|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Anyone who denies it rained when the evidence is visible in front of their eyes is delusional.
Sprinklers yo!
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Anyone who says you can't infer a certain number of people watched Trump on alternative media just because such media exists and at least somebody watched it is simply stating an obvious truth.
Of course you can make that inference. Have you ever bought anything from a telemarketer? I haven't. I don't know anyone who says they have. I know far more people who are bothered by the call. So does that mean that no one buys things over the phone? Or is it safe to infer that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work?
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
A better analogy would be if you argued billions worldwide watched a solar eclipse. If I said 'how do you know it's billions?', and you said 'something something you're delusional if you don't think it's billions', as if that were the most obvious fact ever.
It is the most obvious fact ever. In order for it not to be true, you would need to assume that billions of people, with the ability to see, ignored a glowing ball of gas a million times the size of the earth that enters their field of vision dozens of times per day.
The measured stats are off by a mere 500K viewers out of a total of some 17-ish million. You can either infer that at least 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media, or less than 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media. Making the latter inference there means you ignore the last decade of technological advancement and known trends regarding the amount of eyeballs that use the internet.
|
Reply With Quote