The case isnt about bias, its about slander and the unwillingness of wikipedia to pull down the slanderous information, even in the face of evidence that its slander
Bullshit. This is in no way slander. Slander is spoken, it would be libel when it is written.
The pretending part doesn't come into the definition of words.
Wrestling is defined in at least two ways. First would be the way NCAA wrestling is, the second would be the way WWE Wrestling is. Both are wrestling, but since the definition is different for the use of the word both fit the definition of wrestling.
WWE is not pretending to NCAA wrestle. They're WWE wrestling.
They're two different things, and if someone doesn't give enough context clues it's likely confusion can occur.
It's like people who get upset that "literally" is now defined as both literal and metaphorical, it is how language evolves.
If you can't admit that language evolves over time, you are left behind.
No, Football (American) players play football, and Football (Soccer) players play Football.
You renaming it to make it seem like its not two words for the same thing doesn't make you correct.
Wrestlers (NCAA) wrestle.
Wrestlers (Pro WWE) wrestle.
Words can have multiple meanings.
That bird is a Crane.
They used a Crane to lift that heavy object.
I have an ant bite on my arm.
It's important to arm yourself with a solid education.
I enjoyed watching a clip from that video.
My mom is going to clip my hair.
The boat is moving at a fairly fast clip.
My favorite flower is a rose.
He quickly rose from his seat.
I like a good pedantry here and there but this is just silly. Football (Soccer) players play Football, and Football (American Football) players play Football.
Just because the same word is used for two different things doesn't make it incorrect.
Professional Wrestlers for the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) are wrestling when they go out there, and NCAA Wrestling tournaments are wrestling as well.
Examples from Merriam-Webster about wrestling:
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Pro wrestling has always been staged, and the audience knew it but didnâ(TM)t care.
â"
Irina Aleksander, New York Times, 20 Feb. 2024
The third-generation WWE star first crossed paths with her at a wrestling event in 2012.
â"
Jacqueline Weiss, Peoplemag, 7 Sep. 2023
The legacy that has been building around USA Wrestling, the bar that has been raised in freestyle wrestling, is amazing.
â"
Maddie Hartley, Kansas City Star, 10 July 2024
Let me recap.
Must I?
The OP article tangentially asserted that this was an amazing breakthrough because only 1/3 of the people who could be taking HIV preventative product weren't doing so, and this would offer them another option for avoiding HIV.
I wish your recap wasn't wrong in the first portion, but okay. the summary ACTUALLY SAYS: but they're taken by "only a little more than one-third of people in the U.S. who could benefit". Not your assertion that only 1/3 WEREN'T doing so. With such a simple mistake, can we trust any more of your recap? Lets see.
I asserted, somewhat tongue in cheek
Absolutely agree you were going for the "It was only a joke" route.
, that maybe people wouldn't need HIV avoidance drugs quite so much if they weren't fucking indiscriminately like rabbits. This is an inarguable fact: having less indiscriminate sex makes it less likely you get HIV.
Absolutely agree less sex = less likely to get HIV. Never said otherwise. What makes you believe this matters when it's not 0%?
Your reply - which is a fairly standard 'internet bullshit tactic' - is to take an hilariously marginal peripheral cause, rape* and infidelity** as
The subject of your comment was "Or..." It wasn't "And...", implying your method would be as effective as a vaccine would. That is patently bullshit, as shown by two examples which your "just don't fuck" method of HIV prevention doesn't work with.
What a silly point badly made.
Stop and consider the situation women are in here. From https://worldpopulationreview.... "For the year 2010, South Africa had the highest rate of rape in the world at 132.4 incidents per 100,000 people. In a survey released by the South African Medical Research Council in 2009, approximately one in four men admitted to committing rape. However, the government in South Africa is working to address this dysfunction, and proponents maintain that the rate has dropped to 72.1 in 2019-20 reporting."
25% ADMITTED TO COMMITTING RAPE. This is what women in South Africa (where the study was conducted) are putting up with.
Then you try to assert that an individual's choice of getting a vaccine isn't driven by what causes the majority of cases. Er...What? What CAUSES the cases is EXACTLY why people would decide it's worth the $ and potential risk of taking a vaccine. People don't get HIV just walking down the street....duh? It's not RANDOM.
What you fear and what a woman in the study fears are two different things. As I've already said, people are more fearful of flying than driving to the airport for the flight, but it is statistically much more dangerous to be in the car than the plane. (I think Boeing's MAX actions are trying to reverse that statistic though)
We're not giving anti-malarials to everyone on Earth because lots of people have a vanishingly tiny chance of being exposed to malaria.
Have I missed a part of this study where the vaccine is being recommended to everyone on Earth?
I can go today and schedule vaccines for Malaria if I wanted to, just tell my Dr I'm travelling and I'm set.. The WHO recommends vaccination against Malaria where it is prevalent essentially like they recommend FLU vaccines where the FLU is prevalent. https://www.who.int/news/item/...
If they create a perfect, 100% effective preventative vaccine against Monkeypox, I'm not taking it because a) I'm in a stable, happy, long term relationship, and b) neither of us frequent gay BDSM conventions which seems to be the primary vector of spread.
I'm unsure why this matters to this conversation? Are you implying since you don't go to BDSM conventions it is impossible for you to be raped or for your partner to cheat on you? I am unsure what the connection is there.
I'm not sure why you're so ardently insisting that responsible sexual behavior doesn't matter here? Well, I can pretty obviously suspect your motivation, of course.
When did I say anything at all about responsible sexual behavior, other than that it is not the only reason to get a vaccine that is effective against HIV? I'd love to hear your thoughts on my motivation here.
* (what % of sex outside of long term relationships is rape? 0.00001%?)
0%. As the National Sexual Violence Resource Center will remind us, Sex without consent isn't sex, it's rape. https://www.nsvrc.org/publicat...
** (which is higher, but I'm going to guess the number of people being "unfaithful" to a legally-bound spouse is still vastly smaller than the number of people just having one-night stands or short term (1 month) "relationships")
Again, it doesn't matter in this situation which is higher unless the smaller number is literally 0. This data is all pretty easy to find. One example I'll use: https://techreport.com/statist...
1: The percentage of men and women in 2017 who cheated on their partners was 20% and 13%.
3: 16% of married couples admitted to being unfaithful at some point in their marriage.
5: According to research, 57% of marriages ended in divorce due to infidelity.
I am happy for you that you have never been sexually assaulted or cheated on. You're in the majority. But the Minority isn't 0, so why someone would decide to get a Vaccine or not get a vaccine doesn't need to be because they decided they want to fuck like bunnies at a BDSM party.
What causes the majority of cases has precisely zero to do with why an individual would get a vaccine.
Maybe you should look up things like people being terrified of flying because they fear a crash, but are fine with the much more dangerous activity of driving to the airport in a car.
....and I know this is a crazy idea, maybe just don't fuck someone until you've known them well enough to know they don't have a chronic disease? I know, it's inconceivable.
I know right, it's not like rape or cheating exists. Those are myths.
Maybe think a bit, I know, it's inconceivable.
Better yet, enforce what's there now. DMCA takedowns are filed by specific individuals, under penalty of perjury.
I dislike when I see people misunderstanding the perjury part of the DMCA stuff. The DMCA mentions perjury twice in the law. the first is this line about filing a DMCA takedown notice: "A statement that the information in the
notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on
behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
infringed."
The statement that the information in the notification is accurate is *NOT* a part of the under penalty of perjury, just that you're authorized to act on behalf of the owner. Meaning you can sit and fire inaccurate notices constantly without penalty of perjury as long as you're authorized to send out notices by the content holder.
On the flip side the counter notice has the following under penalty of perjury: "A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was
removed or disabled as a result of mistake or
misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."
Yep, the person countering the notification has to say under penalty of perjury that the material itself was not the accusers material.
Seems unfair to me.
Car loan doesn't factor into it, not sure why you mention that over the total purchase price & operating cost over the life of the vehicle.
With a 60 mile round trip that is 15,600 miles per year just work and back, Add in other driving I'll hit 100k in 5 or so years easy.
If I drive low miles, I don't need a car with a bigger battery and longer range. None of what you responded with really matters to my points.
I'm not sure what your point was?
Is there indication that the demographic doing that is doing these things? I read the article and it didn't mention anyone's sneakers, phones or streaming services.
Is this just another myth like the "welfare queen" myth started in the 70's?
A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson
