Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[agent00f]

If everyone agreed on the key figured, then how is it that they get to drastically lower numbers? If all the metrics were about the same, then the sum should be the same, and they are not.

To reiterate, it's not my job here to spoon feed idiots, especially ones that turn around and proclaim themselves the real expert. Recall when I first referred to the this iraq study in the lancet as a source for hundreds of k deaths resulting from the war in iraq, you literally could not find it for a quite a while (>a day?) until I kept mocked you by explaining how to use google on the phrase. So I do bear so responsibility for teaching you how to google and find new big words to show off how much you know.

Your first reaction then was of course to read through that wiki link you finally manage to locate, and use that foreign relations article you saw in the criticism section to "prove" that the study/number was debunked or whatever. Recall it wasn't much later until you somehow found the nejm page. In sum, after many weeks, considerable help, and a certifiable miracle you finally learned that the hundreds of k claim is completely correct, and have moved onto how you knew all about this study stuff all along. You even had fskimospy rather fooled, which I can't imagine he's proud of right now. In contrast I imagine all the teachers you've had feel about as I do.

First, Sodomy laws are for homosexual and heterosexuals fyi. Sodomy laws are not just for anal sex, but any sex act that is considered unnatural such as blow jobs. If you think it was just for gays, then explain why it was explicitly used for married couples where 100% were heterosexual.

She did not push for more friendly. Your best argument here is separate but equal civil unions which is a fucking slap in the face to gay people.

As for the link, she said to a bunch of gay people who paid her to be there that she thought DADT was not working. Gasp! What was it that she said again the very next month?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

We cant give marriage to the gays because of the moral implications of marriage!
- Hillary Clinton

Face it, Hillary was anti gay marriage until she decided it was the popular thing to like. Just like with the TPP. Pointing this out should not mean I am suddenly pro Trump. His shit list is far worse and his current stance is far worse. You go down this rabbit hole because anything that makes your person seem bad needs to be defended. It should not be so hard to admit the flaws in your person. For me, its easy to admit the flaws in both.

Similarly, one of these days realibrad might eventually figure out how centrism works, and weasel about how his views on the term evolved but were always right anyway.

 

[realibrad]

To reiterate, it's not my job here to spoon feed idiots, especially ones that turn around and proclaim themselves the real expert. Recall when I first referred to the this iraq study in the lancet as a source for hundreds of k deaths resulting from the war in iraq, you literally could not find it for a quite a while (>a day?) until I kept mocked you by explaining how to use google on the phrase. So I do bear so responsibility for teaching you how to google and find new big words to show off how much you know.

Your first reaction then was of course to read through that wiki link you finally manage to locate, and use that foreign relations article you saw in the criticism section to "prove" that the study/number was debunked or whatever. Recall it wasn't much later until you somehow found the nejm page. In sum, after many weeks, considerable help, and a certifiable miracle you finally learned that the hundreds of k claim is completely correct, and have moved onto how you knew all about this study stuff all along. You even had fskimospy rather fooled, which I can't imagine he's proud of right now. In contrast I imagine all the teachers you've had feel about as I do.



Similarly, one of these days realibrad might eventually figure out how centrism works, and weasel about how his views on the term evolved but were always right anyway.

Your memory is bad. You claimed this.

Scientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. Now to be fair, they weren't all killed by westerners, but that's like saying the poverty & radicalism & such resulting from war can't be blamed on the west because westerners didn't directly steal food from those people.

Problem, not all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. This is where we started.

When you finally told me you were using the Lancet numbers, I provided a paper explaining the problems with the Lancet paper. When you dismissed that as not being valid, I provided you with the NEJM study that came to extremely different numbers.

To recap, you used numbers from the Lancet study that found 600k+ violent excess deaths that was just over 3 years.

The NEJM which did a much larger far more through study found 151k violent deaths.

The PLOS found "Based on the responses from adults in the surveyed households who reported on the alive-or-dead status of their siblings, the researchers estimated the total number of deaths among adults aged 15–60 years, from March 2003 to June 2011, to be approximately 376,000; 184,000 of these deaths were attributed to the conflict, and of those, the authors estimate that 132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence."

Drastically different from your claim that "all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths".

 

[MongGrel]

Statisticians and death counts always depress me somewhat, and make me think of Himmler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong to be honest.

 

[Jhhnn]

First, Sodomy laws are for homosexual and heterosexuals fyi. Sodomy laws are not just for anal sex, but any sex act that is considered unnatural such as blow jobs. If you think it was just for gays, then explain why it was explicitly used for married couples where 100% were heterosexual.

She did not push for more friendly. Your best argument here is separate but equal civil unions which is a fucking slap in the face to gay people.

As for the link, she said to a bunch of gay people who paid her to be there that she thought DADT was not working. Gasp! What was it that she said again the very next month?

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

We cant give marriage to the gays because of the moral implications of marriage!
- Hillary Clinton

Face it, Hillary was anti gay marriage until she decided it was the popular thing to like. Just like with the TPP. Pointing this out should not mean I am suddenly pro Trump. His shit list is far worse and his current stance is far worse. You go down this rabbit hole because anything that makes your person seem bad needs to be defended. It should not be so hard to admit the flaws in your person. For me, its easy to admit the flaws in both.

Please. Under sodomy laws, all gay sex was illegal. That can't be said for hetero sex.

You're still stripping away the context of the way things were when certain things were said, as well.

The truth is that Marriage has been one of those things where separation of church & state really hasn't been observed in the past. We let the legal rights & obligations of domestic partnerships & kinship be defined with a religious word. In reality, for the purposes of govt & the law, equal rights are equal rights no matter what you call them.

Back then, the real battle was for gays having equal rights at all, not about what to call it.

 

[MongGrel]

I've never had a problem with calling gay marriages Civil Unions myself with the same rights.

Calling it a marriage seems out of context to me, but I guess that is just in my head maybe to a certain degree.

 

[agent00f]

Your memory is bad. You claimed this.

Problem, not all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths. This is where we started.

When you finally told me you were using the Lancet numbers, I provided a paper explaining the problems with the Lancet paper. When you dismissed that as not being valid, I provided you with the NEJM study that came to extremely different numbers.

To recap, you used numbers from the Lancet study that found 600k+ violent excess deaths that was just over 3 years.

The NEJM which did a much larger far more through study found 151k violent deaths.

The PLOS found "Based on the responses from adults in the surveyed households who reported on the alive-or-dead status of their siblings, the researchers estimated the total number of deaths among adults aged 15–60 years, from March 2003 to June 2011, to be approximately 376,000; 184,000 of these deaths were attributed to the conflict, and of those, the authors estimate that 132,000 were caused directly by war-related violence."

Drastically different from your claim that "all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths".

Let's go to those posts directly to verify what I said:

Here's where I told you it was in the lancet, notice I literally tell you to google for it, given it's literally the first hit for any such search:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38374360

Here's you whining how unfair it is to expect you to find such a study:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38374859

Here's me a day later showing you how to google for the study:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38375952

After finally figuring out how to use google, here's you then trying your best to "discredit" an epidemiology study with the typical anti-science denialism material for dumbshits:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-8#post-38376087
and let me quote this for emphasis:
"This is why I asked you to provide your source. Turns out, your source is shit." Rather amusing when that source comes up with similar post-conflict mortality figures as the sources you like.

 

[werepossum]

I've never had a problem with calling gay marriages Civil Unions myself with the same rights.

Calling it a marriage seems out of context to me, but I guess that is just in my head maybe to a certain degree.

Two problems here. First, calling gay marriages something other than marriage is, as Realibrad points out, a slap in the face to gays. It says "you aren't as good as us, but we're going to be nice and give you equal rights anyway." Second problem is that it solves nothing, for the battle merely shifts to differentiating rights between civil unions and real marriage. Separate but equal is never equal, otherwise there'd be no point in its being separate.

Okay, three problems - it would also perpetuate the notion that government has an innate right to veto marriage between two consenting adults for no reasons beyond "we've always done that" and "eeew".

 

[MongGrel]

Two problems here. First, calling gay marriages something other than marriage is, as Realibrad points out, a slap in the face to gays. It says "you aren't as good as us, but we're going to be nice and give you equal rights anyway." Second problem is that it solves nothing, for the battle merely shifts to differentiating rights between civil unions and real marriage. Separate but equal is never equal, otherwise there'd be no point in its being separate.

Okay, three problems - it would also perpetuate the notion that government has an innate right to veto marriage between two consenting adults for no reasons beyond "we've always done that" and "eeew".

You raise some good points.

But I'm getting old and set in my ways, and even know a lot of gays personally I think are fantastic people.

But I still will always think of marriage personally in the man and women sense of the term.

 

[Jhhnn]

Two problems here. First, calling gay marriages something other than marriage is, as Realibrad points out, a slap in the face to gays. It says "you aren't as good as us, but we're going to be nice and give you equal rights anyway." Second problem is that it solves nothing, for the battle merely shifts to differentiating rights between civil unions and real marriage. Separate but equal is never equal, otherwise there'd be no point in its being separate.

Okay, three problems - it would also perpetuate the notion that government has an innate right to veto marriage between two consenting adults for no reasons beyond "we've always done that" and "eeew".

Gawd. 10 years ago, civil unions weren't a slap in the face to gays- they were a manifestation of the soft headedness of silly libruhls, cuz, well, cuz the next thing you know they'll be wantin' to call it marriage. Arch conservatives weren't willing to budge even that far in many places.

In states that instituted civil unions there was no differentiation in rights between that & married, iirc. They just amended the statutes to include civil unions.

The other side of it, the part you're trying desperately to avoid, is that Trump & the Repubs still oppose gay marriage & would reverse Obergefell if they could-

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality.

"They're just as bad" def doesn't cut it on this subject.

 

[ivwshane]

Gawd. 10 years ago, civil unions weren't a slap in the face to gays- they were a manifestation of the soft headedness of silly libruhls, cuz, well, cuz the next thing you know they'll be wantin' to call it marriage. Arch conservatives weren't willing to budge even that far in many places.

In states that instituted civil unions there was no differentiation in rights between that & married, iirc. They just amended the statutes to include civil unions.

The other side of it, the part you're trying desperately to avoid, is that Trump & the Repubs still oppose gay marriage & would reverse Obergefell if they could-

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality.

"They're just as bad" def doesn't cut it on this subject.

Along with sarcasm, you know right minded individuals don't get context either. Even though it's been brought up three times now and they still don't get it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Along with sarcasm, you know right minded individuals don't get context either. Even though it's been brought up three times now and they still don't get it.

When the subject is Hillary they just attack. It's like Obama- neither one can do anything right.

 

[realibrad]

Let's go to those posts directly to verify what I said:

Here's where I told you it was in the lancet, notice I literally tell you to google for it, given it's literally the first hit for any such search:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38374360

I asked you to post your sources, and instead you tell me to go google it. Which is why I responded with...

"So, you wont post your sources, I have to go looking for your sources."

You were too busy to link me to the article, but I never said I was not going to get it. Again, its a distraction. It takes a long time to go over an entire paper, so you saying get it and then expecting a response quickly is dumb and you know it. After you said the Lancet study, I was in the process of going over it. Unless you expected me to not read it, which is probably true.

Here's you whining how unfair it is to expect you to find such a study:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38374859

At best what you just said is you being too dumb to understand what I said, and at worst a flat out lie.
What I said was "So, you wont post your sources, I have to go looking for your sources." Your mind must be so filled with shit you make up, that someone how me saying that you are making me go look for your sources is me whining about how unfair something is. I would be even the people that dislike me would say that what you just said is wrong. Distraction again.

Here's me a day later showing you how to google for the study:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-7#post-38375952

Again, this is a distraction. You want it to seem as if I was unwilling to find the paper, rather than me going over a very long paper. If you make a claim, you should back it up. Telling people to go look for the evidence that you are using is BS. You like to argue and do as little work to support your claims. That is likely due to your stances being BS and data would get in the way.

After finally figuring out how to use google, here's you then trying your best to "discredit" an epidemiology study with the typical anti-science denialism material for dumbshits:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...germany-with-axe.2480566/page-8#post-38376087
and let me quote this for emphasis:
"This is why I asked you to provide your source. Turns out, your source is shit." Rather amusing when that source comes up with similar post-conflict mortality figures as the sources you like.

Because your source was shit, and still is shit. The paper I first provided was a look at the methodology of the lancet study. That is not anti science, but claiming it to be so would get most to dismiss what I provided. You claiming the paper anti science gives you an excuse to dismiss data that you disagree with. This is a known thing, and if you dont agree, go google it lol.

Also, the ASA supported supported the criticisms AAPOR. Are you now trying to say that the ASA is not credible?

Every large study after the Lancet found drastically lower numbers. Something you cant admit it seems. Instead of do what I did, and look at the study to find faults, you attack me as an easier way to dismiss the data. Its amazing how you build this castle of bullshit to protect your desired view. If the numbers were 100k or 600k, we should have never been in Iraq. But you seem to want to push a narrative and anyone who does not fully accept the worst possible view is the enemy.

 

[agent00f]

Frankly I have zero desire to be a co-moron. The evidence that you have zero clue is unimpeachable.

 

[realibrad]

Frankly I have zero desire to be a co-moron. The evidence that you have zero clue is unimpeachable.

Lol ok buddy.

You make a claim with a study that is shit. I give you reasons as to why, and other better done studies. I guess you have no other choice but to call me stupid and move on. Its hard to fight evidence and be anti science eh.

 

[agent00f]

Lol ok buddy.

You make a claim with a study that is shit. I give you reasons as to why, and other better done studies. I guess you have no other choice but to call me stupid and move on. Its hard to fight evidence and be anti science eh.

Sure, studies which returned the same empirical metric. You literally still have zero clue what these studies are even measuring, and presumably waiting for someone to tell you the term so you can pretend to be right about "term" all along.

 

[realibrad]

Sure, studies which returned the same empirical metric. You literally still have zero clue what these studies are even measuring, and presumably waiting for someone to tell you the term so you can pretend to be right about "term" all along.

The claim that started this was excess violent deaths. Not excess deaths, not violent deaths, violent excess deaths. Excess deaths can be violent and non violent. So, its a fact that violent excess deaths cannot be higher than excess deaths, as a+b=c, unless you could have negative deaths...zombies?

Excess deaths are deaths above the previous baseline. That is it. It does not inherently mean the war was the main causal factor. Ill give you an example. Imagine there is a dam that was failing and over capacity, and is about to go. A truck drives over it and it fails and kills 1,000 people. Had the truck not driven over it, it would have failed the following week. The excess death metric would capture the 1000 dead after the incident of the truck and the dam failing. It does not take into account any causal factors because that is not what the metric does.

The Lancet estimated 650k+ excess deaths, and of those 601k were violent. That was for a 3 year period.

The PLOS estimated 460k excess deaths, and about 276k of those violent excess deaths.

In what world do you live where 276k violent excess deaths is the same as 601k violent excess deaths?

Here is a great break down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

As you can see, they did not find the same excess violent deaths which was your claim.

 

[realibrad]

Please. Under sodomy laws, all gay sex was illegal. That can't be said for hetero sex.

You're still stripping away the context of the way things were when certain things were said, as well.

The truth is that Marriage has been one of those things where separation of church & state really hasn't been observed in the past. We let the legal rights & obligations of domestic partnerships & kinship be defined with a religious word. In reality, for the purposes of govt & the law, equal rights are equal rights no matter what you call them.

Back then, the real battle was for gays having equal rights at all, not about what to call it.

The point is this, if Hillary really was pro gay marriage but had to do untasteful things then I would support that. We don't live in a black and white world, and somethings its the lesser of two evils. The fact that she carried her stance for way longer than what was needed is the problem. She was for "traditional" and "moral" marriage for way too long. I'm not saying she is evil, but 100% she was doing things that were not needed. She follows popular views, even when those views are against equality.

Hillary is better than Trump for the very reason that she also has a problem. As society grows more moral, so does she. Trump will Trump no matter what people want. But to say that she was always on the side of gay rights would be wrong. I can admit that, and also admit she is better than Trump.

 

[ivwshane]

The point is this, if Hillary really was pro gay marriage but had to do untasteful things then I would support that. We don't live in a black and white world, and somethings its the lesser of two evils. The fact that she carried her stance for way longer than what was needed is the problem. She was for "traditional" and "moral" marriage for way too long. I'm not saying she is evil, but 100% she was doing things that were not needed. She follows popular views, even when those views are against equality.

Hillary is better than Trump for the very reason that she also has a problem. As society grows more moral, so does she. Trump will Trump no matter what people want. But to say that she was always on the side of gay rights would be wrong. I can admit that, and also admit she is better than Trump.

You said she pushed for anti gay policies, she didn't, you were wrong because context matters.

 

[realibrad]

You said she pushed for anti gay policies, she didn't, you were wrong because context matters.

So your argument is that when she said this "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position." that was just her lying. During her interview with Gross, she was asked if she was for gay marriage along but could not politically support it, she said no, that is not true.

So what you have is that she was pusning for DOMA, but did not really want it, but when asked if that was just a political move, she said no.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-marriage-is-always-between-a-man-and-a-woman/

Why are you so stuck on this? She had bad views before and now she has better views.

 

[agent00f]

The claim that started this was excess violent deaths. Not excess deaths, not violent deaths, violent excess deaths. Excess deaths can be violent and non violent. So, its a fact that violent excess deaths cannot be higher than excess deaths, as a+b=c, unless you could have negative deaths...zombies?

Excess deaths are deaths above the previous baseline. That is it. It does not inherently mean the war was the main causal factor. Ill give you an example. Imagine there is a dam that was failing and over capacity, and is about to go. A truck drives over it and it fails and kills 1,000 people. Had the truck not driven over it, it would have failed the following week. The excess death metric would capture the 1000 dead after the incident of the truck and the dam failing. It does not take into account any causal factors because that is not what the metric does.

The Lancet estimated 650k+ excess deaths, and of those 601k were violent. That was for a 3 year period.

The PLOS estimated 460k excess deaths, and about 276k of those violent excess deaths.

In what world do you live where 276k violent excess deaths is the same as 601k violent excess deaths?

Here is a great break down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source

As you can see, they did not find the same excess violent deaths which was your claim.

LOL, still can't figure out what these epistemological surveys are/can measure. I'm sure if you throw around enough terms you found in google you'll eventually hit it.

 

[realibrad]

LOL, still can't figure out what these epistemological surveys are/can measure. I'm sure if you throw around enough terms you found in google you'll eventually hit it.

Epistemological and Epidemiology are not the same thing fyi.

At this point, you have shifted your argument again. Before you were saying that the metric of excess violent deaths were all the same across all the studies. When I showed you they were not, you shifted to this.

Your claim that all the studies have the same numbers is wrong. I know its hard to admit you were wrong, but the evidence shows you were wrong. Science is tough, and its no fun sometimes, but its a valid process.

So when you claimed this
"Funny all the studies largely agree on key measured figures and mostly produce different results due to internal procedural differences"

and this
"Scientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths"

The facts are not with you.
Here are the cold hard facts of other studies compared to the Lancet study.

Comparison Of Pre-Iraq War Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 2.89 per 1,000 2001-2003
2004 Lancet 5.0 per 1,000 2002-2003
2006 Lancet 5.5 per 1,000 2002-2003

Comparison Of Post-Invasion Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 4.5 per 1,000 2003-2011
Iraq Family Health Survey 5.31 per 1,000 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 10.3 per 1,000 2003-2006
2004 Lancet 12.3 per 1,000 2003-2004
2006 Lancet 13.3 per 1,000 2003-2006

Comparison Of Estimated Deaths
Iraq Living Conditions 24,000 2003-2004
2004 Lancet 98,000 2003-2004
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 2003-2006
2006 Lancet 654,965 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 1,033,000 2003-2007
PLOS Medicine 460,000 2003-2011

Here is the definition of Excess deaths (mortality)
Excess mortality is the number of deaths, or mortality, caused by a specific disease, condition, or exposure to harmful circumstances such as radiation, environmental chemicals, or natural disaster.
Fucking weird right? That excess death count is crazy different. As your recall, violent deaths is just a subgroup of excess deaths for this context. Its okay, just breath and admit you are wrong.

 

[agent00f]

Epistemological and Epidemiology are not the same thing fyi.

At this point, you have shifted your argument again. Before you were saying that the metric of excess violent deaths were all the same across all the studies. When I showed you they were not, you shifted to this.

Your claim that all the studies have the same numbers is wrong. I know its hard to admit you were wrong, but the evidence shows you were wrong. Science is tough, and its no fun sometimes, but its a valid process.

So when you claimed this
"Funny all the studies largely agree on key measured figures and mostly produce different results due to internal procedural differences"

and this
"Scientific studies all show a few hundred thousand excess violent deaths"

The facts are not with you.
Here are the cold hard facts of other studies compared to the Lancet study.

Comparison Of Pre-Iraq War Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 2.89 per 1,000 2001-2003
2004 Lancet 5.0 per 1,000 2002-2003
2006 Lancet 5.5 per 1,000 2002-2003

Comparison Of Post-Invasion Crude Death Rates
PLOS Medicine 4.5 per 1,000 2003-2011
Iraq Family Health Survey 5.31 per 1,000 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 10.3 per 1,000 2003-2006
2004 Lancet 12.3 per 1,000 2003-2004
2006 Lancet 13.3 per 1,000 2003-2006

Comparison Of Estimated Deaths
Iraq Living Conditions 24,000 2003-2004
2004 Lancet 98,000 2003-2004
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 2003-2006
2006 Lancet 654,965 2003-2006
Opinion Research Business 1,033,000 2003-2007
PLOS Medicine 460,000 2003-2011

Here is the definition of Excess deaths (mortality)
Excess mortality is the number of deaths, or mortality, caused by a specific disease, condition, or exposure to harmful circumstances such as radiation, environmental chemicals, or natural disaster.
Fucking weird right? That excess death count is crazy different. As your recall, violent deaths is just a subgroup of excess deaths for this context. Its okay, just breath and admit you are wrong.

LOL, the only metric a contemporary survey can measure in this case is post-conflict mortality, given they don't have access to a time machine to survey what came before. Literally your only skill in the matter of science is parrot numbers you have zero clue the derivation of. Not exactly a surprise given your source which "discredits" the lancet similarly came from someone with zero clue about the relevant field. That statement you're on the side of people who know what they're talking about was particularly funny.

 

[realibrad]

LOL, the only metric a contemporary survey can measure in this case is post-conflict mortality, given they don't have access to a time machine to survey what came before. Literally your only skill in the matter of science is parrot numbers you have zero clue the meaning of. Not exactly a surprise given your source which "discredits" the lancet came from someone with zero clue about the relevant field.

Wrong. How is it that you think all of the surveys have a pre conflict mortality rate? You believe that the only way to get data from previous mortality rates is with a time machine? You do know we can save things right? Like, if I get a statement in the mail, I can put it into a drawer, or scan it and save it digitally. We have had drawer technology for a very long time. So when the UN collects data, they don't just throw it away. They do what we call "save" and keep the data.

Check out this sick ass pdf from the UN.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/DYBHist/HistTab11.pdf

Damn son, its almost like the UN has been collecting data for like, mortality and shit. Weird right?

So lets see, you made a claim about all studies having the same excess mortality, False.
You claimed that we cant get data on mortality rates pre invasion, False.

Is your defense that I have a time machine?

 

[agent00f]

Wrong. How is it that you think all of the surveys have a pre conflict mortality rate? You believe that the only way to get data from previous mortality rates is with a time machine? You do know we can save things right? Like, if I get a statement in the mail, I can put it into a drawer, or scan it and save it digitally. We have had drawer technology for a very long time. So when the UN collects data, they don't just throw it away. They do what we call "save" and keep the data.

Check out this sick ass pdf from the UN.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/DYBHist/HistTab11.pdf

Damn son, its almost like the UN has been collecting data for like, mortality and shit. Weird right?

So lets see, you made a claim about all studies having the same excess mortality, False.
You claimed that we cant get data on mortality rates pre invasion, False.

Is your defense that I have a time machine?

Hahaha, you still literally have zero clue what's being said. All of these studies use different (and sometimes rather sophisticated) processes to estimate pre-conflict figures congruent with the study because they literally cannot have surveyed during that time. I'm sure you know all about these processes now that it's been mentioned (hint: it doesn't involve saving papers in a drawer).

Someone mentioned buckshatting above which was a rather apt description given that member was also rather well known for pretending he had a fucking clue.

 

[realibrad]

Hahaha, you still literally have zero clue what's being said. All of these studies use different (and sometimes rather sophisticated) processes to estimate pre-conflict figures congruent with the study because they literally cannot have surveyed during that time. I'm sure you know all about these processes now that it's been mentioned (hint: it doesn't involve saving papers in a drawer).

Someone mentioned buckshatting above which was a rather apt description given that member was also rather well known for pretending he had a fucking clue.

There are multiple ways of finding pre incident values.

You said this "LOL, the only metric a contemporary survey can measure in this case is post-conflict mortality, given they don't have access to a time machine to survey what came before." That is 100% wrong. The surveys do not simply count, they extrapolate. Saying they cannot measure pre conflict mortality is wrong. Again, you are still shifting from admitting you are wrong. Can you now admit that you are wrong?

I have given you data, and reason. Every time I do, you try and shift to a different issue or insult.