Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: With respect, conservatism, often backed up by a capable ally in organised religion, has been all about control pretty much since the idea was conceived - to conserve the world as it is, you have to have control of lives to do it, after all. It's a bit much for conservatives to hark against such ideas of control now simply because they're no longer the ones doing the controlling - even if such accusations are true, which is very much up for debate and far from a fait accompli. Complete nonsense - conservatism and especially the Burkean or Disraeli sort that most traditionalists follow has brought more freedom to the population than the vast majority of other political theories. Of course there is always an element of control in order to preserve tradition, but tradition has often been the answer to questions that divided people for generations - but conservatism has enforced no more control over people than most other philopshy of rule - hence how most of the countries built on a combination of that and modern liberalism enjoy the highest standard of freedoms in the World today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy I'm sure you're familiar with this as an avid gambler in the past, Matt. "...the erroneous belief that if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past." Which is exactly what Trump is engaging in here - to say nothing of his hypocrisy regarding calling other people out about "wanting control". I don't think this means what you think it means. Gamblers fallacy is based around the unfounded belief that set results can somehow change based on what has happened before. Scientists/climate activists/researchers whatever do not follow set results, whilst their results can either be wrong or right, the odds are not 50/50, so trump basing his stance on the fact that these people have been wrong in the past so they are odds on to be wrong now isn't gamblers fallacy, it's just a VERY simple way of trying to legitimise his stance. For example, if I suggest we should sign messi, it's not gamblers fallacy to believe he'll be good for us even though technically he could be good or bad for us, because past performances suggest he'll have a higher percentage of being good. /rant over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 10 minutes ago, MattP said: Complete nonsense - conservatism and especially the Burkean or Disraeli sort that most traditionalists follow has brought more freedom to the population than the vast majority of other political theories. Of course there is always an element of control in order to preserve tradition, but tradition has often been the answer to questions that divided people for generations - but conservatism has enforced no more control over people than most other philopshy of rule - hence how most of the countries built on a combination of that and modern liberalism enjoy the highest standard of freedoms in the World today. Going to need a citation for such a highly subjective opinion, I think. Especially, and I quote on Burke's legacy: "Burke believed that property was essential to human life. Because of his conviction that people desire to be ruled and controlled, the division of property formed the basis for social structure, helping develop control within a property-based hierarchy. He viewed the social changes brought on by property as the natural order of events which should be taking place as the human race progressed." (Bolding and underlining the key sentence for emphasis.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Legacy Say what you want about the man, but I'm not entirely sure how interested he was in personal freedom at the expense of hierarchy that he believed paramount. 6 minutes ago, Innovindil said: I don't think this means what you think it means. Gamblers fallacy is based around the unfounded belief that set results can somehow change based on what has happened before. Scientists/climate activists/researchers whatever do not follow set results, whilst their results can either be wrong or right, the odds are not 50/50, so trump basing his stance on the fact that these people have been wrong in the past so they are odds on to be wrong now isn't gamblers fallacy, it's just a VERY simple way of trying to legitimise his stance. For example, if I suggest we should sign messi, it's not gamblers fallacy to believe he'll be good for us even though technically he could be good or bad for us, because past performances suggest he'll have a higher percentage of being good. /rant over. Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified. I'm well aware that scientists are not following set results, which is rather my point - Trump believes that they are, which underpins his thought about the idea that since they were wrong before, set theory states that they will be wrong again. He is viewing statistically independent events as statistically dependent instead and basing future predictions on this view, thus committing the fallacy IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 Coronavirus - the hangover after drinking shit beer the night before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 3 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified. I'm well aware that scientists are not following set results, which is rather my point - Trump believes that they are, which underpins his thought about the idea that since they were wrong before, set theory states that they will be wrong again. He is viewing statistically independent events as statistically dependent instead and basing future predictions on this view, thus committing the fallacy IMO. Eh? I still think I need more clarity, predicting that "they" will be wrong in the future because "they" were wrong in the past isn't gamblers fallacy, it's merely being a simple minded idiot. Swap it around in your head, I've seen clips of climate scientists in the 90's saying things like "this will happen by 2010" and it hasn't happened, if I used that as a climate denial point you would rightly point out that science has evolved, technology has evolved etc etc and say it's more likely they will be correct today, is that a gamblers fallacy? Course not. I'm not saying your wrong about old trumpet, just the terminology is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 6 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Eh? I still think I need more clarity, predicting that "they" will be wrong in the future because "they" were wrong in the past isn't gamblers fallacy, it's merely being a simple minded idiot. Swap it around in your head, I've seen clips of climate scientists in the 90's saying things like "this will happen by 2010" and it hasn't happened, if I used that as a climate denial point you would rightly point out that science has evolved, technology has evolved etc etc and say it's more likely they will be correct today, is that a gamblers fallacy? Course not. I'm not saying your wrong about old trumpet, just the terminology is wrong. It's treating statistically independent events as statistically dependent ones, so I think I'm on the money - but you might be right and there may well be a different term for it. TBH I came in on this one solely because Matt was somehow taking Trumps disparaging view of the scientific community as incompetent or corrupt as gospel (not just Miss Thunberg or XR, or various other alarmists - it's reasonably clear that Trump doesn't differentiate). For all that might be said about Boris, at least he does treat the scientists involved in climate research with respect and is looking to formulate policy based on their ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 You really can’t argue with the fact that there are always alarmists wanting something to jump on, and they are likely to exaggerate things and ignore the possibility of mitigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said: You really can’t argue with the fact that there are always alarmists wanting something to jump on, and they are likely to exaggerate things and ignore the possibility of mitigation. That's certainly true. However, that such alarmists exaggerate any one particular event has absolutely zero to do with the significance of any events that follow - and as such, you can't use past events where they are wrong to "prove" that they are wrong about future ones. That's not only fallacious, but it could well also be fatally fallacious; I'm sure that the village who disbelieved the Boy Who Cried Wolf felt really good about their sense of judgement as they were starving to death after the wolf ate their flock because they were wrong once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 1 hour ago, Nalis said: Coronavirus - the hangover after drinking shit beer the night before Moving away from the other topic for a moment, this particular matter is becoming a real cause for concern. Sooner more is known about the infection period and transmission methods, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 A bit different to cedar wood and grapefruit I suppose http://news.sky.com/story/gwyneth-paltrow-says-goop-vagina-candle-is-punk-rock-11915836 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 28 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Moving away from the other topic for a moment, this particular matter is becoming a real cause for concern. Sooner more is known about the infection period and transmission methods, the better. Yeah joking aside it will be interesting to see what the findings are in this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604 Case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: That's certainly true. However, that such alarmists exaggerate any one particular event has absolutely zero to do with the significance of any events that follow - and as such, you can't use past events where they are wrong to "prove" that they are wrong about future ones. That's not only fallacious, but it could well also be fatally fallacious; I'm sure that the village who disbelieved the Boy Who Cried Wolf felt really good about their sense of judgement as they were starving to death after the wolf ate their flock because they were wrong once. So you assume the villagers are incapable of using their intelligence to find alternative sources of food? Typical alarmist behaviour!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said: A bit different to cedar wood and grapefruit I suppose http://news.sky.com/story/gwyneth-paltrow-says-goop-vagina-candle-is-punk-rock-11915836 "inspiring numerous column pieces" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 7 hours ago, MattP said: Very rare, but sometimes Trump absolutely nails a subject and the intentions of those behind it. Reminds me of the old joke about the guy who falls off a roof and as he passes the 5th floor window is heard to say “so far so good” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 3 hours ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604 Case in point. It’s a shame that more traditional “conservatism” which I believe valued the environment has been replaced by a modern right wing that simply views it as fair game for the worst excesses of big capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: It’s a shame that more traditional “conservatism” which I believe valued the environment has been replaced by a modern right wing that simply views it as fair game for the worst excesses of big capital. But it hasn't. Britain has among the most optimistic carbon targets in the World. Ones that many think are too optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 1 minute ago, MattP said: But it hasn't. Britain has among the most optimistic carbon targets in the World. Ones that many think are too optimistic. In this case I was quoting an article referring to Trump. It is certainly true that the UK is acting much more responsibly than the US or indeed Australia. We have yet to see if Johnson will pursue a similar path to his predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: In this case I was quoting an article referring to Trump. It is certainly true that the UK is acting much more responsibly than the US or indeed Australia. We have yet to see if Johnson will pursue a similar path to his predecessors. Trump isnt really a "comservative" though is it? His policy is a real mixture of absolutely everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathrow fox Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 4 hours ago, leicsmac said: Moving away from the other topic for a moment, this particular matter is becoming a real cause for concern. Sooner more is known about the infection period and transmission methods, the better. I’m unusually quite anxious about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 Just now, Heathrow fox said: I’m unusually quite anxious about this. Get out of Heathrow sharpish.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 18 minutes ago, MattP said: Trump isnt really a "comservative" though is it? His policy is a real mixture of absolutely everything. Isn’t that what I said though? Traditional conservatism has been replaced by a modern right wing. Sorry mate, you guys own him. You aligned yourself with him most recently just a few posts ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 18 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: Isn’t that what I said though? Traditional conservatism has been replaced by a modern right wing. Sorry mate, you guys own him. You aligned yourself with him most recently just a few posts ago. As I said, wouldn't vote for him last time out, might do this time were I American. I'd rather own him than Warren or Sanders though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 23 January 2020 Share Posted 23 January 2020 2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said: Isn’t that what I said though? Traditional conservatism has been replaced by a modern right wing. Sorry mate, you guys own him. You aligned yourself with him most recently just a few posts ago. Oh fine if we must have him, he can play in goal though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 24 January 2020 Share Posted 24 January 2020 (edited) The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Thursday (Friday AEDT) announced it was moving its famous Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than at any point in its 73-year history because of the growing risk of climate change, nuclear war and disinformation. https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/australia-singled-out-for-climate-denial-at-doomsday-clock-event-20200124-p53uac.html Stop making stuff up scaredy cats Edited 24 January 2020 by ozleicester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts