On October 09 2008 11:01 Doctorasul wrote: It's your job to look for the appropriate studies to support your assertions, I don't have to do your homework for you.
Dismissing smaller countries as irrelevant is why you don't understand why they would overwhelmingly reject McCain. There's a strong correlation between how liberal and progressive a country is and how well they do in the rankings. Doesn't that give you pause when saying conservative politics are undoubtedly for the good of the country?
No, it is valid to dismiss small countries because statistically given purely random chance there are more chances to have a good result, and our country is near the top of most of those lists anyway.
Take the Olympics for instance. Small countries like to brag about the amount of medals per person.
Well, divide the US into 50 states and all of them together will be able give more athletes a chance while the same stars that did well in the normal Olympics will of course be there. More chances, more likely to get more golds, except in team sports.
Then add up what the 50 states got and it will probably be a bit higher than what the US got.
LOL
i wonder if you've made it out of high school. do you even know how this shit works?
On October 09 2008 10:11 ahrara_ wrote: ultimately, i think evandi has a point
there are people in this thread who react wayyy too harshly to conservative opinions. the only thing that irked me about evandi was that he (and people who responded to him) focused so much on character and the who-said-what-when game. i really like savio's posts tho, because he tends to focus on content more.
anyway, i think we can all learn from this and be a little more tolerant of conservatives, and also spend less time on moot shit.
edit
does anyone else feel like every time a conservative starts posting he gets jumped in before being accepted by the thread. it's kind of ridiculous but also really funny.
fuck conservative opinions. forever crippled by myopia on vision and ideal in the grand scheme of things. even in specific instances where conservatives have been right, what is needed is not more conservatism but more refined policy responses from a vision that at least tries. i fail to see any redeeming feature in conservative ideology, especially given the meandering history of 'conservatism' as a token of political structure. give me an example of a conservative feature that is desirable or at any rate not entirely reprehensible in its own right. why would one want to be a conservative, and not merely a person who thinks "liberals" have some bad ideas and try to propose productive and humane alternatives.
and really, it is tiresome to repeat that political commentary is never neutral, especially meta perspectives like your post. you have not shown any reason as to why conservative opinions should be respected, and i suspect you've formed your political sympathies on too contemporary and narrow a range of readings. maybe look more into understanding theoretically the "liberal" positions and not merely see them as caricatures.
On October 09 2008 11:01 Doctorasul wrote: It's your job to look for the appropriate studies to support your assertions, I don't have to do your homework for you.
Dismissing smaller countries as irrelevant is why you don't understand why they would overwhelmingly reject McCain. There's a strong correlation between how liberal and progressive a country is and how well they do in the rankings. Doesn't that give you pause when saying conservative politics are undoubtedly for the good of the country?
No, it is valid to dismiss small countries because statistically given purely random chance there are more chances to have a good result, and our country is near the top of most of those lists anyway.
Take the Olympics for instance. Small countries like to brag about the amount of medals per person.
Well, divide the US into 50 states and all of them together will be able give more athletes a chance while the same stars that did well in the normal Olympics will of course be there. More chances, more likely to get more golds, except in team sports.
Then add up what the 50 states got and it will probably be a bit higher than what the US got.
LOL
i wonder if you've made it out of high school. do you even know how this shit works?
Yes, I think I do.
any concrete political fact like "nordic countries have a high HDI" can be analyzed and given specific causes, no matter the "statistical chance," which is a bullcrap term here anyway given the inconsistent formation of countries rendering them as ineffectual units of "trials."
On October 09 2008 10:11 ahrara_ wrote: ultimately, i think evandi has a point
there are people in this thread who react wayyy too harshly to conservative opinions. the only thing that irked me about evandi was that he (and people who responded to him) focused so much on character and the who-said-what-when game. i really like savio's posts tho, because he tends to focus on content more.
anyway, i think we can all learn from this and be a little more tolerant of conservatives, and also spend less time on moot shit.
edit
does anyone else feel like every time a conservative starts posting he gets jumped in before being accepted by the thread. it's kind of ridiculous but also really funny.
fuck conservative opinions. forever crippled by myopia on vision and ideal in the grand scheme of things. even in specific instances where conservatives have been right, what is needed is not more conservatism but more refined policy responses from a vision that at least tries. i fail to see any redeeming feature in conservative ideology, especially given the meandering history of 'conservatism' as a token of political structure. give me an example of a conservative feature that is desirable or at any rate not entirely reprehensible in its own right. why would one want to be a conservative, and not merely a person who thinks "liberals" have some bad ideas and try to propose productive and humane alternatives.
and really, it is tiresome to repeat that political commentary is never neutral, especially meta perspectives like your post. you have not shown any reason as to why conservative opinions should be respected, and i suspect you've formed your political sympathies on too contemporary and narrow a range of readings. maybe look more into understanding theoretically the "liberal" positions and not merely see them as caricatures.
Most of them are retarded. He's ignoring context and everything else and just repeating everything that shows up in McCain ads. We all know the ad material from both sides is false.
Even these debates themselves shouldn't be taken that seriously.
On October 09 2008 11:01 Doctorasul wrote: It's your job to look for the appropriate studies to support your assertions, I don't have to do your homework for you.
Dismissing smaller countries as irrelevant is why you don't understand why they would overwhelmingly reject McCain. There's a strong correlation between how liberal and progressive a country is and how well they do in the rankings. Doesn't that give you pause when saying conservative politics are undoubtedly for the good of the country?
No, it is valid to dismiss small countries because statistically given purely random chance there are more chances to have a good result, and our country is near the top of most of those lists anyway.
Take the Olympics for instance. Small countries like to brag about the amount of medals per person.
Well, divide the US into 50 states and all of them together will be able give more athletes a chance while the same stars that did well in the normal Olympics will of course be there. More chances, more likely to get more golds, except in team sports.
Then add up what the 50 states got and it will probably be a bit higher than what the US got.
LOL
i wonder if you've made it out of high school. do you even know how this shit works?
Yes, I think I do.
any concrete political fact like "nordic countries have a high HDI" can be analyzed and given specific causes, no matter the "statistical chance," which is a bullcrap term here anyway given the inconsistent formation of countries rendering them as ineffectual units of "trials."
It isn't just Nordic Countries. I gave two reasons. 1 Is statistical and its not bullcrap, 2 is based on it being harder to manage a larger country, which is fricken obvious.
On October 09 2008 11:36 ahrara_ wrote: altho frankly, that post of evandi's was magnificently retarded.
oneofthem fails at being a psuedo-moltke
No, it was true. Maybe you just don't know anything about statistics. If you split up the US into 50 nations, some would fair worse on the scale than others.
On October 09 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote: There are actually perfectly good reasons to discount HDI or at least give the US a break, but evandi didn't cover them. + Show Spoiler +
On October 09 2008 11:36 ahrara_ wrote: altho frankly, that post of evandi's was magnificently retarded.
oneofthem fails at being a psuedo-moltke
No, it was true. Maybe you just don't know anything about statistics. If you split up the US into 50 nations, some would fair worse on the scale than others.
Obviously.
That is farking obvious.
no i don't think you understand economics or human compassion or anything it seems like.
On October 09 2008 11:36 ahrara_ wrote: altho frankly, that post of evandi's was magnificently retarded.
oneofthem fails at being a psuedo-moltke
No, it was true. Maybe you just don't know anything about statistics. If you split up the US into 50 nations, some would fair worse on the scale than others.
Obviously.
That is farking obvious.
no i don't think you understand economics or human compassion or anything it seems like.
Alright,
1. The US statistics are an average of the state statistics weighted by population 2. When divided up, either all states will be exactly the same on the scale or they won't be 3. Its pretty unlikely that they will all be exactly the same and you know that they vary widely, so 4. Some states will be higher on the scale then others. 5. Since the US statistics are an average of the state statistics, if any of the states have different ratings on the scale, at least one of the States must be above the US rating.
It's still an invalid argument because the relationships between US states and D.C. is drastically different from EU states. The geographic size/location/population/ethnicities/etc. are all valid points, but most statistics (especially those by the UN) can be corrected for multiple agendas anyways. That said, I live pretty comfortably as is but I think my quality of life would go up in many ways if I lived in one of those top 10 countries.
On October 09 2008 12:04 Jibba wrote: It's still an invalid argument because the relationships between US states and D.C. is drastically different from EU states. The geographic size/location/population/ethnicities/etc. are all valid points, but most statistics (especially those by the UN) can be corrected for multiple agendas anyways. That said, I live pretty comfortably as is but I think my quality of life would go up in many ways if I lived in one of those top 10 countries.
Well, just consider the state that happens through chance to be the highest rated on the scale.
If it was its own country but had a free-trade relationship with all the other states, it couldn't be worse off.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081008/capt.a289f81d5759467998dab813843fb2cf.mccain_2008_pagh125.jpg?x=337&y=345&q=85&sig=5dmwpHQ5rC5QJjblU1WSgQ--)
