Re: Re: Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you clearly had no idea of what the article was really about. could have been easily construed if you read the first paragraph, but you knee-jerked at the headline as usual. cry harder tho. 馃檪
^ B!NGO
Originally posted by Surtur
Thanks CNN for keeping me informed about the latest in scientific experiments:Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says
馃憜
Originally posted by Robtard
Another instance where Surtur only read the title and not the story before kneejerking. Will he ever learn.
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.
Originally posted by Surtur
The premise,
the "premise" is data which suggests a relative lack of preparedness for hurricanes with female names. what is so ridiculous about that?
Originally posted by Surtur
the way they named the article.
that's a confession. you mean "the sneaky way they named it", tricking you into knee-jerking and barking at a non-issue.
Originally posted by Surtur
The fact it's already been debunked.
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!
Originally posted by Surtur
Take your pick.
i'll go with "#triggered by headlines"
Originally posted by Sable
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 sort 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.
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.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
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"
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.
Originally posted by Sable
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.
Surtur's previous behavior.
Disagreed.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]There is that.... [/B]
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? 馃槅
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...
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.
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.