The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

Incorrect, I'm saying it is possibly zero, as is Stephen Pinker, while you are saying it's not. Why do you continually draw different conclusions to the authors?

Literally this line:

I think that there are ten kinds of evidence that the contribution of biology is greater than zero,

Is the opposite of what you just said.

He's considered the possibility that it is zero and based on Evidence has found that not to be true.

[husaberg]

You asked for proof that Men are more disagreeable - I provided it.

By what measure of Equality are you using?

Equality of output?

I should have clarified - my point was that even without the vote, there were still Women who through force of personality and political savvy were able to influence world events

Sure, but the value you are talking about is purely polling. a flipside example would be in the US, the Right to vote for men comes with the cost of having to sign up for the Draft - so tell me, are the values in that example equal?

Citation required i asked nothing of the sort.

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?

I clearly stated the measure i used.
Its obvious what i asked its also obvious whyyou avoided answering.

[Graystone]

Literally this line:



Is the opposite of what you just said.

He's considered the possibility that it is zero and based on Evidence has found that not to be true.

Why did you omit the rest of the sentence where he explains he does not think that is even close to proving it 100%? Ie, showing that I believe as he does, and not you? It's really poor form to take shit out of context in order to change its meaning to suit your own agenda mate. That you have to do so shows just how shit your point is. More game, set, match. Would you care for another serve?

[TheDemonLord]

Citation required i asked nothing of the sort.

Sure:

I said

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.

You said:

Got any stats on that.

And I provided.

I clearly stated the measure i used.
Its obvious what i asked its also obvious whyyou avoided answering.

Okay, clarify the Question, and I'll answer it.

[TheDemonLord]

Why did you omit the rest of the sentence where he explains he does not think that is even close to proving it 100%? Ie, showing that I believe as he does, and not you? It's really poor form to take shit out of context in order to change its meaning to suit your own agenda mate. That you have to do so shows just how shit your point is. More game, set, match. Would you care for another serve?

It's not out of context at all.

I've never made the claim it's 100%.

No Hypothesis is ever 100%.

You've said there is no biological causal link - that's the Zero percent referred to, he points out that the evidence we have shows that to be wrong. Biology does have a causal link to Male Variability, and this extends to IQ.

And he doesn't say "even close to" - that's adding in your own agenda...

[BuzzardNZ]

utter shite

Why don't you just become an MP? You're smart enough and everyone hates you, so you'd probably get a few votes.

[husaberg]

Sure:

I said
You said:
And I provided.
Okay, clarify the Question, and I'll answer it.

You are talking utter crap.
I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

[TheDemonLord]

Why don't you just become an MP? You're smart enough and everyone hates you, so you'd probably get a few votes.

Cause I like actually accomplishing something with my Job

[TheDemonLord]

You are talking utter crap.
I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

Katman would just refuse to answer the question - I've asked for clarification - either I'm missing your train of thought or you've missed out some words here and there.

[husaberg]

Katman would just refuse to answer the question - I've asked for clarification - either I'm missing your train of thought or you've missed out some words here and there.

Incorect katman would just as you have done attempt to create a diversion and gish gallop, just as you are doing.
basically refusing to answer simple questions, for what is a very simple reason.

[TheDemonLord]

Incorect katman would just as you have done atempt to create a diversion and gish gallop, just as you are doing.
basically refusing to answer simple questions, for what is a very simple reason.

Nope.

No Gish Galloping here.

I've answered what I believe to be the question you are asking.

You say I haven't answered it. Fair enough, So I've requested that you clarify the question, so that I can answer it.

Katman would simply pack a sulk and tell you to go do your own research and complain about spoon-feeding it to you.

[Graystone]

It's not out of context at all.

I've never made the claim it's 100%.

No Hypothesis is ever 100%.

You've said there is no biological causal link - that's the Zero percent referred to, he points out that the evidence we have shows that to be wrong. Biology does have a causal link to Male Variability, and this extends to IQ.

And he doesn't say "even close to" - that's adding in your own agenda...

Turns out when I bothered to click that link, it's not even published, peer reviewed science. I should have picked up on that when the sentence started with 'I think..." so disregard my previous posts on that, and disregard that shit you posted as it contains no scientific conclusions.

Nullius in verba.

[TheDemonLord]

Turns out when I bothered to click that link, it's not even published, peer reviewed science. I should have picked up on that when the sentence started with 'I think..." so disregard my previous posts on that, and disregard that shit you posted as it contains no scientific conclusions.

Nullius in verba.

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

[Graystone]

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

Of course it isn't (in a scientific sense, I'm sure you've got contrived examples for other irrelevancies). To think otherwise shows you are at the wrong end of a slope already. The whole point of peer review, of "Nullius in verba" is to ensure that science is not formed by opinion, but by reproducible evidence and proven fact.

[Katman]

I am not sure why but you have turned yourself into katman.

In his dreams, fuckface.