I call that the "if-current-trends-continue" fallacy. The thing is, they never do. If current trends continue, my teenage son will be 60 feet tall in another ten years.
when one candidate wins the popular vote and another the electoral vote, you have a problem.
I don't have a problem. People who don't understand how (and why) the system works have a problem. Let's look at an example...
In California, Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by 3 million, 1 million, or 10 million. It was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would win California and its 55 electoral votes, so neither candidate spent much time there. And I suspect many California Republicans did not vote, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter anyway. But if the election were to be based on the popular vote, the campaign would have been completely different -- the candidates would have concentrated their efforts on the most populous states (like California) and ignored the smaller states. Voter turnout would have been different and the results would have been different.
This is not a bug, it is a feature. It was designed this way so that smaller states would not, in effect, be shut out of the presidential election. For example, the population of California is about 65 times the population of Wyoming, but only has about 18 times the electoral votes. Without this protection, smaller states would have been reluctant to join the Union in the first place.
You might argue that the system should be changed. But when the system, as it is, is based on the electoral vote, candidates run their campaigns to win the electoral vote and the winner of the electoral vote becomes president. The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. If the winner was based on the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election -- and Trump may have won anyway.
...someone winning the popular vote by millions of votes but still losing the election.
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.
Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million people...
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.
None of my contractors give a shit if my company succeeds beyond their next invoice.
Why would you expect more than that from someone you have specifically acquired as a disposable asset? Do you care if your contractors succeed beyond the completion of their current project with you?
Loyalty is a two-way street. The best you can expect from a contractor is a professional work ethic and X hours of work for X hours of pay. If you want someone who cares about your company's future, then demonstrate by your actions that you care about their future.
But if we return to the original argument, PvtVoid denied that even one person "has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".
My counterargument was that a Google search does in fact show a large number of reports of people calling for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers. I don't think the fact that one of these many links leads to Breitbart -- which you regard as an unreliable source -- negates my argument.
The article claims that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the following statement during a Senate Judiciary Hearing:
The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme.
First, you might argue that the esteemed Senator did not actually speak these words. I confess that I do not have time to examine the Congressional Record to see if these words were really spoken. But I do trust Breitbart enough to believe they did not just make this up. Feel free to dispute this if you wish.
Second, you might argue that this statement is not really calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". The way I read it, the Senator equates "the climate denial apparatus" of the fossil fuel industry with tobacco industry fraud. He then states that the Department of Justice won a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against the tobacco industry. He then complains, with obvious dissatisfaction, that "the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."
I don't know how you parse this, but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
It's not only the cable companies. Hotels charge hidden "resort fees". And UPS (and probably airlines, too) charge a "fuel surcharge" while fuel prices are near multi-year lows.
I have noticed that reading comprehension is not a strong point with this crowd. Slashdot is for people who like to think they are smart. For people who are really smart, you have to go to... er... um... I'm not sure where.
I was attempting to state a point concisely rather than offer an exhaustive analysis. But in general, for most US citizens who have become unemployed, a move to India would require an order of magnitude more effort, expense, and inconvenience than moving to another state. I may be going out on a limb here, but my perception is that most people would not see it as a reasonable alternative.
Every generation says this. "Our parents really messed things up, but we're better than them and we will make the world a wonderful place." Wait a few years and see how that works out. Your children will be saying the same thing.
Wired senior editor Caitlin Roper gushes, "The results are faster, more accurate, and far cheaper than conventional methods. The implications are mind-blowing. With inexpensive and easy access to the information running through their veins, people will have an unprecedented window on their own health." Roper goes on to "interview" Holmes, basically just prompting her for her sales pitch.
stop the incessant nagging text messages about "your bill is due"
The actual message I get is "If you haven't already, please refill your plan to ensure continued service." They own the phone company; they own the billing system. Don't they know if my plan has been refilled or not? These messages would be somewhat useful if they were only sent when I had forgotten to make a payment. But as it is, they are a worthless annoyance.
I agree. The misuse of the phrase "begs the question" is probably a result of it being not very good in the first place. Even though I know what it means -- and cringe when I see it being used incorrectly -- I admit it does not inherently make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I call that the "if-current-trends-continue" fallacy. The thing is, they never do. If current trends continue, my teenage son will be 60 feet tall in another ten years.
I don't have a problem. People who don't understand how (and why) the system works have a problem. Let's look at an example...
In California, Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by 3 million, 1 million, or 10 million. It was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would win California and its 55 electoral votes, so neither candidate spent much time there. And I suspect many California Republicans did not vote, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter anyway. But if the election were to be based on the popular vote, the campaign would have been completely different -- the candidates would have concentrated their efforts on the most populous states (like California) and ignored the smaller states. Voter turnout would have been different and the results would have been different.
This is not a bug, it is a feature. It was designed this way so that smaller states would not, in effect, be shut out of the presidential election. For example, the population of California is about 65 times the population of Wyoming, but only has about 18 times the electoral votes. Without this protection, smaller states would have been reluctant to join the Union in the first place.
You might argue that the system should be changed. But when the system, as it is, is based on the electoral vote, candidates run their campaigns to win the electoral vote and the winner of the electoral vote becomes president. The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. If the winner was based on the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election -- and Trump may have won anyway.
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for 200+ years. Both candidates knew this and based their campaign strategy on it. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
They are different games. You can't say, "We lost the football game, but we would have won if it was rugby." Well, you could, but people would just laugh at you.
That's pretty much how https://www.quora.com/ works.
Would you like some help packing your suitcases? Printing out some Google maps? I'll even loan you gas money. Bon voyage!
Why would you expect more than that from someone you have specifically acquired as a disposable asset? Do you care if your contractors succeed beyond the completion of their current project with you?
Loyalty is a two-way street. The best you can expect from a contractor is a professional work ethic and X hours of work for X hours of pay. If you want someone who cares about your company's future, then demonstrate by your actions that you care about their future.
But if we return to the original argument, PvtVoid denied that even one person "has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".
My counterargument was that a Google search does in fact show a large number of reports of people calling for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers. I don't think the fact that one of these many links leads to Breitbart -- which you regard as an unreliable source -- negates my argument.
In fact, let's throw caution to the wind and click on that odious Breitbart link right now: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
The article claims that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the following statement during a Senate Judiciary Hearing:
First, you might argue that the esteemed Senator did not actually speak these words. I confess that I do not have time to examine the Congressional Record to see if these words were really spoken. But I do trust Breitbart enough to believe they did not just make this up. Feel free to dispute this if you wish.
Second, you might argue that this statement is not really calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". The way I read it, the Senator equates "the climate denial apparatus" of the fossil fuel industry with tobacco industry fraud. He then states that the Department of Justice won a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against the tobacco industry. He then complains, with obvious dissatisfaction, that "the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."
I don't know how you parse this, but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
Your logical fallacy is: Genetic
"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
Oh, ok... here is one to get you started: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
I am confused. That was a lovely string of ad-homs there. But what, precisely, do you disagree with, and what is your supporting evidence?
It's not only the cable companies. Hotels charge hidden "resort fees". And UPS (and probably airlines, too) charge a "fuel surcharge" while fuel prices are near multi-year lows.
Words the internet does not know how to spell #7: tenant != tenet
I have noticed that reading comprehension is not a strong point with this crowd. Slashdot is for people who like to think they are smart. For people who are really smart, you have to go to... er... um... I'm not sure where.
I was attempting to state a point concisely rather than offer an exhaustive analysis. But in general, for most US citizens who have become unemployed, a move to India would require an order of magnitude more effort, expense, and inconvenience than moving to another state. I may be going out on a limb here, but my perception is that most people would not see it as a reasonable alternative.
Moving to another state for employment is feasible. Moving to India is not.
Please allow me the honor of Googling that for you. http://www.malvernejc.org/rabb...
Wait a few years. Your children will be saying the same thing.
Every generation says this. "Our parents really messed things up, but we're better than them and we will make the world a wonderful place." Wait a few years and see how that works out. Your children will be saying the same thing.
For some hilarious reviews about milk sold on Amazon, see https://www.amazon.com/Tuscan-...
An atheist is his own deity.
I'm so old, I remember when you had to be intelligent to even connect to the internet.
I just found this puff piece on Theranos and CEO Elizabeth Holmes in Wired magazine from a couple of years ago: This Woman Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood
Wired senior editor Caitlin Roper gushes, "The results are faster, more accurate, and far cheaper than conventional methods. The implications are mind-blowing. With inexpensive and easy access to the information running through their veins, people will have an unprecedented window on their own health." Roper goes on to "interview" Holmes, basically just prompting her for her sales pitch.
The actual message I get is "If you haven't already, please refill your plan to ensure continued service." They own the phone company; they own the billing system. Don't they know if my plan has been refilled or not? These messages would be somewhat useful if they were only sent when I had forgotten to make a payment. But as it is, they are a worthless annoyance.
I agree. The misuse of the phrase "begs the question" is probably a result of it being not very good in the first place. Even though I know what it means -- and cringe when I see it being used incorrectly -- I admit it does not inherently make sense.