Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
> Kelivut wrote:
> a lot of people confuse Communism with communism
I have never ever ever ever EVER seen it expressed that way! (And probably with good reason... not that you're wrong... but damn! The grammatical difference of whether to capitalize it? Seriously?)
Actually, Justinian, that doesn't answer his question.
Xeno's question was this:
Group all the people that make between $9 and $11 per day. How many of them are living in poverty?
That statistic only determines the poverty rate based on different poverty levels ($1.00, $2.00, $10.00). That includes people above and below the $9-$11 mark.
That whole 67% desertion rate didn't help the Iraqi army either....
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> OMG
You actually think that I don't know all of that, don't you? You think that because I'm not playing by your rules that I don't know how to play by your rules. It's simply inconceivable to you that I wouldn't want to play by your rules, isn't it?
Look... the rules of a debate are created for the sake of facilitating a debate, so that we can actually reach the correct conclusion. You want to reach the correct conclusion. So do we.
You provide absolutely no reason why it's good to not cite references. You just refuse to cite references for reasons unknown. It can only be assumed that either you can't, or won't, cite your references for that particular argument.
If you can't, your argument is unsubstantiated because we can't check it, and therefore invalid.
If you won't, it means you are conducting unethical practices in debate, and your very own credibility here is in question.
Either way, you lose.
"YES HE DOES. His entire argument is based on conclusions obtained by government-obtained census data. It doesn't matter if the sources he uses are wikipedia, encyclopedias, aid-organizations, or neo-malthusian propagada websites, because if those sources use data obtained by the same government sponsored census data, it is still, ultimately, a government source."
I'll defer to Lizon on this.
"Alright, so if governments refuse to release their sources and methodology explanations, we can change governments with plagiarism, then?"
Assuming what you say is true, yes.
"I've given sources which do just that - their whole point is to scrutinize methodologies involved with obtaining poverty indicators, and you and Lizon have yet to respond to that.
For the last !#@%-ing time, READ THIS:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPA/Resources/deaton_kozel_2004.pdf"
You're missing the point. The above statement is not saying that you haven't been scrutinizing methodologies. You have. I know you have. You know you have. I am making the following argument, which I will make very clear for you...
Scrutinizing sources is a good thing. The link which you refer to above... that's awesome. It shows a level of debate that's higher than simply appealing to authority.
Now, why do we scrutinize sources? So that we can figure out which sources are facts and which are crap.
Picture this:
Lizon posts a study that says poverty in Mumbai is at a huge low based on the author's investigation of people living in the region. Yet there was no author listed. You couldn't say that it was crap developed by the government, because nobody from any government signed their name to the document. However, the document could have easily been government produced. Or it could just as easily have been from a legitimate person who actually did conduct a legitimate study. You don't know.
Since you wouldn't know, you couldn't scrutinize it. That doesn't mean the information is accurate. It's only because the person providing the information isn't fully disclosing enough to allow scrutiny. In short, they're trying to stack the deck in a discussion.
Everyone in this discussion agrees that it's a good thing to have sources fully disclosed. The fact that you have used Lizon's disclosure against him by attacking his sources (which is perfectly fine) means you understand the value of disclosing sources.
Yes, xeno. When you make an absolute statement, it means there are no exceptions.
"Americans are assholes" means that every individual American is an asshole.
"Chinese people eat rice" would mean that every Chinese person eats rice (though unlike your characterization, it wouldn't take a stand on whether someone eats something other than rice, since you can eat rice and eat other things).
"If you smoke, you'll get cancer" means that every person who smokes will get cancer.
Yes, it is ridiculous. That's why the old adage exists that statements which say "always," "never," or otherwise present absolutes are usually wrong.
But I'll drop the grammar debate, for the sake of preventing what you call "trolling" again.
"Here's another one: "If you smoke, you'll get cancer." The problem is uneducated, uncritical people (like you and Lizon, Zarf) take such statements to mean absolutes. They can't think statistically - that such statements ACTUALLY mean that such and such percentage of people who smoke such and such amount of cigarettes per day on average tend to have such and such chance of getting cancer, or that such and such percentage of Chinese people eat rice such number of times a week on average."
"Zarf, it is due to your inherently flawed sense of logic that you read such absolute meanings in generalized statements. I suppose I take it for granted that when I make such generalizations, it is understood that the other person has at least some understanding of logic, statistics and sociological theory. Tell you what, Zarf, skip grammarschool and take some sociology and philosophy courses, then come back and discuss with me."
1: Wow... so I offer an olive branch, and you slap my hand away with the personal attacks. Good going, xeno!
2: I haven't even gotten into the meat and potatoes of the issue you are debating with Lizon. Look in my posts. I haven't even taken a stance on the majority of the political substance within the debate. I'm only acting, at most, as a fact check on a couple issues.
3: Try using proper grammar. I could take a shit on the English language and assume everyone knew what I was talking about, but it doesn't work for this exact reason: some people actually read what you write, and assume that's your advocacy.
4: Actually, you were the one who started the grammar debate.
"I don't refer to a group of people. Do you speak English? Can you read, Zarf? I refer to academics. Plural. As in a number of academics. Maybe I refer to some of them or only few of them or a lot of them. Who knows how many academics I think are too lazy and scared to leave their ivory towers and get a little dirty. I didn't give my opinion on that. And yet, you think you know what my opinion is on how many academics are like that. You automatically assume I meant ALL of them? Go back to grammar school, Zarf."
Xeno trolled his own thread, by his own admission!
5: Another old adage: When two contradictory theories are equally plausible to explain something, all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is probably the correct one.
So if I say "if you smoke, you'll get cancer..."
Under my theory, the statement would be wrong because I can think of one example of someone who wouldn't get cancer even though they smoke (someone killed in a car accident while smoking).
Under your theory, the listener would need to go do research on the effects of cigarettes, find the proper number of people who smoke and do get cancer, and plug that number in as the meaning of your statement. By that time, the final interpretation of the sentence in no way reflects the words used. Under this interpretation, human error is impossible, and the problem is the words themselves, rather than the choice of words.
Which is simpler? Hmmmm?
"Show me ONE governmental source that Lizon has cited that does that. Why don't you hold governmental sources up to the same standards? Hell, they don't even put their names to their studies. They don't give bios on the researchers. They don't explain their methodologies. And, when people request such info from them, they hide behind a shroud of secrecy, claiming it is in the interest of national security not to release such information to the public. However, I am sure that if you asked ANY professor to explain their research methodology and cite their sources, they'd in most cases would be happy to comply, if you asked nicely, that is."
1: You're doing the job of holding government sources to those standards.
2: Lizon doesn't rely entirely on government sources.
3: It is standard practice in the scientific community to cite their sources anyway. In fact, it's plagiarism if they don't do so. At the point where it's standard practice to divulge sources for public scrutiny, you shouldn't have to ask nicely in the first place.
4: If government sources don't cite their methodology for public scrutiny, yet private individuals do cite their methodology for public scrutiny, guess who the scientific community will usually give more weight to. The private individuals, actually. The reason? Because that person can be checked.
This very debate between you and Lizon proves the importance of scrutinizing methodologies. You have yet to answer this.
Reported myself, and a mod reviewed the case.
Not trolling, but I was picking on you a little bit. (Bad, but not punishable)
So:
A: You accusing me of trolling is, and has been, a lie. I suggest you stop it, as it is now slanderous, equivalent to me accusing you of a crime you were found innocent of.
B: As for "picking on you," fine. I'm limiting my posts to our discussion only. No more backhanded insults. I suggest you do the same, xeno.
Oh, and the mod said Lizon and I are perfectly on topic (except for that little bit at the end of page 6, which I wasn't a part of).
Now, you're perfectly justified in going to another mod and asking about it again, to your liking. But we've already got a ruling (from a full moderator), and that's the one that should stick due to simple recency issues. Since this is the only place where I'm posting, really, I'll assume that if I get a ban, it's because you found a mod who ruled differently. (That would be my first ban ever) 
As you said, courtrooms do use the appeal to authority quite often. But, if you have ever been in a courtroom (I have), you would know that the expert witnesses aren't given full discretion. They'll ask what the expert did to obtain their information. They'll ask about specific procedures. If you were a defense attorney and some doctor was accusing your client of causing $2,000,000 in damage to their client, wouldn't you do the exact same thing?
"Lizon does it all the time, appealing to studies which use data collected by government researchers, researchers who have been proven to manipulate their conclusions to suit their political agendas."
Guess what, xeno: I couldn't give a shit what Lizon is doing. Want to know why? You've misinterpreted my objective. I'm not defending Lizon.
Look, Lizon has provided reference material which you can, and just did, look over and attack at their root source. You haven't. Whether or not Lizon's evidence is bullshit isn't my concern, because frankly, I'm just a spectator watching this debate. Lizon has done the basic work in trying to find evidence, even if every piece of evidence he has is a lie (which you're perfectly justified in taking up with him). All I want is to be able to watch this debate evolve fairly (in other words, with you actually citing your source material).
The very fact that you have scrutinized his evidence at the root source proves the value of citing sources that in themselves provide sources.
"Yup. And governments do that a lot, releasing conclusions without sources or explanations on the methods used to come to those conclusions. Why is it wrong for academics to do it and not governments?"
Justifying your actions by saying other people do it doesn't make it justified. All that means is:
Yes, when the government releases documents that don't have expert citations, it's bad. And the same goes for private individuals, including you and your source.
"So what? Yes, generally, they are lazy and scared to get dirty and live in ivory towers. But not this Rebekah Lewis, which is why I consider her a LEADING authority on the issue."
Now we get back to the basic question: Why? How do you know what Rebekah Lewis did to obtain that information? Go back to the document, and provide a quote about how the information was obtained. If you can't, then you can't say that Rebekah Lewis didn't sit in her ass in a 5 star hotel because you actually don't know what the person did.
"I don't refer to a group of people. Do you speak English? Can you read, Zarf? I refer to academics. Plural. As in a number of academics. Maybe I refer to some of them or only a few of them or a lot of them. Who knows how many academics I think are too lazy and scared to leave their ivory towers and get a little dirty. I didn't give my opinion on that. And yet, you think you know what my opinion is on how many academics are like that. You automatically assume I meant ALL of them? Go back to grammar school, Zarf."
Look, there was no modifier on the number. You didn't say "most," "some," "a dozen," or use any modifier word on the number. If someone says "Americans are assholes," grammatically speaking, they are referring to all individuals that fit the qualification of being an American.
Your opinion may be different, but it's not what you said. I can only judge your opinion based on the things you say, regardless of whether the things you say are different than the views you actually hold.
"I'm bored with you trolls, too. Start stating some solutions to what is clearly a growing problem: Solutions to socio-political-economic strife, which is the topic, or find another thread."
Hey, xeno. I'm going to issue a challenge. I'm going to report myself to the mods for you. 
I Call Conspiracy!
You mean dead horse.
Look! The topic has been shot to hell!
But I'm boring and lazy and preoccupied with real life.
> Justinian I wrote:
> I have a solution for all of humanity's problems.
Make Zarf dictator of the world.
Sigged!
And if the game ever comes back, it will be Necroverse.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> She is a leading authority on health issues and poverty in the developing world. She's put her name to the document, and so it is good enough for me.
On the otherhand, if the government puts its name to some study, it ISN'T good enough for me. And for the reason that governments tend to fudge the data. They are typically NOT trustworthy authorities on the issue of health and poverty in their countries.
Philosophy 101: Logical fallacies
This is a blatant issue of appeal to authorities. "X said Y, therefore Y is true." You're not allowing any analysis of the facts themselves. Let's compare the debates:
Lizon has provided multiple sources all over the place, all of which have cited their primary sources. That means you can go back to the core bases upon which his arguments lie, and challenge those. Hell, Lizon has even personally started setting up an accounting sheet for people living in Mumbai. Those are raw numbers that you can review and correct for errors. Every single part of Lizon's argument can be scrutinized.
You, in contrast, provide an author who says "this is true." Your stance is that since that author said it's true, it's true. There's no oversight. No analysis. Nothing.
Let's analyze the logic further:
A: What happens when two competing professors with similar credentials disagree on an issue? If we're not allowed to analyze the substance behind their stances... we're at a standstill. :O
B: Do you know this person? I hate to break it to you, but private individuals can screw up studies too!
An example: There's a scientist whom I've read multiple articles from, who argues that global warming is good for the world. He argued that it helped improve crop production and vegetation growth by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sounds legitimate enough, right?
Oh, wait, did I mention his studies are funded by the oil lobby?
C: Does the following quote look familiar:
Even our academics are too #@%-ing lazy (or scared) to get off their fat asses and get out there to the small cities / settlements (even those settlements of 20,000 people are URBAN) and collect the data. They'll only bother going to the big cities of developing countries, and only if there are 5 star hotels to stay at, and probably delegate everything from their hotel rooms, never setting foot out of the lobby, most likely.
Page 4. Your words. And note the group of people you refer to. Academics. Hmm... sounds a good deal like that author you just quoted, doesn't it?
Unless you can verify the root source of the author's claims (by providing secondary or primary source citations), one of two things can be derived:
1: Either you still stand by the above statement, and your source can be thrown out as one of these people sitting on their fat asses in a five star hotel, which would mean we have to fall back on our own analyses of the issues at hand (Lizon's balance sheet), or:
2: You have some exception that allows your source to still be credible despite your general accusation... which is called a double standard.
Okay, I'm bored with this.
Well, if the purpose of political debate is to find solutions to issues, rather than to prove someone is an idiot... perhaps the change in definitions is an effort to find the best definition of a key word in the context of this discussion.
Just a possible suggestion...
English 101:
There's a difference between primary and secondary sources.
Primary source: Those are the people that actually develop facts. For example, a psychologist who performed an experiment would be the primary source in explaining that particular experiment, and the results of said experiment. In this case, the primary sources would be those people who actually went to Mumbai and obtained facts regarding poverty levels.
Secondary source: These are sources who are citing other sources. In these cases, a distinction must be made in who contributed to the information provided. In most cases, the secondary source is simply referencing the works of other people. Thus, the person actually writing the article in question may not have any contribution to the material. In cases like this, the credentials of the secondary source have little to do with the validity of the information in question, since that person didn't actually generate the information.
Lizon is asking a very simple question. Is Rebekah Lewis a primary or secondary source? If she is a secondary source, where did the information originate? If she is a primary source, how did she develop the information?
> Lizon wrote:
> The sad thing is, the really sad thing. I know how to beat my own argument to force it into a constructive dialogue. It's so simple to do really. But I have no reason to open up a conversation if people can't figure out what the right questions to ask are. Think of it as a test, to see if they are able to understand the problem correctly before beginning to work on the answer.
OMG! You do that too? I love making posts meant primarily to test the other person!
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Xeno's A: Well aren't you a prick. (I sure hope no one with that way of thinking EVER becomes part of the squo, and I sure hope none of the squo have that sort of thinking.) I disagree. The vast majority of humans are pretty much as capable in their own individual ways as any other. Such is the nature of human intelligence.
Um... xeno.
Squo=status quo=the way things work today.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> "Q: How do we fix socio-political-economic strife in the world?
Lizon's A: Don't change the squo, and it'll get fixed."
Xeno's A: Who said anything about changing the squo?
Um...
If your thread is about fixing something, it is always a change in the status quo. That's the very definition of change.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Now, Zarf, Lizon, and the rest of you trolls, we can go on and on about whether or not there is a problem that requires solving, or we can admit there is SOCIO-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC STRIFE problems in our world REQUIRING solutions, and then, if ONLY this could @#%-ing happen, this thread could FINNALLY begin to be on-topic.
Lizon's argument is extremely on-topic. He is saying that there is no change necessary, because the status quo is currently fixing the problem. Whether his argument is right or wrong is up for debate, obviously. However, don't accuse it of being off topic, because it's far from that. He's answering your question quite directly.
Q: How do we fix socio-political-economic strife in the world?
Lizon's A: Don't change the squo, and it'll get fixed.
That's an answer.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Why do I have to post so much just to convince people that there is a problem?
Okay, I was going to make a semi-sarcastic thread to highlight the point... but I decided it would probably be better to just explain it.
If Lizon can win that there is no problem in the first place... then there doesn't need to be a solution. It's the equivalent of if I were to ask for massive government funding so I could develop a cure to a zombification virus. Oh, what? A zombification virus doesn't exist? Why should I have to prove it exists? The more important issue is how to stop it!
Lizon is just asking you to establish this first step before we get into the issue of solutions. Otherwise, you're basically trying to cure a zombie virus.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> Why do I have to post so much just to convince people that there is a problem?
Everyone: Take note of this.
I found this quote cute.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> And, we will have to tackle inflation soon.
Perhaps $10 / day is barely enough now, but what about 5 years from now? How countries calculate inflation is an issue; how countries calculate poverty lines is another issue.
That's not how inflation works, xeno. As the value of money decreases, the price of goods purchased with that money increases. That's a two-way streak. It means those people making $10.00 a day today, doing the same activity year after year, would see an increase in their pay, relative to inflation. I'm not saying it results in a net increase in wealth by any means. But the increase in expenses and the increase in income due to inflation balance one another out.
Clear example of you just not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
This thread has been like two hours of my life that I want back... X(
http://xkcd.com/261/
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.