Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
I don't know if you can really compare a statistic to an experiment. None of us know the method in which the data was gathered, what kind of bias MAY have been put on it, etc. Experiments are very open. Since this is a private POLL where we don't know a thing about the method, you cannot say it is without a doubt accurate.
I <i>personally</i> believe that the percentage is inaccurate, and I have the right to do so. I'm not demanding any of you change your mind or conform to my opinion. Stop arguing over something so insignificant and move on.
<!--quoteo(post=1584272:date=Dec 4 2006, 04:46 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Dec 4 2006, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1584272[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I stopped reading there. That's about as ignorant and condescending an essay as I've ever read. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Substance over style. He could throw in a bunch of profanity and attacks, etc, but it doesn't negate the content of his essay.
<!--quoteo(post=1584196:date=Dec 4 2006, 04:03 PM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 4 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]1584196[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes but I guess it's ok if we Americans also identified people of certain political philosophies?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
My father, some time in the early nineties, discovered why he had found himself oddly shut out of several jobs during the seventies and eighties. Turns out that the jobs in question were in some way related to national security (shipyard, for example), and he had been on "the list." The list in question was in fact the western german list of known and suspected communists (and thus potential soviet spies). My father had friends who were openly communist, and they had sent him pamphlets. This somehow got on his record, and as a result he found himself unfairly deprived of career opportunities.
Morale? Broad-sweeping generalisations based on religion or political viewpoints are never okay.
<!--quoteo(post=1584264:date=Dec 4 2006, 07:36 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 4 2006, 07:36 PM) [snapback]1584264[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->stuff<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has been turned into a retarded semantics argument. If you want to seriously compare objecting to a result of gravity being 7 m/s2 to objecting to a scientific survey, and equate them, I don't know what to say. Go ahead and do that, I don't think it's a very good move. They aren't both arguments from incredulity. You're living in some fantasy world where we have a better way to verify things than induction.
<!--quoteo(post=1584431:date=Dec 5 2006, 08:35 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 5 2006, 08:35 AM) [snapback]1584431[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My father, some time in the early nineties, discovered why he had found himself oddly shut out of several jobs during the seventies and eighties. Turns out that the jobs in question were in some way related to national security (shipyard, for example), and he had been on "the list." The list in question was in fact the western german list of known and suspected communists (and thus potential soviet spies). My father had friends who were openly communist, and they had sent him pamphlets. This somehow got on his record, and as a result he found himself unfairly deprived of career opportunities.
Morale? Broad-sweeping generalisations based on religion or political viewpoints are never okay. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't believe we still have the list from the red-scare taking its toll on people in sem-recent times. This whole discussion reminds me of something called eugenics, which was somewhat the founding for nazi Germanys whole movement, and actually started.... thats right, in the US. After WW2 everyone conveniently forgot that they had believed in such a horrid concept... <a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/eugenics/" target="_blank">http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/eugenics/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1584459:date=Dec 5 2006, 09:56 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Dec 5 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]1584459[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> This has been turned into a retarded semantics argument. If you want to seriously compare objecting to a result of gravity being 7 m/s2 to objecting to a scientific survey, and equate them, I don't know what to say. Go ahead and do that, I don't think it's a very good move. They aren't both arguments from incredulity. You're living in some fantasy world where we have a better way to verify things than induction. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, that whole thing was just an illustration to begin with. You're the one who wanted to start arguing about how easily we can verify Gravity, when that completely misses the point because we have no such comparable evidence for this study. If I run an experiment on gravity, you can compare it to a million experiments on gravity run before to test its accuracy. But we don't have any data to compare this study to, because as far as we know no one has asked people whether they would support identifying Muslims.
In fact, we can't even look at the study itself properly because NONE OF US HAS SEEN IT! This argument is retarded in more ways than just semantics. We're all arguing over a document that none of us have seen, where many of us openly admit we don't even care what the real numbers are, and where we have nothing relevant to compare it to.
The only thing I can think of that would make sense for us to talk about is whether it would be GOOD for Muslims to carry ID, but we all seem to pretty much agree on that point, so that doesn't hold a conversation very long. So where do YOU want the conversation to go?
<!--quoteo(post=1584683:date=Dec 5 2006, 08:29 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 5 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1584683[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Look, that whole thing was just an illustration to begin with. You're the one who wanted to start arguing about how easily we can verify Gravity, when that completely misses the point because we have no such comparable evidence for this study.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh what? You are the one who brought up some hypothetical about Gravity as if it somehow supported your point. I was merely replying and saying that it's not a very good point. From post #16 (first mention of gravity in the thread) <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, I could measure acceleration due to gravity and come up with 7 m/s/s--that probably means that I made a mistake in measurement, rather than that the gravitational constant changed overnight. How did I reach that conclusion? Argument from Incredulity. Its incredulous that the gravitational constant would be 30% smaller today than yesterday, and so I repeat my experiment again, and this time I get 9.8.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I run an experiment on gravity, you can compare it to a million experiments on gravity run before to test its accuracy. But we don't have any data to compare this study to, because as far as we know no one has asked people whether they would support identifying Muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is why saying that a measurement of gravity as 7 m/s2 is inaccurate is not an argument from incredulity... it's going against a million other experiments. This is why your gravity hypothetical is not close to comparable to what we are talking about here, so can we drop it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, we can't even look at the study itself properly because NONE OF US HAS SEEN IT! This argument is retarded in more ways than just semantics. We're all arguing over a document that none of us have seen, where many of us openly admit we don't even care what the real numbers are, and where we have nothing relevant to compare it to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point of my post was to try to have people stop speculating that they know better than actual real surveys with real data. It's unbelievably retarded.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing I can think of that would make sense for us to talk about is whether it would be GOOD for Muslims to carry ID, but we all seem to pretty much agree on that point, so that doesn't hold a conversation very long. So where do YOU want the conversation to go?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't want the conversation to go anywhere, I just want people to stop objecting to actual data with stupid handwaving arguments and personal anecdotes (arguments from incredulity).
this is the original quote: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't think it's accurate. There is no way 39% of America believes that. Either Gallup has phrased the question badly or the question is misleading, or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Show me why the question is misleading or don't say something like this. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Can you stop raping your posts by mixing quotes and responses all the time? It'd be much less frustrating to try to read if you just quoted the post in full and then made a moderate effort to sort a decent lay out for your own. At the moment it's very easy to fall into the belief that you're quoting things out of context and trying to win a discussion over someone else instead of arguing a point.
I'm not leaving anything in his post out, and it's all in order, I just put in replies where I think I need to... but I guess I can do it that way from now on.
The reason I was doing it this way was so that it's clear what part of his post I was replying to. If it's just a big paragraph by him then a paragraph by me, sometimes its hard to sort which parts go together. Shrug
(I guess that last post had some extra quotes from before in the thread, but I usually don't do that)
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Show me why the question is misleading or don't say something like this. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about no? Why don't you people read the thread? As I have stated again and again, it is my PERSONAL BELIEF. I have enough hope for America to believe that the one lone poll was inaccurate. You don't like that? Fine. I couldn't care less. Don't say I can't say I believe something just because there is no direct evidence.
Also in case you haven't noticed, we don't even know what the question was. It is quite possible either Gallup or the writer of the article has put spin on it. We don't know anything. Form your own opinions and don't try and say other people can't have their own.
Please, have your own opinion. However, if you're going to speak it in public don't be surprised or upset if people ask you for a reason to why you believe this.
Most people reading these boards, I would hope, try to form their opinions based on facts or at least decently intelligent and plausable interpolations of facts. Expecting not to be challanged on a the 'Discussions' board for saying you don't believe in a survey based on nothing but your belief in the high moral standing of the American people -or whatever it is you are basing it on- seems either very naive to me.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1585491:date=Dec 7 2006, 07:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Dec 7 2006, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1585491[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Please, have your own opinion. However, if you're going to speak it in public don't be surprised or upset if people ask you for a reason to why you believe this.
Most people reading these boards, I would hope, try to form their opinions based on facts or at least decently intelligent and plausable interpolations of facts. Expecting not to be challanged on a the 'Discussions' board for saying you don't believe in a survey based on nothing but your belief in the high moral standing of the American people -or whatever it is you are basing it on- seems either very naive to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't have posted it if I had known people would have treated it like an "argument" and spent pages debating over something so trivial. The fact of the matter is that we don't have any facts. Therefore it is impossible to put anything in this thread other than blind opinions. I don't see why this thread hasn't been locked already, or why it has even been posted. There is no event here, nor material worth discussing. I guess I had the hope that NS discussion boards would be a bit more decisive about which topics are worth fighting over and which aren't.
This is going absolutely nowhere, yet we all still manage use it to insult each other into oblivion. Kinda standing water, I suppose - eventually it gets brackish.
Comments
I <i>personally</i> believe that the percentage is inaccurate, and I have the right to do so. I'm not demanding any of you change your mind or conform to my opinion. Stop arguing over something so insignificant and move on.
I stopped reading there. That's about as ignorant and condescending an essay as I've ever read.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Substance over style. He could throw in a bunch of profanity and attacks, etc, but it doesn't negate the content of his essay.
Yes but I guess it's ok if we Americans also identified people of certain political philosophies?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
My father had friends who were openly communist, and they had sent him pamphlets. This somehow got on his record, and as a result he found himself unfairly deprived of career opportunities.
Morale? Broad-sweeping generalisations based on religion or political viewpoints are never okay.
This has been turned into a retarded semantics argument. If you want to seriously compare objecting to a result of gravity being 7 m/s2 to objecting to a scientific survey, and equate them, I don't know what to say. Go ahead and do that, I don't think it's a very good move. They aren't both arguments from incredulity. You're living in some fantasy world where we have a better way to verify things than induction.
My father, some time in the early nineties, discovered why he had found himself oddly shut out of several jobs during the seventies and eighties. Turns out that the jobs in question were in some way related to national security (shipyard, for example), and he had been on "the list." The list in question was in fact the western german list of known and suspected communists (and thus potential soviet spies).
My father had friends who were openly communist, and they had sent him pamphlets. This somehow got on his record, and as a result he found himself unfairly deprived of career opportunities.
Morale? Broad-sweeping generalisations based on religion or political viewpoints are never okay.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe we still have the list from the red-scare taking its toll on people in sem-recent times. This whole discussion reminds me of something called eugenics, which was somewhat the founding for nazi Germanys whole movement, and actually started.... thats right, in the US. After WW2 everyone conveniently forgot that they had believed in such a horrid concept... <a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/eugenics/" target="_blank">http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/eugenics/</a>
This has been turned into a retarded semantics argument. If you want to seriously compare objecting to a result of gravity being 7 m/s2 to objecting to a scientific survey, and equate them, I don't know what to say. Go ahead and do that, I don't think it's a very good move. They aren't both arguments from incredulity. You're living in some fantasy world where we have a better way to verify things than induction.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, that whole thing was just an illustration to begin with. You're the one who wanted to start arguing about how easily we can verify Gravity, when that completely misses the point because we have no such comparable evidence for this study. If I run an experiment on gravity, you can compare it to a million experiments on gravity run before to test its accuracy. But we don't have any data to compare this study to, because as far as we know no one has asked people whether they would support identifying Muslims.
In fact, we can't even look at the study itself properly because NONE OF US HAS SEEN IT! This argument is retarded in more ways than just semantics. We're all arguing over a document that none of us have seen, where many of us openly admit we don't even care what the real numbers are, and where we have nothing relevant to compare it to.
The only thing I can think of that would make sense for us to talk about is whether it would be GOOD for Muslims to carry ID, but we all seem to pretty much agree on that point, so that doesn't hold a conversation very long. So where do YOU want the conversation to go?
Look, that whole thing was just an illustration to begin with. You're the one who wanted to start arguing about how easily we can verify Gravity, when that completely misses the point because we have no such comparable evidence for this study.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh what? You are the one who brought up some hypothetical about Gravity as if it somehow supported your point. I was merely replying and saying that it's not a very good point.
From post #16 (first mention of gravity in the thread)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, I could measure acceleration due to gravity and come up with 7 m/s/s--that probably means that I made a mistake in measurement, rather than that the gravitational constant changed overnight. How did I reach that conclusion? Argument from Incredulity. Its incredulous that the gravitational constant would be 30% smaller today than yesterday, and so I repeat my experiment again, and this time I get 9.8.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I run an experiment on gravity, you can compare it to a million experiments on gravity run before to test its accuracy. But we don't have any data to compare this study to, because as far as we know no one has asked people whether they would support identifying Muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why saying that a measurement of gravity as 7 m/s2 is inaccurate is not an argument from incredulity... it's going against a million other experiments. This is why your gravity hypothetical is not close to comparable to what we are talking about here, so can we drop it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, we can't even look at the study itself properly because NONE OF US HAS SEEN IT! This argument is retarded in more ways than just semantics. We're all arguing over a document that none of us have seen, where many of us openly admit we don't even care what the real numbers are, and where we have nothing relevant to compare it to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point of my post was to try to have people stop speculating that they know better than actual real surveys with real data. It's unbelievably retarded.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing I can think of that would make sense for us to talk about is whether it would be GOOD for Muslims to carry ID, but we all seem to pretty much agree on that point, so that doesn't hold a conversation very long. So where do YOU want the conversation to go?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want the conversation to go anywhere, I just want people to stop objecting to actual data with stupid handwaving arguments and personal anecdotes (arguments from incredulity).
this is the original quote:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still don't think it's accurate. There is no way 39% of America believes that. Either Gallup has phrased the question badly or the question is misleading, or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me why the question is misleading or don't say something like this. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
The reason I was doing it this way was so that it's clear what part of his post I was replying to. If it's just a big paragraph by him then a paragraph by me, sometimes its hard to sort which parts go together. Shrug
(I guess that last post had some extra quotes from before in the thread, but I usually don't do that)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about no? Why don't you people read the thread? As I have stated again and again, it is my PERSONAL BELIEF. I have enough hope for America to believe that the one lone poll was inaccurate. You don't like that? Fine. I couldn't care less. Don't say I can't say I believe something just because there is no direct evidence.
Also in case you haven't noticed, we don't even know what the question was. It is quite possible either Gallup or the writer of the article has put spin on it. We don't know anything. Form your own opinions and don't try and say other people can't have their own.
Most people reading these boards, I would hope, try to form their opinions based on facts or at least decently intelligent and plausable interpolations of facts. Expecting not to be challanged on a the 'Discussions' board for saying you don't believe in a survey based on nothing but your belief in the high moral standing of the American people -or whatever it is you are basing it on- seems either very naive to me.
Please, have your own opinion. However, if you're going to speak it in public don't be surprised or upset if people ask you for a reason to why you believe this.
Most people reading these boards, I would hope, try to form their opinions based on facts or at least decently intelligent and plausable interpolations of facts. Expecting not to be challanged on a the 'Discussions' board for saying you don't believe in a survey based on nothing but your belief in the high moral standing of the American people -or whatever it is you are basing it on- seems either very naive to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't have posted it if I had known people would have treated it like an "argument" and spent pages debating over something so trivial. The fact of the matter is that we don't have any facts. Therefore it is impossible to put anything in this thread other than blind opinions. I don't see why this thread hasn't been locked already, or why it has even been posted. There is no event here, nor material worth discussing. I guess I had the hope that NS discussion boards would be a bit more decisive about which topics are worth fighting over and which aren't.
This is going absolutely nowhere, yet we all still manage use it to insult each other into oblivion. Kinda standing water, I suppose - eventually it gets brackish.