Funny events in anti-woke world

[The Rogue Wolf]

That said, there is a silver lining

Cybertruck Owner Who Decried Taxes Mocked for Begging for Help as California Wildfire Threatens His Property

West Coast-based real estate mogul and Elon Musk fan Keith Wasserman, who has called for cutting property taxes, triggered a tidal wave of schadenfreude on social media after begging for "private firefighters" to come "protect our home" in the city. Los Angeles has been battling with several...

www.yahoo.com

View attachment 12609
View attachment 12610

"They were supposed to cut other people's vital services, not mine!"

 

[Agema]

I'm analyzing her testimony

I guess analysing badly and biasedly is still analysing of a sort, yes.

and while be interviewed about the event she suggested it wasn't rape because rape is sexy.

Given the linguistic somersaults you have performed to try to excuse things Trump has said, this sort of misrepresentation sticks out like a sore thumb. Never mind that it also demonstrates your abject hypocrisy for all the times you've pedantically criticised anyone else for not being word perfect.

She's got potential ulterior motives and a record of absurd statements to nuke her own credibility on top of the specific details of the claim that seem less than likely.

I love the way you hyperbolically write "nuke her own credibility", with no sense of context or reflection on the man she is accusing. Whatever her flaws, eccentricities, and inaccuracies, she's still more credible than Donald Trump.

Obviously, her superior credibility was critical to the case itself, with its limited evidential scope. However, you could look more widely at Trump's non-stop, decades-long dishonesty binge of fraud, cheating and lies. You appear on the one hand to be aware of this (even if as a grudging concession), and yet at the same time incapable of practically applying that to any "analysis".

 

[tstorm823]

I love the way you hyperbolically write "nuke her own credibility", with no sense of context or reflection on the man she is accusing. Whatever her flaws, eccentricities, and inaccuracies, she's still more credible than Donald Trump.

Obviously, her superior credibility was critical to the case itself, with its limited evidential scope. However, you could look more widely at Trump's non-stop, decades-long dishonesty binge of fraud, cheating and lies. You appear on the one hand to be aware of this (even if as a grudging concession), and yet at the same time incapable of practically applying that to any "analysis".

In this particular instance, and I think you will agree to this, Donald Trump's credibility should be irrelevant. If someone is accused of rape, their public image should not determine the verdict, nobody is so credible as to be incapable of great crimes, nor is anyone so problematic as to be inherently guilty of crimes. Cases do get decided by these things, but they really shouldn't.

The credibility of the accuser, on the other hand, is inherent to the case. If she seems credible, that is important, and it doesn't matter if he seems like a more reliable source, it's still a credible accusation. If she doesn't seem credible, that is a mark against the accusation, and it doesn't matter if he seems like a less reliable source, that's still reason to doubt her.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, I know the drug manufacturer gets money from sources other than US insurers, I never said otherwise. But we're talking about the US system specifically. Money from premiums to insurer, insurer pays PBM, PBM pays drug company, drug company gives back discount/rebate. Sure that $700 they are handing back could be money from some guy in France but it doesn't matter. The PBM could just pay $300 to the drug company and do what they want with the $700, it's effectively the same thing.

No, this isn't how the transaction works. You're imagining an exact transfer of costs, from the member of the public onwards. That's not how insurance functions, and this entirely omits how premiums are determined.

* Insurer sets premium, according to the likely costs to itself + desired margin. If they envisage Drug A will ultimately cost them $400 if required, they set monthly premium at $100, say.

* Hundreds of millions of people pay $100pm.

* The insurer requests the PBM source the drug. Gives them $1000 per prescription, knowing the ultimate cost will be ~$400.

* PBM pays $1000. $800 comes back as rebate.

* $600 is sent onto insurer. PBM pockets $200.

So: the premium is set according to the ultimate projected cost to the insurer. Which doesn't include the rebate pocketed by the PBM, which was never with the insurer or the individual insured.

 

[Agema]

In this particular instance, and I think you will agree to this, Donald Trump's credibility should be irrelevant.

Trump's credibility may be irrelevant if there are insuperable problems with the accuser's claim... but there aren't, nor even close.

Thus if the situation should come down a defamation case (which Trump unnecessarily brought on himself) based on the preponderance of evidence, there becomes a very decent chance he would lose it fair and square. Which he did: and that is okay.

 

[tstorm823]

Trump's credibility may be irrelevant if there are insuperable problems with the accuser's claim... but there aren't, nor even close.

Two responses: first, in the accusation of rape, Trump's credibility should be irrelevant no matter what. Second, it seems your standards continue to slip, as we've gone from "it's not beyond reasonable doubt, it's just more than 50% chance" to "well, as long as the accusation isn't impossible".

 

[Agema]

Two responses: first, in the accusation of rape, Trump's credibility should be irrelevant no matter what.

I have no idea what you think you are arguing here. Let's imagine that it can be objectively demonstrated that sexual intercourse took place between an accuser and accused. The accuser claims rape and the accused consensual sex. Assuming limited or inconclusive other evidence (of assault, other witnesses), it is extremely likely that credibility will be hugely relevant to an outcome.

Second, it seems your standards continue to slip, as we've gone from "it's not beyond reasonable doubt, it's just more than 50% chance" to "well, as long as the accusation isn't impossible".

If there is evidence (most likely objective) that sinks the accusation, credibility of the victim may therefore be moot. For instance, when the accused can prove they were not in the area at that time. This is common sense. You have provided no such evidence, or even close.

Therefore, credibility is necessarily a very big deal. We might note, for instance, that several attacks you have made on Carroll are on that. However, once you are basing arguments on the credibility of the accuser, the credibility of the accused is almost intrinsically up for examination too. At best, one again might argue that an extraordinarily unreliable witness might make the credibility of the accused irrelevant. But you need something vastly stronger than anything you've brought to the table: most importantly, you have presented no meaningful evidence of a pattern of dishonesty.