The 2017 Election Thread

[Grumph]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

So you still don't understand how MMP works.....

[jasonu]

So you still don't understand how MMP works.....

Sure I do. A bunch of also rans that the majority didn't vote for can gang up and become the all powerful ones then put someone who no one voted for in the top seat.
That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

[husaberg]

Come now Husa, you know what I mean - Put it this way:

The world record for the Womens 100m sprint is 10.49 seconds (set in 1988) - which wouldn't even qualify for the Mens 100m Olympic event (which was 10.16 seconds for Athens)

Yet av sprint times have nothing to do with being a leader.
leaders are choosen on basis of their leadership skills, ability to build a team, their talent and charisma and popularity.
Nothing in these characteristics makes men inherently better than women.
In case you missed it she was able to do something her 3 previous male counterparts couldn't do. ie put together a government.
She also is by far the top of the polls as prefered PM.
That said, I would say she could also out sprint you in a 100m.

[Crasherfromwayback]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

Sure I do. A bunch of also rans that the majority didn't vote for can gang up and become the all powerful ones then put someone who no one voted for in the top seat.
That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

Bro...you need to build a bridge.

[ellipsis]

- Tread really carefully.

...you just changed from being a fucking twat to a really funny fucking twat...a really, really funny twat...hilarious...

[nerrrd]

But she didn't win the election and pretty soon a guy that no one voted for will be PM.

Nobody votes for the PM, it’s all decided in house by the party faithful, was the same under FPP.

[Graystone]

I get what you are implying here, but you are trying a bait and switch here - People have perception - therefore perceptual deficiencies matter - whether or not they are 'real world deficiencies' doesn't make them any less real to the people observing them.



Hogwash:

Assume for the moment, there are 3 people, Me, You and Usain Bolt, we can all run - I'm a Fat Cunt, so I'm the slowest, and Usain Bolt is the faster, which leaves you in the middle - you are implying that because none of us can't run - our local continuum can't tell you who is the fastest.

Which is clearly BS



Fine:

"It is not wrong to say that given equal opportunities and no societal bias, we could see women do just as well as men at the extremes of human endeavor."

- inferring no biological difference

"If we removed societal bias we would see equal representation as well."

- inferring no biological difference

"All of which have societal bias. Don't conflate societal bias with equal opportunities."

- inferring that Societal bias is the reason for differing outcomes, which presumed there to be no biological difference

"that occurred when men had an unfair advantage over women in terms of education prejudices, then lets see how many are left."

- inferring that corruption was the only reason for their advancement, which in turn implies no biological difference.

etc. etc.



How would you know? You've just dismissed all the evidence as Irrelevant...

But for clarity sake - I've said at best, that underlying notion is unproven, at worst it's disproven by multiple different (not just IQ, there's personality traits as well) studies, conducted across disparate cultures, across time and with sample sizes of thousands and above.



And how is it Imperfect to the point that it invalidates the conclusions drawn from it? Cause that's quite a claim you got there, which would require quite the evidence.

Furthermore - it's not one single Test, it's been repeated with different IQ tests multiple times - with the results showing the same pattern.



I'd put forward that quite a lot of Sexism has some very deep roots in Human Biology, Gender roles for example are probably rooted about 80-20 in favor of Biology. This is not to say that Society can't choose to either aggressively reinforce it or try to nullify it - but certainly a large chunk of sexist behaviors have some form of biological basis.



Every data point currently available on the differences between Men and Women indicate that it IS wrong to say that:

To be at the Extremes requires risk taking - who take the most and biggest Risks? Men
To be at the Extremes requires exceptional Intelligence- who are the most exceptionally Intelligent? Men
To be at the Extremes requires hyper-competitiveness - who are the most competitive? Men

All you have to do, is take a look at any so-called 'Elite' group - almost all of them are all Men. Whether it's Business Elites, Military Elites, Sporting Elites, Scientific Elites, Artistic Elites, etc.

At the very best - that is an entirely faith based proposition. but as per above - it does not tally at all.



And if the Premise is wrong, then the Conclusion is not a certainty.

As previous - my position is that there are differences between the Sexes, especially when it comes to pregnancy- and some of those may effect her ability to do her job.
Your rebuttal was that there's no imposition for a Man, so why should there be for a Woman - which is predicated on said premise - so as a refutation to that, I brought IQ into it.

Which is why it was never a Red Herring.

Furthermore - Have you decided whether the studies are valid yet? You keep trying to imply that they aren't - yet the evidence to back this implication up is noted for it's absence...

Moving goalposts, how droll.

What an absurdly contrived metaphor. Do you even know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation?

Try again, this time remove the inferences you seek to strawman me for.

The evidence is irrelevant because you have to extrapolate from it. It is weak evidence to begin with, and causality has not been confirmed. But it is good you finally admit it is unproven, so all your assertions about biological IQ superiority of men are irrelevant due to this reason.

That claim does not require evidence, what it does is point out the lack of evidence for your conclusion.

Not all data points are currently available.

You attach your own premise to my rebuttal, again this is a strawman.

[pritch]

That's why I voted no to MMP in (was it) 1997.

You voted no to MMP and yes to Trump? You aren't very good at this voting stuff are you.

[jasonu]

bro...you need to build a wall.

fixed it for ya

[jasonu]

Nobody votes for the PM, it’s all decided in house by the party faithful, was the same under FPP.

I know that and it wasn't what I said.

[jasonu]

You voted no to MMP and yes to Trump? You aren't very good at this voting stuff are you.

Along with a surprisingly large number of people I voted no to hillary and I am still glad I did.

[TheDemonLord]

Moving goalposts, how droll.

Not at all, perception matters when talking about inter-personal dynamics. And since only people can have Biases, perception is relevant.

What an absurdly contrived metaphor. Do you even know the difference between interpolation and extrapolation?

Of course it's absurdly contrived - because it mirrors your absurdly contrived rebuttal...

Try again, this time remove the inferences you seek to strawman me for.

for the 100th time, it's not a Strawman, because you've said, in multiple explicit statements now, that it is what you believe.

As I said - Make an argument that isn't predicated on it, and I'll change my tune.

The evidence is irrelevant because you have to extrapolate from it.

Indeed - but when multiple separate bits of evidence all point to the same conclusion - I believe the phrase is "If it walks like a duck, Swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

It is weak evidence to begin with, and causality has not been confirmed.

Some of it is stronger than others for sure, but the Causality has been fairly robustly demonstrated - again, big sample sizes, multiple repetitions, disparate cultures etc.

But it is good you finally admit it is unproven, so all your assertions about biological IQ superiority of men are irrelevant due to this reason.

I said at best it's unproven - this is not the same as saying it IS unproven, if you take every single critique and criticism that's been leveled at the various metrics I cite (and interestingly enough - those critiques tend to come from the same crowd, with the same underlying belief) - then the best case scenario is that it's unproven - it also doesn't mean that it's proven in the positive either - it just becomes either a theoretical possibility or claim made on faith.

Which in the best case scenario, that you are arguing from does not validate your chain of reasoning.

And lastly - I've never said "Biological IQ superiority of men" - That, my dear Graystone, IS a strawman - I've said that at the Extremes of IQ, the ratio increasingly favors Men. This means you get proportionally much more Male geniuses, but also much more Male prisoners.

Since we are looking at the positive Extremes - the greater proportion of Men is mostly due to the greater proportion of Men at the higher echelons of IQ.

That claim does not require evidence,

That's a nice way of saying that you've got nothing to back your shit up.

what it does is point out the lack of evidence for your conclusion.

No, I've stated the evidence I've used, you've just dismissed it and then said I've got a lack of evidence for my conclusion.

Not all data points are currently available.

And they never will be - so you now have a conundrum - if you want to hold to that principled view, you must throw out every bit of Technology that you've ever used. Because we don't have all the Data Points.

Or you must concede that we can build a highly predictive model, with the data points that are available - in which case, you must concede the point I made.

So which is it?

You attach your own premise to my rebuttal, again this is a strawman.

Except the part where you outright stated it's what you believe - so no, that's not a Strawman at all.

[TheDemonLord]

...you just changed from being a fucking twat to a really funny fucking twat...a really, really funny twat...hilarious...

I see the empty head is still rattling....

[mashman]

What's this sudden job loss you think a UBI is going to bring? that's coming in any system, it's not a UBI attribute. The new tax source is the automation, either tax it 'directly' or simply enjoy the increased tax income from the profits (probably the latter moving to the former over time, and no I haven't made out as if you are giving me a time-frame).

Why does production have to stop? To address the climate and resource issues production has to get smarter, and more efficient, this does not stop it at all.

There will be vast amount of jobs created, however the skill level required will be high so they may not be attainable for everyone. The free market will ensure that education is prioritised accordingly; if some automation is good, more is better, and this requires more engineers to automate things. Then we can head of to the moon/mars and asteroid belts for resources...

Well since I'm now being berated anyway. Your post and system outlined in the other thread is garbage, your IRD example particularly so, the loss of tax income from those 4000 people is more than offset by not having to pay them to begin with! There is however, a lot of parrallels that can be drawn to the UBI system, you suggest paying those people anyway while they retrain, a UBI pays people while the retrain as well, don't make the mistake of taking GM's 10k pa UBI as the only amount that it could ever be.

I thought I'd come back to this, coz fuck, it is funny... and I have a few minutes to spare and figured you could do with learning something new.

It is. The current systems that the UBI will replace are "administered" by tens of thousands of people who will no longer be needed. NOW you know that it is a UBI attribute. What new tax source? There is no new tax source and every country that is applying a UBI to test with has stated outright that they cannot afford it. You seem to be woefully underinformed when it comes to UBI. I suggest reading the work by Anthony Painter of the RSA, then go and read every single UBI working paper that's been put forwards by Finland. Once you've done that, then you might have a clue. Til then, don't mention a UBI again, because all I'll do it laugh at you.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes, we need to get smarter. Being smart includes stopping the production of that which does not serve us. If you had any of how the economy and the associated supply chains worked, you'd realise that... but you quite obviously don't. Production = pollution/climate issues. It isn't rocket science. We're using up a years worth of resources in 8 months. We're projected to need anywhere between 3 and 27 planets by 2050. Our water quality is stuffed. Our land quality isn't far behind. We're leaking radioactive waste into the oceans and we've slashed through 50% of the wrld trees. And you think that all we have to do is be smarter with how we do things and not stop production? ... man do I have a choice of bridges and global land marks that I'd like to offer you.

See, at this point in time I realise why I responded the way I responded to the above. It's almost as though TDL is writing your posts for you. What new jobs? Where will all these new jobs come from as NZ business realises that it needs to automate in order to remain competitive in the global marketplace? As such, business will need to automate in order to be more efficient, or face going out of business. And given that automation is pretty smart these days and that millions could be out of work, where is the tax base going to come from to fund any form of benefit let alone a UBI?

I'll single this out thought coz it was a fuckin' peach. Bravo. Kudos. "The free market will ensure that education is prioritised accordingly". quite possibly the most retarded thing you've ever typed. We are in the shit we are in because of the free market. Denying such flies in the face of logic, reason and common sense, let alone direct observation. And somehow you think that the free market is going to provide some form of useful education in terms of priority? bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aaaaaaaaaa. Son, Economic Calculation Problem ...

Well since I'm now being berated anyway. Your post and system outlined in the other thread is garbage, your IRD example particularly so, the loss of tax income from those 4000 people is more than offset by not having to pay them to begin with! There is however, a lot of parrallels that can be drawn to the UBI system, you suggest paying those people anyway while they retrain, a UBI pays people while the retrain as well, don't make the mistake of taking GM's 10k pa UBI as the only amount that it could ever be.

As I said earlier, "Then don't read the post like that fuckstain". @berated and the uber fail of your last effort there. Why would I make the mistake of looking at a UBI in the first place when I've blown it out of the water using nothing more than logic, reason and common sense using the documentation provided by those at the forefront of UBI development? The IRD example was flawless. I'm not surprised that you didn't understand it as it requires knowledge and the ability to extrapolate externalities that are usually ignored during feasibility... usually to hoodwinnk fucktards like yourself into believing that it is entirely possible to roll such a thing out, even though the small print states clearly that it isn't.

When you've got more of a clue I'll take you seriously.

[nerrrd]

I know that and it wasn't what I said.

Well the party/parties with the most votes get to pick the PM regardless, that’s democracy.

Unlike under FPP where I seem to recall the party with the most votes didn’t get that opportunity on several occasions.

Just like with President Trump.