111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Three comments in... and you still have not said a single word about whether radiologists actually catch 35% of diagnoses. But you have found time to call me passive aggressive, entitled, lazy, and immature. For one sentence. Asking for a source... You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance. The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its fine to ask for sources. It's also fine to not give sources when relaying information in freeform comments. It's not fine to ask for sources in the tone you are using though, as though you are annoyed and simply expect sources to always be included with claims. There are better ways of accomplishing your goals.
If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources. It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted. To get around that, just don…
"SOURCE?"
There's a middle ground here that is a grey area that you seem to be pretending is obviously navigated. You're speaking pretty authoritatively on this by the way. Do you have the moral, propositional logic, and epistemological justification for these claims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Calm down You had a point until you did that.
Nah there's no reason to just accept someone's outbursts and not call them out for unsolicited high emotion lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources. It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted. To get around that, just don…
The earth is 21,000 miles in circumference "SOURCE?" There's a middle ground here that is a grey area that you seem to be pretending is obviously navigated. You're speaking pretty authoritatively on this by the way. Do you have the moral, propositional logic, and epistemological justification for these claims?
And there's obviously a difference between an established and obvious fact and a BOLD claim. This person made a BOLD claim. And provided numbers. To me, that requires a source.
Yes, there is a middle ground, but this isn't in the middle ground. I think this type of claim requires a source. A different claim, without specific percentages, would not. Or an obvious claim, like the Earth's circumference, also would not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three comments in... and you still have not said a single word about whether radiologists actually catch 35% of diagnoses. But you have found time to call me passive aggressive, entitled, lazy, and immature. For one sentence. Asking for a source... You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance. The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you give specific numbers then I expect sources. If you give out incredibly bold claims then I also expect sources. It's one thing to talk casually, in which case I agree with you. But as soon as hard numbers are on the table, it's no longer casual, and if you do not provide sources then the assumption has to be that you pulled the numbers out of your ass and you are not to be trusted. To get around that, just don…
The earth is 21,000 miles in circumference "SOURCE?" There's a middle ground here that is a grey area that you seem to be pretending is obviously navigated. You're speaking pretty authoritatively on this by the way. Do you have the moral, propositional logic, and epistemological justification for these claims?
If someone was making an important calculation or decision based on the circumference of the earth, then they would likely want the number cited/confirmed and not just thrown out by a random person that doesn’t pass the smell test. “Radiologists are only right 35% of the time” does not pass the smell test and a cursory search makes the case even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three comments in... and you still have not said a single word about whether radiologists actually catch 35% of diagnoses. But you have found time to call me passive aggressive, entitled, lazy, and immature. For one sentence. Asking for a source... You are now, multiple comments deep, doing the thing you accuse me of...being more invested in tone than substance. The irony is genuinely impressive at this point.
If you look at early stage diseases it's probably even way less than 35%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The lack of self awareness you display is impressive. Grade A troll or bot. As someone who sometimes misses things, I find it mildly interesting when someone is so confidently not on the same page as others. Good luck.