanted: government-rationed healthcare for the rest of his life (in prison).  Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it! 😉 

Edited by Vegas_Millennial
Posted
54 minutes ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

And the young man will probably get what he wanted: government-rationed healthcare for the rest of his life (in prison).  Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it! 😉 

That's one of the most obscene things in our health care system.

One more obscenity - thanks to religiously-influenced laws in many states, doctors can't help patients pass away when they want. An executed murderer suffers a lot less pain than, say, my grandmother when she was dying of cancer.

Posted
3 hours ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

But who wants to buy a house today that was typical 50 years ago?  No garage, no indoor laundry room, no central air conditioning, poor insulation, no en-suite master bathroom, no marble counter tops, no stainless steel appliances.  Homebuyers today are spoiled.  First time homebuyers complain they can't find an affordable home, but insist their first home have all the amenities I listed above.  The problem is the mindset:  live with an attitude of gratitude.

None of this relates to the topic of the CEO being hunted down and murdered in the streets of NYC, so I'll try to being this back on topic.  I'm thankful that the medical technology exists that allow a young man with a broken spine to be ambulatory and travel across continents.  This was unthinkable years ago.  And the young man will probably get what he wanted: government-rationed healthcare for the rest of his life (in prison).  Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it! 😉 

You're illustrating my point here. The finishing touches on these houses add little to cost of construction but add a lot to the sales price and cost of maintenance. Nobody builds starter homes any more not because there aren't people who will buy them, but because someone else will pay more for a slightly nicer looking house. But those people who would have bought a starter house are stuck renting(and rent control outside of NYC is rare). 

Posted

The issue continues to bubble up on social media. The general public seems to have little remorse for Thompson. United Healthcare's response is incredibly tone deaf as it (predictability) doubles-down on Corporate gaslighting "truth-speak" and completely avoids making any promises of self reflection about being a heartless gatekeeper to people's lives.

 

WWW.BOREDPANDA.COM

UnitedHealth Group mourns the murder of its executive Brian Thompson, whose death has...

 

Posted
On 12/20/2024 at 4:29 PM, augustus said:

He is no longer yelling at the press during his transfers.  I think it is starting to sink in that he's never going to be free again. That must be a totally demoralizing and defeating realization; that your once privileged and wealthy life is immediately burnt toast.  The look on his face, his eyes tell the story.   I see fear and realization.

Not getting caught was the part that failed in his plan! 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...