dagblog - Comments for "About the Value and Excellence of Jazz "

To ocean-kat You posted If

rmrd0000 — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:57:18 +0000

In reply to About the Value and Excellence of Jazz

To ocean-kat

You posted

If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting that change.

My reply included the following about Buckley.

Buckley has argued about legalizing marijuana since the 1970s. Thre are quotes from the 1990s. Buckley died in 2008. We are the the midst of or post the Republican "bump" in marijuana support for marijuana influenced by Buckley.

I hypothesized that any bump attributed to Buckley should have happened by now.

I noted the following about Obama and acceptance of Fay marriage in the Black community

It is interesting to view the impact of President Barack Obama on the acceptance of Gay marriage in the Black community. We see number shifts, but in a time period that is easier to suggest that Obama's words had a direct impact.

I followed by by noting what would be required to prove what I said about both Obama and Buckley.

To document whether Obama really played a role would require interviews and questionnaires. Both would have to be structure to minimize any bias that would favor Obama. Those questions would have to free to indicate that Obama had an impact, rather than being forced to accept or reject President Obama directly. The same would have to be done in the case of William F Buckley.

What I posted was logical. You responded with a venomous reply

What you're saying here is you do understand the basics of statistical analysis. You do know that to measure the effect of an event you have to start by looking for changes over time and then test your hypothesis. You knew that your data didn't contain any changes over time and that it was a bullshit argument that did not prove your point. Yet you posted it anyway. And when no one called you out you posted it again and again and again knowing it was a bullshit argument because you understand statistical analysis.

Do you see why I call you a dishonest debater? Do you see why I call you a partisan hack? Do you see why I say you'll post anything to "win" a debate?

Your tirade proved that you have lost your grasp on reality. You attack because I see no Buckley bump ( and you can't prove that any bump occurred). You remain confused by life.

For some one who does not

rmrd0000 — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:26:26 +0000

In reply to What you're saying here is

For some one who does not engage in discussion with me here you are again. I laid out how one would have to go about proving that there was an Obama effect. There can be acute effects. Note that after gunfire slaughters, there is an increase in the push for background checks among the public. The cry to do something increases acutely. You ignore acute impacts which are measured all the time.

You argue that Buckley's effect would have to be measured over time. I provide you with a timeline of Buckley's remarks about legalizing marijuana. I point out that even if we start the timeline in the 1990s we have not seen the big Conservative bump. Instead of noting the reality of my position, you name call. I find you amusing.

Because I realize that you are confused, I take no real offense. You have a rigid position that Progressive activists and in the media need to go out of their way to be kind to moderate Republicans. You place the defect with Progressives. I place the defect with the moderate Republicans. I do not insult them, but I am honest with them. In turn, they are honest with me.

I known a die- hard Conservative who realized that GW, McCain and Romney were full of crap. He could not bring himself to vote for a Democrat. He would console himself talking about the enjoyment he got from the feisty Sarah Palin. He agrees with the Democratic view of immigration reform. He has supported the education of a child in Central America, but he cannot vote for the Democrat who agrees with him. We are honest with each other.

With moderate Republicans, I note their differences with Obama. I point out where the GOP stands and where Obama stands. I point out that the GOP has no health care plan. I note that Paul Ryan's budgets harm the middle class. We have honest discussions

Rand Paul is not a major focus of our discussions. However when discussions shift to race and the GOP, I am honest about the race-baiting I see in the GOP. I make them aware of the sea change that occurred with Barry Goldwater and MLKs view of the man. I tell them why I disagree with Clarence Thomas, Thomas a Sowell, Allen West, Alan Keys, Michael Steele, etc. We have honest discussions. I put Rand and Ron Paul in the same category. So far, none has been shocked when told why Blacks, in general, do not support the GOP. They respect the honesty. I dispel the myth that Blacks don't vote for the GOP because Blacks want government handouts.

You have a rigid position. You think that moderate Republicans feel under attack and won't change their votes because of the attacks. I think that moderate Republicans need to hear the truth from a Democratic perspective. I think they don't want to here praise for people in the Republican Party that has gone crazy, they need to hear a clear, respectful reason to support a Democrat.

Many conversations have ended with the Republican agreeing with what I said including the racial insensitivity heard in the GOP. Heck Jeb Bush gets heat from the GOP for viewing immigration as a matter of someone trying to feed there family. They know what has happened to the GOP. They will still vote for the Republican in many cases,

You don't know statistics and you don't know how to have civil conversations you remain confused. I truly feel sorry for you and therefore ignore your irrational attack. You don't have have the knowledge base to have a structured discussion. I forgive you.

What you're saying here is

ocean-kat — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:46:51 +0000

In reply to You haven't corrected me. You

What you're saying here is you do understand the basics of statistical analysis. You do know that to measure the effect of an event you have to start by looking for changes over time and then test your hypothesis. You knew that your data didn't contain any changes over time and that it was a bullshit argument that did not prove your point. Yet you posted it anyway. And when no one called you out you posted it again and again and again knowing it was a bullshit argument because you understand statistical analysis.

Do you see why I call you a dishonest debater? Do you see why I call you a partisan hack? Do you see why I say you'll post anything to "win" a debate?

This is why I almost never engage in extended dialog with you. If I reply to you at all usually I'll just state my view and then drop out of the conversation, like I did when I made one comment on voter suppression and left it at that. I hate constantly having to deal with bullshit. It makes for a totally boring dialog as this dialog was boring.

You simply have no honor or integrity and I find the type of dialog that generates uninteresting. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm serious. Why not give up the bullshit and obfuscation. No one is paying you to spin for them. Make honest attempts to engage people's best arguments with your best arguments. You're well read and knowledgeable and certainly capable of honest debate. Why not give it a try. It would make for far more interesting discussions for both the participants and the readers.

I do find that most "regular"

Anonymous PS — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 20:33:13 +0000

In reply to I believe that many of them

I do find that most "regular" people respond well when you take what they're saying seriously. Meaning, you entertain their thinking without put downs or snark or name calling. Asking for clarification of their views is a good starting point. Taking their arguments seriously doesn't mean you have to agree with them, and most people don't require you to agree with them.

There's probably much more common ground as long as you don't slide into ideological terminology, but can stay with language that appeals to broadly shared values.

For example, even if someone is against homosexuality, he can grok that a person would want to marry someone he loves and find it hard to accept being prevented from doing so.

No one likes the law ruling his intimate life, so this might be a second point of agreement. Getting agreement on these points might not turn someone in favor of "gay marriage," but it would soften up the ground and buff away from the strangeness and "ick factor" of the idea. So instead of talking about "gay marriage," a concept that now carries a lot of emotional baggage, you might want to talk about these other points where agreement is possible.

Buckley has argued about

rmrd0000 — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:06:27 +0000

In reply to You haven't corrected me. You

Buckley has argued about legalizing marijuana since the 1970s. Thre are quotes from the 1990s. Buckley died in 2008. We are the the midst of or post the Republican "bump" in marijuana support for marijuana influenced by Buckley.

This is an interesting

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:59:44 +0000

In reply to I believe that many of them

This is an interesting example, I agree.

If you can change minds this way, it's a no-brainer.

In my experience, things don't stay so one-issue focused, and libertarians, in my experience, don't think that Democrats have a better record on NSA issues.

So perhaps it depends on the individual you're asking them to vote for.

I myself would find it hard to vote for Paul because I agree with him on one or two issues. For a number of reasons.

But if someone isn't two ideologically fixated, a real conversation can take place and minds can be changed.

I change my mind frequently, or at least question whether I'm right.

You haven't corrected me. You

rmrd0000 — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 21:34:42 +0000

In reply to Ocean-kat opines that Ron

You haven't corrected me. You think that Progressives need to try to explain why moderate Republicans should vote for Democrats. I think this happens already. There is psychological data that suggests people's political views are hard-wired. I don't think that moderate Republicans vote for the GOP is because Progressives are mean to Ron Paul. You provide evidence of Hillary Clinton praising McCain while backhanding Barack Obama during the 2008 Primary season. You point out that Obama had some good words about Reagan. Where then are all those mean Democrats basing Republicans with good ideas?

If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting that change.

You are the one who needs a statistics course. Small changes in small numbers create explosive percentage changes. This is why third world and second world economies have rapid growth but still may have fragile economies. There could be rapid growth of acceptance of an issue among Conservatives, but it may still be the opinions of a minority of the entire group.

Given high underlying acceptance of an issue among Liberals, it is impossible to produce a large spike in acceptance. Statistics 101.The changes in Republican support could be independent of Buckley and represent merely old Conservatives dying out and new Conservatives who have come to accept a new concept because of societal changes independent of Buckley or Paul. An entire host of factors would have to be considered.

It is interesting to view the impact of President Barack Obama on the acceptance of Gay marriage in the Black community. We see number shifts, but in a time period that is easier to suggest that Obama's words had a direct effect.

To document whether Obama really played a role would require interviews and questionnaires. Both would have to be structure to minimize any bias that would favor Obama. Those questions would have to free to indicate that Obama had an impact, rather than being forced to accept or reject President Obama directly. The same would have to be done in the case of William F Buckley.

From your perch overseas, you

Anonymous PP — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:32:23 +0000

In reply to Another attempt to divert

From your perch overseas, you are probably unaware how the legal system works in the United States.

And I knew you'd be a dick if I disclosed any personal info. You haven't disappointed. But yes, the US used to have a legal Constitutional system when I left.

"We will have to wait for the

Anonymous PP — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:30:15 +0000

In reply to Another attempt to divert

"We will have to wait for the courts to act to stop NSA surveillance programs."

Laughable - that of course is one of the reasons Snowden acted - the courts refuse to hear cases about NSA. Just a couple days ago, the court threw out a case about Awlaki's son being targeted by drones. Their attitude is they can't interfere in "security issues". But you're condemning Snowden and relying on a near impossibility to right the situation.

Ocean-kat opines that Ron

ocean-kat — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:30:38 +0000

In reply to Both you and ocean-kat are

Ocean-kat opines that Ron Paul gave cover for Conservatives to support legalizing marijuana. Conservatives have the lowest percentage support for legalization.

You post so many stupid things I just don't have time to correct them all. You've repeated this "statistical analysis" several times now. All you're showing is your ignorance of statistical analysis.

The only way you might reveal anything about Paul or Buckley's influence would be by looking at change over time. If conservative views of support changed over a 10 year period from 10 to 13% and liberal views changed from 55% to 65% we could conclude that liberals views are changing much faster than conservative views. But if conservative support for legalization changed over a 10 year period from 5% to 25% and liberals support went from 55% to 65% we could conclude that conservatives are changing much faster than liberals on this issue even though support is much higher among liberals. We could then hypothesize that Buckley may have had some influence effecting that change.

I haven't taken the time to correct you before because I assumed that the vast majority of readers have at least a basic understanding of statistics and would immediately see your error. Its so frustrating having to waste my time teaching you the basics of a subject you should have studied in a beginning level college math course.