|
|
On October 19 2012 02:46 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:45 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 02:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 02:38 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:24 farvacola wrote:On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! Maybe, just maybe those people who disagree with you actually have studied the material they defend? If someone is throwing out random one liners and unsubstantiated claims, then call them out on it, by all means. But preempting the arguments of those who disagree with you through an unsubstantiated indictment of their investigation is no way to go about getting to the bottom of things. Furthermore, your entire diatribe is undermined by your lack of response to the multitude of people asking you for a demonstration of the viewpoint you are offering forth. Austrian economics, the centerpoint of pretty much every libertarian's economic model, tosses out deductive reasoning in economic representation/truth-seeking, do you know what this means and how do you defend it? I am responding to people who say that the best approach is to trust an expert rather than understanding an issue for oneself. I have no clue why you think I am now obligated to defend Austrian economics. I am also not sure which posts you are saying I should have responded to; but if I don't think something is worth responding to I usually just don't. Austrian economics rejects empiricism, relying instead on axioms of human behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School like i said, contradictory. "we reject models for how the economy works" "here are our models for how the economy works" they don't reject models, they build them a priori because that seemed like a good idea to somebody, I guess
they state ideas and use them to make decisions on everything else that they think about, sounds like a model to me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 02:50 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:39 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 02:31 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:22 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit.
It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! trusting experts doesnt abdicate responsibilty because you have to choose who to trust. and its in no way easier to learn the issues than it is to learn about the person. if you want to argue that every person should have a working knowledge of nuclear physics, global economics, socio-economic and religious background to the middle east etc etc etc. then good luck.but id rather argue that the power of peer review is that its allows experts to grade experts, and that allows the uninformed person to look in, see the aggregate of what is being said, whether it be ryans tax plan doesnt add up, or global warming is happening, and say. "look, the majority of people who are informed on this subject say this, its our best effort to believe them". This is exactly what I would like to see. Although it's not realistic for one person to be a technical expert in all those areas, it is in no way impossible to have a general base of knowledge about them. Of course along with this people would need to be humble to at least entertain the possibility that they're wrong on specific questions. I don't get what you're saying. So instead of listening to experts you'd rather listen to... Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin? Let me tell you something. If you're learning mathematics/science you either learn from a teacher or a textbook the details of a certain formula, both of which are akin to learning from an expert. Or do you want every person in the world to figure out that e=mc^2 without having to study? I am not opposed to people learning from experts. That would be insane. I am opposed to blindly trusting an expert's opinion because the issue is too complicated for me to figure out myself. I have never yet run into an issue that I couldn't get at least a basic handle on if I spent the time trying to get my mind around it.
that is generally sound, but in some cases the problem is complicated in part because "reasonable people can differ" based on what kind of starting point and investigation they lead, but one side is actually pretty wrong and it takes a bit of work to figure out why. academics usually focus on positive work, developing their own stuff instead of destroying others. it's pretty hard for the layman to distinguish between two reasonably sounding theories on a hard subject.
apriori projection of human behavior is one such example. it is very commonsensical to predict someone's behavior based on the content of the guy's reasons etc. however, the very ease of this projection vs the vast complexity of humans as organism should already alert you to the incompleteness of this sort of thinking, as well as high potential for blindspots. sort of like how people can be messed up by zeno's paradox when they fail to take time into account and instead go by the infinite # of iterations, the way you get messed up by apriority in economics is not seeing instances when reason does not govern, or when entities and groups are attributed simple reasons when they are in fact made up of complex factions of actors.
(not that this is the only vacuum in austrian and libertarian economics in general)
|
On October 19 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:45 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 02:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 02:38 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:24 farvacola wrote:On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible.
So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! Maybe, just maybe those people who disagree with you actually have studied the material they defend? If someone is throwing out random one liners and unsubstantiated claims, then call them out on it, by all means. But preempting the arguments of those who disagree with you through an unsubstantiated indictment of their investigation is no way to go about getting to the bottom of things. Furthermore, your entire diatribe is undermined by your lack of response to the multitude of people asking you for a demonstration of the viewpoint you are offering forth. Austrian economics, the centerpoint of pretty much every libertarian's economic model, tosses out deductive reasoning in economic representation/truth-seeking, do you know what this means and how do you defend it? I am responding to people who say that the best approach is to trust an expert rather than understanding an issue for oneself. I have no clue why you think I am now obligated to defend Austrian economics. I am also not sure which posts you are saying I should have responded to; but if I don't think something is worth responding to I usually just don't. Austrian economics rejects empiricism, relying instead on axioms of human behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School like i said, contradictory. "we reject models for how the economy works" "here are our models for how the economy works" they don't reject models, they build them a priori because that seemed like a good idea to somebody, I guess they state ideas and use them to make decisions on everything else that they think about, sounds like a model to me.
yeah, so why do you say they reject models? they reject empirical models
but idk it's not like I've spent any time bothering to learn about "Austrian economics"
|
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)?
On October 19 2012 02:21 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:16 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sarah Palin is an idiot and to think otherwise is a lie. This is a very confusing sentence.
I think he means... to think otherwise is to be incorrect?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 02:50 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:39 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 02:31 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:22 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit.
It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! trusting experts doesnt abdicate responsibilty because you have to choose who to trust. and its in no way easier to learn the issues than it is to learn about the person. if you want to argue that every person should have a working knowledge of nuclear physics, global economics, socio-economic and religious background to the middle east etc etc etc. then good luck.but id rather argue that the power of peer review is that its allows experts to grade experts, and that allows the uninformed person to look in, see the aggregate of what is being said, whether it be ryans tax plan doesnt add up, or global warming is happening, and say. "look, the majority of people who are informed on this subject say this, its our best effort to believe them". This is exactly what I would like to see. Although it's not realistic for one person to be a technical expert in all those areas, it is in no way impossible to have a general base of knowledge about them. Of course along with this people would need to be humble to at least entertain the possibility that they're wrong on specific questions. I don't get what you're saying. So instead of listening to experts you'd rather listen to... Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin? Let me tell you something. If you're learning mathematics/science you either learn from a teacher or a textbook the details of a certain formula, both of which are akin to learning from an expert. Or do you want every person in the world to figure out that e=mc^2 without having to study? I am not opposed to people learning from experts. That would be insane. I am opposed to blindly trusting an expert's opinion because the issue is too complicated for me to figure out myself. I have never yet run into an issue that I couldn't get at least a basic handle on if I spent the time trying to get my mind around it.
Then you're in luck, because a lot of the posters in here that rely on non-partisan expertise are generally those who don't blindly trust whatever they read. It's the entire reason why we're as hard on Ryan/Romney as we are - we read expert opinions, we understand the issues presented, and we're in concurrence with the expert. It's not like we're agreeing just for the sake of agreeing. If paralleluniverse hasn't demonstrated that he has a good grasp on the topic, then I don't know who can.
|
On October 19 2012 02:56 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:45 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 02:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 02:38 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 02:24 farvacola wrote:On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible.
So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! Maybe, just maybe those people who disagree with you actually have studied the material they defend? If someone is throwing out random one liners and unsubstantiated claims, then call them out on it, by all means. But preempting the arguments of those who disagree with you through an unsubstantiated indictment of their investigation is no way to go about getting to the bottom of things. Furthermore, your entire diatribe is undermined by your lack of response to the multitude of people asking you for a demonstration of the viewpoint you are offering forth. Austrian economics, the centerpoint of pretty much every libertarian's economic model, tosses out deductive reasoning in economic representation/truth-seeking, do you know what this means and how do you defend it? I am responding to people who say that the best approach is to trust an expert rather than understanding an issue for oneself. I have no clue why you think I am now obligated to defend Austrian economics. I am also not sure which posts you are saying I should have responded to; but if I don't think something is worth responding to I usually just don't. Austrian economics rejects empiricism, relying instead on axioms of human behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School like i said, contradictory. "we reject models for how the economy works" "here are our models for how the economy works" they don't reject models, they build them a priori because that seemed like a good idea to somebody, I guess they state ideas and use them to make decisions on everything else that they think about, sounds like a model to me.
Some people curve their ideas to adapt them to reality. Some people curve reality so that it match their ideas. I guess that' coule be a definition of the difference between realism and idealism? Pity that curving reality always backfires.
|
On a different note, the latest gallup poll shows Romney at 52% among likely voters to Obama's 45%. This is a pretty significant lead. I am starting to doubt that Obama is really the favorite anymore with polls like these.
|
On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)?
The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished.
|
lol, ye being ahead in the polls (where it matters) means hes finished.
On October 19 2012 03:00 ziggurat wrote:
On a different note, the latest gallup poll shows Romney at 52% among likely voters to Obama's 45%. This is a pretty significant lead. I am starting to doubt that Obama is really the favorite anymore with polls like these.
random polls dont matter when you use that stupid electoral college system.
|
On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished.
Keep creating your own alternate reality. As long as it helps you sleep at night.
polls dont matter when you use that stupid electoral college system.
Especially when 1) various polls are so divergent on this topic and 2) all of the battleground state polls (the ones that matter) show either a tie or a slight lead for Obama.
|
On October 19 2012 03:00 ziggurat wrote:
On a different note, the latest gallup poll shows Romney at 52% among likely voters to Obama's 45%. This is a pretty significant lead. I am starting to doubt that Obama is really the favorite anymore with polls like these.
Yeah, I've been watching the polls. We're finally getting the point where they start to become predictive of what's coming on election day. The final two weeks (ie after the final debate on Monday) will tell the tale.
Expect "undecideds" to break for Romney.
|
There have been many troubling polls for Obama, not just the Gallup poll (which doesn't fall in line with the majority of polls showing a closer race).
Romney is ahead in RCP average. Obama leads narrowly on 538 and Election Projection, losing the popular vote on the latter in fact. I think Polltracker has Romney up in the popular vote as well. Intrade saying Obama to win at 63-64%.
|
On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished.
I'm not talking about the Obama campaign or anything like that. I didn't hear this from them. As an educator, I thought about this in retrospect (as AA is a popular topic when it comes to education). Please respond to my comment directly (or not at all), but please don't change the subject 
I'm pointing out that when Romney was asked the question of how he would help increase gender equality for women, he basically said, "Here's an example where I employed affirmative action to benefit some women". He noted that all of the top and most qualified candidates were men, but instead he asked for (binders full of) women just so he could elect them and have a large percentage of females in his cabinet (I believe he said the highest out of any state). Whether that was a political play or he truly cares for gender equality, it's still affirmative action. Or am I really reading this wrong?
|
On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters.Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished.
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face after u pushed the "you didn't build that " so hard. Was it only the most hardcore republicans that believed that?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we can expect more tactful tactics from romney at the fp debate, with such high return tactics like blaming obama for attacks and failing to insult muslims, nothing could go wrong. if something does go wrong, say iran has nukes.
with the practice he's been getting i think he can even manage to not look out of sorts while pretending to be a red blooded football loving america fuck yea cheerleader.
|
On October 19 2012 03:16 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters.Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face after u pushed the "you didn't build that " so hard. Was it only the most hardcore republicans that believed that?
If you can't understand the difference between the two, you need to broaden your horizons a bit.
|
Besides, it should be obvious why the binder thing is so dumb and why Obama is trying it anyway. His campaign has noticed it is hemorrhaging support from women, despite the fact that the campaign spent months pushing this "republican war on women" idea. They have utterly failed. If none of that worked, you are absolutely batshit crazy if you think that this binder business is going to succeed in rallying moderate support to Obama. The best that it will do is help Obama shore up his radical base.
|
On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished.
It seemed like a desperate plea for women voters.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i didn't know all those kids on tumblr are political operatives. curses! the vast conspiracy of meme creators.
|
On October 19 2012 03:23 xDaunt wrote:
Besides, it should be obvious why the binder thing is so dumb and why Obama is trying it anyway. His campaign has noticed it is hemorrhaging support from women, despite the fact that the campaign spent months pushing this "republican war on women" idea. They have utterly failed. If none of that worked, you are absolutely batshit crazy if you think that this binder business is going to succeed in rallying moderate support to Obama. The best that it will do is help Obama shore up his radical base.
Oh come on now. Since when is Facebook and the meme universe "the Obama campaign"? There were pictures and quotes making fun of Romney for saying this even before the debate had ended. They were already circulating the internet. The fact that Obama would say this during a post-debate speech or any other time is just a smart thing to do. He's clearly not grasping at straws, and maybe learning how to connect with people is something Romney could learn a little bit more about, eh? I swear, he acts like such a robot at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
