|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2008 : 15:59:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Should you have been refusing to question your own conclusions about what I've said, especially in light of the fact that I was telling you that your conclusions about what I'd said were wrong? |
I was asking you to clarify what you were saying. Now, I have even less idea of what you are actually saying. You have clouded the topic with insults, wrongfull accusations of fallacy, and accused me of becomming more entrenched in some position.
Let me restate my point yet again:
Past behavior (actions, statements, and so on) can be used to predict a general pattern of future behavior. In all people, including politicians.
If that conclusion is in error(which is what you seem to be saying), then we are left with the very unattractive and untenable possibility that voting is a pointless activity.
H.H. said:
The point is that Dave was discussing this behavior-as-predictor strictly in regard to politicians, and you twisted his statements to apply to all people. Will you admit to doing this?
|
No, because I haven't done it. Dave accused me of extreme bias, so I offered to remove politics from the discussion(because politician or not, my point is valid) But thanks, once again, for participating without having actually read and understood the thread.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 07:54:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I was asking you to clarify what you were saying. |
I have been, and you have continued to make the same mistakes about it.| Now, I have even less idea of what you are actually saying. |
At the very least, you're not giving me any indication that you're reading much of my posts anymore, because you shouldn't be having to guess at what I've been saying. If you've stopped reading them, then of course you're going to have no idea about what I've been saying. I can't clarify things any further if you're not going to read the clarification.| You have clouded the topic with insults, wrongfull accusations of fallacy, and accused me of becomming more entrenched in some position. |
You are firmly entrenched in your position that I "seem to be saying" that your "conclusion is in error." You refuse to listen when I tell you plainly that that is not what I've been saying. As such, you continue to make fallacious posts and exhibit the bias that is obviously preventing you from clear reasoning.
The intended insults I have already apologized for, because they did not have the intended effect (despite your own words). You have not accepted that apology, or even acknowledged that I offered it, which further adds support to my current hypothesis that you read (or paid attention to) very little of my previous post to you. Further evidence: your failure to acknowledge my argument that politcs was paramount to the previous discussion we were having. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 09:07:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
I submit that it is now impossible to accurately judge the qualifications of any candidate that has a chance of winning the White House, because asserting a position is only important so far as it will gather votes.
........
So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens. |
| I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
At that point I completely disagree with you, and you resort to this:
| Nope, I no longer know it. I used to, but I've now decided to question that conclusion. I'd like to re-examine the evidence in its favor. Is there any? |
I went through some of G.W.'s history and compared it to his actions as president, who he appointed to his original cabinet and their history, etc. You then started in with:
| I don't know why you and Dude are so hostile towards the idea of checking to make sure how well politicians' past statements predict future performance (especially with regard to the Democrats) |
Where you assign me a political bias for democrats (based on what, my criticism of republicans? Still trying to figure that one out....)
Then you jump to insults, based on your error that I am somehow closemindedly biased:
| Dude, you're pulling a beskeptigal, |
So at this point it seems obvious that you ardently disagree with the idea that one can predict some things about future actions of politicians based on their past record. I then ask you what kind of justice you think Huckabee will appoint (if elected) to SCOTUS. Your response? More insults:
| See? This is what beskeptigal did, over and over again: she took what should have been seen as a simple question, and turned it into a strawman position statement. |
At this point I offer to remove the discussion away from politics, because you can't seem to seperate the idea that behavior is predictable from a political statement.
Yes, I get it that you don't think this applies to politicians, but might apply to regular people. Yes, I get it that you think politicians just say shit to get elected.
But I disagree. The reason I offered to remove politics from the discussion was to establish the basic principle of predicting general patterns of future behavior. You refused to participate, preferring to sit back and accuse me of creating some strawman:
| I'm the one asking the question. Dude has taken that question, twisted it into its most-extreme form, and asked me if I support the strawman he's built. When I pointed this out, he asked me again to support that position which I do not hold. It's quite ridiculous. |
I was trying to establish some common ground in order to examine why you don't think the behavior of politicians follows the same rules as the behavior of other people. Apparently it is you who is so entrenched in a position that you are unwilling to see beyond bias, so you have created this huge strawman and resorted to insults so you can avoid the actual discussion trying to take place.
| You are firmly entrenched in your position that I "seem to be saying" that your "conclusion is in error." You refuse to listen when I tell you plainly that that is not what I've been saying. |
I've read every post of yours in this threas, again, just now. You have stated nothing "plainly" that would indicate your above words are accurate.
The only thing "plainly" clear here is that you are not interested in making your position clear. So help me out:
| My question was how well past behavior predicts future performance in politics. For the third time, I was making no claim. And now that I realize my question was unimportant, I am certainly making no claim. |
| So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens. |
Are you, or are you not, claiming that you can't predict (with any degree of accuracy) a pattern of furure behavior based on a person's (or politician's) history?
Because your "question" (which you accuse me of turning into a "ludicrous caricature") carries with it an implicit claim. If it is indeed time to re-evaluate "how well" past behavior predicts future behavior among politicians, then the implication is clear: You don't think it works.
So put down your false accusations of logical fallacy, insults (which you have not actually offer apology for, "Because it didn't work, I apologize for it.".... is like apologizing for a slap with the back of your hand) and actually clarify your position here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 10:43:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Are you, or are you not, claiming that you can't predict (with any degree of accuracy) a pattern of furure behavior based on a person's (or politician's) history? |
For the fourth time: I am not making any such claim.| Because your "question" (which you accuse me of turning into a "ludicrous caricature") carries with it an implicit claim. If it is indeed time to re-evaluate "how well" past behavior predicts future behavior among politicians, then the implication is clear: You don't think it works. |
Then there was an implicit claim in your request for evidence in favor of the proposition that "the majority of greens are woo-woos," and you should have been prepared to defend your implicit claim. Once again, a request for evidence doesn't imply an opposing claim. Never has, never will, and I know you know this, Dude, because that was one of your arguments against beskeptigal.| So put down your false accusations of logical fallacy... |
I don't see where they are false. Your claims that my position was "obvious" are mistaken, but you ran with what you thought was obvious to illogical extremes and continue to do so.| ...insults (which you have not actually offer apology for, "Because it didn't work, I apologize for it.".... is like apologizing for a slap with the back of your hand)... |
Had it worked, you wouldn't have been harping on how insulting I've been, you would have understood my intent. You still do not, even though I made that clear, as well.| ...and actually clarify your position here. |
How can I make it any more clear, Dude? No matter how well or poorly past behavior predicts performance in office (a correlation somewhere between - but not inclusive of - zero and one), I cannot think of another predictor that would correlate better than a coin flip (exactly zero), so we're stuck with judging based on past behavior.
Oh, and this:| I don't know why you and Dude are so hostile towards the idea of checking to make sure how well politicians' past statements predict future performance (especially with regard to the Democrats) |
Where you assign me a political bias for democrats (based on what, my criticism of republicans? Still trying to figure that one out....) |
I assigned you no political bias for or against Democrats. I assigned you hostility towards checking to see how well past behavior correlates with future performace. (The 2006 Democrats are still, I think, a good example of a poor correlation, but that point is moot.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 19:11:12 [Permalink]
|
| That's alright Filth. I just gave Chaloobi credit for Chippewa's fascinating thread (not that Chaloobi's threads aren't fascinating too, they're just not buckskin) -- so CRAFT syndrome (can't remember a fucking thing) is endemic among old forum farts! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 22:13:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Then there was an implicit claim in your request for evidence in favor of the proposition that "the majority of greens are woo-woos," and you should have been prepared to defend your implicit claim. Once again, a request for evidence doesn't imply an opposing claim. Never has, never will, and I know you know this, Dude, because that was one of your arguments against beskeptigal. |
Dave.... let me spell this out for you as simply as I can.
When you ask a question, or make a statement like: (to paraphrase)"We need to re-evaluate how well past behavior predicts future behavior of politicians.", you are implying that it does not work well or at all.
When I ask beskeptigal for evidence, obviously, there is no implied claim.
How it is that you can conflate the two things, continiously, escapes me.
When you "asked" for evidence, the only thing I can do (in this instance, because behavior is far afield from my are of study) is make a plea to authority and common knowledge. It is (if I'm mistaken I'd welcome correction) commonly accepted that past behavior can be used to predict general patterns of future behavior. I tried to give you an example with the current president, and I could do the same thing for the three before him as well. But you weren't interested.
| I don't see where they are false. Your claims that my position was "obvious" are mistaken, but you ran with what you thought was obvious to illogical extremes and continue to do so. |
I haven't "run" with anything. And if anyone in this thread is logic-challenged today, its you. See your above strawman (and, again, insult) for an example.
How can I make it any more clear, Dude? No matter how well or poorly past behavior predicts performance in office (a correlation somewhere between - but not inclusive of - zero and one), I cannot think of another predictor that would correlate better than a coin flip (exactly zero), so we're stuck with judging based on past behavior.
|
Well golly-gee, if only you had said that instead of: I submit that it is now impossible to accurately judge the qualifications of any candidate that has a chance of winning the White House, because asserting a position is only important so far as it will gather votes.
........
So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens.
.......
I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath.
|
... a person reading wouldn't have come away with the impression that you don't think a politician's behavior can be predicted....
^^s^a^r^c^a^s^m^^
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 00:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave.... let me spell this out for you as simply as I can.
When you ask a question, or make a statement like: (to paraphrase)"We need to re-evaluate how well past behavior predicts future behavior of politicians.", you are implying that it does not work well or at all.
When I ask beskeptigal for evidence, obviously, there is no implied claim.
How it is that you can conflate the two things, continiously, escapes me. |
Continuously? I made the comparison once.
But aside from your hyperbole, when physicists re-evaluate (for example) G, or c, or Newtonian physics, are they claiming that they don't work well or at all? Of course not. No, wait, that is your hyperbole strawmanning me again.
I shouldn't have to remind you, Dude, that when Newtonian physics was being re-evaluated, we only knew of a very few cases where it didn't seem to work quite right (like Mercury's orbit). Physicists had a gazillion Earth-bound examples of it working just fine down to the then-current limits of measurement. So even though it worked extremely well (and continues to in "common" scenarios), it got re-evaluated anyway and anyone whose life, job or hobby now depends on a GPS unit is glad for it.
As skeptics, we should be in the business of constantly re-evaluating "commonly accepted" truths, whether we think they "work" or not. By responding to such a call with what appeared to be (effectively) an indignant "you think this common knowledge is false?!" it appears you're having nothing more than a knee-jerk dogmatic reaction to a challenge to a cherished belief.| When you "asked" for evidence, the only thing I can do (in this instance, because behavior is far afield from my are of study) is make a plea to authority and common knowledge. It is (if I'm mistaken I'd welcome correction) commonly accepted that past behavior can be used to predict general patterns of future behavior. |
Yes, and because I've agreed with that, I wasn't interested in that. That's why I asked "how well." The correlation is between zero and one, but what number is it actually, and (more importantly) does it differ for politicians? (Not that it matters anymore.)| I tried to give you an example with the current president, and I could do the same thing for the three before him as well. But you weren't interested. |
Yes, individual case studies weren't interesting. I was more interested in the behavioral science of which you spoke, but not so much any more.| I haven't "run" with anything. |
Sure you have: your continued (and contuing) attempts to paint me as currently claiming that "past behaviour doesn't predict future performance." You are still doing it, and apparently you won't acknowledge that I've claimed otherwise without sarcasm.| And if anyone in this thread is logic-challenged today, its you. See your above strawman... |
The strawman above was yours.| ...(and, again, insult)... |
If you take as an insult the fact that you are being hypocritical, there's nothing I can do about it.Well golly-gee, if only you had said that instead of: I submit that it is now impossible to accurately judge the qualifications of any candidate that has a chance of winning the White House, because asserting a position is only important so far as it will gather votes.
........
So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens.
.......
I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
... a person reading wouldn't have come away with the impression that you don't think a politician's behavior can be predicted....
^^s^a^r^c^a^s^m^^ |
Not only sarcasm, but cherry-picking. You left out the parts where I'd changed my mind and repeatedly stated my current position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 10:19:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
But aside from your hyperbole, when physicists re-evaluate (for example) G, or c, or Newtonian physics, are they claiming that they don't work well or at all? Of course not. No, wait, that is your hyperbole strawmanning me again.
|
Dave, the reason they were re-evaluating was because they suspected something wasn't right, that they didn't have a complete picture.
Have you ever heard anyone (anyone reasonable) say "we need to re-evaluate how well X works", if they had absolutely no reason to suspect that X didn't work?
When you stated that we needed to re-evaluate "how well" past behavior predicts future patterns it is obvious to a reasonable person that you don't believe it works well, or well enough. Your continued denial of this makes you look ridiculous.
| As skeptics, we should be in the business of constantly re-evaluating "commonly accepted" truths, whether we think they "work" or not. |
I don't disagree, as long as you can make some case for why. Should I constantly re-evaluate the sun's ability to burn my skin by not applying sunscreen?
The idea of past behavior predicting future patterns of behavior is, clearly, imperfect. No one would suggest otherwise. It is, as you have stated (and I agree), the only thing we have to assess a political candidate's acceptability though. So knowing that it is imperfect, and knowing that it is the only method available, your statement of needing to re-evaluate "how well" it works indicates (to me) more that just a reasonable need to constantly seek different and/or improved methods. Within this context, your statement seemed to be a whole cloth rejection of the concept.
But rather than take 10 seconds to explain yourself, you decided instead to engage in an infantile game of insults, false accusations of fallacy, and general boorishness.
| Sure you have: your continued (and contuing) attempts to paint me as currently claiming that "past behaviour doesn't predict future performance." You are still doing it, and apparently you won't acknowledge that I've claimed otherwise without sarcasm. |
I was attempting to illustrate the incredibly convoluted and unclear nature of your position, as stated by you, previous to that explanation. Also, as I'm a tad irritated by you at the moment, I wasn't inclined to generosity.
| Not only sarcasm, but cherry-picking. You left out the parts where I'd changed my mind and repeatedly stated my current position. |
Because you won't acknowledge that your refusal to clearly state what the hell you were saying is the reason for this argument. I don't disagree with your most recent stand on the issue, just your continued general dickishness which has prevented the conversation from proceeding any further.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 15:05:03 [Permalink]
|
An interesting comment, albeit a little biased perhaps, by Dick Morris; former Clinton insider, trusted advisor, disgraced John, and current Fox News star. Morris is certainly despicable enough, but he is nobody's fool. An interesting comment on Bloomberg! Incidently, he welcomes dissemination of his newsletter, no copywright problems here!
While Obama and Clinton wrestle and the four Republican candidates face one another, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's shadow increasingly falls over their playing field. Armed with as much money as he could possibly need to run, this Democrat-turned-Republican could throw the entire race into chaos.
Bloomberg can wait and watch the primaries unfold before making his move. A byproduct of the front loading of the primaries in both parties is that t he nominees will probably be chosen with plenty of time for a third party candidate to enter the field. The New York City mayor could either get himself nominated by the Green Party, formerly the vehicle for gadfly Ralph Nader, or set up his own party by petition in the 50 states. His massive financial resources make it possible for him to wait until early Spring before he has to begin collecting signatures if he goes the petition route.
The increasingly bitter nominating contests in both parties seem likely to offer an ample supply of disgruntled voters from whom Bloomberg could draw. Hillary and Obama are girding for a take-no-prisoners battle and the Republican fight seems likely to get equally acrimonious.
But a third party candidacy must gain its traction and impetus from discontent with the other two candidates. It is only frustration with the outcome of the Democratic and Republican nominating processes that would make a Bloomberg candidacy attractive.
Beyond the obvious difficulty Bloomberg would have running against Giuliani, both McCain and Obama would seem to pose obstacles to a viable third party candidacy. Political androgynous candidates, they draw well among both Democrats and Republicans and, so far, seem to alienate relatively few voters. Obama's charisma has set much of the country ablaze a nd he appears to have done so without making a lot of enemies.
Boomberg's drawback — inexperience — is not likely to enflame enough voters to power a third party. John McCain may not win the Republican nomination precisely because his ideology and record is so appealing to those outside his party. He is the Democratic Party's favorite Republican. If he wins the nomination, he can probably count on sufficient popularity on both sides of the race to make a Bloomberg candidacy problematic.
But if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination and either Huckabee or Romney gets the Republican nod, it is easy to see Bloomberg emerging as a very strong alternative. Hillary has a unique ability to make enemies and to polarize the electorate. If she wins the Democratic nomination, tens of millions of Democrats and Independents will want to look elsewhere in the general election. If she wins after a bitter fight with Obama, she might well alienate enough African American voters to make a third party candidacy successful, particularly with Bloomberg's excellent record in attracting minority support in New York City.
If Huckabee is nominated by the Republicans, he may not be able to escape the evangelical ghetto and might have limited appeal to mainstream voters. Romney would also leave a lot of voters cold if he were to be nominated. The limited national security credentials of both Republicans might also open the door to Bloomberg, who has had extensive experience in fighting terrorism in New York City.
So Bloomberg needs to wait and watch as the other parties choose their nominees. If Hillary is the Democrat and either Huckabee or Romney wins the Republican nomination, he will find enough running room to make it worthwhile to take the shot.
Who would he help and hurt? He'd probably help Hillary more than the Republi |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 21:38:57 [Permalink]
|
A Bloomberg/Hagel ticket would probably attract a lot of the non-insane republicans (the more libertarian types), a lot of independents, and the democrats who don't like Hillary. That seems like it would make him a contender if Hillary is the dem nominee.
I'd like to see him run, and I would consider voting for him, because he has a chance to break the two party system if he wins. I hesitate at this stage to say I would definitely vote for him over Hillary (if she gets the nom) because I don't know enough about him yet. Ron Paul was good for something this election cycle anyway, as a cautionary tale if nothing else- Look a bit longer at a candidate before you make a decision about them.
And with the news being so entirely tabloid, I don't think it matters when a person enters the race (as long as it is in time to get on the ballots in each state), the media will hype them bigtime if they have enough free money to run for president on their pocket change, like Bloomberg does.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 08:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave, the reason they were re-evaluating was because they suspected something wasn't right, that they didn't have a complete picture.
Have you ever heard anyone (anyone reasonable) say "we need to re-evaluate how well X works", if they had absolutely no reason to suspect that X didn't work?
When you stated that we needed to re-evaluate "how well" past behavior predicts future patterns it is obvious to a reasonable person that you don't believe it works well, or well enough. Your continued denial of this makes you look ridiculous. |
I've said already that the correlation is not perfect (as have you). I've said that I want to know how well the method works. What I deny is your characterization of my statements as meaning that I think it doesn't work at all. And since I haven't given any thought as to what "works well" means in that context, I must deny that characterization, too.
It's not like there is a dearth of counter-examples. We know that something isn't right. We know we don't have a complete picture. We absolutely have a reason to think that past behaviour is not a 100% accurate predictor of future performance. I once wanted to know what the percentage actually is.| I don't disagree, as long as you can make some case for why. |
Why? Because I don't know how well it "works," that's why.| Should I constantly re-evaluate the sun's ability to burn my skin by not applying sunscreen? |
Were I to apply your discussion strategy in this thread, I would ask you why you think it is inappropriate to measure the Sun's ability to burn various skin types. Do you see how that would be a strawman? Do you understand my objection?| The idea of past behavior predicting future patterns of behavior is, clearly, imperfect. No one would suggest otherwise. It is, as you have stated (and I agree), the only thing we have to assess a political candidate's acceptability though. So knowing that it is imperfect, and knowing that it is the only method available, your statement of needing to re-evaluate "how well" it works indicates (to me) more that just a reasonable need to constantly seek different and/or improved methods. Within this context, your statement seemed to be a whole cloth rejection of the concept. |
But I've explained numerous times that I do not reject it, and you failed (numerous times) to acknowledge my explanations.| But rather than take 10 seconds to explain yourself... |
Now you're the one denying the plain facts, Dude. Just because you didn't understand my explanations doesn't mean that I never posted them.| ...you decided instead to engage in an infantile game of insults, false accusations of fallacy, and general boorishness. |
Infantile? You're the one who suggested that we skeptic friends should "slap the shit" out of each other in cases like this. I take it you now reject your earlier position on that matter. Seeing how poorly it works on you I would hope you would change your mind.
Besides which, you were engaged in fallacious reasoning, and simply calling such accusations "false" does nothing to rebut them.| I was attempting to illustrate the incredibly convoluted and unclear nature of your position, as stated by you, previous to that explanation. |
Previous to that explanation were other explanations which you chose to ignore. You followed the same pattern of presenting a strawman of my explanation, so how could I tell that something different was happening?| Also, as I'm a tad irritated by you at the moment, I wasn't inclined to generosity. |
Apparently since my first posts in this thread.| Because you won't acknowledge that your refusal to clearly state what the hell you were saying is the reason for this argument. I don't disagree with your most recent stand on the issue, just your continued general dickishness which has prevented the conversation from proceeding any further. |
I said the same thing several different times, Dude, and only the last time did you even quote me saying it. You chose to not respond to my earlier statements, instead plowing on as if I'd never written them. You could have taken two seconds to ask, "what do you mean by this?" and actually waited for me to answer, instead of assuming I would give the stupidest answer and asking me to accept or deny it. But somehow this whole mess is, instead, due to my "general dickishness."
But, since you "don't disagree," that part of the conversation has reached its end. All that's left is who's the bigger weenie, and I'll leave that discussion to you and others. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 13:57:53 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| What I deny is your characterization of my statements as meaning that I think it doesn't work at all. |
Now you are just using marf's favorite trick, changing context.
When you first made your statement in this thread: | So, how a candidate's faith will actually affect his/her governance of the country won't really be discovered until he/she is in the Oval Office and something big happens. |
... and followed up with:
| Where's the data from past Presidents that shows that this method does indeed produce "semi-reasonable estimations?" |
... then strawmaned a bit with this:
| I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
... then dropped in this:
| Nope, I no longer know it. I used to, but I've now decided to question that conclusion. I'd like to re-examine the evidence in its favor. Is there any? |
All that even before you started in with your petty insults or any attempt to "clarify" your position.... so.
Yeah, gee, I'm mischaracterizing what you said... bullshit.
You were clearly saying that the idea (past behavior as a predictor of future behavior) is useless when applied to politicians.
That you later changed your mind, or reformulated your position, is all fine and dandy, but you don't get to use your changed position and my criticism of your original position to make this statement: | What I deny is your characterization of my statements as meaning that I think it doesn't work at all. |
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 18:47:46 [Permalink]
|
I changed my mind. You keep mixing tenses, as if what I used to think is what I think now. All through page five and most of this page so far. And you're obviously not going to apologize for (much less admit) your offenses, any more than I'm going to apologize more for mine. Are we done with that, then?
Hey, speaking of the past, I never did get any answer from you on why giving to Mormon churches is different from giving to other churches, did I? Is there a delusion metric among organized religion at the bottom of which one would find the LDS church? 'Cause "magic underwear" and "cracker and wine turning into blood and meat" is, in my opinion, six of one, and a half-dozen of the other. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 02:17:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| I changed my mind. You keep mixing tenses, as if what I used to think is what I think now. |
No, you are the one who is having trouble with tense and the order of events.
I have already said that I don't disagree with your current position.
The argument we are having now stems from your refusal to acknowledge that; your initial statements on this issue indicated that you didn't think the concept (predicting future behavior from past behavior) was valid at all, your plunge into insults and strawman arguments when your position was questioned, and the length of time it took you to actually clearly state your "new" position because you were to busy engaging in those false accusations of fallacy and insults.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 15:14:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave on Dave on Predicting Political Performance
Dave:
| I submit that it is now impossible to accurately judge the qualifications of any candidate that has a chance of winning the White House, because asserting a position is only important so far as it will gather votes |
| I think we see enough empty claims made on the campaign trail that we need to re-evaluate how accurately one can predict a candidate's performance in office using nothing more than what they've said and done up until they take the oath. |
|
Dave:
| Nope, I no longer know it. I used to, but I've now decided to question that conclusion. I'd like to re-examine the evidence in its favor. Is there any? |
Dave:
| I don't know why you and Dude are so hostile towards the idea of checking to make sure how well politicians' past statements predict future performance (especially with regard to the Democrats), but I don't care enough to pursue this any further |
| But I don't give a damn anymore, especially since I now think the point is moot. Even if past performance is a poor indicator of performance in office, I can't think of any other predictor that makes any sense. In other words, no matter how mis-matched a person's (possibly youthful) idealism and campaign rhetoric is with how they actually govern, there is no "good governance litmus test." |
|
Dave:
| I said that I thought it was time for a re-evaluation of how well past behaviour is a predictor of performance in office. |
| Dude's mangling of my statements into "past behaviour is not a predictor of future performance" is a ludicrous caricature of what I said. |
| But I withdrew my question, anyway. |
|
Dave:
| My question was how well past behavior predicts future performance in politics. For the third time, I was making no claim. And now that I realize my question was unimportant, I am certainly making no claim. |
| But it doesn't much matter because even if the past were a poor predictor, we don't have access to a better predictor. |
| No matter how well or poorly past behavior predicts performance in office (a correlation somewhere between - but not inclusive of - zero and one), I cannot think of another predictor that would correlate better than a coin flip (exactly zero), so we're stuck with judging based on past behavior. |
|
Dave:
| Where's the data from past Presidents that shows that this method does indeed produce "semi-reasonable estimations?" |
| Dude's right that the question wasn't (and can't be) confined to the campaign trail. Ron Paul's newsletters are certainly relevant to the question of how well one might think he would govern as President, for example. Plus, utterances from long ago - perhaps when a person had no intention of seeking public office - might be more "honest" than more-recent ones, and offer better insight into what that person is like. |
| Yes, individual case studies weren't interesting. I was more interested in the behavioral science of which you spoke, |
|
Dave:
| I've said already that the correlation is not perfect (as have you). I've said that I want to know how well the method works. |
| But I've explained numerous times that I do not reject it, |
| I changed my mind. You keep mixing tenses, as if what I used to think is what I think now. |
|
Dave, with all of the above in mind; what would be your critically-thought-out advice be, as to how to decide, to a totally uncommitted Independent who will be going into the voting booth to vote for President next November? What information should the voter use to define a candidate?
What do you think now as to what a voter can, and can not, infer from a candidate's campaign statements and from that candidate's past personal and political behavior and professed beliefs? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Buck on Huck
