OMG! Freedom of Speach Cuts BOTH Ways?!

[Marshallj]

Idiocy....pure idiocy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Squisher: Wrong, capitalism doesn't allow for someone to put off potential profits in the hopes that these moves will "support their stake". While your scheming to increase your stake your competitors will swoop down and capture your assets.
------------------------------
Wrong? Wrong? Where did you see anything about putting off potential profits in hope?

 

[Quixotic]

Gawd, you guys, LOL =)

Yes, in general, you cannot be sure that 70% of the population will surely be louder, etc etc etc than a group less than half its size. This is true because often sides are designated by factors such as socio-economic class, etc, especially in the United States where (don't quote me on the exact numbers but its something close to this) 15% of the population possess 85% of the wealth.

However, I think in the case of this war, the 70% might actually possess more wealth per capita than the 30% opposed to the war. Why? Because it seems the anti-war group is composed largely of college students, and you know how damn broke we are.

In any case, I don't think either of you guys will be able to win the argument. It seems one of you is arguing about apples and the other about oranges, and both of you are right in your own regard, but neither of you will concede that your opponent also has a point without bashing it first. I just hope you guys battle with valid arguments (your whole argument is only as strong as your weakest) and none of the "i don't associate with beings of lower intelligence like you" bullcrap, which I would think completely undermines your credibility/position.

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian


What you said: Ok, with that said, 70% of the population will surely be louder, have more money, and have more connections that a group less than half its size.

Rebuttal: by seeding the 70% group with poor people and hand picking wealthy, well connected people and placing in the 30% group

Is that clear enough for you?

Like I said in my previous post:

Unless you intentionally skew the results by seeding the 70% group with poor people and hand picking wealthy, well connected people and placing in the 30% group, you are on average going to be in a better position with 70% on your side. Yes, you can produce false results if you desire to, but that would not be an accurate statistic by any means whatsoever.

So you are deliberately choosing a completely unrealistic scenario that will never happen and are throwing away all reality. Great.

When someone sets out to do a study, if they want to do a valid, objective study they must first figure out criteria they want to measure, they must take steps to ensure that the data is not flawed, and then they must blindy conduct the study without letting any outside factors flaw the results. On the other hand, if someone is corrupt and already knows the answer that they want to prove, they can attempt to construct a study that appears to be objective yet still arrives at their pre-determined, desired conclusion. This would not be a valid study, but is frequently used for marketing something that does not hold up favorably in a legitimate test. This is what you are doing now by suggesting that you can seed the groups to make your point appear right. Too bad it's not valid.

Your reasoning is very poor, and your argument stands on extremely loose ground. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid here... I can explain reality to you but you're just going to say "nuh uh!". There is nothing I can say, no matter how well worded or reasonable that will make you agree with me. You will simply continue arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

To steer this debate back on topic, we were talking about the makup of anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters. Anti-war protesters make up about 30%, and the pro-war protesters make up about 70%. You said that the 70% (the pro-war protesters) will not have a louder voice, more money, and more connections than the smaller group, for reasons unknown to anyone on Earth. Please provide me with some proof to support your weak argument.

Edit:

On second thought, don't. I now consider you worthless and your opinion no longer matters to me. I choose to surround myself with intelligent people and you simply do not make the cut. There are those who strongly disagree with me yet can still provide a well thought out and compelling argument. You cannot. You just argue, with no thought behind it. You're a rebel without a clue.... lots of persistence but no brains. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but your stupidity leaves no doubt in my mind where you stand in the grand scheme of things. I will continue conversing with those who matter, but as for you, you are now voiceless. There's the cream of the crop, and then there's the scum at the bottom of the pool. Welcome to my ignore list.

I never questioned the validity of any specific statistic, only your assertion that the majority of people will always have the majority of money and influence. And as you've stated multiple times already, that is not always the case, in contradiction to your first statement, where you said it 'surely' was. You are the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing, and not only with me, but with yourself. You were wrong, I called you on it, and hell, you've even admitted it. Now get over it.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Quixotic
I just hope you guys battle with valid arguments (your whole argument is only as strong as your weakest) and none of the "i don't associate with beings of lower intelligence like you" bullcrap, which I would think completely undermines your credibility/position.

I agree with much of what you said, but from experience I've found that there will always be someone who doesn't exactly have a valid point, but has 1) more time than you, 2) more energy than you, and 3) more persistence than you, and they'll fight you to the death or until you give up.

I've already learned my lesson in that regard. I know it's politically correct and socially acceptable to treat everyone as if they're your equal, but believe me, a time will come when you just have to call a 15 year old a 15 year old...

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Quixotic


Yes, in general, you cannot be sure that 70% of the population will surely be louder, etc etc etc than a group less than half its size. This is true because often sides are designated by factors such as socio-economic class, etc, especially in the United States where (don't quote me on the exact numbers but its something close to this) 15% of the population possess 85% of the wealth.

However, I think in the case of this war, the 70% might actually possess more wealth per capita than the 30% opposed to the war. Why? Because it seems the anti-war group is composed largely of college students, and you know how damn broke we are.

I will also address this point.

We are talking about the demographics of the war protesters. He contends that the money/power balance can be way off on a group basis, I contend that it won't unless you *intentionally* throw away all desire to objectively test and instead seed the numbers to throw it off.

His point wasn't that one side was louder/more wealthy/more powerful than the other, his point was that there is uncertainty in getting the results and that I could not accurately say that the 70% majority has more power than a minority group half its size (hence his reply, "What planet do you live on? That's far from a given"). In fact, the only rebuttal he ever attempted to offer was the point that I made stating that if you *intentionally* skew the results by seeding them, the results will be off. His point revolved around the uncertainty and doubt of being able to ascertain which group will have the most money/power. I contend that the results would be very consistent, and with one side having a 70% to 30% advantage, the results surely won't be off by that much to flip the balance of power.

If we were talking about a small scale group such as a group of anti-war protesters near a college, or in the inner city or pro-war protesters on a military base, you'd have much more room for error in your survey. The smaller your test group, the more margin of error you'll have. If you took 10 people and found 7 pro-war people and 3 anti-war people, there would be a huge margin of error since your group is so small. One wealthy person could throw the overall results off.

But we are talking about the *nationwide* view. This country has over 280 million people, with about 209 million over 18. With a group that large, the margin of error will be pretty damn low. We're talking about the *average* power/wealth of 209+ million people here....

It's just as when I look at the census data, I can see pretty accurate figures. If I was to randomly select 10 houses in a town and average out the age of the occupants, the margin of error will be pretty high and the result will vary from the actual nationwide average by quite a bit, depending on location, etc. But the larger your test group, the more accurate that number becomes. If you randomly chose 100 houses, the results would be more accurate than with 10 houses. If I chose 1000 houses, the consistency would increase and your average would begin getting more and more accurate and closer to the nationwide average.

So with our case here, we're talking about averaging out 209,000,000+ people. The margin of error will be extremely low. To break it down, we are talking about the average wealth/power of over 146 million pro-war citizens compared to the average wealth/power of over 62 million citizens. If you were to survey each person and ask them about their stance on the war and then get data on their income/connections, you'd get a very accurate census on the demographics involved. It wouldn't be a wildly varying number that's hard to pinoint, it would be very consistent.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You still don't get it, the two points are not mutually exclusive. Your argument is akin to here is my apple, and this is why it's better than your orange. I'm done with you, your one dimensional thinking, and your ego.

Although I will reiterate for the final time, I never called into question this statistic, only your general statetment that the majority of people always have the majority of wealth and power. And your contention is still wrong, and if your feeble mind needs a concrete example why, I give you: China, North Korea, pre-war Iraq, etc, etc.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: flavio
We need a list of pro-war entertainers to boycott.

Gotta get in on this stupidity thing I suppose.

Freedom of speech is stupid, if flavio disagrees with the subject matter.
Ok, i'm clear on that now.

Here, have an eye-roll, I made it just for you.

Freedom of Speech is great. Boycotting because of someones personal opinions is a bit silly, but hey I game.

Anyone got a list of pro-war entertainers I can boycott?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You still don't get it, the two points are not mutually exclusive. Your argument is akin to here is my apple, and this is why it's better than your orange. I'm done with you, your one dimensional thinking, and your ego.

Although I will reiterate for the final time, I never called into question this statistic, only your general statetment that the majority of people always have the majority of wealth and power. And your contention is still wrong, and if your feeble mind needs a concrete example why, I give you: China, North Korea, pre-war Iraq, etc, etc.

I already pointed out that there are ways to skew the results, but that will not occur in the real world. We are talking about 200+ million people here, you wouldn't be able to skew a number that large.

Also, I see that once I gave an in depth explanation you are now running away from it. When it was just name calling you were more than willing to argue with me. But once I clearly point out the reasoning behind this argument, suddenly you say " I'm done with you, your one dimensional thinking, and your ego.". Rrrrright. You cannot stand it when someone has a point and you don't. You'd rather resort to name calling since that's the best you can do.

Your reasoning ability is extremely poor. The examples you use to support your weak argument aren't even relevant to this conversation. We live in a democracy where majority rules. The "proof" you attempted to give- China, North Korea, Iraq... none of these are even democracies! The countries you pointed out are all either communist countries or dictatorships, where there is no democratic form of government as there is in the US. We are talking about protesters in the US.

Also, your argument solely revolves around mine "not necessarily being right". Why don't you explain your side of it? Why don't you kindly explain how the anti-war group, which has only 30% of the population behind it, can in any way have more money/power/influence than the pro-war side, with 70%? You keep saying that I'm wrong, yet you do nothing to forward your own argument, you simply try to simply shoot down mine and leave it at that, hoping it will make your argument seem stronger.

That's probably why instead of forming a strong, valid argument, you rely on Ad hominem attacks, Ad ignorantiam arguments and non-sequitur reasoning.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
You still don't get it, the two points are not mutually exclusive. Your argument is akin to here is my apple, and this is why it's better than your orange. I'm done with you, your one dimensional thinking, and your ego.

Although I will reiterate for the final time, I never called into question this statistic, only your general statetment that the majority of people always have the majority of wealth and power. And your contention is still wrong, and if your feeble mind needs a concrete example why, I give you: China, North Korea, pre-war Iraq, etc, etc.

What part of that bolded statement do you not understand? Keep insisting on having the last word, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Like I said, I'm done.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

What part of that bolded statement do you not understand? Keep insisting on having the last word, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Like I said, I'm done.

Once again, you refuse to construct any valid argument whatsoever. Your only attempt is an indirect, circumstantial reference.

It is apparent that you have no solid base to stand on. I could write an entire novel outlining my views and the evidence that supports it, but you'll just reply with an inconclusive, indirect one-liner. I guess it's the best you can do.

I contend that in the US (a democracy), the vast majority will have more money and power. China, N. Korea and Iraq are not valid examples of a DEMOCRACY. We are not talking about 50.1/49.9 split here, we are talking about a 70/30 split.

I see that your argument is degrading into a semantical argument, and you'll soon be quoting definitions because you cannot argue the point of the debate, so you must argue with the person or the definition of the words they use. This is a common tactic used by the losing side of the argument; they cannot successfully debate the point of the argument anymore so they break it down to semantics and hope to draw a stalemate.

 

[Quixotic]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

What part of that bolded statement do you not understand? Keep insisting on having the last word, you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. Like I said, I'm done.

Once again, you refuse to construct any valid argument whatsoever. Your only attempt is an indirect, circumstantial reference.

It is apparent that you have no solid base to stand on. I could write an entire novel outlining my views and the evidence that supports it, but you'll just reply with an inconclusive, indirect one-liner. I guess it's the best you can do.

I contend that in the US (a democracy), the vast majority will have more money and power. China, N. Korea and Iraq are not valid examples of a DEMOCRACY. We are not talking about 50.1/49.9 split here, we are talking about a 70/30 split.

I see that your argument is degrading into a semantical argument, and you'll soon be quoting definitions because you cannot argue the point of the debate, so you must argue with the person or the definition of the words they use.

Haha, you *could* write an entire novel on your views, but I doubt many people would buy it. (Not because they're your views, but because few people would want to read a novel like that =P)

I went back and re-read the beginning of the thread, where this debate all started, and I must confess, someone is changing the nature of the debate. I'll let you guys decide who the perpetrator is.

This is how it seems to have played out:

1. "Both sides do it. Hell, everyone does it... everyone wants to be heard. And when you tally up all the voices, the majority's going to win"

2. "Sometimes the majority doesn't win. Sometimes the loudest wins, or those with the most money, or best connections."

3. "Ok, with that said, 70% of the population will surely be louder, have more money, and have more connections that a group less than half its size."

4. "What planet do you love on? That's far from a given."

5. "this is common sense, if you just pick a group that is twice as large as another group, you'll get more of everything. Unless you intentionally skew the results by seeding the 70% group with poor people and hand picking wealthy, well connected people and placing in the 30% group, you are on average going to be in a better position with 70% on your side. Yes, you can produce false results if you desire to, but that would not be an accurate statistic by any means whatsoever."

... and after that, the argument gets fuzzy. Yes, everything before line 2 was in regards to the two sides in the debate on the current war. But, in line 2, you can see that the argument has been generalized to all situations. I'm not sure what the intended focus of line 3 was, but it sounds like another statement "in general" to me. If so, then yes it is far from a given. Line 5 raises a valid point that if you have a large random selection group then it is *likely* that the 70% will have more power/wealth than the 30%. However, it also neglects the fact that this is not a psychology experiment where you simply divide up test subjects from a large sample pool into a 70/30 ratio (even in such an experiment, there still exists a pretty significant chance that you will end up with a skewed balance WITHOUT trying to intentionally skew it, though the chance decreases as the sample pool gets larger -- laws of probability will declare the chances of an unintentionally skewed balance as unlikely, but far from impossible). If you are take two sides of any debate, you will always be able to draw the line somewhere. There is a reason why some people are in favor and some are in opposition, and *that* is what you need to take into consideration. People aren't assigned to sides randomly -- they follow sorting methods such as socio-economic status, which would very likely skew results. So again, I don't think socio-economic status played a part in the debate over this particular war but take almost any instance of political reform and you will likely find the rich on one side and the poor on the other.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Quixotic
I'm not sure what the intended focus of line 3 was, but it sounds like another statement "in general" to me. If so, then yes it is far from a given. .

I made the comment on line 3, and it was not an "in general" comment, it was pertaining to this current war. If you noticed, I specifically mentioned the 70%/30% split because the latest polls show that the public is, in *this* war, 70% for this war, and 30% against this war.


And about the makeup of the 2 groups, I'll address that point. The latest polls do in fact show that the support for this war is largely drawn on party lines. Much of the anti-war movement is comprised of low-income minorities, college students, and other young people. Much of the pro-war movement is republicans, and most wealthy citizens vote republican, since the republican platform has traditionally favored the wealthy.

Edit:

I'd also like to mention that the newer polls are showing more support. It was 70%, then 73%, and as of 8 days ago 77%.

poll

 

[Quixotic]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Quixotic
I'm not sure what the intended focus of line 3 was, but it sounds like another statement "in general" to me. If so, then yes it is far from a given. .

I made the comment on line 3, and it was not an "in general" comment, it was pertaining to this current war. If you noticed, I specifically mentioned the 70%/30% split because the latest polls show that the public is, in *this* war, 70% for this war, and 30% against this war.


And about the makeup of the 2 groups, I'll address that point. Much of the anti-war movement is comprised of low-income minorities, college students, and other young people. Much of the pro-war movement is republicans, and most wealthy citizens vote republican, since the republican platform has traditionally favored the wealthy.

Yup, and that is why I said you guys are arguing apples and oranges. You take your comment in line 3 as being directed at the war because of your 70/30 ratio. I think many people would still mistake it for a generalization. I certainly read it as being a general comment that if you take 70% of the people, they will always have more total power and money than the 30%, in which case I find that Gonad would be correct in his argument.

In regards to your comment about the makeup of the sides in the debate over the current war, I was thinking along those lines too, since the republican stance has traditionally favored corporate America. I'm not exactly low-income, but I am a minority, a college student and a young person, so I guess I qualify as a democrat? Naw, I'm also against Affirmitive Action and I get annoyed by left wing activists because too many of them protest for the sake of protesting. (If someone can tell me what I'd constitute, I'd appreciate it... and no, I already know I am a fence straddling fool =P)

 

[Marshallj]

You take your comment in line 3 as being directed at the war because of your 70/30 ratio. I think many people would still mistake it for a generalization. I certainly read it as being a general comment that if you take 70% of the people, they will always have more total power and money than the 30%, in which case I find that Gonad would be correct in his argument

Since I'm the one who made the comment in line 3, aren't I the one who gets to say what meaning it was meant to have? I made the comment and I made it about the current war.

Originally posted by: Quixotic
[ (If someone can tell me what I'd constitute, I'd appreciate it... and no, I already know I am a fence straddling fool =P)

You're probably like me, somewhere in between the two sides. But instead of being embraced by both sides, my views seem to get attacked from both sides.

 

[Quixotic]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

You take your comment in line 3 as being directed at the war because of your 70/30 ratio. I think many people would still mistake it for a generalization. I certainly read it as being a general comment that if you take 70% of the people, they will always have more total power and money than the 30%, in which case I find that Gonad would be correct in his argument

Since I'm the one who made the comment in line 3, aren't I the one who gets to say what meaning it was meant to have? I made the comment and I made it about the current war.

Originally posted by: Quixotic
[ (If someone can tell me what I'd constitute, I'd appreciate it... and no, I already know I am a fence straddling fool =P)

You're probably like me, somewhere in between the two sides. But instead of being embraced by both sides, my views seem to get attacked from both sides.

Well that depends. If it was unclear in the first place, then who is to say you did not switch meanings (not saying you did, but it could very well seem that way). I'm not sure if you said somewhere down the line, "Sorry if I wasn't being clear when I initially wrote this, but I meant it in reference to the war *only* and not as a generalization." Didn't want to wade through all the bashing

Heh, it's cool, at least we'll never be accused of being conformists -- unless its an accusation of trying to conform to all sides. Besides, what use is it to have everybody agreeing. That's why the world goes round the way it does -- free, individual thought.

 

[Marshallj]

I agree.

I still respect people if they disagree with me, but I have a hard time respecting someone who bashes me based on what I say. Things like "what planet do you live on" are not good opening lines if you want to start a useful dialog. I don't understand why someone can't just say, "I disagree".

 

[Quixotic]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I agree.

I still respect people if they disagree with me, but I have a hard time respecting someone who bashes me based on what I say. Things like "what planet do you live on" are not good opening lines if you want to start a useful dialog. I don't understand why someone can't just say, "I disagree".

I find that using smiley faces *profusely* tends to help soften the blow