Greece's Solution - A Warning to the US

[Moonbeam]

What was irrational about what I said? Or are you just going to keep saying this over and over again? Please show one thing I said which was irrational.

You make the bold assumption you are capable of seeing your own irrationality. I would say that's irrational. Now there, do you see?

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe you could simply allow yourself to admit that you're not an expert and avoid pretending like you are. I'm not an economics expert, nor do I pretend to be. I simply throw out my naive views here in hopes that someone who knows better will tell me why I'm wrong (or that I'm actually right). It doesn't do me or anyone else good to post a link with a thousand signatures of people who may or may not be an expert in a field, then claim that as the foundation of my position. I can just as easily find a letter with twice as many signatures from "experts" supporting the opposite position. In neither case does the number of signees impact the validity of the argument or the truth of the statement. If I kick enough ideas around, I'll eventually find one that describes what I see.

Yes, one that agrees with what you already believe. It will be one, I am sure, that explains why I think all your money belongs to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

The more I contribute, the more I'm expected to pay. If it were proportional, then that would be ok. Instead, I'm penalized by paying an ever-higher proportion of what I contribute. Meanwhile, those who contribute nothing pay nothing but still have just as much use of infrastructure and such as I do. I'm not even arguing to tax these people - only that you stop using the ridiculous argument that you are using which states that everything I make is the fair share that I must pay.

Are you using the words that everything you make is the fair share you must pay or that your income determines your tax bracket. I can't think of more ridiculous language to use if the case is the latter.

 

[woolfe9999]

Maybe you could simply allow yourself to admit that you're not an expert and avoid pretending like you are. I'm not an economics expert, nor do I pretend to be. I simply throw out my naive views here in hopes that someone who knows better will tell me why I'm wrong (or that I'm actually right). It doesn't do me or anyone else good to post a link with a thousand signatures of people who may or may not be an expert in a field, then claim that as the foundation of my position. I can just as easily find a letter with twice as many signatures from "experts" supporting the opposite position. In neither case does the number of signees impact the validity of the argument or the truth of the statement. If I kick enough ideas around, I'll eventually find one that describes what I see.

I'm not pretending to be an expert, and if you took that from my post which said exactly the opposite, your reading comprehension skills needs some dusting off.

As to rest of your post, it doesn't mean anything except that no one can know anything if they aren't an expert and therefore no one who isn't an expert is qualified to have an opinion. That's what you are basically saying with your "any source is as good as the next" relativism.

I happen think cold fusion is bunk, but then I don't really know why because I'm not an expert. I am relying on the consensus of those who are. Am I unqualified to hold that opinion? If someone decides to rely on one Ph.D. who believes cold fusion is possible, does that person hold an equally valid opinion? Can a person trust the consensus of historians that the Holocaust happened or do they need to investigate it themselves and examine all the primary source? Is the minority position, that of denial, equally valid? I think not. I think to the layperson, it matters that there is a consensus of experts, because it HAS to matter.

You are confusing the perspective of the expert with that of the layperson here. What you say - that consensus is irrelevant to what is true - is correct from the standpoint of someone able to form an independent opinion that does not rely on others, i.e. someone with the proper expertise. It doesn't work for a layperson, however. That person can only trust authorities, while keeping in mind that said authorities are not infallible and may, ultimately, turn out to be wrong. Arguing that we cannot trust expert consensus is the same as saying we can't hold any belief in anything unless it is within our area of expertise.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: Perhaps if you'd recall your own claims, you'd see that I'm not arguing to be a better person than anyone, nor that I contribute more.

M: Fine

CW: My only argument is that there has to be a point where I am free to contribute as much as I want without you using policy to take even more.

M: What does that mean? It's as clear as mud to me.

CW: You don't see that you think you know the best way in which everyone should act, but so does everyone else. You want freedom of choice, but only for yourself.

M: How fucking so? I am as subject to the rule of law as you are. I will my own servitude.

CW: You think you want what is best for everyone and would use the government to enforce that.

M: Yup, we hold these truths to be self evident.....

CW: The best thing about people is that they are all different. The worst thing about government is that it tries to pretend like it knows what is best for everyone.

M: Where does it make such a pretension? ...that all men are created equal. That they are endowed with certain rights like life etc and that the government was instituted to but the consent of the governed to institute what it takes to secure them? Fuck off. You live in a communal society that has the power of your neighbor to tell you what's best for him according to his lights. Better hope he gets a good life so his bulb shines brightly.

CW: You know nothing about my next door neighbor, yet you think you can use the government as a vehicle to improve her life. How? Do you know what's good for her more than she does for herself?

M: In the same way she knows what's best for me. She is a highly evolved spiritual being of the kind that freedom intended, full of human warmth and human empathy intent on being the best human being she can.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm not pretending to be an expert, and if you took that from my post which said exactly the opposite, your reading comprehension skills needs some dusting off.

As to rest of your post, it doesn't mean anything except that no one can know anything if they aren't an expert and therefore no one who isn't an expert is qualified to have an opinion. That's what you are basically saying with your "any source is as good as the next" relativism.

I happen think cold fusion is bunk, but then I don't really know why because I'm not an expert. I am relying on the consensus of those who are. Am I unqualified to hold that opinion? If someone decides to rely on one Ph.D. who believes cold fusion is possible, does that person hold an equally valid opinion? Can a person trust the consensus of historians that the Holocaust happened or do they need to investigate it themselves and examine all the primary source? Is the minority position, that of denial, equally valid? I think not. I think to the layperson, it matters that there is a consensus of experts, because it HAS to matter.

You are confusing the perspective of the expert with that of the layperson here. What you say - that consensus is irrelevant to what is true - is correct from the standpoint of someone able to form an independent opinion that does not rely on others, i.e. someone with the proper expertise. It doesn't work for a layperson, however. That person can only trust authorities, while keeping in mind that said authorities are not infallible and may, ultimately, turn out to be wrong. Arguing that we cannot trust expert consensus is the same as saying we can't hold any belief in anything unless it is within our area of expertise.

- wolf

No, the consensus has nothing to do with what is true or not. You are confusing reality with the perception of reality. Consensus is simply an agreement on a perception. If we all agree that the moon is made of cheese, that does not mean that the moon is made of cheese. You can and will hold whatever opinion you want, but what's the point of even having an opinion on something if you don't know enough to understand the validity of its foundation? Having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion is a useless exercise with the only conceivable intent being to seem informed on a subject on which you are not informed.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, the consensus has nothing to do with what is true or not. You are confusing reality with the perception of reality. Consensus is simply an agreement on a perception. If we all agree that the moon is made of cheese, that does not mean that the moon is made of cheese. You can and will hold whatever opinion you want, but what's the point of even having an opinion on something if you don't know enough to understand the validity of its foundation? Having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion is a useless exercise with the only conceivable intent being to seem informed on a subject on which you are not informed.

Yup, you're confirming that my interpretation of your position is accurate. No opinion is valid when it relies on the expertise of others is what you are saying. Each person must form their opinion independently, based upon a full understanding of the facts and issues. And yes, your position is completely absurd and we do in fact totally disagree. You are positing some kind of bizarre perfect world where everyone has the capacity and time to become an expert on everything. I am arguing the real world, a world in which we can and do form beliefs based on a consensus of experts who know more than we do, that this is done, repeatedly, by everyone on the planet, constantly, including yourself, and that this practice is completely rational.

No, I'm not confusing an agreement with an opinion, or a perception. My opinion is that cold fusion is bunk. The foundation of that opinion is that the consensus of experts say so. According to you, I need to learn about nuclear physcis to understand the "foundation" of that opinion or else it is just "perception." Nonsense. The fact that virtually every qualified scientist says so makes it more likely to be the case than not. It doesn't make it automatically true, but I'm not concerned about absolutes. I make probabalistic assumptions based on the information available, and in most cases, that information includes the opinions of people more knowledgeable than myself. If this were not so, I could not function as a human being, nor could anyone else.

I think we're going round and round here. I'll leave it to others to evaluate or respective positions on this.

- wolf

 

[CycloWizard]

Yup, you're confirming that my interpretation of your position is accurate. No opinion is valid when it relies on the expertise of others is what you are saying. Each person must form their opinion independently, based upon a full understanding of the facts and issues. And yes, your position is completely absurd and we do in fact totally disagree. You are positing some kind of bizarre perfect world where everyone has the capacity and time to become an expert on everything. I am arguing the real world, a world in which we can and do form beliefs based on a consensus of experts who know more than we do, that this is done, repeatedly, by everyone on the planet, constantly, including yourself, and that this practice is completely rational.

No, I'm not confusing an agreement with an opinion, or a perception. My opinion is that cold fusion is bunk. The foundation of that opinion is that the consensus of experts say so. According to you, I need to learn about nuclear physcis to understand the "foundation" of that opinion or else it is just "perception." Nonsense. The fact that virtually every qualified scientist says so makes it more likely to be the case than not. It doesn't make it automatically true, but I'm not concerned about absolutes. I make probabalistic assumptions based on the information available, and in most cases, that information includes the opinions of people more knowledgeable than myself. If this were not so, I could not function as a human being, nor could anyone else.

I think we're going round and round here. I'll leave it to others to evaluate or respective positions on this.

- wolf

Your problem is that you think an opinion can be valid or invalid. People can have whatever opinion they want, but what is the point of having an opinion that you don't understand? You argue about cold fusion, but what purpose does having that opinion serve? If you're not an expert, no one will ever have cause to ask you about it. Thus, as I already stated, "Having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion is a useless exercise with the only conceivable intent being to seem informed on a subject on which you are not informed." You are free to do it, but calling me absurd for pointing out your motives hardly grounds you in the real world.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: In the same way she knows what's best for me. She is a highly evolved spiritual being of the kind that freedom intended, full of human warmth and human empathy intent on being the best human being she can.

And here we're back to the meat of it: everyone is so in tune with what is right for everyone else but no one knows what is right for themselves. How do you know what's best for my neighbor if she doesn't know what's best for herself? Would you give her control over your life when she doesn't know anything about you?

Oh, and since you can't seem to remember what you said in your drug-induced ranting:

Yup, lots of CWs there who think their money belongs to them, like social structure don't create the environment in which they can earn without the law of the jungle ripping away their bananas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, you're confirming that my interpretation of your position is accurate. No opinion is valid when it relies on the expertise of others is what you are saying. Each person must form their opinion independently, based upon a full understanding of the facts and issues. And yes, your position is completely absurd and we do in fact totally disagree. You are positing some kind of bizarre perfect world where everyone has the capacity and time to become an expert on everything. I am arguing the real world, a world in which we can and do form beliefs based on a consensus of experts who know more than we do, that this is done, repeatedly, by everyone on the planet, constantly, including yourself, and that this practice is completely rational.

No, I'm not confusing an agreement with an opinion, or a perception. My opinion is that cold fusion is bunk. The foundation of that opinion is that the consensus of experts say so. According to you, I need to learn about nuclear physcis to understand the "foundation" of that opinion or else it is just "perception." Nonsense. The fact that virtually every qualified scientist says so makes it more likely to be the case than not. It doesn't make it automatically true, but I'm not concerned about absolutes. I make probabalistic assumptions based on the information available, and in most cases, that information includes the opinions of people more knowledgeable than myself. If this were not so, I could not function as a human being, nor could anyone else.

I think we're going round and round here. I'll leave it to others to evaluate or respective positions on this.

- wolf

No problem. You win by a landslide.

 

[irishScott]

Austerity measures are coming to the US eventually. May take decades, but they'll come. People in general don't act until they absolutely have to, especially now with "pre-emption" hearkening back to Bush's fuckup.

Fact is our current economics can not keep up with our desired quality of life. One of the two has to change, and I have serious doubts that a government as bureaucratic as ours has the virility to change economic policy in an unpopular way. We've become somewhat pussified as a nation, and we'll pay for it eventually.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your problem is that you think an opinion can be valid or invalid. People can have whatever opinion they want, but what is the point of having an opinion that you don't understand? You argue about cold fusion, but what purpose does having that opinion serve? If you're not an expert, no one will ever have cause to ask you about it. Thus, as I already stated, "Having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion is a useless exercise with the only conceivable intent being to seem informed on a subject on which you are not informed." You are free to do it, but calling me absurd for pointing out your motives hardly grounds you in the real world.

You sure have a talent for making yourself sound like a bigoted stupid ass. We are called upon all the time to make decisions about shit we don't understand. We have to weigh risks as best we can every time we turn around. Insurance companies set rates all the time based on statistical probabilities garnered by folk who claim to be experts in determining the frequency of events. I, for example, am going to bet you are stupid enough to argue with me, but I have never even seen you much less have any psychic ability. I have to decide whether to fund cold fusion, or carbon credits and a million other things like whether or not to legalize marijuana.

Ever hear of the three wise men, of teachers, coaches, trainers, school? Your linear, blinkered vision, has led you right up a cul de sac. Knock off the fucking sophistry for Christ's sake.

 

[Moonbeam]

And here we're back to the meat of it: everyone is so in tune with what is right for everyone else but no one knows what is right for themselves. How do you know what's best for my neighbor if she doesn't know what's best for herself? Would you give her control over your life when she doesn't know anything about you?

Oh, and since you can't seem to remember what you said in your drug-induced ranting:

I have given her control over my life, you idiot, and so have you when we agreed to form our government.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your problem is that you think an opinion can be valid or invalid. People can have whatever opinion they want, but what is the point of having an opinion that you don't understand? You argue about cold fusion, but what purpose does having that opinion serve? If you're not an expert, no one will ever have cause to ask you about it. Thus, as I already stated, "Having an opinion for the sake of having an opinion is a useless exercise with the only conceivable intent being to seem informed on a subject on which you are not informed." You are free to do it, but calling me absurd for pointing out your motives hardly grounds you in the real world.

I'll bite one more time, because you are making a somewhat different point. In my example of cold fusion, you are correct that my opinion is irrelevant. But then, I am not passing myself off as an authority or claiming that it does matter. Perhaps the better word here than "opinion" is "belief." I hold a belief that cold fusion is very likely bunk, simply because I have read up enough on the subject enough to know that this is what the experts think. I don't expect my belief to persuade others, but I hold the belief because it is natural for me to form a belief on a subject I have read about.

But cold fusion was just an example, one where I have a belief just because I do, and it's irrelevant to anyone but myself. The fact is, we DO rely on experts for myriad things which matter a LOT in our lives, and we do so on a daily basis. I'll hire an architect and a structural engineer to design a home for my family and me, and I will rely on the structural engineer's opinion that the design is safe. I will form a belief that the structure is likely safe because that is what the expert tells me. I will do so, and risk the safety of myself and my family on that basis, because I don't have the time to get a degree in structural engineering so that I can check his work.

In another case, I may have opportunity to vote, where one candidate advocates a policy based on a certain expert assessment of a particular issue, and another candidate advocates a policy based on a different expert assessment. As a voter, it may be relevant to me if 90% of scientist's conclusions are consistent with the policy advocated by candidate x. But according to your logic, I must form my own conclusions based on my own understanding, so if this is a highly technical issue, either I go out and get a ph.d. or it's best I just not bother voting. While I'd love to be all knowing, all seeing, it just isn't the case, and I'm not going to disqualify myself from acting based on beliefs just because those beliefs are derived from the opinions of experts rather than my own expertise.

By the way, I consider this discussion both interesting and worthwhile.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

]Woof: While I'd love to be all knowing, all seeing, it just isn't the case, and I'm not going to disqualify myself from acting based on beliefs just because those beliefs are derived from the opinions of experts rather than my own expertise.

But what happens if the experts advise you to do so? Are you going to listen to their advise to listen to your own advise or are you doing to ignore your own advise and listen to their advise to listen to your own?

 

[woolfe9999]

]Woof: While I'd love to be all knowing, all seeing, it just isn't the case, and I'm not going to disqualify myself from acting based on beliefs just because those beliefs are derived from the opinions of experts rather than my own expertise.

But what happens if the experts advise you to do so? Are you going to listen to their advise to listen to your own advise or are you doing to ignore your own advise and listen to their advise to listen to your own?

Haha, yes, if the expert's advice is to listen to my own advise, then by listening to my own advise, I have also followed the experts advise. No contradiction there. Presumably, if the experts advise me to decide for myself, that must mean they think their expertise will not be of assistance of me, and that I am more qualified to make the decision on my own. In that situation, then yes, I would decide on my own. This situation does come up quite a lot actually, where someone with expertise will tell you in a given situation that the best course of action is to trust your own instincts and not look to someone else. And there are plenty of matter where I don't look to experts. For example, I don't need an expert to tell me what I feel like eating for dinner tonight, or what movie I'm in the mood to see.

- wolf

 

[KMFJD]

The wise man accepts the idiot insists?

 

[CycloWizard]

I'll bite one more time, because you are making a somewhat different point. In my example of cold fusion, you are correct that my opinion is irrelevant. But then, I am not passing myself off as an authority or claiming that it does matter. Perhaps the better word here than "opinion" is "belief." I hold a belief that cold fusion is very likely bunk, simply because I have read up enough on the subject enough to know that this is what the experts think. I don't expect my belief to persuade others, but I hold the belief because it is natural for me to form a belief on a subject I have read about.

But cold fusion was just an example, one where I have a belief just because I do, and it's irrelevant to anyone but myself. The fact is, we DO rely on experts for myriad things which matter a LOT in our lives, and we do so on a daily basis. I'll hire an architect and a structural engineer to design a home for my family and me, and I will rely on the structural engineer's opinion that the design is safe. I will form a belief that the structure is likely safe because that is what the expert tells me. I will do so, and risk the safety of myself and my family on that basis, because I don't have the time to get a degree in structural engineering so that I can check his work.

In another case, I may have opportunity to vote, where one candidate advocates a policy based on a certain expert assessment of a particular issue, and another candidate advocates a policy based on a different expert assessment. As a voter, it may be relevant to me if 90% of scientist's conclusions are consistent with the policy advocated by candidate x. But according to your logic, I must form my own conclusions based on my own understanding, so if this is a highly technical issue, either I go out and get a ph.d. or it's best I just not bother voting. While I'd love to be all knowing, all seeing, it just isn't the case, and I'm not going to disqualify myself from acting based on beliefs just because those beliefs are derived from the opinions of experts rather than my own expertise.

By the way, I consider this discussion both interesting and worthwhile.

- wolf

The bottom line is that you're voting based not on any candidate's expertise or endorsements by experts, but simply based on your predisposition to support his side of the story. This is obvious because in every case, the other candidate will have just as many experts telling you exactly the opposite. Do you choose which candidate to vote for by counting his endorsers on the topics of greatest interest to you? Of course not. You simply believe what you want to believe and select the bits out of all of the ads that you are inclined to agree with based on whatever part of your brain governs such things. Thus, the only way to objectively know anything is to bring yourself up to speed to the point where you can understand it yourself. Otherwise, as you said, it's a belief rather than an informed opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

You sure have a talent for making yourself sound like a bigoted stupid ass. We are called upon all the time to make decisions about shit we don't understand. We have to weigh risks as best we can every time we turn around. Insurance companies set rates all the time based on statistical probabilities garnered by folk who claim to be experts in determining the frequency of events. I, for example, am going to bet you are stupid enough to argue with me, but I have never even seen you much less have any psychic ability. I have to decide whether to fund cold fusion, or carbon credits and a million other things like whether or not to legalize marijuana.

Ever hear of the three wise men, of teachers, coaches, trainers, school? Your linear, blinkered vision, has led you right up a cul de sac. Knock off the fucking sophistry for Christ's sake

How does anything I said possibly relate to bigotry? Simply because you make ignorant statements based on nothing except hollow philosophy does not mean that that is the only way through life. As I have said repeatedly, you are free to have whatever opinions you want, but they are meaningless if you don't understand where they come from. I thought you of all people would agree with that assessment. Instead, you are so blinded by your efforts to prove me wrong that you forgot the first rule of argument: the best way to win is to be right in the first place. I will teach my students about probability and statistics tomorrow, then give them a quiz the following week. If they ask for my opinion on the quiz, I'll tell them that my opinion is that they should have studied to understand the material. The actuary performing statistical analysis for the insurance company (which, incidentally, is not a person and cannot have opinions) must similarly understand the underlying principles of what he calculates. If you interview ten actuaries and ask each one how long I'll live as a 30-year-old white male with no history of serious health issues, non-smoker, eats healthy food, and exercises a few times a week, they will still give you different probabilities for each life expectancy threshold because they will select different models based on their different experiences. You could pick the grand mean of their predictions (which would probably be around 85) and go to Vegas, confident of coming out ahead. Then, I could get hit by a bus on the way to work tomorrow. Then maybe you'd understand why your opinion, which was based on consensus of experts rather than fact, led you astray: you didn't know what the experts were doing, but you thought a straw poll of experts would make you an expert.

I have given her control over my life, you idiot, and so have you when we agreed to form our government.

I was born into it and have been governed by it long before I reached the age of consent. Unless you're going to argue that an infant has the ability to choose a nationality based on its form of government, this argument is broken.

 

[Zebo]

Need balance but it is Greece after all. Partying with thousand of beaches and islands, not working, is a national past time. The Teutons really been supporting their ass for 50 years, not talked about. Only thing talked about is backing their leisure lifestyle, debt, this last year.

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that DSE is a huge contributor to the repeated bubble/burst phenomenon. Government injects a huge amount of cash which must be spent on specific items (e.g. cash for clunkers, housing moneys, higher education grants/loans), creating an equivalently huge, irrational demand. An increase in demand increases prices in that market. Once that artificial demand dries up, the market is far out of equilibrium and will necessarily crash.

On the other hand, SSE does not mandate the creation of any artificial glut in supply: it freely allows people to reinvest their income into whatever vehicle seems best. This is problematic from a policy perspective because, while the money could be invested in something which creates jobs, it could also sit in a savings account collecting interest. In the long term, much of this should end up being recycled through the economy at large, but, as you said, it doesn't do much in the short term.

If we are dead set on government intervention, then, the best approach seems to be similar to what Bush did: send everyone a check so they can create demand in whatever area they want, but without focusing it enough to cause a bubble effect. At the same time, deregulate some things so that industry can adapt more quickly to the changing landscape and keep up with demand. These proposals then beg the question: if the best way to solve an economic problem is to have money in the hands of people and fewer fetters on industry, why do these things (i.e. high taxes and stiff regulation) keep reappearing when the economy is good? Why would you then be surprised at an economic downturn when you created the conditions necessary for such a downturn to occur?

I think but for the inability of the lenders to put the McDonald's employee into that 500,000$ mansion we'd still be riding the housing wave. Heck, the kids couldn't pay the property tax bill let alone the mortgage payment... but there gotta be a way... their greed depends on it...

You can't even have a decent war anymore without someone crying 'Shenanigans'... I'd hoped that I would see the day when Government decided to go to war and the people shrugged their shoulders and went back to their coffee latte or joint.. exclaiming... "Cool man"...

Ya see, I figure it is all about the psychology the people adopt regarding a situation. People are greedy... They act based on what they are compelled to do by their individual mind set. Put some money in their hands and they'll spend it. Business on the other hand must be motivated to create jobs by seeing the $ that job creation provides to them on the bottom line. That is, if they're smart. So, how do you get both to happen with a one off gift of a few hundred dollars? You don't, imo! But what you do do is hopefully alter the mind of the worker. But, ok... they now have the warm and fuzzies but still no job... hmmmm Or if they are employed are they motivated to spend? Spend to the extent that they make up for those who don't? I don't think so... least ways historically they have not.
I think you need massive investment in infrastructure... build a dam or a wind mill park or ten... put the masses to work on projects the government debt finances... The instant folks are working at something business will jump into supplying the needs of those projects. This is the DSE I like. The velocity is there and everyone becomes happy campers again.

I know that way way above it all are the powerful rich folks whose agenda is to move the Earth toward one common existence... One currency and one people... They can't control nor do they need to control the cycles of the various economies... they know that all things will equal out... They simply keep moving toward that agenda they hold dear... slowly with the patience of a saint...

Over the last 80 or so years DSE has been the means to remedy. We can't really evaluate what didn't happen and suggest it would have been better... End of the day, I'd rather put 20 trillion into my kind of stimulus and watch the blades spin up more electricity...

 

[LunarRay]

]
But what happens if the experts advise you to do so? Are you going to listen to their advise to listen to your own advise or are you doing to ignore your own advise and listen to their advise to listen to your own?

Are you going to run for office or something? Of course you listen to their advice... after all they are the experts... right?
Since I probably know nothing but at least that much, I can't hardly rely on anything but their advice. The resulting actions I take, therefore, are the most reasoned and prudent ones I can possibly take, it seems to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: How does anything I said possibly relate to bigotry?

M: How does it not?

CW: Simply because you make ignorant statements based on nothing except hollow philosophy does not mean that that is the only way through life.

M: You can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much.

CW: As I have said repeatedly, you are free to have whatever opinions you want, but they are meaningless if you don't understand where they come from. I thought you of all people would agree with that assessment.

M: How do you know where they came from. You do not know what you feel and you don't know that you don't nor do you want to know. I know this. You do not.

CW: Instead, you are so blinded by your efforts to prove me wrong that you forgot the first rule of argument: the best way to win is to be right in the first place.

M: Hehe, I know I am right. I argue with you because I don't have to win; I know I can't win. I argue with you because I have no need to and don't get frustrated by your blindness. You are worth my time in my opinion.

I will teach my students about probability and statistics tomorrow, then give them a quiz the following week. If they ask for my opinion on the quiz, I'll tell them that my opinion is that they should have studied to understand the material. The actuary performing statistical analysis for the insurance company (which, incidentally, is not a person and cannot have opinions) must similarly understand the underlying principles of what he calculates. If you interview ten actuaries and ask each one how long I'll live as a 30-year-old white male with no history of serious health issues, non-smoker, eats healthy food, and exercises a few times a week, they will still give you different probabilities for each life expectancy threshold because they will select different models based on their different experiences. You could pick the grand mean of their predictions (which would probably be around 85) and go to Vegas, confident of coming out ahead. Then, I could get hit by a bus on the way to work tomorrow. Then maybe you'd understand why your opinion, which was based on consensus of experts rather than fact, led you astray: you didn't know what the experts were doing, but you thought a straw poll of experts would make you an expert.

M: No I will know what to charge your type for insurance and make a profit which is all I would have been interested in.

CW: I was born into it and have been governed by it long before I reached the age of consent. Unless you're going to argue that an infant has the ability to choose a nationality based on its form of government, this argument is broken.

M; No, I would argue you are free to leave or do any of the other things I said above. You are an adult now and you stay by choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Need balance but it is Greece after all. Partying with thousand of beaches and islands, not working, is a national past time. The Teutons really been supporting their ass for 50 years, not talked about. Only thing talked about is backing their leisure lifestyle, debt, this last year.

The beavers have eaten all of the trees.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: The bottom line is that you're voting based not on any candidate's expertise or endorsements by experts, but simply based on your predisposition to support his side of the story.

M: But surely you assume this because it's what you do, not him.

CW: This is obvious because in every case, the other candidate will have just as many experts telling you exactly the opposite.

M: When there is a scientific consensus it is impossible for one side to have as many experts endorsing it's point of view as the other. Your point is totally illogical.

CW: Do you choose which candidate to vote for by counting his endorsers on the topics of greatest interest to you? Of course not.

M: I factor that in all the time. I always look, for example, at what the league of women voters has to say because women have greater bandwidth in the corpus callosum and thus less of the linear cul de sac thinking that plagues your reasoning.

CW: You simply believe what you want to believe and select the bits out of all of the ads that you are inclined to agree with based on whatever part of your brain governs such things.

M: Again, this is clearly what you must be up to.

CW: Thus, the only way to objectively know anything is to bring yourself up to speed to the point where you can understand it yourself. Otherwise, as you said, it's a belief rather than an informed opinion.

M: You are a bigot because you actually think you are up to speed on this. The only things you really understand have no political relevance at all. You will never bring yourself up to speed on anything because the more you know the more you will know what you don't know.

Do you think this way because you are an egotistical prick who fancies himself to know things, or do you think this way because you are linear and blind to a bigger picture. You think like a pin head engineer devoid of nuanced understanding. Why is it difficult for you to understand you don't know much of anything?

Look at Zebo there. Who would have imagined that the Greek economic crisis isn't the fault of big government like you thought, but the white sand on the beaches.