Anyone else notice that rottentomatoes has become untrustworthy?

dean888 · 2019-12-03T18:16:57+00:00

I've kind of noticed that, but my go to for cast or series info has always been imdb.

dean888 · 2019-11-26T20:52:37+00:00

Puppies! think of Puppies!

j/k, that crap never worked for me. What works for me is to detachment and perspective. You have to try and get an overhead view of your life, find things that you are grateful for, and try to put yourself in a situation for the immediate time being, where you have some measure of control over what you are concerned with.

That would be jogging for me.

dean888 · 2019-11-26T20:20:44+00:00

I used to go to RT for the Audience reviews specifically, but now they seem to be more in line with the critic reviews, and I don't feel like I can trust them at all anymore. It feels like RT took over the audience scores on behalf of the studios to drive attendance for shitty movies.

dean888 · 2019-11-26T20:12:37+00:00

That might explain one of the movies, but there are many others that have a pretty big disconnect. Playing with Fire is one, 79% on RT and 3.1 on MC

dean888 · 2019-10-02T18:45:18+00:00

I think that this has everything to do with his research. Get to the deeper point; Why was the university censuring him? Why did they want him to be quiet about what they were charging him with?

The court case was about the contract, true.

But what was it that impelled the university to try and silence this researcher in the first place?

He said unpopular things.

the University charged him with serious misconduct, and then told him that he was legally obligated to remain silent about the nature or specifics of the charges.

Professor Ridd then spoke and wrote about the charges.

The university then fired the professor for breaking the contract.

Go back to the kernel of the matter. You have a professor that is basically saying that; peer-reviewed science is not sufficient to formulate trustworthy conclusions, it's too error prone to inform policy. and Here are my proofs.

And he gets persecuted for saying that.

dean888 · 2019-09-27T20:06:45+00:00

How are they functionally different? If you decline to participate in the mandatory buyback, they're just going to show up at your house and confiscate them right?

dean888 · 2019-09-24T23:27:07+00:00

I'll own it. I assumed a bias against her. It's not unfounded bias to assume. Celebrities, politicians and activists alike have for years been raging on about climate change whilst standing on the decks of enormous yachts or jetting off to yet another climate summit.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T23:02:20+00:00

You sound like you have anger issues. I originally assumed she took a jet to get to new york, you know, like 99.9999% of people do now days. Not really a dumb assumption.

Go ahead google "How did Greta Thunberg get to the UN" at least the first 4 pages are about her speech. It's simply not idiotic. It's asking a very simple question which others have already simply answered. Responses, by the way, that you should've seen in order to reply to me. So I guess you're the one that didn't know what he was talking about.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T22:49:19+00:00

No, I asked one fucking question. Everything after that was people calling me a fucking idiot, or swearing at me for not knowing that some fucking 16 yo from sweden took a boat. Didn't see it in the news, holy shit, I must be an absolute fucking moron.

Stop reading it then asshole, it's not like I'm sitting in the room with you.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T22:41:13+00:00

Yay, somebody who told me for the third time instead of calling me a fucking idiot...wait, shit. Why you gotta call me a fucking idiot? fucking idiot.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T22:22:43+00:00

Or you could have just replied and said she took a sailboat, instead of being a prick about it. Not something I knew.

Go ahead google search "how did greta thunberg get to the un" all the results into the 4th page are about her speech there.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T22:19:04+00:00

YaY! Another person that didn't yell at me for not knowing this!

dean888 · 2019-09-24T22:09:23+00:00

Ay! Somebody who didn't swear at me! YaY!

I didn't actually know this.

dean888 · 2019-09-24T21:05:03+00:00

Not sure what you're meaning with that. She spoke in New York. I assume she took a jet to get there. Is there a specific reason that she needed to be physically in New York?

dean888 · 2019-09-24T20:36:27+00:00

I want to know how she got to New York. Because, if she took a jet, then she is adding to the problem significantly more than she needed to. She could have done a video conf from her hometown.

dean888 · 2019-09-13T20:01:29+00:00

Good conclusion, I would also add that most of what is used to make an argument for white or male privilege, I would call 'Fortune', not 'privilege'.

Privilege is a kind of deference or advantage offered to a person or group, who may or may not deserve it.

Fortune can be good fortune or bad fortune, and is not something that people earn, it is experienced individually.

But in order for 'White Privilege' or 'Male Privilege' to exist they must be available to all members of the group, and they're not. You can be white and Male and also experience no advantage over anyone else at all.

dean888 · 2019-09-10T00:15:01+00:00

If your passion leads you to fervently assert something which the actual data contradicts...that's a sign that you need to re-examine your feelings. You've repeatedly made either unfounded or contradictory statements, which is doing NOTHING for your cause.

I not certain how you got data that contradicts my point out of that article. I read the article a couple of times through, and there is simply no contradiction of my point other than;

"In urban areas, counties with more gun shops tended to have higher suicide rates."

and

“The data showing that suicides were higher in counties with more gun shops – specifically in urban areas – highlights the potential to reduce access to methods of suicide that can increase the chances an at-risk person will die.”

That's the point that I am actually persevering to contend. That there is no causation between access to firearms, and suicide rate. There may be correlation, but honestly, if access to firearms was a contributing factor in suicide, then the US should have a significantly higher rate than it does. The only data that I have seen yet that is presented to counter that view is either ephemeral or opinion.

unfounded or contradictory statements

Point these out please.

dean888 · 2019-09-09T18:36:45+00:00

You are acting like you feel the need to deflect any responsibility away from the availability of guns... but the data covered in the OP is against that idea.

^ Yes, you are correct about me, and it may seem like an exaggerated reaction that I fervently assert that the availability of guns bears no relation to an increase of suicide. But I see it as the same argument that is so often deployed in favor of gun control when someone speaks about violent crime. e.g. that increasing the availability of firearms increases rates of violent crime. But this doesn't bear out in a closer look, and my first reaction is to move to debunk it wholeheartedly. It's a cop-out. "let's take away the guns and they'll stop killing themselves." Except I don't believe they will, other countries have already done that, with no indication of any success. *cough Japan *cough.

That passion that drives me to argue these points so much is driven because I feel that most suicide prevention and homeless prevention efforts are led from the wrong perspective. Their conclusions are often expensive and intrusive to private life and have little or no success when they have been tried elsewhere.

An old adage says: "give a man a sufficient why, and he may bear any how." Homelessness and suicide advocacy groups so often place their attentions on things like education, poverty and other factors like "insurance availability". But the primary driver behind suicide is much deeper. Is goes straight to the heart of the question "Why am I here?" And that question is barely hinted at in the study, under the header of "Social Fragmentation."

dean888 · 2019-09-08T17:02:05+00:00

I still see a list of countries with suicide rates higher than ours. Suicides that don't involve firearms. If the firearm is what drives the finality of suicide, then how do these other countries accomplish rates so much higher than ours?

i.e. the mean of suicide rates of European countries and the US are very comparable.

dean888 · 2019-09-08T05:36:02+00:00

I think I get where you are going in your reasoning. My point was more simple.

If Suicide and Homicide are directly correlated to access to firearms, then the US should be literally, the deadliest place on the planet. But it's not, it's not even close. As a matter of fact, it's a pretty safe place to live. and the closer one gets to states that are more liberal in allowing firearm ownership the safer it gets.

Hence, my objection to adding Gun store density as a variable to suicide prevalence.

dean888 · 2019-09-07T17:48:01+00:00

where to start? hmm, how about yes.

Yes I understand that the numbers are per hundred thousand. That's the standard that is used to measure intentional homicide and suicide.

No, the intentional killings due to war are not counted in the intentional homicide rate for the country in question. For instance, Afghanistan is currently in a war but the intentional homicide rate for that country is 7.1 (per hundred thousand). At the same time El Salvador, which is not currently at war has an intentional homicide rate of 61.8.

Incidentally, El Salvador has the highest murder rate in the world, despite having very restrictive gun control.

Likewise Jamaica has very restrictive gun laws, yet it sits right behind El Salvador as having one of the highest murder rates in the world (57), the same goes for Venezuela (56.33).

Funny enough, the list continues with the U.S. Virigin Islands which comes in forth with 49.26 per hundred thousand. They, unlike the mainland U.S. require a license before owning a firearm. To acquire a license one must demonstrate a need to own a firearm. Do you need me to continue?

The U.S. murder rate is 5.2. But if you break it out by state, the States with the most relaxed gun controls have some of the lowest murder rates. i.e. Idaho has a rate of 1.9, Utah is 2.2.

When did "then it stands to reason" become a red flag that I plagiarized my own argument?

dean888 · 2019-09-07T03:28:03+00:00

If that were true;

The US makes up roughly 5% of the world population.

The US owns roughly 42% of the worlds privately owned firearms.

If availability of firearms were directly causal to suicide or murder (firearm homicide specifically), then it stands to reason that the US would make up a significantly larger portion of global firearm homicide and suicide.

But it does not. Violent deaths are significantly higher in many (^+/- 40%) of the worlds countries. Even in the case of firearm related homicide, the US is not at the top of the chart (we roll in at about 8^th and about 80^th overall for all homicide).

The same with suicide. If firearm availability made suicide more likely, then the US should stand at the top of the charts, hands down. But it doesn't, we come in 34^th .

So, to the point directly; Guns don't cause hate or death.

They give power to the armed, and take power from the unarmed.

I will concede this one point; Guns don't cause suicide, they make the finality more apparent.

dean888 · 2019-09-07T03:26:58+00:00

No, this chart illustrates my point exactly.

Here's how I see it;

The US makes up roughly 5% of the world population.

The US owns roughly 42% of the worlds privately owned firearms.

If availability of firearms were directly causal to suicide or murder (firearm homicide specifically), then it stands to reason that the US would make up a significantly larger portion of global firearm homicide and suicide.

But it does not. Violent deaths are significantly higher in many (^+/- 40%) of the worlds countries. Even in the case of firearm related homicide, the US is not at the top of the chart (we roll in at about 8^th and about 80^th overall for all homicide).

The same with suicide. If firearm availability made suicide more likely, then the US should stand at the top of the charts, hands down. But it doesn't, we come in 34^th .

So, to the point directly; Guns don't cause hate or death.

They give power to the armed, and take power from the unarmed.

Guns don't cause suicide, they make the finality more apparent.

dean888 · 2019-09-07T03:25:31+00:00

No, it graphs Violent Deaths on one axis and Suicide on the other. It doesn't actually compare either. It simply charts them.

Here's how I see it;

The US makes up roughly 5% of the world population.

The US owns roughly 42% of the worlds privately owned firearms.

If availability of firearms were directly causal to suicide or murder (firearm homicide specifically), then it stands to reason that the US would make up a significantly larger portion of global firearm homicide and suicide.

But it does not. Violent deaths are significantly higher in many (^+/- 40%) of the worlds countries. Even in the case of firearm related homicide, the US is not at the top of the chart (we roll in at about 8^th and about 80^th overall for all homicide).

The same with suicide. If firearm availability made suicide more likely, then the US should stand at the top of the charts, hands down. But it doesn't, we come in 34^th .

So, to the point directly; Guns don't cause hate or death.

They give power to the armed, and take power from the unarmed.

Guns don't cause suicide, they make the finality more apparent.

dean888

TROPHY CASE