outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
uart said:
Was there any hidden insinuation that people who go with the status quo are truly apethetic and don't form an opinion that is genuinely their own?
Just keeping things honest.
Apathy and its consequences...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
Was there any hidden insinuation that people who go with the status quo are truly apethetic and don't form an opinion that is genuinely their own?
Just keeping things honest.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
uart said:
Okay, uart (welcome, BTW). My original post, while using the protestors as an example, was about not voting and then complaining because you don't like the policies of the elected officials. Bluntly put, anyone who didn't vote and is now complaining about government policies is morally bankrupt. Does that make it easy for everyone? Can we now look at the big picture instead of the small one? Can we pull our heads out of our asses?
I'm beginning to doubt the level of comprehension in this thread on all sides...
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Nope. If you didn't understand what I first posted, you could've asked, but, instead, you gave a dissertation on your 'skill' at statistical analysis. You never said whether you agreed, or disagreed, with the actual point I was trying to make, which would've made for a debate on the idea I was making instead of acting superior and, thereby, losing the entire post in a flurry of statistcal dead-ends and mis-interpretations. It's not my comprehension...
Ok maybe I read too much into that post. You see the thing that made me feel compelled to reply in the first place was that I'd just come here after reading a whole bunch of letters/opinion about the rights and wrongs of some of the Hollywood "celebraties" speaking out against the war. There it amazed me that people were actually saying that it was right and proper that those actors should fear for their jobs as a result of speaking out. There also seemed to be many people comming up with numerous reasons for why their (the actors and others) opinions were meaningless. In fact so many people seemed to want not to argue directly against others opinions but instead to argue that either their opinions were meaningless or that somehow they dont even have a right to an opinion in the first place (usually because of some catagory that those people could be placed in, actors, liberals etc etc).
So when I read this here post quite frankly it struck me as just another one of those "I cant argue against your opinion so instead I'll argue against your right to have/express an opinion" type of arguements. Sorry if I misrepresnted you.
So when I read this here post quite frankly it struck me as just another one of those "I cant argue against your opinion so instead I'll argue against your right to have/express an opinion" type of arguements. Sorry if I misrepresnted you.
flavio
Banned
Gato_Solo said:Nope. If you didn't understand what I first posted, you could've asked, but, instead, you gave a dissertation on your 'skill' at statistical analysis. You never said whether you agreed, or disagreed, with the actual point I was trying to make, which would've made for a debate on the idea I was making instead of acting superior and, thereby, losing the entire post in a flurry of statistcal dead-ends and mis-interpretations. It's not my comprehension...
Your point was based on a ridiculous premise and was an ill-concieved ploy to invalidate people who you don't agree with.
Your point was lost with your initial post.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
a13antichrist
New Member
Even though we're past it, I'm going to point out anyway that flavio's example was NOT based on only one subject and is a perfectly statistical example. I suggest those claiming that this is a test of only one subject re-examine their course-notes because if you said that in my class you'd have got an immediate F.
I'll explain why you're wrong for anyone who's too retarded to figure it out for themselves.
As for the subject itself, those that didn't vote are not necessarily any less entitled to voice their opposition than those that did - given that the main accusation by the protesters is that the war is ILLEGAL or immoral, and not that it's a bad presidential decision, the situation is not the same. If the president had proposed killing a little baby because it was ugly, no-one would tell the protesters that they should shut up if they hadn't voiced their opinion when the president was elected. Yes this is a relevant example because this is exactly the sort of action that many anti-war protestors are claiming the president is doing. So while as a war supporter you may not agree, in the anti-war protestors' minds their validity of protest is very real, whether they voted or not.
I'll explain why you're wrong for anyone who's too retarded to figure it out for themselves.
As for the subject itself, those that didn't vote are not necessarily any less entitled to voice their opposition than those that did - given that the main accusation by the protesters is that the war is ILLEGAL or immoral, and not that it's a bad presidential decision, the situation is not the same. If the president had proposed killing a little baby because it was ugly, no-one would tell the protesters that they should shut up if they hadn't voiced their opinion when the president was elected. Yes this is a relevant example because this is exactly the sort of action that many anti-war protestors are claiming the president is doing. So while as a war supporter you may not agree, in the anti-war protestors' minds their validity of protest is very real, whether they voted or not.
a13antichrist
New Member
Did you even think about it? Or did you just blindly decide you're right no matter what?
a13antichrist said:
a13antichrist said:
Did you? If so, please explain to me how John is more than one subject and how that is a perfect statistical example. My guess is that you didn't even read the entire thread and are just blowing smoke out your ass trying to save face, but that's just my opinion, not an analysis.
a13antichrist
New Member
Save face? How could I possibly be trying to save face seeing that "my face" was never in question in the first place? And if you read the second half of my post, you'll see that I did indeed read the entire thread and commented accordingly - although your obviously nailed-shut mindset accounts for this oversight.
Now, you're right in as much that John is only person. However, he is NOT the subject of the statistical information. What if the the example had read "50% of soda is green"? Are you going to claim that "green" would then be the subject of the investigation? The subject is the soda, of which you are dealing with 100% - a population survey.
"Belongs to John" is a characteristic of the soda, one which is true for 50% of the soda. No-one is asking any questions of John whatsoever, which would obvioulsyh be required if he were to be a subject.
If the statement had read, "We asked like John if he likes Pepsi. John hates Pepsi, therefore statistically 100% of people hate Pepsï", then John would be the only subject. If you had picked up randomly two cans of soda, one of which belonged to John and one of which didn't (and it also happend to be green) and you made the conclusion that 50% of soda belongs to John and that 50% of soda is also green, then you would be basing your investigation on two subjects and your results would indeed be higly questionable. But the soda is still the subject here, not John.
So, tell me, at which kindergarten did you take your statistics course?
Now, you're right in as much that John is only person. However, he is NOT the subject of the statistical information. What if the the example had read "50% of soda is green"? Are you going to claim that "green" would then be the subject of the investigation? The subject is the soda, of which you are dealing with 100% - a population survey.
"Belongs to John" is a characteristic of the soda, one which is true for 50% of the soda. No-one is asking any questions of John whatsoever, which would obvioulsyh be required if he were to be a subject.
If the statement had read, "We asked like John if he likes Pepsi. John hates Pepsi, therefore statistically 100% of people hate Pepsï", then John would be the only subject. If you had picked up randomly two cans of soda, one of which belonged to John and one of which didn't (and it also happend to be green) and you made the conclusion that 50% of soda belongs to John and that 50% of soda is also green, then you would be basing your investigation on two subjects and your results would indeed be higly questionable. But the soda is still the subject here, not John.
So, tell me, at which kindergarten did you take your statistics course?
No, on second thought, cancel that. Are you really that damn stubborn to sit here and argue when you know you are wrong? How on earth can you compare a study of a population of millions to a study with a population of 1?
Get your Stats class in Preschool? (just to keep the obligatory insults that you feel are necessary going)
Get your Stats class in Preschool? (just to keep the obligatory insults that you feel are necessary going)