Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2016, 02:09:58 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1079
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump tweets out OAN/Gravis poll showing him losing: "THANK YOU!" on: June 17, 2016, 06:20:04 pm
He says it's a "fake poll that shows him statistically tied". So it's a fake poll, which he probably means all polls are fake because he's Trump and doesn't accept reality.

Read the name of the account posting that reply more carefully
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: r/the_donald got 12x its usual new subscribers today on: June 13, 2016, 02:19:06 am
Reddit is supporting the white male candidate in an election? Shocking.

It's kind of hard for me to imagine Reddit users weren't overwhelmingly supportive of Obama over Romney and will be overwhelmingly supportive of Clinton over Trump.  They skew young, educated, and socially liberal...

I'm not a Reddit user, but like Ser Fubart, I assume this was because of the /r/news meltdown, which was so bad they actually lost subscribers today -- which pretty much would never happen with a default subreddit during a time where it has major attention.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ohio: Party Affilation % changed a lots(Which Pollster don't reflect) on: June 02, 2016, 11:33:26 pm
Party self-identification != Party registration
4  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Is Marvin Gaye the worst song of the 2010's? on: May 31, 2016, 04:10:30 pm
I like how they reference "Mercy, Mercy Me" like it's a sex song
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: May 30, 2016, 10:44:37 pm
 That's impressive, considering that the 2008 primary actually counted a little bit on the Democratic side.


It was also a beauty contest.

I remember voting for Ron Paul in that election, only because the Democratic primary was meaningless.

sorry, I wrote that wrong: I meant to say because the Republican primary actually counted this time, so this time it was even more more-relevant than the D primary.  I just inverted when I meant to write, because I'm a dumbass.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: SD-Targeted Persuasion: Clinton +3 on: May 30, 2016, 09:55:39 pm
"Targeted Persuasion" sound like it might be a push poll.

It's the name of the company, and I imagine they do robocalling/phonebanking services, and do polling as a sideline.  Not inherently suspicious to me.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Death Penalty is sought for Charleston killer on: May 29, 2016, 03:08:09 pm
yo guys, including two guys who just empty-posted right after this post, any response?

I don't share Sanchez's sentiment, but I think he means the prisoners doing the sodomizing.  But what does count as "excess" harm?  Life in prison is certainly a lot of harm regardless of the conditions, but the killer certainly did a lot more harm to his victims.  It seems like a tough line to draw, though I agree that what Sanchez described does probably go overboard.

We could debate the line about how much torture is reasonable to levy on a bad person to discourage others from committing the same crime.  But that's not the sentiment that's being expressed in this thread.  I don't really understand why we should engage in, or hope for, any unnecessary sadism.  I don't even get the point of torturing an unrepentant psychopath if it doesn't accomplish anything.

Is it because it's pleasurable?  If it is, should we really be getting off on humiliating and torturing a human being, even one we think is awful?

Is it because he "deserves it"?  First off, what does it mean to "deserve" unnecessary humiliation and torture?  Second, how is being unnecessarily cruel and sadistic to bad people any different than what some monsters perceive themselves as doing?  They think they're right too, and I think it's important to restrain punishment to what's necessary and productive precisely because sadistic people otherwise abuse it.  Third, even if he does somehow "deserve it," what's with the gleefulness and violence-porn in this thread?

This seems like virtue-signaling behavior, but I don't really think it's virtuous at all.
Your post seemed to be about torture, not necessarily about the death penalty, whereas the empty-quoted "good" posts relate to the death penalty. Therefore, I'm not sure with whom you want to engage in a debate on this except for the people who express support for torture. I am against unnecessary humiliation and torture (and I think any humiliation and torture is generally unnecessary), but I do support the death penalty for people like Roof.

My post also does apply to the death penalty -- I don't understand the point of punishing someone, even an awful person, unless it functions as a deterrent or restraint.  But you're right: I was being unfair to the poster who just said "good."  Although think my point does apply to the post that claims the crime "warrants" it (what does that mean?) and says he looks forward to Roof "burning in hell."
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Death Penalty is sought for Charleston killer on: May 29, 2016, 06:39:18 am
yo guys, including two guys who just empty-posted right after this post, any response?

I don't share Sanchez's sentiment, but I think he means the prisoners doing the sodomizing.  But what does count as "excess" harm?  Life in prison is certainly a lot of harm regardless of the conditions, but the killer certainly did a lot more harm to his victims.  It seems like a tough line to draw, though I agree that what Sanchez described does probably go overboard.

We could debate the line about how much torture is reasonable to levy on a bad person to discourage others from committing the same crime.  But that's not the sentiment that's being expressed in this thread.  I don't really understand why we should engage in, or hope for, any unnecessary sadism.  I don't even get the point of torturing an unrepentant psychopath if it doesn't accomplish anything.

Is it because it's pleasurable?  If it is, should we really be getting off on humiliating and torturing a human being, even one we think is awful?

Is it because he "deserves it"?  First off, what does it mean to "deserve" unnecessary humiliation and torture?  Second, how is being unnecessarily cruel and sadistic to bad people any different than what some monsters perceive themselves as doing?  They think they're right too, and I think it's important to restrain punishment to what's necessary and productive precisely because sadistic people otherwise abuse it.  Third, even if he does somehow "deserve it," what's with the gleefulness and violence-porn in this thread?

This seems like virtue-signaling behavior, but I don't really think it's virtuous at all.
9  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 29, 2016, 06:28:45 am
Hey, sorry, but I'm swamped by work things and don't want to reply while out of my mind.  Will ASAP!
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: May 29, 2016, 05:01:30 am
King County partisanship


Clinton vs. Sanders (Clinton in blue, Sanders red)
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NYT: Internally, the Trump campaign is kind of a dumpster fire on: May 28, 2016, 01:05:47 am
Oh look its another NYT hit piece.   Why don't they do something more useful like report on the dumpster fire known and the federal government and tsa debacle or better yet Clinton foundation corruption.

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+times+clinton+foundation&oq=new+york+times+clinton+foundation&ie=UTF-8#q=site:nytimes.com+clinton+foundation
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 27, 2016, 07:14:24 pm
King County results.  This has tightened some since Election Night, but not by that much.

Algona: 53.1% Sanders
Auburn: 56.1% Clinton
Beaux Arts Village: 70.0% Clinton
Bellevue: 64.5% Clinton
Black Diamond: 60.0% Clinton
Burien: 57.5% Clinton
Clyde Hill: 76.7% Clinton
Covington: 53.1% Clinton
Des Moines: 61.0% Clinton
Duvall: 50.4% Clinton
Enumclaw: 56.1% Clinton
Federal Way: 60.2% Clinton
Hunts Point: 91.9% Clinton
Issaquah: 61.1% Clinton
Kenmore: 58.3% Clinton
Kent: 59.0% Clinton
Kirkland: 60.3% Clinton
Lake Forest Park: 59.6% Clinton
Maple Valley: 53.6% Clinton
Medina: 76.2% Clinton
Mercer Island: 74.1% Clinton
Milton: 54.4% Clinton
Newcastle: 63.5% Clinton
Normandy Park: 60.8% Clinton
North Bend: 54.9% Clinton
Pacific: 53.5% Clinton
Redmond: 57.5% Clinton
Renton: 58.9% Clinton
Sammamish: 63.8% Clinton
SeaTac: 58.0% Clinton
Seattle: 58.2% Clinton
Skykomish: 71.4% Sanders
Snoqualmie: 56.6% Clinton
Tukwila: 57.3% Clinton
Woodinville: 60.5% Clinton
Yarrow Point: 77.9% Clinton

Bryn Mawr-Skyway: 62.0% Clinton
Cascade-Fairwood: 57.7% Clinton
Cottage Lake: 59.9% Clinton
East Hill-Meridian: 56.6% Clinton
East Renton Highlands: 55.7% Clinton

Fall City: 52.0% Sanders
Lake Marcel-Stillwater: 53.2% Sanders

Lakeland North: 59.6% Clinton
Lakeland South: 56.4% Clinton
Maple Heights-Lake Desire: 55.9% Clinton
Mirrormont: 59.3% Clinton
Redmond Ridge: 63.0% Clinton
Riverton-Boulevard Park: 52.7% Clinton
Trilogy at Redmond Ridge: 81.4% Clinton
Union Hill-Novelty Hill: 60.1% Clinton

Vashon: 51.0% Sanders
White Center: 53.6% Clinton

In Seattle, the only Sanders neighborhoods are University of Washington (78.6%), Little Brook (65.5%), Sand Point (64.7%), Interbay (63.5%), North Delridge (58.9%), University District (56.5%), South Delridge (55.6%), South Park (53.4%), Roxhill (52.1%), Fremont (51.8%), Broadway (51.4%), Greenwood (51.3%), and a tie at Riverview (50.0%).  The other 84 neighborhoods voted Clinton -- even urban Capitol Hill as a whole.

Top Clinton neighborhoods were Washington Park (79.6%), Inverness (76.7%), Laurelhurst (76.6%), Madison Park (75.8%),

On the R side, not a ton to report -- Trump landslides pretty much everywhere, with the predictable Kasich voting in tony precincts (Washington Park was "only" 56%-41% Trump.)
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump blasts Warren for claiming Native heritage but lies about his own ..... on: May 27, 2016, 03:38:31 am
Seeing as how this worked out so well for Senator Scott Brown...

I guess the Trumplicans won't be making a concerted effort to get at least 5 percent of the Native American vote this November. 

Not to mention that Germans were Trump's worst white ancestry in the primary.  If there's more to this like "Of course I'm not German, they're all a bunch of Nazis!" style quotes, his Upper Midwest problem just got worse.

I don't think that's true?  I believe I saw a statistical analysis that Scandinavian ancestry had a strong negative association with Trump support.

That sounds likely. Also, Trump did exceptionally poorly in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, right?

Ja, here it is:

Nate Cohn: Donald Trump’s Struggle in Wisconsin Is About Demographics, Not Momentum
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/upshot/donald-trump-wisconsin-polls.html?_r=0

Quote
Iowa, Utah, Kansas — and Wisconsin — have something else in common: a large population who report their ancestry from predominantly Protestant countries in Northern Europe.

These voters represented the base of the Republican Party for the century after the Civil War, whether it’s the old-stock “Yankees” who spread west from New England, or the German, Scandinavian and Dutch immigrants who generally settled over the same stretch of the northern part of the United States later in the 19th century.

These voters are probably the biggest problem for Mr. Trump that you haven’t heard of: He would fare about 30 points worse in counties where all of the white residents reported their ancestry from Protestant countries in Northern Europe than he would in a place where none did, according to our model. It’s the type of thing that helps separate Northern Virginia — where Mr. Trump struggled greatly — from the Boston area, where he excelled.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump blasts Warren for claiming Native heritage but lies about his own ..... on: May 27, 2016, 03:28:52 am
Seeing as how this worked out so well for Senator Scott Brown...

I guess the Trumplicans won't be making a concerted effort to get at least 5 percent of the Native American vote this November. 

Not to mention that Germans were Trump's worst white ancestry in the primary.  If there's more to this like "Of course I'm not German, they're all a bunch of Nazis!" style quotes, his Upper Midwest problem just got worse.

I don't think that's true?  I believe I saw a statistical analysis that Scandinavian ancestry had a strong negative association with Trump support.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Death Penalty is sought for Charleston killer on: May 27, 2016, 02:57:23 am
I don't share Sanchez's sentiment, but I think he means the prisoners doing the sodomizing.  But what does count as "excess" harm?  Life in prison is certainly a lot of harm regardless of the conditions, but the killer certainly did a lot more harm to his victims.  It seems like a tough line to draw, though I agree that what Sanchez described does probably go overboard.

We could debate the line about how much torture is reasonable to levy on a bad person to discourage others from committing the same crime.  But that's not the sentiment that's being expressed in this thread.  I don't really understand why we should engage in, or hope for, any unnecessary sadism.  I don't even get the point of torturing an unrepentant psychopath if it doesn't accomplish anything.

Is it because it's pleasurable?  If it is, should we really be getting off on humiliating and torturing a human being, even one we think is awful?

Is it because he "deserves it"?  First off, what does it mean to "deserve" unnecessary humiliation and torture?  Second, how is being unnecessarily cruel and sadistic to bad people any different than what some monsters perceive themselves as doing?  They think they're right too, and I think it's important to restrain punishment to what's necessary and productive precisely because sadistic people otherwise abuse it.  Third, even if he does somehow "deserve it," what's with the gleefulness and violence-porn in this thread?

This seems like virtue-signaling behavior, but I don't really think it's virtuous at all.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Death Penalty is sought for Charleston killer on: May 26, 2016, 09:52:58 pm
Why is this "good?" The victims families have sought not to execute him and many of you identify as pro-life.

I'd much prefer to see this terrorist spend the remainder of his days being sodomized in his cell until he hangs himself with his sheets or dies in a prison hospital.

Sadistic, dehumanizing people must be punished for being bad people...in the most sadistic, dehumanizing way possible?

Look, I'm all for restraining someone from committing further crimes, and I'm even willing to inflict pain and suffering on someone who did something awful in order to disincentivize further crimes.  But what possible moral is there in inflicting excess pain and suffering on someone?  Because it feels good to hurt people we think are bad?  Do you really think that's healthy, considering that's probably why people like Roof become mass-killers in the first place?

As a general rule, I think if our moral reasoning is "it's OK for me to do this awful thing because I'm a good person," we should really re-think what you're doing.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 08:04:00 pm
So Alcon, what precincts do we need to look at in Seattle to have an idea of the Asian-American vote in the West Coast?

This obviously has huge implications for the Dem Primary vote in Cali in particular, where Asian-Americans are the 3rd largest ethnic group with relatively high overall voter turnout rates, and encompass over 25% of the vote in (3-5) counties in the Bay Area alone.

Seattle in particular has both Chinese and Filipino American populations, similar to SF and East Bay, as well as a large Vietnamese population which is especially significant in South Bay.

I ran some precinct numbers for the most heavily Asian-American precincts in Metro Houston ( Sugarland and Texas HD-149) and it looked like Hillary won by 30-40% in areas with a 40% Asian-American population.

Still, some significant differences in the primary calendar, countries of origin, disposable household income, and occupational sectors, make this extremely suspect with West Coast demographics.

So here is a 2010 Census Tract Map of Seattle by % of Asian-American population. Are there any key precincts or indicators of support for candidates in the 2016 Primary?

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=15248

I just downloaded the King County ballot returns and ran them against a program that estimates ethnicity based on name, location, and some other demographic information.  It's not perfect, since some Asians have 'white' names, and I can't imagine it handles Filipinos with Spanish names perfectly, but it's pretty solid.

There don't appear to have been any majority-Asian precincts, but here's five with more Asian voters than white voters (most also have significant black populations, although all are more white than black):

Sea 37-1622 (48.4%)
Sea 37-3567 (41.7%)
Sea 37-1825 (40.9%)
Sea 37-1640 (40.0%)
Sea 37-3666 (38.7%)

Most of the precincts are in the southern portion of the Beacon Hill neighborhood, plus one in the International District.

There are some Asian voters in Snohomish County as well, but I don't have a list of credited voters there, and they're less concentrated.  I think Seattle is really going to be the only useful metric.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 07:45:39 pm
King county has reported now, similar margin as before 57.44-42.56 in King, and 52.74-47.26 overall. 

So basically "Wave Two" only 51-49 Bernie with an additional ~25k ballots, and only an estimated 7k total ballots to be counted?

If these estimated ballot numbers are close to the truth, looks like King County might have one of the lowest turnout rates in the state...

https://info.kingcounty.gov/kcelections/ballotreturnstats/default.aspx

398,109 received

384,985 ready for counting (the received-but-not-ready ballots are probably overwhelmingly challenged for missing/wrong signature, etc.)

378,909 ballots counted

= 6,076 ready to go but not counted, plus whatever arrived today, plus any signature resolutions

= probably around 31.5% turnout at best

So, yes, poor turnout in King County.  It's rare to see turnout in King County about as low as turnout in Pierce County (Tacoma).
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 05:31:10 pm
Yakima county reported a few more votes; Margin shrinks from 5.9% to 5.84%. The more important  dumps of votes will start coming in an hour or so.

That was a pretty crazy vote dump too -- it was 58% Democratic compared to 63% Republican on Election Night, and Sanders narrowly won when Clinton got 55% on Election Night.

The "Second Wave" swing doesn't surprise me, since we saw the same think with vote-by-mail in Oregon, presumably since ballots are basically counted closer to the order received.

The "estimated ballots remaining" numbers on the SoS website are interesting too, since there were 3,000 total estimated outstanding and 2,866 additional Dem votes were added, so yeah maybe Dems vote later than Reps in Eastern Washington?

BTW: Do you have the precinct #s for JBLM (Fort Lewis-McChord)? I have only four precincts identified by navigating the maps on the SoS website makes it almost impossible to identify, but of those four Bernie is winning the military vote and am interested in the base trendlines and what it might mean for larger base areas in Cali.

JBLM is 28-574, 28-578, and 28-579 (Fort Lewis) plus 28-580 (McChord AFB).  It's voting 69% Sanders and 49%-35% Trump.

Overall, Sanders is getting 69% in military precincts across the state and Trump is winning over Cruz, 53%-33%.  (Cruz is winning the air force vote and Trump isn't doing that amazing on the other bases, either.)

Where are you guys finding precinct-specific data?

The Secretary of State web site has a little "Precinct Results" link at the bottom for about half the counties.  King releases their Election Night precinct results tomorrow afternoon.

See: http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/clark/
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 05:27:41 pm
Yakima county reported a few more votes; Margin shrinks from 5.9% to 5.84%. The more important  dumps of votes will start coming in an hour or so.

That was a pretty crazy vote dump too -- it was 58% Democratic compared to 63% Republican on Election Night, and Sanders narrowly won when Clinton got 55% on Election Night.

The "Second Wave" swing doesn't surprise me, since we saw the same think with vote-by-mail in Oregon, presumably since ballots are basically counted closer to the order received.

The "estimated ballots remaining" numbers on the SoS website are interesting too, since there were 3,000 total estimated outstanding and 2,866 additional Dem votes were added, so yeah maybe Dems vote later than Reps in Eastern Washington?

BTW: Do you have the precinct #s for JBLM (Fort Lewis-McChord)? I have only four precincts identified by navigating the maps on the SoS website makes it almost impossible to identify, but of those four Bernie is winning the military vote and am interested in the base trendlines and what it might mean for larger base areas in Cali.

Late ballots tend to be more Democratic, often driven by King County.  They've been slightly more D so far.  Yakima is an outlier, though.  I guess the Latino vote came in late, although it's interesting that Sanders is also winning the late vote, since Clinton is at 56% in heavily Latino precincts.

JBLM is 28-574, 28-578, and 28-579 (Fort Lewis) plus 28-580 (McChord AFB).  It's voting 69% Sanders and 49%-35% Trump.

Overall, Sanders is getting 69% in military precincts across the state and Trump is winning over Cruz, 53%-33%.  (Cruz is winning the Air Force vote and Trump isn't doing that amazing on the other bases, either.)
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 05:13:36 pm
Yakima county reported a few more votes; Margin shrinks from 5.9% to 5.84%. The more important  dumps of votes will start coming in an hour or so.

That was a pretty crazy vote dump too -- it was 58% Democratic compared to 63% Republican on Election Night, and Sanders narrowly win when Clinton got 55% on Election Night.
I think you and I have different understandings of the word crazy.

I don't get it.  Am I paying too much attention to election results on the election results forum? Tongue
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET) on: May 26, 2016, 05:07:53 pm
Yakima county reported a few more votes; Margin shrinks from 5.9% to 5.84%. The more important  dumps of votes will start coming in an hour or so.

That was a pretty crazy vote dump too -- it was 58% Democratic compared to 63% Republican on Election Night, and Sanders narrowly won when Clinton got 55% on Election Night.
23  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: May 26, 2016, 12:15:30 am
Seems fairly correlated with Trump's vote share, though not exclusively.

EDIT: R-squared of .38, but Garfield County is a big outlier. Remove it, and the R-squared jumps to .55

I would also guess a strong correlation with income and especially education.  That's what I think seeing Benton up there, for instance.  It also looks like socially liberal areas that aren't upscale (like Jefferson) saw gains.  There is definitely some systemic primary crossover going on vs. 2008.

For instance: I looked back at 2008, and Bainbridge Island was 73.8% Democratic in the primary.  That was with Obama getting his second-highest share of the primary vote of any city in the state.  This year, Bainbridge is 81.0% Democratic.  Plus Kasich got 27.6% there, and I'd bet some of those voters are less than loyal.

The Eastside is probably going to be nasty for Trump.  On the other hand, it looks like working-class white areas with ancestral Democratic voting (the Coast, Kelso-Longview, Clarkston) are exhibiting significant D crossover to Trump.
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: May 25, 2016, 09:37:08 pm
OK, this is kind of fascinating.  So far, the partisanship of ballots is nearly identical to the 2008 Presidential primary -- actually very slightly more Democratic, 57.5% vs. 56.6% (+0.9%).  That's impressive, considering that the 2008 primary actually counted a little bit on the Democratic side.

However, what's even more impressive is how unevenly distributed the changes are in partisanship since 2008.  Here are the counties, sorted from biggest gain in % Democratic to biggest loss.  This is obviously far from random variation.  (Also, King County will probably get even higher as left-leaning late ballots are counted.)

[to get swing in Atlas terms, double all these numbers]

King   +6.4%
San Juan   +3.9%
Jefferson   +3.8%
Kitsap   +2.2%
Island   +0.7%
Benton   +0.4%
Clark   +0.1%
Snohomish   +0.1%
Clallam   -0.1%
Whatcom   -0.5%
Skagit   -1.0%
Spokane   -1.2%
Chelan   -1.4%
Franklin   -2.1%
Thurston   -2.1%
Skamania   -2.4%
Walla Walla   -3.5%
Whitman   -3.5%
Klickitat   -4.1%
Pierce   -4.4%
Okanogan   -4.9%
Kittitas   -5.1%
Ferry   -5.7%
Pend Oreille   -6.0%
Stevens   -6.0%
Mason   -6.6%
Grant   -7.0%
Columbia   -7.4%
Douglas   -7.6%
Lewis   -7.8%
Wahkiakum   -8.0%
Garfield   -8.1%
Yakima   -8.2%
Adams   -8.6%
Cowlitz   -8.9%
Asotin   -9.2%
Pacific   -11.1%
Grays Harbor   -11.5%
Lincoln   -12.4%
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 25, 2016, 06:10:18 pm
I've been very clear, from my first post in this thread that, for the purposes of this question, near certainty and certainty are the same thing. Nevertheless whether such a 100% proof could exist was being discussed before I posted as a separate discussion, and I also gave my views that such a thing is not possible.

Not trying to be a jerk, but that's not really responsive to what I just said.  I didn't accuse you of being inconsistent about certainty and near-certainty being the same.  I said I think it's inconsistent to give a non-literal interpretation to "certain" and then a literal interpretation to "definitive, concrete evidence."

Yeah, this is a completely different discussion, but I would say that it depends. We obviously need to keep in mind the limitations of our senses, and that they are generally greater than we care to admit. But nevertheless if we have experienced something that we know can not be explained by any other means, then it would be silly to reject it just because others disagree. This is the sort of question that does not lend itself to generalities though. Perhaps as a rule I'd say that we should be very sceptical towards our own experiences, but we should certainly not reject them outright just because others contradict them.

I'm not sure it's a completely different discussion, because it goes pretty directly toward whether it's possible for proof to be "concrete" in any meaningful way.  No problem if you want to separate out our conversation on this, though.

I'm not arguing for "rejecting outright" one's own personal perceptions.  I'm arguing that it makes no sense to dismiss or nearly completely discount perceptions of other people's perceptions.  That is, if we perceive other reasonable, honest people as having different and highly variable intuitions and perceptions (as they do), it makes no sense to affirm our direct observations.  If two sane, honest people viewed the same crime, and had two different, strongly-held perceptions about what happened, would it make sense for one to believe their perception is more likely?  Sure, because there's always the (small) chance that the other person is dishonest or deluded and you don't know it.  However, does it make sense to affirm your own perception with certitude, dismissing your perception of their perception?  That seems obviously unreasonable to me.

The thing about the variables is they aren't measures of the same thing, they're each measures of a different thing. What I mean by this is all of the variables I've suggested (take, for example, social life and taste in music) are largely independent. What this means is if you're wrong about one in a positive direction and wrong about one in a negative direction they won't cancel out, you're just wrong in two different ways.

Again, you're forgetting that I was responding particularly to your analogy about Nazi Germany, under the belief that you were invoking that particular analogy because there was a systematic bias to answers on that question.  I think that was a totally fair interpretation, considering the original quote: There is a reason everyone in this forum claims they would have voted for the SPD in 1932.  If you were just talking about layering a lot of independent variables, why would you be using an example that’s clearly about systemic skew?  

 
I will concede that answering hypotheticals can tell us a lot about how we are now (Think of trolley problems, for example) But I think that, even there almost universally, the more variables the less useful it is. For instance "Could there have been a revolution in Russia without the First World War?" is a useful historical question "What would Russia have looked like without the First World War?" is not.  This is because the more variables, the harder it is for us to actually grasp and put ourselves inside the situation.

I agree that having a lot of independent variables makes this harder to answer.  I don’t think the independent variables are enough that it’s a “stupid” question, especially since it also offers the potential for moral reasoning that involves a lot fewer independent variables than predicting behavior or emotional reactions.  It’s cool if other people don’t find that feasible or worthwhile, but again, my objection is to the hostile reaction that forwarding the question has received.  

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and I'm glad that this type of question helped you through what must have been a very difficult time. I, too, when faced with problems (though none as bad as yours) go through in my mind various hypotheticals, and it can be quite cathartic for me, personally. But I would say that it's only cathartic if you want to do it, and, also, when I've tried doing it I've never actually been right about the future.

I’m not disagreeing, but I’m surprised to hear that.  You’ve never been right (or at least insightful) about theory-of-mind analysis of yourself, enough to justify doing it?  I’m also surprised by the disinterest in reasoning through moral conclusions that require premises you don’t believe in.  Unlike what DFB claims, I don’t have a problem with it, but I’m surprised.

(And thanks – hell of a month, but things are fine.  Antidepressants can work magic when you stop abusing alcohol and let them work!)

See, I don't think this argument works. Yes, there are many people who find the premise undesireable, but I don't see why that makes them unlikely to answer the question. You could fill whole libraries with fiction where the character is in a bad situation. There are an almost infinite number of books where we are asked to judge how the protagonist reacts in a tight spot.

Sorry, just to be clear, I don’t actually think the main reason people are dodging this question is because it requires them to accept undesirable premises.  Although that is definitely something people do – I can dig up some research, but people are very bad at reasoning through the implications when they don’t like a foundational premise.  Our brains try to shut that down.  However, I honestly think the reason people are dodging the question here is because they think it’s gotcha bait (which is fair).

I was saying that the only major desirability bias I could see would be not wanting to accept the question's premise.  That doesn't imply I think the the main reason people are rejecting the question is desirability bias Smiley.

The thing is, even where the situation is one we would rather not be in, there are still "right" and "wrong" choices. Those of us who are religious may not wish to imagine a Godless universe, but we'd still like to imagine that we wouldn't collapse into hedonism. Or, vice versa, we would rather not say that our religion was just a fig leaf and did not shape us in any way.

That’s the sort of stuff I think is worth exploring here!  (Again, not arguing people have to be interested in doing so; I just don’t think the question is “stupid.”)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1079


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines