|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened
Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen.
|
On November 03 2016 15:09 LegalLord wrote:I'll briefly answer. Show nested quote +I guess there's a few questions I still have. If you have two different types of probabilities, one of which is sort of summarized as "if an event has an X % probability, it means that out of 100 trials we would expect that event to occur X times," and the other summarized as "if a proposition has X % probability, it means we can say that proposition is true with X % certainty," that makes some intuitive sense. I guess the latter is still a little unclear to me in exactly what it means; if we say in the Bayesian sense that we're 75% sure Hillary Clinton will win the election, my only intuition for explaining what that number means is to imagine 10,000 parallel universes, and then in 7500 of them, Clinton becomes president. But that's the frequentist approach; It might be that the true result of the election has very little variance, but we're just fairly uncertain what the result will be. So due to our lack of information we estimate a 75% certainty, but if we checked in on our 100,000 possible universes, all 100,000 would go to Clinton. I imagine I'll have to read through some of the philosophy of probability wikis you linked to figure out why that 75% isn't a relatively arbitrary number, then, if you take the frequentist definition away. Basically, if we had 100,000 parallel universes, they will all have the same result. And I'm 75% sure that they will all have Hillary winning, and 24% sure that they will all have Trump winning. That's what the degree of belief is here.
Couldn't it factor in both random chance and degree of belief uncertainty? E.g. "I believe Hillary would have an 80% chance to win today, but i knock off another 8% for the chance that the state of the race will change in the next week." So in 100,000 universes maybe I'm 80% certain that 90% go Hillary and 10% go Trump, giving her .9 * .8 = .72 chance? (Not counting the other 20% for simplicity, although i guess you would have to deal with that too)
|
On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen.
That didn't happen in the last two weeks.
|
On November 03 2016 21:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 15:09 LegalLord wrote:I'll briefly answer. I guess there's a few questions I still have. If you have two different types of probabilities, one of which is sort of summarized as "if an event has an X % probability, it means that out of 100 trials we would expect that event to occur X times," and the other summarized as "if a proposition has X % probability, it means we can say that proposition is true with X % certainty," that makes some intuitive sense. I guess the latter is still a little unclear to me in exactly what it means; if we say in the Bayesian sense that we're 75% sure Hillary Clinton will win the election, my only intuition for explaining what that number means is to imagine 10,000 parallel universes, and then in 7500 of them, Clinton becomes president. But that's the frequentist approach; It might be that the true result of the election has very little variance, but we're just fairly uncertain what the result will be. So due to our lack of information we estimate a 75% certainty, but if we checked in on our 100,000 possible universes, all 100,000 would go to Clinton. I imagine I'll have to read through some of the philosophy of probability wikis you linked to figure out why that 75% isn't a relatively arbitrary number, then, if you take the frequentist definition away. Basically, if we had 100,000 parallel universes, they will all have the same result. And I'm 75% sure that they will all have Hillary winning, and 24% sure that they will all have Trump winning. That's what the degree of belief is here. Couldn't it factor in both random chance and degree of belief uncertainty? E.g. "I believe Hillary would have an 80% chance to win today, but i knock off another 8% for the chance that the state of the race will change in the next week." So in 100,000 universes maybe I'm 80% certain that 90% go Hillary and 10% go Trump, giving her .9 * .8 = .72 chance? (Not counting the other 20% for simplicity, although i guess you would have to deal with that too)
you might think about it this way:
if we ran the election 100 times we would expect the same results because the initial conditions are the same every time. in other words everyone is going to vote for who they are going to vote for when they vote and that wont change no matter how many times we run it.
in alternate universes with different initial conditions some voters may vote differently based on whatever differences there are between this world and that one
bayesian probability belief is a belief about which universe we are in based upon a probability distribution of universes that all share a set of commonalities. it takes account of the fact that the model doesnt know what every single voter is actially going to do (ie the initial state is not completely specified as all real phenomena cannot be) even if we are fairly certain about the general outlines.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
This ‘society structure is oppressing me’ argument is operative on a wider definition of coercion than the narrow individual rights based conception. It’s two different problems.
Idk why they don’t teach you this basic stuff in continental places. There is no need for all this argument over what coercion is, just recognize the different ideas being talked about.
Even on first count, it’s not unjust unless you are a hardcore Marxist or something that recognizes current order as deeply oppressive and so on.
|
On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks.
And Donna Brazile had not worked for CNN since the start of the election. And she is a member of the news media like Corey Lewandowski is. Which is to say that she isn't.
|
On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks.
Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy?
|
On November 03 2016 22:14 oneofthem wrote:
This ‘society structure is oppressing me’ argument is operative on a wider definition of coercion than the narrow individual rights based conception. It’s two different problems.
Idk why they don’t teach you this basic stuff in continental places. There is no need for all this argument over what coercion is, just recognize the different ideas being talked about.
Even on first count, it’s not unjust unless you are a hardcore Marxist or something that recognizes current order as deeply oppressive and so on.
and the "coerced vote" is in this particular election rests on a narrower definition than the "society is oppressing me" conception. whats your point? i do recognize the different ideas; they are extensions of each other and use the same word.
|
On November 03 2016 22:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:58 ChristianS wrote:On November 03 2016 15:09 LegalLord wrote:I'll briefly answer. I guess there's a few questions I still have. If you have two different types of probabilities, one of which is sort of summarized as "if an event has an X % probability, it means that out of 100 trials we would expect that event to occur X times," and the other summarized as "if a proposition has X % probability, it means we can say that proposition is true with X % certainty," that makes some intuitive sense. I guess the latter is still a little unclear to me in exactly what it means; if we say in the Bayesian sense that we're 75% sure Hillary Clinton will win the election, my only intuition for explaining what that number means is to imagine 10,000 parallel universes, and then in 7500 of them, Clinton becomes president. But that's the frequentist approach; It might be that the true result of the election has very little variance, but we're just fairly uncertain what the result will be. So due to our lack of information we estimate a 75% certainty, but if we checked in on our 100,000 possible universes, all 100,000 would go to Clinton. I imagine I'll have to read through some of the philosophy of probability wikis you linked to figure out why that 75% isn't a relatively arbitrary number, then, if you take the frequentist definition away. Basically, if we had 100,000 parallel universes, they will all have the same result. And I'm 75% sure that they will all have Hillary winning, and 24% sure that they will all have Trump winning. That's what the degree of belief is here. Couldn't it factor in both random chance and degree of belief uncertainty? E.g. "I believe Hillary would have an 80% chance to win today, but i knock off another 8% for the chance that the state of the race will change in the next week." So in 100,000 universes maybe I'm 80% certain that 90% go Hillary and 10% go Trump, giving her .9 * .8 = .72 chance? (Not counting the other 20% for simplicity, although i guess you would have to deal with that too) you might think about it this way: if we ran the election 100 times we would expect the same results because the initial conditions are the same every time. in other words everyone is going to vote for who they are going to vote for when they vote and that wont change no matter how many times we run it. in alternate universes with different initial conditions some voters may vote differently based on whatever differences there are between this world and that one bayesian probability belief is a belief about which universe we are in based upon a probability distribution of universes that all share a set of commonalities. it takes account of the fact that the model doesnt know what every single voter is actially going to do (ie the initial state is not completely specified as all real phenomena cannot be) even if we are fairly certain about the general outlines.
That assumes a perfectly defined and deterministic universe though. I mean by those assumptions when you roll dice they'll roll the same way every time; if they don't it's because you changed the initial conditions.
Isn't it possible for both random chance and degree of belief uncertainty to exist in the same system?
|
On November 03 2016 21:29 IgnE wrote:
@acrofales
imagine you were living in a flat and someone said if you dont move we are going to throw this person in jail. is that coercion? now replace living in a flat w voting for hillary and throwing someone in jail w throwing muslims in jail.
edit: the key to the analysis is that you dont want to vote for hillary. you are compelled by moral force to do something you dont want to do
Compelled yes, coerced, no. Unless, as oneofthem argues, you are trying to say that any choice forced upon you by society is coercion, in which case you are using the word for something other than I am. And, as oneofthem also pointed out, your version is quite useless to point out something that is wrong, because in the particular case of voting Hillary over Trump, if you feel "coerced", I believe that coercion is a good thing (and we're back to the definition, because the dictionary definition, albeit not the one you used, always has a negative connotation, and almost all definitions require two acting agents, and not an agent being coerced by his environment/society).
|
On November 03 2016 22:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:29 IgnE wrote:
@acrofales
imagine you were living in a flat and someone said if you dont move we are going to throw this person in jail. is that coercion? now replace living in a flat w voting for hillary and throwing someone in jail w throwing muslims in jail.
edit: the key to the analysis is that you dont want to vote for hillary. you are compelled by moral force to do something you dont want to do Compelled yes, coerced, no. Unless, as oneofthem argues, you are trying to say that any choice forced upon you by society is coercion, in which case you are using the word for something other than I am. And, as oneofthem also pointed out, your version is quite useless to point out something that is wrong, because in the particular case of voting Hillary over Trump, if you feel "coerced", I believe that coercion is a good thing (and we're back to the definition, because the dictionary definition, albeit not the one you used, always has a negative connotation, and almost all definitions require two acting agents, and not an agent being coerced by his environment/society).
you don't think that the apartment scenario i gave is coercion? you are aware that "compel" in english actually has stronnger connotations right?
give me an example of coercion then and tell me whats different about your case
edit: whether its "good" or bad "bad" is a matter of context and perspective
|
On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy?
She only contributed to CNN, she still worked for the Democrats during that entire time. You do know that Trump’s former campaign manager works for CNN and is still being paid directly by the Trump camp, right? What do you think the chances are that he leaked information to Trump? But we won’t know because no one seems that interested in hacking Trump’s emails.
You should be blaming CNN for tainting their coverage by hiring active political operatives.
|
When Bill McAnulty, an elections board chairman in a mostly white North Carolina county, agreed in July to open a Sunday voting site where black church members could cast ballots after services, the reaction was swift: he was labeled a traitor by his fellow Republicans.
"I became a villain, quite frankly," recalled McAnulty at a state board of elections meeting in September that had been called to resolve disputes over early voting plans. "I got accused of being a traitor and everything else by the Republican Party," McAnulty said.
Following the blowback from Republicans, McAnulty later withdrew his support for the Sunday site.
In an interview with Reuters, he said he ultimately ruled against opening the Sunday voting site in Randolph County because he had "made a mistake in reading the wishes of the voters." He declined to discuss the episode further.
This year's highly charged presidential contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump has stoked accusations by both parties of political meddling in the scheduling of early voting hours in North Carolina, a coveted battleground state with a history of tight elections.
In emails, state and county Republican officials lobbied members of at least 17 county election boards to keep early-voting sites open for shorter hours on weekends and in evenings – times that usually see disproportionately high turnout by Democratic voters. Reuters obtained the emails through a public records request.
The officials also urged county election boards to open fewer sites for residents to cast ballots during early voting that began on Oct. 20 and ends on Saturday.
Civil rights advocates and Democrats launched their own campaigns for expanded early voting hours.
The tug-of-war yielded mixed results.
The state did ultimately add nearly 5,900 more hours and 78 more sites to vote early than in 2012. But several counties opened only one polling site during the first week of early voting, slightly denting turnout across the state. Voter turnout dropped by 20 percent in the counties that had multiple polling sites during the first week of early voting in 2012 but just one site during the first week in 2016.“We currently have more early voting locations and hours open than ever were open under Democrat control,” said North Carolina Republican Party executive director Dallas Woodhouse, denying his party was trying to suppress the Democratic vote.
Counties that Democratic President Barack Obama won in 2012 increased their Sunday hours this year by 16 percent, while counties that voted for his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, decreased them by nearly a quarter, the records show.
State Republican officials say keeping polls open during evenings and weekends, or "off-hour" times, drains county resources.
Source
|
On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy?
I won't be happy until Trump is purged from the unconsciousness of the human mind
|
On November 03 2016 22:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? She only contributed to CNN, she still worked for the Democrats during that entire time. You do know that Trump’s former campaign manager works for CNN and is still being paid directly by the Trump camp, right? What do you think the chances are that he leaked information to Trump? But we won’t know because no one seems that interested in hacking Trump’s emails. You should be blaming CNN for tainting their coverage by hiring active political operatives.
How does her working for the democrats excuse the treatment of Sanders in the primaries?
In case you didn't know, the debate in question is Clinton v Sanders, not Clinton v Trump.
Wikileaks has exposed corruption in the past 3 weeks. Idk why you're being so pedantic about it, it's a fact.
On November 03 2016 22:35 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? I won't be happy until Trump is purged from the unconsciousness of the human mind
Well I'm glad we established that. It doesn't make NettleS' post wrong, however.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2016 22:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:14 oneofthem wrote:
This ‘society structure is oppressing me’ argument is operative on a wider definition of coercion than the narrow individual rights based conception. It’s two different problems.
Idk why they don’t teach you this basic stuff in continental places. There is no need for all this argument over what coercion is, just recognize the different ideas being talked about.
Even on first count, it’s not unjust unless you are a hardcore Marxist or something that recognizes current order as deeply oppressive and so on.
and the "coerced vote" is in this particular election rests on a narrower definition than the "society is oppressing me" conception. whats your point? i do recognize the different ideas; they are extensions of each other and use the same word.
i just vaguely described a potential species of the class of 'limited choices' argument. yours falls into that class. so there is no loss of generality.
most of my post wasn't even arguing with the substance of your argument either way. it's just that rather than arguing over definitions and which one is more woke, you should distinguish the particular problem you are targeting and avoid extremely annoying arguments over definitions.
basically you triggered me with that dictionary reference.
|
On November 03 2016 22:38 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:32 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? She only contributed to CNN, she still worked for the Democrats during that entire time. You do know that Trump’s former campaign manager works for CNN and is still being paid directly by the Trump camp, right? What do you think the chances are that he leaked information to Trump? But we won’t know because no one seems that interested in hacking Trump’s emails. You should be blaming CNN for tainting their coverage by hiring active political operatives. How does her working for the democrats excuse the treatment of Sanders in the primaries? In case you didn't know, the debate in question is Clinton v Sanders, not Clinton v Trump. Wikileaks has exposed corruption in the past 3 weeks. Idk why you're being so pedantic about it, it's a fact. Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:35 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? I won't be happy until Trump is purged from the unconsciousness of the human mind Well I'm glad we established that. It doesn't make NettleS' post wrong, however.
I'm enjoying this concern trolling. It still doesn't change the fact that Trump tied a 13 year old down, anally raped her, and told her he would kill her if she talked.
|
On November 03 2016 22:38 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:32 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? She only contributed to CNN, she still worked for the Democrats during that entire time. You do know that Trump’s former campaign manager works for CNN and is still being paid directly by the Trump camp, right? What do you think the chances are that he leaked information to Trump? But we won’t know because no one seems that interested in hacking Trump’s emails. You should be blaming CNN for tainting their coverage by hiring active political operatives. How does her working for the democrats excuse the treatment of Sanders in the primaries? In case you didn't know, the debate in question is Clinton v Sanders, not Clinton v Trump. Wikileaks has exposed corruption in the past 3 weeks. Idk why you're being so pedantic about it, it's a fact. Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:35 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? I won't be happy until Trump is purged from the unconsciousness of the human mind Well I'm glad we established that. It doesn't make NettleS' post wrong, however.
Sanders is not a Democrat and CNN should avoid hiring people who are actively working for campaigns. And again, we don’t know if Sanders got any advanced information on what the questions would be, but be sure there were people trying to help him with any advantage they could get.
Complaining about active political operatives using their access to benefit the people they want to see elected is like bitching about 6 pooling in SC2. It is the game. If people want their debates to be pure and free of leaks, complain more that CNN has hired so many political operatives as commentators.
|
On November 03 2016 22:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:38 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:32 Plansix wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? She only contributed to CNN, she still worked for the Democrats during that entire time. You do know that Trump’s former campaign manager works for CNN and is still being paid directly by the Trump camp, right? What do you think the chances are that he leaked information to Trump? But we won’t know because no one seems that interested in hacking Trump’s emails. You should be blaming CNN for tainting their coverage by hiring active political operatives. How does her working for the democrats excuse the treatment of Sanders in the primaries? In case you didn't know, the debate in question is Clinton v Sanders, not Clinton v Trump. Wikileaks has exposed corruption in the past 3 weeks. Idk why you're being so pedantic about it, it's a fact. On November 03 2016 22:35 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 22:21 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 22:10 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:56 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:43 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2016 21:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 03 2016 20:40 Logo wrote:On November 03 2016 20:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:538 has Hillary's chances at around 2/3 now, an expected drop from when she was increasing steadily during the debates to around 88% chance. With one week left for the FBI and media to post whatever nonsense they want, the probabilities will probably stabilize to around 55-45 in favor of Hillary (unless more drama about Trump is revealed/ Trump says pretty much anything... which would be a benefit for Hillary). If the head-to-head debates actually went into November and people had to continue to watch Clinton crush Trump, then this election would have been a landslide. Unfortunately, it's not: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo It's pretty infuriating that our election is basically decided by a group of people's inability to remember three weeks ago. Plenty has changed in the past three weeks though. The whole FBI re-opening their investigating thingy, Obamacare premium hikes, wikileaks exposing corruption. Only one of these things actually happened Two. Donna Brazile got fired over the wikileaks revelations. Various other emails show corruption. You can't pretend it didn't happen. That didn't happen in the last two weeks. Alright, the email proving that she leaked debate questions (corruption) surfaced 3 days ago. Happy? I won't be happy until Trump is purged from the unconsciousness of the human mind Well I'm glad we established that. It doesn't make NettleS' post wrong, however. I'm enjoying this concern trolling. It still doesn't change the fact that Trump tied a 13 year old down, anally raped her, and told her he would kill her if she talked.
Indeed it doesn't, who made that claim lmao. Don't put words in my mouth pls.
|
On November 03 2016 22:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:29 Acrofales wrote:On November 03 2016 21:29 IgnE wrote:
@acrofales
imagine you were living in a flat and someone said if you dont move we are going to throw this person in jail. is that coercion? now replace living in a flat w voting for hillary and throwing someone in jail w throwing muslims in jail.
edit: the key to the analysis is that you dont want to vote for hillary. you are compelled by moral force to do something you dont want to do Compelled yes, coerced, no. Unless, as oneofthem argues, you are trying to say that any choice forced upon you by society is coercion, in which case you are using the word for something other than I am. And, as oneofthem also pointed out, your version is quite useless to point out something that is wrong, because in the particular case of voting Hillary over Trump, if you feel "coerced", I believe that coercion is a good thing (and we're back to the definition, because the dictionary definition, albeit not the one you used, always has a negative connotation, and almost all definitions require two acting agents, and not an agent being coerced by his environment/society). you don't think that the apartment scenario i gave is coercion? you are aware that "compel" in english actually has stronnger connotations right? give me an example of coercion then and tell me whats different about your case edit: whether its "good" or bad "bad" is a matter of context and perspective
It's subtle, but your simple switches aren't as trivial as you make them out to be. Strategic voting is not a case of coercion. And what is actually happening is a far smaller effect:
If you vote for Hillary, you reduce the chance that Trump gets the power to throw muslims in jail by <complicated percentage depending on where you live, and the relative importance of your state in the electoral college>. So to estimate that, lets go with 0.001%, which is probably still a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the effect your actual vote has.
We then have: if you don't move flats, there is a 0.001% chance I will throw people in jail, whereas if you do, there is a 0% chance I will throw people in jail. Or if you don't like absolutes, lets go with 33.101% and 33.1% respectively, which is the value from 538. Would you still say you are being coerced to move flats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
