The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

No, you are the one who needs to play semantics.

Do I need to cite the Pareto distribution at you to show why you collorary is:

A: Not valid
B: is a Non-sequitur.



The only contriving, is your attempts to backflip out of the logical corner:

Either everyone is equal, so there is no requirement to provide any assistance
or
Not everyone is equal and therefore I'm right.

Cite whatever you like, it'd be a nice change from the obfuscation.

What an absurdly contrived choice. Are you conflating equality as a concept with equality of performance? do you think the notion that everyone is equal means that we should expect everyone to play the piano like Beethoven?

[Graystone]

Try page 107.

That's as far as I can be arsed, considered how deliberately disingenuous you are being.

Scroll up was meant a little more metaphorically....

The author concludes nothing about biological differences directly causing the disparity in distribution. No wonder you were obfuscating if that is what you have as 'evidence'.

"These results imply that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon and that they emerge in different institutional settings"

Have you even read the paper?

[TheDemonLord]

Cite whatever you like, it'd be a nice change from the obfuscation.

The only obfuscation is the deliberately self-inflicted one, on your part.

What an absurdly contrived choice. Are you conflating equality as a concept with equality of performance? do you think the notion that everyone is equal means that we should expect everyone to play the piano like Beethoven?

Depends on what you mean by Equal.

You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, in a direct contradiction to my statements that people aren't equal, but they should be treated as such (thus demonstrating the 2 concepts aren't mere semantics).

[Graystone]

Depends on what you mean by Equal.

You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, and they should be treated as such

Fixed, see how when I take you opinion out of it, it makes perfect sense?

[husaberg]

Depends on what you mean by Equal.
You've said explicitly that you think of everyone of Equal, in a direct contradiction to my statements that people aren't equal, but they should be treated as such (thus demonstrating the 2 concepts aren't mere semantics).

As the thread is about politics.
Are men better than women in politics?
Are mens votes worth more?

[TheDemonLord]

The author concludes nothing about biological differences directly causing the disparity in distribution. No wonder you were obfuscating if that is what you have as 'evidence'.

"These results imply that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon and that they emerge in different institutional settings"

Have you even read the paper?

Gender is the Biological difference.

Even if you want to quibble about the word "Imply" - then fine - do so honestly, problem is that this isn't an isolated study and it's results has been replicated multiple times.

Then I also referenced the works of people such as Steven Pinker, JBP etc.

https://youtu.be/2Iw72EahZLE?t=57

[TheDemonLord]

Fixed, see how when I take you opinion out of it, it makes perfect sense?

So, by that statement - can you play a rendition of Flight of the Bumblebee for me?

[Graystone]

Gender is the Biological difference.

Even if you want to quibble about the word "Imply" - then fine - do so honestly, problem is that this isn't an isolated study and it's results has been replicated multiple times.

Then I also referenced the works of people such as Steven Pinker, JBP etc.

https://youtu.be/2Iw72EahZLE?t=57

Gender causes social bias, which in turn causes the difference in IQ variance. Nothing in that study refutes that statement.

Have you got anything better?

[TheDemonLord]

As the thread is about politics.
Are men better than women in politics?

Certainly more men are more disagreeable - and when that comes to things such as arguing (such as a political debate) you will get more men who are more prepared to argue.

Does that mean they are better? Well define better?

My thoughts on the subject is that Women can and do perform just as admirably in the field, but the ratios are skewed - For every Margaret Thatcher, there's a Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln etc.

Are mens votes worth more?

Depends on how you quantify worth - if we were to talk about Tax generation and consumption of services, then a Male vote has a greater $ value, if we are talking about MMP, then a Mans vote is worth infinitely more*









*If you happen to be Winston Peters.

[TheDemonLord]

Gender causes social bias, which in turn causes the difference in IQ variance. Nothing in that study refutes that statement.

Have you got anything better?

Occams Razor

Where does the Bias come from if not rooted in a Biological difference?
Furthermore, How do you unify that statement with every attempt at externally increasing IQ has failed?

For your statement to be true, you must prove that it is possibly to increase IQ through an artificial means.

[Graystone]

So, by that statement - can you play a rendition of Flight of the Bumblebee for me?

So you are confusing equality as a concept with equality of performance.

Within the concept of equality, individuals who have known performance/attributes/merits can be judged on these (either directly compared to another individual or compared to population as a while), yet unknown people (those who only have group membership etc) should be treated as equals. Is this helping at all? or is it still a concept you are really going to struggle with?

[TheDemonLord]

So you are confusing equality as a concept with equality of performance.

Within the concept of equality, individuals who have known performance/attributes/merits can be judged on these (either directly compared to another individual or compared to population as a while), yet unknown people (those who only have group membership etc) should be treated as equals. Is this helping at all? or is it still a concept you are really going to struggle with?

So, since we know that everyones performance and attributes are different, it's not rational to think of them as the same.

At no point does this preclude treating them the same.

Cause these are 2 different concepts (you see how easy it is when you aren't mixing them up)

[husaberg]

Certainly more men are more disagreeable - and when that comes to things such as arguing (such as a political debate) you will get more men who are more prepared to argue.

Does that mean they are better? Well define better?

My thoughts on the subject is that Women can and do perform just as admirably in the field, but the ratios are skewed - For every Margaret Thatcher, there's a Churchill, Mandela, Lincoln etc.

Got any stats on that.
Last time i looked polititians are all equal.
Using historics context is rather silly of you considering when woman got the vote in most countries.
Last time i looked this is a 2017 election thread so please try to keep on topic.

Depends on how you quantify worth - if we were to talk about Tax generation and consumption of services, then a Male vote has a greater $ value, if we are talking about MMP, then a Mans vote is worth infinitely more*

A vote is a vote a mans vote is holds the same value as a womans.
Unless you can come up with sats to say otherwise.

[Graystone]

Occams Razor

Where does the Bias come from if not rooted in a Biological difference?
Furthermore, How do you unify that statement with every attempt at externally increasing IQ has failed?

For your statement to be true, you must prove that it is possibly to increase IQ through an artificial means.

Occam's Razor is not a proof.

There are a number of proofs for that statement, but it is not my aim to prove it as I know enough science to recognise it has not been done, as you would for yours if you had a proper education in scientific methodology and principles. So instead I only seek to open your eyes to it's plausibility; no science I have seen has proven it to be a direct biological cause, thus other scenarios (as above) are still plausible.

[TheDemonLord]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Got any stats on that.
[LEFT][COLOR=#FFFFFF][FONT=Verdana]

Knock yerself out

Last time i looked polititions are all equal.

Are they? Are there not back benchers, cabinet ministers, ministers with ministerial portfolios, prime ministers?

Using historics context is rather silly of you considering when woman got the vote in most countries.

Joan of Arc, Boudicea, Elizabeth 1st, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, Countess Bathory.

Last time i looked this is a 2017 election thread try to keep on topic.

It sure is, never said it wasn't.

A vote is a vote a mans vote is holds the same value as a womans.

Again, depends on how you define value - if it is in pure polling power, then sure, but my point was that the contribution to the government and country are not even.