The premise, the way they named the article. The fact it's already been debunked. Take your pick.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Well Bash said it and then Rob Bingo'ed him. Damn.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
What in his OP suggested he didn't read the article or had an opinion on the study? All he said was
"Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments."
From that short post and after reading the article myself I can say he did in fact read the article and saw there was a study done. He was being sarcastic in his post pointing out how CNN felt the need to give us erroneous news about sexism in categorizing storms.
the "premise" is data which suggests a relative lack of preparedness for hurricanes with female names. what is so ridiculous about that?
that's a confession. you mean "the sneaky way they named it", tricking you into knee-jerking and barking at a non-issue.
it has been challenged, not debunked. challenging a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, so that is very telling...just as telling as your inadvertent confession that you reacted to a headline without reading the context...again! how humiliating for you!
i'll go with "#triggered by headlines"
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
Indeed, they justified their interpretation of the data by saying their experiments back it up. Granted, the experiments were just asking them stuff like to predict the intensity of a hurricane based on the name, but yeah.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Lol dude, how sad are you? I didn't confess I overreacted to the headline. I said one of the amusing things about this was the headline. This doesn't mean I didn't read the article.
I also linked to something that more or less debunks it, but okay lol. You clearly want to find anything to claim I am triggered over this, gotcha.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
It is pointless asking them to explain. They got triggered quite easily over this, and now have to pretend like the opposite happened lol.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The hilarious thing is the title is funny because of the article. The article is about the preparation of humans in the face of hurricanes with female names.
The study does not at all say what CNN says in the title of their article about it. How is that not funny?
EDIT: On top of that, it is also how the scientists named their study lol. Their own actual study does not show what their name suggests.
Makes you wonder why they decided to frame it that way...
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Sep 5th, 2017 at 06:36 PM
It just seems like a strange thing to name your study considering what the study says lol.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
To go one step further and talk about the actual article, remember at one point it says this:
"Researchers backed up their claims with death rates from U.S. hurricanes from 1950 to 2012."
But as the article also says all hurricanes had female names until 1979. The data is the real key here, not their shitty experiments.
29 out of those 62 years they are using had nothing but female named hurricanes.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Sep 5th, 2017 at 06:43 PM
I mean to be fair they also do include a part from a guy who disagrees with the study, but then they also include the part about the experiments done. For me, I would want to go by the data more than anything else. The data is already deeply tainted because it covers 62 years even though for 29 of those you had zero hurricanes with male names.
I also feel like the way hurricanes have been recently covered(even before Harvey) that people aren't going to be under prepared due to the name of the hurricane.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.