You realize we use game theory precisely to simplify ideas because we lack the ability to actually measure this stuff on a national scale, right? I would love to see what a utility function looked like for a society's human attention span that everyone could agree on. lol. Trying to throw out needlessly complicated terms might work better on someone who doesn't know what they are.
You're responding to a post where I am telling you that concepts such as Pareto efficiency are used in applications where measuring utility is often problematic and difficult to measure by telling me that game theory exists because measuring utility at large scale is often problematic and difficult to measure.
What trial? Are you claiming criticizing someone is putting them on trial? What sort of nonsense is this?
That doesn't make any sense unless you can only conceive of the literal use of the world 'trial'. Can you only conceive of literal trials?
How on earth would you think the Senate code of ethics would in any way apply to what we're talking about? You have not thought this through. Can you explain how it would ever be possible for humanity to adopt a common standard for when we want to condemn an elected official for misbehavior? That's conduct for senators and how they conduct themselves internally, it does not apply to what members of the public should think about them. I mean think of how silly that would be, that would mean that senators were devising the standards by which their voters should judge them, not the other way around.
There is no common standard for the mob, that was my point. My original post:
BigDH01 said:
I'm tired of rehashing this over and over, and the conclusion ought to be obvious, but there is no 'common' standard we are all using before we are attempting to ruin careers. This is exactly part of the problem I am describing. Left without a coherent definition of guilt, punishment, restitution we are left with virtue signaling. Inevitably, that will go too far.
Because humans
in general have no common method of determining
moral (non-codified) guilt we are left with nebulous outcomes. If you're asking if there's anything
I can do about that, the only thing I can do is to not make rash conclusions. The reason
I feel comfortable doing this is because humans (in the literal sense) have created laws and code of conducts and official bodies to enforce them.
You need to slow down and think this through, haha.
You need to follow the thread and make responses in good faith.
First, criticizing someone is not ostracizing them. You're descending into hysterical terms.
Or I just Googled "should Al Franken resign?".
https://www.google.com/search?q=sho...rome..69i57.5145j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Top hits:
WaPo Opinion said:
Why Democrats should tell Al Franken to resign
CNN Opinion said:
Minnesota writer's view: Al Franken must resign
The Hill said:
Progressive groups call on Franken to resign amid groping allegations
Slate said:
Second, I am quite certain you do not apply this standard in your personal life and I'm sure you know that too. Can you explain how you would expect this cross-examination to go forward? I would simply love to hear how this standard is even remotely applicable in day to day life. I mean when you have a number of separate people tell you 'Johnny got wasted last Friday and acted like an idiot' do you say to them 'I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THIS, ABSENT CROSS-EXAMINATION!' or do you think to yourself 'Johnny most likely got wasted last Friday and acted like an idiot'.
Speaking of hysterical. The nice thing about your example is that it perfectly illustrates the problem. Johnny getting wasted last Friday night is perfectly inconsequential to me. More than not believe, I simply don't care as there is essentially zero effect on Johnny or myself. If, instead, these people said "Johnny got wasted last Friday and committed assault. There's no evidence, but we should try to get Johnny fired from his job," then yes, I would tell them they are acting rash and we sure make greater attempts to verify what happened before we attempt to ruin Johnny's life. Turns out, for rational humans, consequences often determine appropriate behavior.
Now you're just getting angry and defensive. Franken also said this: "It's obvious how Leann would feel violated by that picture." My guess is now you will try to split hairs on what it means to 'feel violated', which is going to be incredibly tiresome.
You have this systematic method of simply ignoring very obvious phrases in the things that you quote:
Franken said:
It's obvious how Leann would feel violated by that picture.
He's not denying the existence of the picture, duh, he denied Leeann's account of him sticking his tongue down her throat. Thus, the only accusation involving actual physical contact has been disputed and has no evidence.
So now you're back to applying standards normally reserved for sending someone to prison to... criticizing them. This is absolute silliness.
Your original words:
Speaking of being intentionally obtuse, statements at trials are nothing more than 'accusations' as well.
You were the one trying to equate the accusations made on TV and elsewhere to those made at trials. Please, try to be honest.
This has to be some of the dumbest logic I have ever heard in my entire life. A logical person would not conclude that because a person kissed one person that any other kiss must be consensual. They would say it does nothing to inform it one way or the other.
Just like a logical person would not conclude that because someone made a lewd joke they are more likely than not guilty of sexual assault. Yet, you did so:
fskimospy said:
Considering the fact that there's photographic evidence of Franken acting inappropriately and he hasn't meaningfully contested the 'accusations', a logical person concludes they are more likely than not true.
There's photographic evidence that he made an inappropriate joke and there's his statement whereby he denies Leeann's account of the kiss. I know you don't recognize his refutation of Leeann's account of the kiss, I'm guessing because it's embedded in all the other virtue signaling of the apology which you lapped up, but I don't know what else he could say.
As to your second part, /facepalm. Someone engaging in consensual sexual conduct with other people is not evidence that they engaged in non-consensual sexual conduct. The photograph is non-consensual sexual conduct, which is in fact reason to believe someone might have engaged in other non-consensual conduct.
He participated in a lewd joke. Is that all it took to make him logically "more guilty than not?" If so, we live in a world with a lot of guilty people. I know I've made jokes at others' expense, hope they never accuse me of anything.
Hardly, part of my issue with the current movement is that accusations are taken as fact.
Ugh.
There's no need to get angry and defensive. I'm not mad at you, I'm just trying to point out how silly you're being. Don't be mad at me, just make better arguments!
BigDH01 said:
Reading this thread, I'd say they aren't as uncontested as you believe.
It is not anger or defensiveness to suggest that your opinion might be contested or that it is a good thing that your individual opinion doesn't dominate national discussion. The obvious nature of these facts makes your response seem weird.
Haha, if you think that you should selectively criticize people based on whether or not they agree with you politically then we sure don't!
I don't know how you would ever conclude that from my response or posting history. My "common sense" reply was in response to the rest of your drivel. Again, you take one word or one sentence and extrapolate that into an argument while ignoring the rest. It's an odd way to debate. For instance, my "common sense" reply could've just as easily been directed at:
fskimospy said:
Regardless, I find it funny that invariably when people start using terms like 'social justice' and 'virtue signaling' I tell myself "this person is probably one of those gamergate idiots or something like them". I then remind myself not to prejudge someone and yet invariably sure enough, they say something like this.
Using terms like "social justice" or "virtue signaling" doesn't make someone a gamergate idiot or "like them." In fact, those terms are common vernacular and, in at least one case, a proclaimed positive outcome for society. But I used them in a way that displeased you so I got grouped into your bucket of reactionaries.
lol, now criticizing him for conduct even he admits was 'violating' to other people is 'crucifying' him.
There are many that aren't stopping at "criticizing" and are shooting for resignation. See earlier in the post.
It's exactly this sort of hysteria that made gamergate into the joke it is. You can feel free to have the last word here because it's pretty clear that this is only going to lead to you getting angrier and more defensive and frankly it's been obvious for a long time that gamergate types aren't exactly in this to be logically reasoned with.
More ad hominem. Thanks for your tolerance and logical debate.
Facebook
Twitter