Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 27, 2016, 11:47:42 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1081
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Ramussen/KNTV: Nevada - Trump +5 on: July 26, 2016, 01:26:23 am
538 factored in convention bounce and bias and found that they still have Trump up 1

     You mean 538 is unskewing polls now? How far Nate Silver has fallen.

No, they adjust (and always have) for the "house effect" of a pollster.  For instance, if you have a pollster who routinely gets Republican-favorable results in states with a lot of polling (like Ohio), and it's the only pollster active in a less-polled state, they'll adjust for that fact.  It's a totally reasonable method of normalizing state results, so one candidate isn't arbitrarily favored in the prediction just because certain pollsters were the ones active in that state.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Landmark Communications/WSB-TV: Georgia - Trump + 2 on: July 26, 2016, 12:25:42 am
Also, people shouldn't lump all college-educated whites in the same brush.

I've seen black paint less mixed than that metaphor Tongue
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush to Endorse Gary Johnson Next Week? on: July 22, 2016, 07:57:37 pm
A vote for Johnson is only a half vote against Trump, while a vote for Hillary is a full vote against Trump.

Bullsh**t.  A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson.  I probably won't vote for Johnson, but I certainly won't vote for Clinton or for Trump, and you may not count my opposition to Trump or to Clinton as half of anything.  It is full-on, raging opposition, just as those who will vote for Johnson fully oppose Trump and fully oppose Clinton.

Anyway, I don't care whether any of the Bushes endorses Johnson, but I'm glad to know that they're not supporting Trump.  Fully and completely.

Easy big fella.  I think he was just laying out the facts objectively.  You are completely free to vote for anyone you wish.

A vote for Johnson is only a vote for Trump/half vote against if that person would've otherwise voted Clinton. Otherwise it's still taking votes away from Trump.

His point is that voting for Clinton instead of Trump is a net -2 to the raw vote margin for Trump over Clinton; voting third-party instead is a net -1 to Trump's raw vote margin.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush to Endorse Gary Johnson Next Week? on: July 22, 2016, 07:07:04 pm
A vote for Johnson is only a half vote against Trump, while a vote for Hillary is a full vote against Trump.

Bullsh**t.  A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson.  I probably won't vote for Johnson, but I certainly won't vote for Clinton or for Trump, and you may not count my opposition to Trump or to Clinton as half of anything.  It is full-on, raging opposition, just as those who will vote for Johnson fully oppose Trump and fully oppose Clinton.

Anyway, I don't care whether any of the Bushes endorses Johnson, but I'm glad to know that they're not supporting Trump.  Fully and completely.

He's talking mathematically, and he's right, in terms of net margin
5  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war. on: July 21, 2016, 12:26:54 am
Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

Well, sure, but I don't think talking about general traits of a group precludes discussion of specific elements of those groups at all.  If it did, sociology would be a really tough field for you to tolerate Tongue  They're just different discussions; one isn't necessarily any less coherent/cogent/whatever than the other.

Very fair point.

Can we just say it's a pet peeve of mine and move on?

Totally!
6  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war. on: July 20, 2016, 09:59:06 pm
Probably you're actually right and this is just something that irritates me because, as a theology/religious studies person, I habitually hyper-finesse and thin-slice these things, and it's annoying to see public discussion of my field, including discussion led by many highly-regarded public intellectuals, revolve around concepts and arguments that seem sloppy and over-generalized to specialists. I don't think I'm wrong to feel this way and I'm not going to apologize for it, but that's probably what's going on.

Well, sure, but I don't think talking about general traits of a group precludes discussion of specific elements of those groups at all.  If it did, sociology would be a really tough field for you to tolerate Tongue  They're just different discussions; one isn't necessarily any less coherent/cogent/whatever than the other.
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How do you respond to push polls? on: July 20, 2016, 08:55:47 pm
Being a dick to the person who calls isn't going to accomplish much.  They hate their job already, and have no responsibility for the script.

dingojoe is right that signal-jamming is the most effective thing.  If you want to mess with the people creating the push poll, indicate that the least persuasive stuff changes your opinion, and the most persuasive stuff doesn't.  Give them answers that indicate their messages are ineffective, like claiming you changed your mind away from the candidate whose push poll it is (although you usually won't know that upfront).  That kind of thing.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Meredith McIver really exist? on: July 20, 2016, 08:08:54 pm
Per the NY Post, she's exists and is a registered Democrat.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/20/melania-trumps-speechwriter-is-a-registered-democrat/

Oh, look at that, the speechwriter has admitted that the nearly identical word use and phrasing wasn't a one-in-a-trillion coincidence.  Gasp.

When can I expect your reply in the other thread admitting you were full of crap about rejecting the statistical improbability of this being a coincidence, or giving a competent defense for believing it was?
You're not going to. Give it a rest already.

Nope.  You wasted my time, strawmanned my arguments, and I'm not going to let this go.  Why not kill two birds in one stone, and silence me as well as prove you're not a credulous, disingenuous hack?  Smiley

Otherwise, I'm happy to continuously remind people how intellectually dishonest you are every time you enter a debate of substance.  Why should others waste their time when you just weasel out of arguments like that?
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Meredith McIver really exist? on: July 20, 2016, 05:19:15 pm
Per the NY Post, she's exists and is a registered Democrat.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/20/melania-trumps-speechwriter-is-a-registered-democrat/

Oh, look at that, the speechwriter has admitted that the nearly identical word use and phrasing wasn't a one-in-a-trillion coincidence.  Gasp.

When can I expect your reply in the other thread admitting you were full of crap about rejecting the statistical improbability of this being a coincidence, or giving a competent defense for believing it was?
10  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war. on: July 20, 2016, 04:58:30 pm
'Coherent category', no, that's not what I meant; 'cogent category', maybe. I suspect I may be biased because I find the existence of God a less interesting question than the definition of God (which I think precedes the former question in a way that makes it difficult to establish a really workable argument about His existence without first spending more time hashing out definitions than most people on either 'side' of this 'debate' seem interested in spending. Which I guess is the main point I was trying to make).

That's what I'm pointing out, but not only that--my point is that these beliefs are different enough to in many (not all!) cases make the nature of their/our belief in God functionally, materially different. Although I'm willing to accept that differences that seem major 'from the inside' might seem uninteresting or irrelevant 'from the outside'.

In this context I think it's not very useful to use it as a blanket term because somewhere from about half (assuming 'theist' means 'monotheist') to probably at least three-quarters (assuming it's some sort of term of abuse for anybody who follows a religion) of the people in the world are 'theists' and generalizations about such broad groups never strike me as useful. The only religions that OP, or people in the anti-religion 'movement' in general, often seem to really have much grasp on or interest in are Christianity and Islam, and even then, unacceptably (imo) reified versions of them.

'Theists' manifestly don't behave in interchangeable or even necessarily comparable ways--practically, politically, sociologically. There are obviously commonalities that can be drawn, but these are commonalities that come with following some religious teaching or other in general, not with believing in God specifically (which isn't remotely the same thing).

I still think your point is suffering from lack of context here.  I get that you're saying, basically, that you can't over-generalize traits of theism.  That's fine, although probably true of every broad category group imaginable, so I think it's a little strange you're arguing that it somehow makes "theist" a useless categorical term.  You seem to be particularly arguing that there are internal debates over the nature of "theism" somehow make the categorical term useless.  I'm not sure how that would work, but I'm not sure it matters here.

I honestly think you're being a little silly.  There is no context in which it's useful to categorize theists, either to describe tendencies, correlated traits, etc.?  Why...because theists have distinct, individual traits that exist in addition to group averages, etc.?  Sure they do, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about tendencies, group averages, correlates that come along with theistic belief, distinctions between the theist group and the atheist group.  It's a little weird you called this "sociologically" problematic considering that sociology looks at issues like that as its bread-and-butter.  You may think it's more interesting to look at individuated groups within theism, but calling any broader considerations incoherent or non-cogent seems kinda baseless.  This is only a few degrees away from that guy who was complaining when Clinton explained that gangs serve as a family unit for many members, something which you called "universally accepted sociology."  Why are you totally comfortable considering broad-based traits and tendencies in the case of gang membership, but totally reject it for theistic beliefs?

It also seems a little strange to say it's pointless talking about something because it applies to the vast majority of the world.  Behavioral and belief traits that are nearly universal to humans are extremely useful to talk about.  I could give examples, but do I really need to?

I feel like all of this is a little like complaining it's unreasonable to talk about snow, because each individual snowflake has such a fascinating, distinct crystal pattern you'd prefer to engage.  OK, it's cool if you'd prefer to talk about something else, but I still think it's totally reasonable to discuss the abstract concept of snow in some capacities.

ayy lmao

...?

Yes, it's ironic and I should have used a different word.

Fair enough.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread on: July 20, 2016, 03:32:05 pm
http://time.com/4415378/meredith-mciver-donald-trump-speech/

Quote
She is a California native
McIver is from San Jose, California. She graduated with honors from the University of Utah in 1976, according to Annalisa Purser, a spokeswoman for the school. McIver has since worked as an editor and writer.

If she's a fictitious person, that's some weird deep background.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread on: July 20, 2016, 03:28:31 pm
I am not conceding a thing. This is politics, not some meeting of academics. Politicians rip off other people's sh**t all the time. This is trivial at the end of the day and your typical left-wing media gotcha game. I'd be more than happy to supply examples of Democrats that did the same thing, if you'd like.

The only thing I care about is you either substantively rebutting my argument (which you absolutely haven't) or conceding you're can't/unwilling.  Whether Democrats did "the same thing" (what "same" thing was that?) isn't material to whether your dismissal of the statistical evidence of plagiarism was reasonable.

lol at "this is not a meeting of academics."  Are you dismissing the statistical evidence because somehow statistics don't apply outside of academics?  You're ridiculous.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are "small government" conservatives so obsessed with the gays? on: July 20, 2016, 02:50:30 pm
No, my argument is that gonorrhea is 80 percent homosexual men. That's a health crisis. That you are arguing against my point indicates your lack of familiarity with the point.

If your only argument was about gonorrhea, what was this paragraph about?  Or are you just giving an argument you reject on behalf of small-government people (that's fine)?

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

The median site-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 16.9% (range by site: 10.4%28.1%).

Over the entire population, the rate is about 100 per 100k, meaning that about 1 in 1000 have gonorrhea.

Since the prevalence, according to CDC is now 17 percent on average, that means that the risk is about 170x. And you wonder why small government advocates see an issue?

17 percent of two percent of the population gives us 34 percent. If were' looking at 4 percent, that gets doubled to 68 percent. If it's 5 percent, then you get my 85 percent number.

You're making a glaring error.  Several, actually (one is that you're comparing gay men to a population that includes women, for some inexplicable reason.)

More importantly, you're comparing an estimate of the entire population for heterosexuals, to the proportion of men-who-have-sex-with-men who seek STD testing.  Obviously, those who seek STD testing are going to be more likely to have STDs.  Fortunately, since you were ridiculously squirrely about statistics the last two times we argued, gonorrhea is a "notifiable" disease for CDC purposes and we have exact tracking statistics.  Scroll down to page 24 of this report.  Only in San Francisco does the % of cases among gay men approach 85%.  In every other jurisdiction listed, it's well under 50%.  As you can tell from the next page, the rate among MSM is more like 3-4x the MSW population, not 170x.  Considering that the number of MSW is way more than 3-4x the MSM population, it's obvious that MSW are the easy majority of gonorrhea cases and your 85% number is nonsense.

We can argue about whether discouraging homosexuality is going to help those numbers, and whether it's worth whatever countervailing costs there might be.  But you're totally, completely wrong on the numbers.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are "small government" conservatives so obsessed with the gays? on: July 20, 2016, 02:38:30 pm
Marriage is a government benefit meant to incentivize and/or endorse something we consider socially desirable.  

Social conservatives do not see gay marriage as a social good, because they see it as immoral behavior and/or causing undesirable outcomes.

Because of that, they see gay marriage as an imposition because it uses shared government resources/institutions to incentivize/endorse something they think is wrong or undesirable.  They see that as expanding government (and...they're not wrong in the technical sense) for an objectionable reason, so they're against it.

I'm not endorsing this view.  I vehemently disagree with it, in fact.  But it's not that hard to understand.

But using that logic, anything that the majority feels is "wrong" or "undesirable" (when no actual, demonstrable harm is done) is subject to separate government treatment. It's the same logic that allowed illegal interracial marriage, segregation, "separate but equal", Jim Crow, etc. So yes, it is hard for me to understand how a person would endorse that kind of position when historically it has always ended up making the supporters look like foolish bigots.

Again, these are the same people who talk about gun control using the language "Don't like it? Don't get a gun." And yet when they don't like something, banning it is perfectly reasonable?

I mean, two things.  First, you're presuming that "no actual, demonstrable harm is done," which most social conservatives would contest.  Second, you seem to be arguing an equal protection argument.  I totally agree the equal protection argument is strong here, because I don't think there is demonstrable harm, but there are plenty of places where disparate treatment is given for policy reasons.  We prohibit marriage between family members for policy reasons.  Affirmative action is obviously very literally disparate treatment for some policy goal.  Maybe you disagree with those for internal consistency, but I don't think you'd argue either of those have "historically made supporters look like foolish bigots."

As far as your gun thing, there is a distinction between banning something and not expanding government recognition.  I don't think it's a compelling distinction in this case, but hey, I doubt conservatives see meaning in the distinctions drawn to make affirmative action OK for someone who otherwise embraces equal protection.
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are "small government" conservatives so obsessed with the gays? on: July 20, 2016, 07:53:20 am
I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

your argument is that gay marriage encourages gays who would otherwise marry to cohabitate with other gays, and that gay cohabitation has a higher net cost to social services than closeted gay people having children?  wow okay then

Also, I'm pretty sure your gonorrhea statistic is completely wrong.  Did you read the Conservapedia article and mistakenly think that a 3.7x higher rate among gay men means 3.7x as many cases among gay men as straights (~80%)?  Because, no, math that again.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are "small government" conservatives so obsessed with the gays? on: July 20, 2016, 07:45:44 am
Marriage is a government benefit meant to incentivize and/or endorse something we consider socially desirable.  

Social conservatives do not see gay marriage as a social good, because they see it as immoral behavior and/or causing undesirable outcomes.

Because of that, they see gay marriage as an imposition because it uses shared government resources/institutions to incentivize/endorse something they think is wrong or undesirable.  They see that as expanding government (and...they're not wrong in the technical sense) for an objectionable reason, so they're against it.

I'm not endorsing this view.  I vehemently disagree with it, in fact.  But it's not that hard to understand.
17  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Religions. Tribal units and a good way to appease our love of drama and war. on: July 20, 2016, 07:35:02 am
'Theists' as a single, coherent category of people requires 'theism' as an incredibly abstracted philosophical position (not even really a 'belief' as such), with very little specific content to it, of a kind that almost nobody other than a few old-school philosophers of religion actually holds.

I'm really not sure what you mean.  I assume you mean that treating "theists" as a cohesive category requires abstracting to the point where you lose "specific content."  That "specific content," I assume, somehow relates to some element(s) of theistic belief that somehow render the abstraction of "theists" a useless idea, in some or all situations, for some unspecified reason.  I think you probably understand why I'm confused here...

(I doubt you mean to say it's not a "coherent category," because "theist" is obviously a coherent category.  The fact that a descriptor is applied to some relevant abstract element of otherwise unalike items doesn't make that descriptor "incoherent.")

People who believe strongly in the God or gods of some religion in particular aren't fundamentally believing the same things as some Charles Sanders Peirce acolyte. They may or may not be believing the same things as one another, depending on the religions (and individuals!) concerned.

Are you pointing out that theists believe different things theologically and philosophically?  I feel like anyone who would understand your allusion to Charles Sanders Peirce (not me!) probably already know that concept Tongue

In any case, is your point that "theist" is useless as a category descriptor because theists have different theological views?  If so, I definitely don't think that makes the descriptor useless.  If you're saying it makes it useless in particular situations, you're going to have to give some context here.  I don't have much to go on: the only use of "theists" in this thread was the crazy OP writing "atheists do not need correcting as much as theists do."  I'm not really sure what "specific content" would be relevant there, especially assuming that "specific content" of theist beliefs is irrelevant by definition if that was simply a statement about probability (like, the average atheist doesn't need correction as often as the average theist).  [Although OP is crazy so who knows.]

That's only the theoretical problem with the categorization. On the theoretical level it's still somewhat defensible. On any practical or political or sociological level, the problems with classifying people and their beliefs this way ought to be...very obvious.

I feel like I felt half the time I heard the word "problematic" in college.  If it's italicized-very obvious, summarize your basic point in a couple of sentences, and I'm sure I'll understand it.

If the issue is my use of the word 'Dawkinsite' to describe this sort of thinking then I'll gladly amend it, since it's been ages since I've actually sat down and read anything by Dawkins other than his tweets and various other bite-sized internet pronunciamientos. Please remind me whether the 'spectrum of theistic probability' is what the name makes it sound like?

I guess it is.

By 'Dawkinsite,' did you basically mean you associate simplification/reification of 'theism' is something you associate with antitheists, and therefore attributed to the "specific content" of Dawkins' beliefs?  If so, isn't that kinda ironic, considering you're complaining abut simplification/reification of the "specific content" of theistic belief sets?  Tongue
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 538: Clinton's lead about as safe as Kerry's heading into the convention on: July 20, 2016, 06:54:26 am
Jesus Christ Silver is a hack. He should stick to averaging polls.

What part of his argument here do you disagree with?
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton: Joining A Gang Is Like Having A Family on: July 20, 2016, 03:45:27 am
This thread is like arguing that it's wrong to say heroin feels good, because feeling good has a positive connotation.

It's a line of thinking that is basically the definition of political correctness.

The fact that this line of thinking was initially brought by Seriously? is even more damning to his constant anti-PC rants.

Word to both
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton: Joining A Gang Is Like Having A Family on: July 20, 2016, 02:39:18 am
Right gangs make the world so much safer for women right?  At least she didn't plagiarize a speech or foot tap in a bathroom stall.  Mitt Romney couldn't even give his dog a bath without a 10 minute smear from the mainstream media yet Clinton gets away with supporting gangs and not protecting information that would've saved many lives.

That is not how analogies work.  Analogies do not imply that the things being compared are identical in every way.  You must know that, being a human being who's competent enough to start up a computer and login to an internet forum.

Presidential years here are the worst.

Gangs don't make the world safer for women.  You're right though joining a gang would be worse than giving a dog a bath or foot tapping in a stall especially when you just can't get it to come out. So perhaps what she implied was worse.  Below I read the argument that she implied those who join gangs are looking to make up for the lack of a family.  That's very true but doesn't get explained in a 30 second ad the way her sentence does.  You're also right about election years being more partisan.  I think you said that's the case here as I'm sure is the case everywhere.  In politics you get taken out of context.  Mitt Romney said "I like being able to fire people" but only in the context of firing those who provide poor healthcare services.  He was simply saying that we should have the right to choose our doctors and insurers.  This is unfortunate but I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't enjoy it on some level and I believe it's the same for you?  This site seems pretty good so far.

Me: "Analogies do not imply that the things being compared are identical in every way."

You: "Well, gangs aren't alike families in this other way, either!  Also, I'm going to assume that Hillary Clinton was implying positive things about gangs, because families have positive traits."

That is how I just said analogies don't work. 

Analogies do not "imply" two things are alike in all ways.  If the two things were completely alike, it would no longer be an analogy.  Analogies claim two things are alike in some specific, meaningful aspect(s).  That is what Clinton did: claim that gangs provide some of the support structure that families do. 

You're logically incorrect to say she's "implying" that gangs are good.  She wasn't "implying" anything positive or unreasonable.  Because of that, I don't think you have much justification to say her conduct was worse than Larry Craig's or Romney's.  (To be clear, I'm not passing judgment on Craig or Romney's conduct...I'm just saying Clinton didn't say anything objectionable, so this is unfounded.)  [Also I'm not really sure who got in trouble for "washing a dog" so I'm just guessing Romney.]

Welcome to the forum, though!
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread on: July 20, 2016, 02:13:07 am
Also, Seriously?, before you play the "that was too long, it would take too much time to respond!!!" card:  bullsh**t.  Most of that was just calling you ridiculous.  You don't need to respond to that.  You just need to stop being ridiculous.

The only part you need to respond to is the substance of my argument.  You're the one who has wasted your own time by avoiding that until now.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread on: July 20, 2016, 02:08:36 am
A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.
Yawns. A few tripe political cliches, which have origins in places OTHER than Michelle Obama's speech is reused in another speech and hugh and series. What's the red avatar response when actual crimes are overlooked?

"Move on."

Here's the deal, Seriously?.

You know that my argument is not based only on the reuse of themes or simple cliches.  You know that because I've explained it to you six times.  You know, on some level, that you are knowingly ignoring, or blocking out my explanations.

You know, or should know, that your argument isn't responsive to the TurnItIn article.  You know this because any half-intelligent person who reads the article understands that TurnItIn detects the likelihood of linguistic similarities using a vast database of written works, that takes into account that it's not uncommon for similarly-phrased wording to be in similar works.  If the recurrence of themes were enough to flag a paper as a one-in-one-trillion chance to not be plagiarized, obviously TurnItIn would not work as academic plagiarism detection software.  Duh.  If you don't know that, you didn't read the article.  Either that or you're so willingly deluded that you literally shut down these thought processes before they can instill doubt in the things you want to believe.

You know that I'm a reasonably intelligent person who knows you're being obviously dishonest with my argument.

You know that I am not going to stop hounding you on this until you're honest.  If you doubt me, read my post history.

You know I've explained to you, in simple terms, why what you're saying is non-responsive to my argument.  You know how totally disrespectful it is that you're wasting my time with this wall of complete and total bullsh**t.

You know that "this isn't a big deal" is not somehow an excuse for any of this.  I agree with you, actually, and don't view Melania Trump negatively for this at all.

So, if you know this, why are you doing this?  Maybe you're so emotionally dedicated to reaching a certain conclusion that you literally can't think through dissonant information.  Or maybe you think that, by conceding this issue -- one I totally agree is insignificant and doesn't reflect negatively on the people you like -- you somehow do damage to those people.  That certainly would explain how you keep responding to strawman versions of arguments, even when it's explicitly pointed out you're doing that, and keep mixing in crap about what "the opposition does."  Because, perhaps, in your mind, this is a zero-sum war to hold faith in your talking points, and the first person who blinks, instead of defending "their side," loses.

Here's the thing, Seriously?.

It doesn't matter what the opposition does.

It doesn't matter whether this reflects poorly on candidates or causes you like, or doesn't.

It doesn't matter whether this is a big deal.

It doesn't matter whether you are so insecure that you're intellectually or emotionally unprepared to deal with dissonant information.

Nothing matters except what is a reasonable, intellectually honest read of the facts.

In failing to engage that, you're being a credulous hack, completely disrespecting my time, and repeatedly embarrassing yourself by pretending that everyone, including people who agree with your politics, including probably you, doesn't know exactly what you're doing with this repetitive and hypocritical regurgitation of vacuous talking point crap.

Listen to your own advice.  Either respond to my argument (which I've presented in patient detail) in a way that actually engages the substance, or put your tail between your legs, admit you're incapable of engaging this issue like a grown-up, and MOVE ON.

And don't worry: I'm not mad.  I just enjoy this.  And I will continue to enjoy letting you embarrass yourself until you engage the substance here or admit you're unwilling to.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: They did it again: Donald Trump Jr. plagiarizes The American Conservative on: July 19, 2016, 10:58:41 pm
If they shared a co-author, this is a total non-issue.  Self-plagiarism is only a problem when you're being paid to create new content and you recycle substantive effort.  Recycling a story or two is a 100% non-issue in my book.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread on: July 19, 2016, 09:47:04 pm
A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Melania Trump caught plagiarizing Michelle Obama's 2008 speech on: July 19, 2016, 03:53:01 am
Again, if something is repeated over and over again and is in the public domain, it is not plagiarism. Both Melania Trump and Michelle Obama likely said the similar things with similar construct to what many, many other politicians have said in the past.

You are talking about a few sentences from two paragraphs in a lengthy speech, which basically state one of the few concepts that politicians on either side of the aisle agree upon. I consider what both parties said to be political truisms for any candidate seeking election.

Since it is political stock, speechwriters have a tendency to formulate that particular thought in a similar manner -- almost formalistically.

I do not think that the words that were written for Michelle Obama were hardly new. What both Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Trump said is practically political dogma.

...

It's political rhetoric.

Are you arguing that many politicians have said things with construction and phrasing that similar?  If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the easily Google-able reality that I've demonstrated over and over that the similarity of the construction/phrasing here is almost certainly not because of statistical chance?

It's likely that that portion of Mrs. Obama's speech was also appropriated from some other speech. This happens all the time in politics.

Wait, are you now arguing that this was intentional, but not a big deal?  Earlier you seemed to be arguing it was clearly unintentional.

The fact that the press is making such a big deal over a matter that is trivial is an absolute and complete joke. You probably could go through just about every speech made on that floor on Monday and find one or two paragraphs of those speeches that came from somewhere else.

If you mean sharing similar ideas with past speeches, sure.  This was a totally unremarkable, boilerplate speech.  Absolutely agreed, and have agreed to that since post one.

If by "come from somewhere else," you mean virtually verbatim sentences with only a few words moved...probably not.

As is typical on this forum, there's a knee-jerk overreaction to both the gravity of the alleged infraction and the political impact of said infraction. This is much ado about nothing at the end of the day.

I actually agree!  And I'm still going to keep pointing out your argument fails until you defend it adequately or concede it was unreasonable.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1081


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines