Apathy and its consequences...

[PT]

Ok, I'll take it slow.

50 percent of the people in the US are against the war.
50 percent of the people in the US did not vote in the last election.

By the law of statistics, 50 percent of the people that are against the war did not vote in the last election.

Simple facts, where is the conjecture?

 

[unclehobart]

I saw it as a George Carlin-esque commentary of 'everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything to change it.'

 

[Gato_Solo]

Pull your own head out and start using a little deductive reasoning. First of all, you CAN'T assume that many people who are against the war now didn't vote for Bush. Invading Iraq was not one of his campaign platforms.

If you have some proof to the contrary then by all means lay it out. Actually if you can manage to back up a single thing you said with any evidence then go right ahead.

All I see is conjecture and unwarranted leaps in logic.

And I can see that you still didn't read my posts, flavio. It's easy to choose one sentence and try to pick a post apart, but you haven't done anything but give me doubts about your comprehension skills. As for your inept remark about a campaign based on war, that was just ignorant. Nobody wants war, so nobody would use that as a campaign promise. Since you have a tough time dealing with my approach, I'll ask you one specific question...

Who sets foreign policy for the US?

 

[unclehobart]

There is also a large slush area covered by those too young to vote, but still availed of an opinion as a citizen.

 

[PT]

But even the too young to vote should fall under the same law of statistics.

 

[flavio]

Ok, I'll take it slow.

50 percent of the people in the US are against the war.
50 percent of the people in the US did not vote in the last election.

By the law of statistics, 50 percent of the people that are against the war did not vote in the last election.

Simple facts, where is the conjecture?

Well, if you I tell you this much...if you look into the way logical statements work you will find that your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow given those two facts.

Therefore it is conjecture.

 

[PT]

Apparently you must have taken a different stats class than I did in college then, eh? Sure, there is room for error, but when you're talking about 100 million people, that error level is reduced to an insignificant amount.

 

[Gato_Solo]

And you still haven't answered my question. Perhaps it's too difficult for you. I'll try another.

Did you vote?

 

[unclehobart]

But statistics are always expressed in terms of 100% regardless of how small the sample base used. All of these polls we see are based upon hundreds to thousands of people. The voting populace is typically 50,000,000. Who knows what credentials these people on the street have? I'm pretty sure that its a decent cross section of the adult population, cartainly not the population as a whole. After all, 20% of the population is under the age of 10 ... but I dare say the pollsters weren't swarming the kindergardens for the all important crib demographic.

 

[Gato_Solo]

For the intent of this thread, we deal only with the populace with full voting capability. That's a number that we know to be accurate.

 

[flavio]

Apparently you must have taken a different stats class than I did in college then, eh? Sure, there is room for error, but when you're talking about 100 million people, that error level is reduced to an insignificant amount.

50 percent of the soda is Pepsi.
50 percent of the soda belongs to John.
By the law of statistics, 50 percent of the Pepsi belongs to John.

Is that last sentence necessarily true? What if John hates Pepsi?

Did you vote?

Yes, I voted.

 

[PT]

Good point Unc, there is no numbers that I have seen as to how many people were polled in each of the polls. We do know for certainty that less than 50 % of the people voted however. That is not statistics but real numbers.

We can only assume that the pollsters are reaching a sufficent number of people to infer their results with some confidence, but seeing as the polls do not vary a great deal depending on who is doing them or in the dates the polls were done, we can have confidence that they are getting a good sample of the population as a whole.

 

[Squiggy]

Enough already...I misinterperated it too. But Gato has explained that he was refering to those who didn't vote. Not ALL of those in opposition. Thats good enough for me. I don't see why there is an argument once the author has clarified the statement.

 

[flavio]

If this whole post could be simplified to "More people should vote" then I agree 100%.

Rock the Vote

 

[PT]

50 percent of the soda is Pepsi.
50 percent of the soda belongs to John.
By the law of statistics, 50 percent of the Pepsi belongs to John.

Is that last sentence necessarily true? What if John hates Pepsi?

What if John loves Pepsi? We aren't talking about one person here that they polled, Flav. That comparison is ridiculous.

 

[PT]

I don't see why there is an argument once the author has clarified the statement.

Because I feel like arguing?

 

[PT]

If this whole post could be simplified to "More people should vote" then I agree 100%.

Rock the Vote

I think you got part of it. That, and for those that didn't on either side to shut the fuck up.

edit : clarifying a little.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Well i didn't vote but i'll never shut up.
I would have if i could have.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Then by all means, protest if you like. You have the right, as does everyone else. Trouble is...not everyone voted. Those who didn't had their chance to make foreign policy by choosing a candidate who would better fulfill their needs (perhaps a light is coming on in your attic about now), and, though they have the constitutional right to protest or not, they have no moral right to do so.

As for your statistical analysis of pepsi, your analysis is flawed and you know it. Mine isn't, and I'm sure you know that as well. You're arguing just to argue, and that is wearing a little thin. That's why I told you to pull your head out, and read my entire post, not just the parts you feel inflamed about. I still stand by my example, and my 'statistics'.
You can claim that it's conjecture, but, deep down, you know where the system is failing. There were some choices to be made, and those who didn't make a choice have no moral right to complain about anything that doesn't go their way. Just remember...not making a choice is accepting the choice of others. That is what the meat of this is about. Not your take on statistics.

 

[flavio]

What if John loves Pepsi? We aren't talking about one person here that they polled, Flav. That comparison is ridiculous.

It simply used the exact same reasoning to illustrate the flaw in logical progression.

I think you got part of it. That, and for those that didn't to shut the fuck up.

So all the anti-war and pro-war people who did vote can continue as they have been. Guess that just leaves out Jeslik.