The 2017 Election Thread

[TheDemonLord]

Your data doesn't tell us if it is a societal cause, biological, or one of many other options though.

Now, you are just being deliberately obtuse.

We've run it across multiple societies - same result - there's you societal factor ruled out.

Ah yes, the mythical 'many other options' - frequently employed when you don't like the result.

Just like you dismiss the empirical evidence, cause you don't like the conclusion either.

You can't just tell me averaging makes it the one you want it to be, science and stats just don't work that way. Nullius in verba.

Good, cause that's not what I'm telling you. I'm well aware of how Science and Stats work - that's why I'm able to cite the studies that inform my views and defend their methodology from dogmatic attacks.

[TheDemonLord]

Ladies and gentlemen. Indoctrination 101. Run with the crowd and you can never go wrong.

Precious, coming from the chief Propagandist.

[TheDemonLord]

What convoluted bullshit.

No.

You think of and treat someone as an equal

yes, you can do both - but they are separate and distinct actions. As demonstrated, they are different in both form and function.

until they are a known individual and a sound judgement can be made, it's that simple. You're trying to go halfway and think of someone as inferior because of their group membership, instead of their individual merits. Western civilisation is defined by not doing that.

Again, I'm not saying that.

Firstly - I'm not saying someone is or isn't inferior based on Group identity.
I'm looking at the objective data and assigning a possibility or probability based on their group identity.

It's a small, but rather important difference. And here's the thing - You do it too.

Case in point - look at your responses to Katman, Mashie et al.

You've picked up on key attributes of their personality from their posts - given them membership to a particular group and then formed a possibility of them sharing even more characteristics with said group.

Then you started to look for them, and found them.

Does that mean you are any one of the pervasive and despicable "-ist"s that you've called me?

Likewise - there is a trend of choices that free individuals have made over the last 30-40 years, and based on that trend, we form a predictive model. At no point do we say that a person must have those attributes, but we are considering the increased (or decreased) possibility of them having them, as the case may be.

[Graystone]

Now, you are just being deliberately obtuse.

We've run it across multiple societies - same result - there's you societal factor ruled out.

Ah yes, the mythical 'many other options' - frequently employed when you don't like the result.

Just like you dismiss the empirical evidence, cause you don't like the conclusion either.



Good, cause that's not what I'm telling you. I'm well aware of how Science and Stats work - that's why I'm able to cite the studies that inform my views and defend their methodology from dogmatic attacks.

So was another controled variable the amount of societal bias? Or are you just telling me that shit averages out?

[Graystone]

No.



yes, you can do both - but they are separate and distinct actions. As demonstrated, they are different in both form and function.



Again, I'm not saying that.

Firstly - I'm not saying someone is or isn't inferior based on Group identity.
I'm looking at the objective data and assigning a possibility or probability based on their group identity.

It's a small, but rather important difference. And here's the thing - You do it too.

Case in point - look at your responses to Katman, Mashie et al.

You've picked up on key attributes of their personality from their posts - given them membership to a particular group and then formed a possibility of them sharing even more characteristics with said group.

Then you started to look for them, and found them.

Does that mean you are any one of the pervasive and despicable "-ist"s that you've called me?

Likewise - there is a trend of choices that free individuals have made over the last 30-40 years, and based on that trend, we form a predictive model. At no point do we say that a person must have those attributes, but we are considering the increased (or decreased) possibility of them having them, as the case may be.

More semantics...

A difference only in semantics and self justification. Katman frequently demonstrates his stupidity so I judge him for that action; mashman, his need for attention to be given to his whiny bullshit. What groups or demographics they belong to is as irrelevant to me as as their opinions are.

[TheDemonLord]

So was another controled variable the amount of societal bias? Or are you just telling me that shit averages out?

We've been through this - there are countries with more bias, countries with less bias.

If your critique had a drop more water than death Valley, then it would stand to reason that with a change in societies, we would see a noticeable change in the results.

But.
We.
Don't.

So, nice try, but back to school with ye.

[TheDemonLord]

More semantics...

A difference only in semantics and self justification.

Uh Huh.

'Cause you say so.
'Cause Reasons.
(with no supplementary proof)

What was the latin you were fond of quoting?

Ah yes.... Nullius in verba.

Katman frequently demonstrates his stupidity so I judge him for that action; mashman, his need for attention to be given to his whiny bullshit.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

You have judged them on the ideas and the groups they belong to.

What groups or demographics they belong to is as irrelevant to me as as their opinions are.

Except you immediately picked up the whiff of conspiratorial manure, pegged them into their respective holes and called them on it.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Anyone is entitled to be.
The left whine incessantly when they don't get their way (democrats in Murica still going after a whole year) and after national got in there were the same levels of bleating from NZ's socialist/communist groups here.

Sad to see the vindictive brigade are pulling labour's strings now, with charter schools getting attention from the teacher's union. So much for "helping the kids" though.

Keep a good eye on all those promises the made to buy votes... "Fixing the housing crisis" is not looking good for them.

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

[TheDemonLord]

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

Well, I must be doing something wrong then - I bought a house in Auckland as a "Young New Zealander" and have 20% equity in my home.

If I could be bothered - it would be interesting to dig into each one of those claims, I suspect on at least a few of them, you will find the policies predated National.

[Graystone]

We've been through this - there are countries with more bias, countries with less bias.

If your critique had a drop more water than death Valley, then it would stand to reason that with a change in societies, we would see a noticeable change in the results.

But.
We.
Don't.

So, nice try, but back to school with ye.

More and less are not quantities, the variable has not been evaluated. These assumptions you make are what drives new science, not ones that conclusions can be formed from; tell me, how many of the studies you refer to concluded it was due to biology?

[Graystone]

Uh Huh.

'Cause you say so.
'Cause Reasons.
(with no supplementary proof)

What was the latin you were fond of quoting?

Ah yes.... Nullius in verba.



Quod Erat Demonstrandum

You have judged them on the ideas and the groups they belong to.



Except you immediately picked up the whiff of conspiratorial manure, pegged them into their respective holes and called them on it.

Its semantics, exactly what proof are you looking for? They don't do studies for that...

Incorrect, where have I judged them based on their group membership?

That's judging them on their actions, in the same way that your opinions are sexist so I group you with the other sexist pieces of shit. Cause and effect, learn which is which eh!

[sidecar bob]

Well, I must be doing something wrong then - I bought a house in Auckland as a "Young New Zealander" and have 20% equity in my home.

If I could be bothered - it would be interesting to dig into each one of those claims, I suspect on at least a few of them, you will find the policies predated National.

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

[TheDemonLord]

More and less are not quantities, the variable has not been evaluated. These assumptions you make are what drives new science, not ones that conclusions can be formed from; tell me, how many of the studies you refer to concluded it was due to biology?

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.

[TheDemonLord]

Its semantics, exactly what proof are you looking for? They don't do studies for that...

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.

Incorrect, where have I judged them based on their group membership?

See below

That's judging them on their actions, in the same way that your opinions are sexist so I group you with the other sexist pieces of shit. Cause and effect, learn which is which eh!

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?

[husaberg]

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

What part do you consider the former Gov play in your success?
I am pretty sure successful people tend to make their own luck. Don't you agree?

Or do you believe
That the wants of a few outweight the needs of the many.