The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

t's almost as though TDL is writing your posts for you.

See the mind of the Cult member - he's oblivious to the fact that you (Graystone) and I, have been going hammer and tongs with completely different viewpoints, and yet here he is saying we are the same.




Thanks Mashie - best Laugh I've had in ages.

[TheDemonLord]

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.

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification of the role of the Electoral college - it's to make sure that areas that have high population density and a large degree of homogeneity don't get to dictate to the rest of the country.

It's not a perfect system (neither is MMP, neither is FFP etc. etc.) but it's there for a very very good reason, to safeguard democracy.

[jasonu]

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.

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

[ellipsis]

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

...rattling with laughter, you cocksuck...

[nerrrd]

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

I could quibble and say only indirectly, whereas the electoral college elects them directly, but anyway...lucky you!

[Graystone]

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



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



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.



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..."



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.



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



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.



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?



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

We were talking about real world bias.

What was absurdly contrived about my rebuttal? Your metaphor went from extrapolation to interpolation, hence the absurdly contrived nature of it.

If I'd said it, you'd wouldn't have to add the inferences and then address them as strawmen.

Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? Until you examine the duck, it could just be a robot, or a hologram.

Wide sampling does not show causality, to do that you create a theory then specifically test for that theory; while understanding its limits.

The evidence is completely dismissable.

Why would I throw out every bit of technology? You're making less and less sense now.

Perhaps you should get a formal education in one of the STEM feilds, do proper degree and postgrad; since you clearly have only enough of an idea how science works to fool those of lower intellect, but no idea how to apply it in a practical, and useful sense.

[Graystone]

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.

Shhhhh, poppet, you've probably had a hard day doing fuck all, have a good nap then try to post something coherent.

[FJRider]

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

National didn't "Win" either ... as they didn't get enough party votes and/or elected members to form a Government. And they couldn't convince any of the lessor party's to join them in forming a Government. Enough party votes were given to NZ First to ensure he got a seat ... so effectively ... they WERE voting for him.

The majority of the country voted for the system ... and I wonder how many of that majority now regret it ...

[mashman]

Shhhhh, poppet, you've probably had a hard day doing fuck all.

We've had a great day thanks. Although my bloodpressure nearly rose and I nearly flew into a rage when the guy at Bunnings told me they didn't stock sickle's anymore. What's the world coming to. I did pretty much do fuck all though and it was awesome. And with the missus back at work next week, I'm get to go back to retirement mode.

have a good nap

Why?

try to post something coherent

I did... which is why you couldn't.

[TheDemonLord]

We were talking about real world bias.

Which is based entirely on perception - inanimate objects don't have bias - so Perception absolutely comes into it.

What was absurdly contrived about my rebuttal? Your metaphor went from extrapolation to interpolation, hence the absurdly contrived nature of it.

Okay - let me try a different tack - Does Saudi Arabia have more societal bias against women than NZ? If you answer yes - you've proved my point that there is a continuum, that can measure countries against each other.

If you answer no - I'm going to laugh and point out all the restrictive laws against women in Saudi that don't exist in NZ.

If I'd said it, you'd wouldn't have to add the inferences and then address them as strawmen.

You did say it, at least twice - I merely added the underlying presupposition which forms the supporting structure - so no, not Strawmen at all.

Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? Until you examine the duck, it could just be a robot, or a hologram.

I do - I've posted a lot of Facts, with some associated opinions, you've posted opinions with no facts.

The problem with your rebuttal is that you end in up with an infinite standard of proof for anything you don't like. At some point, the evidence is robust enough to draw conclusions - and when the conclusion is supported by multiple different sets of Data, then it can be considered robust.

Wide sampling does not show causality, to do that you create a theory then specifically test for that theory; while understanding its limits.

Sure, And there are a few theories - for example in-utero testosterone exposure, Male Variability theory, G theory etc. etc.

They all show the same conclusion, which indicates causality.

Anything I don't like and invalidates my beliefs is completely dismissable.

Fixed...

Why would I throw out every bit of technology? You're making less and less sense now.

Okay - Every electronic appliance you own works because of Quantum theory - and yet, we know (relatively) nothing about it.

But we know it works - so back to your quibble of 'not all data points are available' - if that's the case, then throw out your Tech, cause "not all the data points are available" - Unless of course you want to concede that one can have a highly accurate and reliable predictive model, without knowing all the data points - which means you concede my point...

Perhaps you should get a formal education in one of the STEM feilds, do proper degree and postgrad; since you clearly have only enough of an idea how science works to fool those of lower intellect, but no idea how to apply it in a practical, and useful sense.

I work in STEM.....

Over 10 years experience...

Perhaps your formal education short-changed you, after all - you seem to struggle with basic logical fallacies...

[TheDemonLord]

...rattling with laughter, you cocksuck...

It's funny how the breadth of your vocabulary could be written on a bit of fuse wire...

[pritch]

We get to actually specifically directly vote for who we want to be Prez.

But HRC got more votes than the mango mussolini.

[Graystone]

Which is based entirely on perception - inanimate objects don't have bias - so Perception absolutely comes into it.



Okay - let me try a different tack - Does Saudi Arabia have more societal bias against women than NZ? If you answer yes - you've proved my point that there is a continuum, that can measure countries against each other.

If you answer no - I'm going to laugh and point out all the restrictive laws against women in Saudi that don't exist in NZ.



You did say it, at least twice - I merely added the underlying presupposition which forms the supporting structure - so no, not Strawmen at all.



I do - I've posted a lot of Facts, with some associated opinions, you've posted opinions with no facts.

The problem with your rebuttal is that you end in up with an infinite standard of proof for anything you don't like. At some point, the evidence is robust enough to draw conclusions - and when the conclusion is supported by multiple different sets of Data, then it can be considered robust.



Sure, And there are a few theories - for example in-utero testosterone exposure, Male Variability theory, G theory etc. etc.

They all show the same conclusion, which indicates causality.



Fixed...



Okay - Every electronic appliance you own works because of Quantum theory - and yet, we know (relatively) nothing about it.

But we know it works - so back to your quibble of 'not all data points are available' - if that's the case, then throw out your Tech, cause "not all the data points are available" - Unless of course you want to concede that one can have a highly accurate and reliable predictive model, without knowing all the data points - which means you concede my point...



I work in STEM.....

Over 10 years experience...

Perhaps your formal education short-changed you, after all - you seem to struggle with basic logical fallacies...

Inanimate objects now? Can't see the goalposts for the trees they are receeding so fast.

They sit on a scale, not a continuum as the data points at the ends are not known.

Try not adding the underlying presumption, since it is not one I predicate those points on. Mine is that I believe there is no biological difference which affects such performance; it does not (as you continually attempt to strawman me for) mean I think it has been proven that is the case. Do you understand the difference?

Science cannot know all, it is fine to have a burden of proof high enough that we cannot draw conclusions in our lifetime.

So which theory is it then? Seems quite odd they would all show causality.

Oh goodness, another greatly contriver metaphor to overstate your opinion of the science.

My guess is some technician type role with a year or two polytech course. Given your propensity for daytime posting, I'm thinking IT. Getting close? The point is, they don't teach scientific method in that sort of thing, and it really shows in your posts. You practice what we call 'confirmation science', and care little for the scientific method, but greatly for the 'science' you feel aligns with and supports your own beliefs.

[Brian d marge]

But HRC got more votes than the mango mussolini.

So she should. Damn near did every trick in the book..... I mean the voting machines were so preloaded it took two strong men to lift them off the truck
Then she said she would look into the black budget...and that was the end of the crooked witch.
She should have known

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Inanimate objects now? Can't see the goalposts for the trees they are receeding so fast.

Only people have Biases... There is no movement of the Goalposts.

They sit on a scale, not a continuum as the data points at the ends are not known.

I'll take your word for that difference in meaning (it matters not) the underlying message though, is the same - we can tell the difference between more biased countries and less biased countries.

not adding the underlying presumption, since it is not one I predicate those points on. Mine is that I believe there is no biological difference which affects such performance; it does not (as you continually attempt to strawman me for) mean I think it has been proven that is the case. Do you understand the difference?

Yet, you argue as if it IS proven to be the case. If you made a single argument where that didn't form the foundational premise - then it would absolutely be a Strawmen, yet you don't.

Since you don't (and all the other statements you've made) - It's not a Strawman, despite you saying it is.

Science cannot know all, it is fine to have a burden of proof high enough that we cannot draw conclusions in our lifetime.

Especially if you artificially set it that high so as to not disprove your beliefs aye....

So which theory is it then? Seems quite odd they would all show causality.

Those theories aren't competing theories, but complimentary

The great thing about something that is objectively true is that it tends to be proven as valid by multiple different analysis....

Oh goodness, another greatly contriver metaphor to overstate your opinion of the science.

You're the one who tried to play a variant on the "God of the Gaps"....

My guess is some technician type role with a year or two polytech course.

No, and No.

Try much more Senior and no polytech courses.

Given your propensity for daytime posting, I'm thinking IT. Getting close?

IT represent.

The point is, they don't teach scientific method in that sort of thing, and it really shows in your posts. You practice what we call 'confirmation science', and care little for the scientific method, but greatly for the 'science' you feel aligns with and supports your own beliefs.

I care a lot for the Scientific method - and that's a bit rich from someone who continually ignores that which they don't like, dismissing it out of hand.

But okay then - lets take your confirmation assertion for the moment:

First point - have any of the Theories I've cited or studies I've cited been invalidated by subsequent research or generally held to be 'fringe' science?
Second point - Are the conclusions I'm drawing from said science backed up by real world data?

It's a big accusation from someone who has stated a belief, and not presented a shred of evidence for it. Merely hand waving everything that counteracts it as "Societal Bias"

Then if I'm practicing Confirmation science - then so is most of the field of Evolutionary Biology, So is JBP etc.

And I'd pit their academic creds against any you can produce, any day of the week.