The 2017 Election Thread

[jasonu]

Possibly, people such as you & I that have led quite successful lives under the former govt & feel they have played a part in that success. People that have struggled in the same period may have the opposite feeling & believe the govt has somehow contributed to that hardship & blame them for it in part. Therefore you are never going to convince the other party of your point of view.
I'm not too concerned either way, red shirt, blue shirt doesn't really matter much which one looked the most kissable on Election Day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFB5GBulE8

Mate there are plenty of those that will blame National, Labour, the dog or the weather for their miscalculations, misfortune and or shitty life decisions.

[Woodman]

That the wants of a few outweight the needs of the many.

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

[husaberg]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

Well you can't please all the people all the time, but what is politics if its not a popularity contest.

Mate there are plenty of those that will blame National, Labour, the dog or the weather for their miscalculations, misfortune and or shitty life decisions.

But they would have been different people, the ones that were not praising labour for their 9 years of unprecended ecomomic growth and repayment of overseas debt. the ones that alos ignored the massive decreases in the waiting lists for heath care and decreases in unemployment that they enjoyed under last Labour led government.

[Swoop]

It may be just that it's much easier and cheaper to build new infrastructure than upgrade the existing (which is already overloaded).

I was having a very interesting meeting today and the topic of the new "intensive housing/future slum areas" of Whenuapai came up. Massive holes in the infrastructure planning were discussed as well as the incompetence of design.
Isn't it nice to get socialist designers so intent on public transport options that they simply forget about the residents who have to commute to areas not covered by PT, that they then deem garages unnecessary and street parking only needs to provide for a bare minimum of cars. The Hobsonville point development is a classic example of this.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00009266095704

Isn't it odd that the professional whiners of Mt Albert Electorate, bitched so much that the motorway design of "cut and cover" had to be changed to appease the wee darlings, into a full underground tunnel system. This cost NZ a lot of money.
Doubt it stopped any whining from the capital of Leftism though.

[jasonu]

Well you can't please all the people all the time, but what is politics if its not a popularity contest.

But they would have been different people, the ones that were not praising labour for their 9 years of unprecended ecomomic growth and repayment of overseas debt. the ones that alos ignored the massive decreases in the waiting lists for heath care and decreases in unemployment that they enjoyed under last Labour led government.

Na bullshit mate. Doesn't matter who is in the drivers seat. Whiny cunts will always be whiny cunts.

[Graystone]

So Social Science is completely invalid then.

Cool.

Write your thesis, collect your Nobel Prize, Job done.

Well, here's one (which is 1 more than you've put up):

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331

In it, they confirm that Boys show greater variance than Girls and "that gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

Since Gender is a function of Biology - there's your conclusion.

That, right there is what's wrong with your 'science'. I've said nothing to completely invalidate social science, yet you draw that conclusion. The study has said nothing about biology being causal, yet you draw that conclusion. Get an education mate.

[Graystone]

You keep saying it's semantics, but have you demonstrated it's semantics? Cause I've demonstrated in a practical application why it isn't. The proof part was simply to point out that you demand proof for the points made against you, but when submitting your own proof, it is absent.



See below



Did you give either of them time to give a fully nuanced accounting of any of their points of view? I've argued with both of them at far greater length than you, and for all the points of disagreement I have with them, I've not characterized them as rapidly as you did:

Person says "X"
You reason that because they say X, the belong to group "Y"
Because of their membership of group "Y", you don't need to listen to anything further they say, because of that group membership.

Just like you keep trying to misrepresent what I've said in terms of me saying "There's a probability" and you trying to paint it as "It's a certainty"

Case in point - You've called me a Sexist, therefore you don't need to look at any of the evidence I put forward to support any viewpoint, because I'm a Sexist, right?

One of your justifications was that there were two words for a thing so it must be two concepts and thus not semantics. You really think that is a 'proof' which deserves rebuttal? Don't be absurd

It's cos they said X that I don't listen to them further. Cause and effect, learn the difference.

I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence because it is an irrelevant red herring. Stop trying to use being sexist as an excuse to hide behind, you're not the fucking victim here, trying to play the victim card while being sexist is just more evidence of how ingrained your sexism is. It's worse than the classic "nah you're sexist cos you should let them defend themselves" or variants thereof.

[Voltaire]

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

Hang on.....there are no dogs or riding schools here.

[TheDemonLord]

That, right there is what's wrong with your 'science'. I've said nothing to completely invalidate social science, yet you draw that conclusion.

Yah kinda have been. When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.

The study has said nothing about biology being causal, yet you draw that conclusion. Get an education mate.

"gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

It's the Gender (biology) that causes (there's your causal link) the variance and that it is across cultures.

Then add in that the results have been replicated umpteen times, the empirical evidence etc. etc.

[Katman]

When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.

Much like yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

One of your justifications was that there were two words for a thing so it must be two concepts and thus not semantics. You really think that is a 'proof' which deserves rebuttal? Don't be absurd

One, but not the main one - which you are ignoring, namely that the form and function of the concepts is different.

I'm just pointing out you've spoken highly of evidence, demanding it others, but yours is not forthcoming.

It's cos they said X that I don't listen to them further. Cause and effect, learn the difference.

That's not the cause and effect I'm referring to.

There's a layer underneath that statement - and that is the one where you've stereotyped them, based on a very short interaction.

I've explained multiple times I don't look at your evidence because it is an irrelevant red herring.

Of course, it wouldn't be awfully inconvenient if it disproved some of your (clearly) deeply held notions...

Stop trying to use being sexist as an excuse to hide behind, you're not the fucking victim here, trying to play the victim card while being sexist is just more evidence of how ingrained your sexism is.

Wow. Dat Projection. I must really by scraping a nerve.

It's worse than the classic "nah you're sexist cos you should let them defend themselves" or variants thereof.

Well, that would be equality, letting the individual defend themselves - are you saying you aren't for equality?

[TheDemonLord]

Much like yourself.

Sure Mr. "We don't have all the data so it could be controlled demolition"

[Graystone]

Yah kinda have been. When there is a result you don't like, you invalidate it by inferring an infinite number of variables that exist within a society, that haven't been controlled for, are grounds for dismissing something you don't like.



"gender differences in the variance of test scores are an international phenomenon"

It's the Gender (biology) that causes (there's your causal link) the variance and that it is across cultures.

Then add in that the results have been replicated umpteen times, the empirical evidence etc. etc.

So what part of social science am I dismissing?

I'm certainly dismissing your conclusions, but they are ones you erroneously infer from the studies, not those that the study makes itself, so I have no quarrel with social science. You are confusing correlation with causation. Gender (group membership) arguably causes the variance, but nothing shows it is biology that causes the variance, biology is only correlated with the variance. Social bias is another factor with high gender correlation, though you keep telling me isn't a thing because it averages out or something? You are kind of sketchy on the details there and have offered no science to back that up. Perhaps you should get an education?

[husaberg]

...

You are indeed right it wasn't you that said Jacinda should imediately step down for becoming it was RDJ.

[Katman]

Sure Mr. "We don't have all the data so it could be controlled demolition"

The evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory far outweighs any evidence supporting the official story.

But you don't like that, so you choose to ignore that evidence.