• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Supreme Court Spurns Bid for Religious Opt-Out From Vaccine Rule

TU Curmudgeon said:
Your statement was "If my math is correct that amounts to.0029404% of the total population. Sorry, but I’m not ready to hyperventilate".

My response was that your "math" produced a result that was two orders of magnitude too low.

To increase "0.0029404%" by two orders of magnitude, you multiply it by 100.

100 x 0.0029404% = 0.29404%.

Now, if you want to do "rounding", what that means is that you truncate the number at some agreed number of digits.
  1. If you round 0.0029404% up to 6 significant digits, what you get is 0.002940%.
  2. If you round 0.0029404% up to 5 significant digits, what you get is 0.00294%.
  3. If you round 0.0029404% up to 4 significant digits, what you get is 0.0029%.
  4. If you round 0.0029404% up to 3 significant digits, what you get is 0.003%.
  5. If you round 0.0029404% up to 2 significant digits, what you get is 0.00%.
  6. If you round 0.0029404% up to 1 significant digits (which is what your ".3%" [sic] is), what you get is 0.0%.
  7. If you round 0.0029404% up to 1 significant digits, (which is what your ".3%" [sic] is), what you DO NOT get is 0.3%.

I'm so sorry that your still cannot do basic arithmetic but your frantic floundering and use of terms that you do not know the meaning of is embarrassing your primary grade school arithmetic teachers.
Click to expand...
What is 1% of 332,403,650? Is it anywhere close to 977,402?
 
Overitall said:
What is 1% of 332,403,650?
Click to expand...
  1. To find 1% of 332,403,650,
  2. divide 332,403,650 by 100
  3. then multiply the quotient by 1.
This is something that is normally taught starting in Grade 3, but I guess, if you don't already know how to do it, that you missed school that decade.
Overitall said:
Is it anywhere close to 977,402?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the fact that you appear not to be able to do basic arithmetic and do not appear to know the meanings of the technical (arithmetic) terms you have bandied about?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
  1. To find 1% of 332,403,650,
  2. divide 332,403,650 by 100
  3. then multiply the quotient by 1.
This is something that is normally taught starting in Grade 3, but I guess, if you don't already know how to do it, that you missed school that decade.

What does that have to do with the fact that you appear not to be able to do basic arithmetic and do not appear to know the meanings of the technical (arithmetic) terms you have bandied about?
Click to expand...
You're trying desperately to deflect from the initial point I was making. If I wanted a math tutor it definitely wouldn't be you. Quit putting on this tap dancing show and address my point. Or continue demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.
 
Overitall said:
You're trying desperately to deflect from the initial point I was making. If I wanted a math tutor it definitely wouldn't be you.
Click to expand...
Well you most certainly could use one if you aren't able to do basic arithmetic like finding percentages.

After all, your statement was "Your statement was "If my math is correct that amounts to.0029404% of the total population." and I pointed out that your math was NOT correct. I'm so sorry that I embarrassed you by showing that you didn't know how to "do percentages" (a basic arithmetic skill taught commencing in the Third Grade).

Then you babbled on about "rounding" (an arithmetic skill generally taught in Grade Four) and I pointed out that you didn't appear to know what "rounding" actually was or how to do it. I'm so sorry that I embarrassed you by showing that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Overitall said:
Quit putting on this tap dancing show and address my point.
Click to expand...
What was your "point"? Was it that you simply don't give a damn about the 979,725 Americans who have died due to COVID-19?

Well, I could tell you what I think about someone who simply doesn't care about the fact that 979,725 of their own countrymen have died due to the bungling and political infighting of their own government members - but I'd REALLY get in trouble with the moderators if I did so.

Or was your point that American high school graduates were innumerate?

If so, you have done a very fine job of illustrating that point all by yourself.
Overitall said:
Or continue demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
The usual parting shot of someone who knows that their position is untenable and makes them look silly (but who is too embarrassed to admit it).
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well you most certainly could use one if you aren't able to do basic arithmetic like finding percentages.

What was your "point"? Was it that you simply don't give a damn about the 979,725 Americans who have died due to COVID-19?

Well, I could tell you what I think about someone who simply doesn't care about the fact that 979,725 of their own countrymen have died due to the bungling and political infighting of their own government members - but I'd REALLY get in trouble with the moderators if I did so.

The usual parting shot of someone who knows that their position is untenable and makes them look silly (but who is too embarrassed to admit it).
Click to expand...
Very well. You made your choice and sadly it was in favor of intellectual dishonesty. Enjoy the rest of your day.
 
DiAnna said:
Please provide an English translation. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/forum-rules.28594/ Thanks.
Click to expand...
Sorry I thought that almost everyone would understand the Franglish.

"Je suis" is French for "I am".

"crushed" is English for "crushed".

"Je ne ... pas" is the French construction for "I so not".

"carea damn" is Franglish for "care a damn".

Oh yes, and "<SARC>" means "sarcasm" in any language.

Happy to oblige for the monolinguals who only speak American.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Is there a required level of literacy because I have seen some posts that were so deficient in spelling, grammar, and syntax that they were essentially meaningless.

Oh yes, is a post that consists solely of a graphic that someone else has produced considered to be in English?
Click to expand...
Obviously there is no required level of literacy, proven daily. Graphics, videos, etc. are considered on a case-by-case basis by the Admins/Mod Team. A graphic with a foreign language sentence would probably be ignored (unless someone with too much time on their hands reports it, lol) but a 20 minute video of breaking news in Russian would likely be edited/deleted.
 
DiAnna said:
Obviously there is no required level of literacy, proven daily.
Click to expand...
All too true.
DiAnna said:
Graphics, videos, etc. are considered on a case-by-case basis by the Admins/Mod Team. A graphic with a foreign language sentence would probably be ignored (unless someone with too much time on their hands reports it, lol)
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable enough. But what I was wondering about was posts that consisted solely of "memes" without any evidence of personal thought (or, in fact, copyright acknowledgment).
DiAnna said:
but a 20 minute video of breaking news in Russian would likely be edited/deleted.
Click to expand...
I would say that that would probably be a good economy of bandwidth measure since the number of members who would have a clue what it was actually all about (or even when the situation took place) would likely be limited to no more than a handful of people plus (one hopes [but with some trepidation]) the person who posted it.
 
American said:
Snopes is completely reliable.
www.forbes.com

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers

Pulling back the curtain, we find that the fact checkers may not be as open and transparent as we thought
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
www.buzzfeednews.com

The Cofounder Of The Fact-Checking Site Snopes Was Writing Plagiarized Articles Under A Fake Name

“You can always take an existing article and rewrite it just enough to avoid copyright infringement."
www.buzzfeednews.com www.buzzfeednews.com
nypost.com

Snopes latest example of ‘fact checking’ the truth away

Snopes.com has shifted its “fact check” on the news that the Biden administration would be offering free crack pipes as part of a $30 million program from “mostly false” to “outdated” — the latest …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

Well if you didn't get that anecdote from known liar deSantis, where did you get it?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Sorry I thought that almost everyone would understand the Franglish.

"Je suis" is French for "I am".

"crushed" is English for "crushed".

"Je ne ... pas" is the French construction for "I so not".

"carea damn" is Franglish for "care a damn".

Oh yes, and "<SARC>" means "sarcasm" in any language.

Happy to oblige for the monolinguals who only speak American.
Click to expand...

Hi, TU.

Your posts brought two thoughts to mind.

First, it reminded me of my grandmother. One of the things she told me as a youngster was, "Whenever you hear someone speak with an accent, be humble. They speak at least two languages. You only speak one."

And then one of my favorite books on star names [Ed.: That's real stars, not Hollywood celebrities,] includes Greek and Latin sentences and words. They are not translated. It's assumed the readers know the languages. Arabic words and phrases are translated, however. That was then. This is, well, now.

Regards, cum saluere to you and yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom