Jump to content

General News Discussion


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, it's nothing at all like it. 

Cos in your comparison the outcome is always the same. It's not that with the outcome of votes. :rolleyes:

It is literally like that, the outcome of votes doesn't change the fact. When the population votes sensibly 50% are still below average.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • eFestivals

    21165

  • feral chile

    9583

  • zahidf

    7527

  • pink_triangle

    6136

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And what ensued was the world's most banal news coverage, endless statements from cretins who live in south Manchester that had seen 2 planes. 'Alfie Brick, 61, from Burnage, told us exclusively "

Oh but it's not sexual discrimination when Ian Watkins feeds a baby with entirely-edible protein-rich nutrients via his boy-valve there's a big freaking Hoo Hah?

I do understand the need to compromise some values to get elected, but which ones and to what extent is aways going to be comoplicated. For you, despite your strong views to the contrary, you think La

Posted Images

Just now, mcshed said:

No because if you magically improved everyone's intelligence 100-fold the population would be less likely to vote stupid but it would still be true that 50% were below average.

and the fact of 50% being stupid would still effect the outcome of some votes. 

How much it effects things will be a consequence of a variable (and not a constant) - likely to be centred around the complexity of what is being voted for.

 

Just now, mcshed said:

More interesting would be the spread of the population's intelligence but intelligence is a very tricky concept to measure.

I don't disagree, which is why I made no attempt to do that. I didn't even claim it was the same 50% which is below average intelligence about all issues. 

 

Just now, mcshed said:

In terms of voting stupid I think looking at people's susceptibility to emotional arguments would be interesting, I don't think it is just intelligence that is involved there, plenty of intelligent people think much less rationally when they feel very strongly about something.

The ability to rationalise is a part of what makes intelligence. Me, I'd have thought an intelligent person would know that. 

Making up extra bits to what I actually said doesn't make you a genius. :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mcshed said:

It is literally like that, the outcome of votes doesn't change the fact. When the population votes sensibly 50% are still below average.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I actually said, and in response to what. :rolleyes: 

And then start a consideration of who should be the subject of your stupidity-wrath. :D 

You never know, you might not come out with the stupid second time round, and that would be a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and the fact of 50% being stupid would still effect the outcome of some votes. 

How much it effects things will be a consequence of a variable (and not a constant) - likely to be centred around the complexity of what is being voted for.

Well no, though if you don't think a 100-fold increase is large enough to remove stupid then 1000-fold or rather than multiplying bringing everyone's intelligence up to some bar that you accept isn't stupid. At that point 50% of the population are below average intelligence but nobody is stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I see you're becoming a bit more wings every day.

I can only assume you haven't dropped by your clerical neighbour recently. Wings is now a cesspit of Sturgeon hating transphobia.

Whatever I may  or not be becoming, it's not more Wings. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree, which is why I made no attempt to do that. I didn't even claim it was the same 50% which is below average intelligence about all issues

Sorry I was trying to broaden out the conversation as these back and forths that you seem to get into don't tend to encourage much further conversation for other users.

I think the Brexit vote in particular represents an extraordinary act of electoral self harm and yes Scottish Independence would be similar and so there is something to be said for trying to dissect the appeal of these things.  I don't think saying that 50% of the population is below average is an illuminating fact as it literally says nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mcshed said:

At that point 50% of the population are below average intelligence but nobody is stupid.

nope.

Just because you raise the bar for all-round intelligence doesn't stop the top-end having its opposite, nor an effect onto the outcomes of all-people-considerations from that opposite. 

After all, if there's no difference between smart and stupid, there's no way of stupid existing. It is only recognisable by the difference.

Which means within a vote, there will always be an effect from stupid, no matter how high stupid is raised to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LJS said:

I can only assume you haven't dropped by your clerical neighbour recently. Wings is now a cesspit of Sturgeon hating transphobia.

Who knew that a significant proportion of snippers share much more with the brexiters than you'd ever admit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

nope.

Just because you raise the bar for all-round intelligence doesn't stop the top-end having its opposite, nor an effect onto the outcomes of all-people-considerations from that opposite. 

After all, if there's no difference between smart and stupid, there's no way of stupid existing. It is only recognisable by the difference.

Which means within a vote, there will always be an effect from stupid, no matter how high stupid is raised to.

In fairness, you do continue to demonstrate that, come what may, stupid exists. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Sorry I was trying to broaden out the conversation as these back and forths that you seem to get into don't tend to encourage much further conversation for other users.

I think the Brexit vote in particular represents an extraordinary act of electoral self harm and yes Scottish Independence would be similar and so there is something to be said for trying to dissect the appeal of these things.  I don't think saying that 50% of the population is below average is an illuminating fact as it literally says nothing.

So you're saying that stupid has nothing to do with that "extraordinary act of electoral self harm"?

I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LJS said:

In fairness, you do continue to demonstrate that, come what may, stupid exists. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

I didn't say which said of the line I was, just that I recognised there's a line and it has an effect.  :P 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't say which said of the line I was, just that I recognised there's a line and it has an effect.  :P 

but what I was really saying was: no shit sherlock.

There's people having a pop at me, when what I replied to was the very thing they're accusing me of.

Which makes them the stupid. :P 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

So you're saying that stupid has nothing to do with that "extraordinary act of electoral self harm"?

I disagree.

I'm saying below average ≠ stupid and the problem that is worth interrogating is why in some situations are many people above average behaving stupidly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I'm saying below average ≠ stupid and the problem that is worth interrogating is why in some situations are many people above average behaving stupidly?

Ha! That's you making a claim for yourself as smart, and highlighting the paradox. :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Ha! That's you making a claim for yourself as smart, and highlighting the paradox. :P 

I'm not claiming that I'm smarter than average but 50% of people are so it's fair to say a good proportion of those are making mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mcshed said:

I'm not claiming that I'm smarter than average but 50% of people are so it's fair to say a good proportion of those are making mistakes.

it's not necessarily that. That view would be based on the idea that their interests and the weighting of those interests are the same as your own (do you have the same number of children at the same age as everyone else? Etc). And many things are simply a matter of opinion (what should tax rates be? Etc), and not fact. 

Some things are just plain stupid tho, because the claims for them just can't be matched up to what we know about the world beyond our dreams. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Then you shouldn't have any difficulty in seeing how much better Miliband was.

Oh, but you have done, else I wouldn't be replying to this post, and I wouldn't have mentioned Corbyn for you to go moron about just above.

You might be the most condescending man on the planet...

Saying Ed was better than Corbs might be true but it's a pretty low bar isn't it. Ed might be performing well now the pressure is off but as leader he wasn't good and we both know it. Saying 'aw but he was better than the worst Labour leader ever' doesn't change that.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Mentioning truth is weird? Then the world is fucked.

Think @mcshed has already covered this but I'm sure it won't stop you spending all day getting raging about it and keep banging on about it. I don't know how you have the energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's not necessarily that. That view would be based on the idea that their interests and the weighting of those interests are the same as your own (do you have the same number of children at the same age as everyone else? Etc). And many things are simply a matter of opinion (what should tax rates be? Etc), and not fact. 

Some things are just plain stupid tho, because the claims for them just can't be matched up to what we know about the world beyond our dreams. 

 

Sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

Saying Ed was better than Corbs might be true but it's a pretty low bar isn't it.

Yup, which only further highlights how bloody stupid it was to elect Corbyn as leader.

It's not only the other side who do stupid. ;) 

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

as leader he wasn't good and we both know it.

I didn't claim he was good as leader. Then again, he wasn't the shit some people (on the [self-proclaimed] 'left') were determined to interpret everything for the worst in the pursuit of their own agendas.

It was, if you like, a foretaste of what was to come after. But with a leader who at least tried to juggle all of the balls the role demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I've been inclined to believe the polling that Biden has a clear lead and have been fairly relaxed about the US election.

I think a big fight over the replacement of RBG on the supreme court is exactly the sort of thing Trump wants. It brings Republicans who had deserted him back onside as a lifetime conservative on the supreme court will be seen as much more important than getting rid of Trump. It also forces the Democrats to try and fiddle things to try and delay the process which helps Trump's anti-establishment image with independents.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mcshed said:

In general I've been inclined to believe the polling that Biden has a clear lead and have been fairly relaxed about the US election.

I think a big fight over the replacement of RBG on the supreme court is exactly the sort of thing Trump wants. It brings Republicans who had deserted him back onside as a lifetime conservative on the supreme court will be seen as much more important than getting rid of Trump. It also forces the Democrats to try and fiddle things to try and delay the process which helps Trump's anti-establishment image with independents.

 

I don't agree with that. Trump and co did just that before the last election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't agree with that. Trump and co did just that before the last election.

The Republicans certainly did but I think Trump benefits with that demographic by not being as of the party as Biden is with the Democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mcshed said:

The Republicans certainly did but I think Trump benefits with that demographic by not being as of the party as Biden is with the Democrats.

Nah. The same thing is the same thing, so shouldn't alter how any 'independent' (which is what you said) views each candidate.

I do think a delay to the new appointment is a benefit to trump tho, as it will make the 'conservative' nutters who want to re-fight Wade vs Rowe more likely to vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nah. The same thing is the same thing, so shouldn't alter how any 'independent' (which is what you said) views each candidate.

I do think a delay to the new appointment is a benefit to trump tho, as it will make the 'conservative' nutters who want to re-fight Wade vs Rowe more likely to vote.

How can the democrats delay an appointment? There is a republican majority in the senate. As I understand it, the president nominates, the senate approves. Republican senators are less likely to vote against a trump nomination in an election year. 

Why doesn't he nominate Judge Judy? Surely noone could argue with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nah. The same thing is the same thing, so shouldn't alter how any 'independent' (which is what you said) views each candidate.

Logically yes but perception matters and McConnell using his majority in the senate to do nothing looks different for Trump when compared with Pelosi trying to drag her heels through the approval process for Biden.

Also 4 years ago feels different to what's happening right now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...