Religions > Atheism > Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2004 10:01:12 PM |
| Object: |
Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1052 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Jésus Pépé" |
|
| Title: {{{ PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA }}} ==> Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
29 Sep 2004 05:39:21 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:01:12 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1052 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vash The Stampede" |
|
| Title: Re: Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
29 Sep 2004 07:10:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:01:12 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
Easy solution: Buy someone you love a plush toy!
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1052 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
--
Besides, what would they say if I told them
I was hanging out with Vash The Stampede?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
30 Sep 2004 12:04:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:10:10 GMT, Vash The Stampede <trigun@2am.cn>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:01:12 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
Easy solution: Buy someone you love a plush toy!
Were the 2 million Americans that was supposed to be employed this
year, as Bush claimed his "economic" policies would have achieved,
would have done so, then it would indeed be the perfect solution.
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1052 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1053 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jésus Pépé" |
|
| Title: *PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA* ==> Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
30 Sep 2004 04:17:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:04:11 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:10:10 GMT, Vash The Stampede <trigun@2am.cn>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:01:12 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
Easy solution: Buy someone you love a plush toy!
Were the 2 million Americans that was supposed to be employed this
year, as Bush claimed his "economic" policies would have achieved,
would have done so, then it would indeed be the perfect solution.
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1052 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1053 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
29 Sep 2004 08:31:18 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
Looks like wal-mart is gonna devour toys r us too.......
http://www.iht.com/articles/538556.html
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
30 Sep 2004 12:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:31:18 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
Looks like wal-mart is gonna devour toys r us too.......
http://www.iht.com/articles/538556.html
Which would not be consider a net loss of jobs, but plenty of jobs
have disapperaed under Bush's "economic" policies.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1053 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jésus Pépé" |
|
| Title: *PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA* ==> Toy Company Lays Off 75. Thank You AWOL! (We SO Turned the Corner!) |
30 Sep 2004 04:17:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:05:22 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:31:18 +0100, Jez
<iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c) wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2004/09/28/ap1564849.html
Remember how AWOL's "stimulus" policy was supposed to have led to
massive jobs growth right about... now?
"...according to White House staff, the forecast - based on
data available at the beginning of December - predicted job growth of
325,000 a month." - Financial Times, 2/19/2004.
Looks like wal-mart is gonna devour toys r us too.......
http://www.iht.com/articles/538556.html
Which would not be consider a net loss of jobs, but plenty of jobs
have disapperaed under Bush's "economic" policies.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1053 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Indecision 2004 |
30 Sep 2004 09:33:58 AM |
|
|
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official
margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted
differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different
outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of
Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have
been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the
most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in
American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your
state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will
matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.)
What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and
that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning
that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of
voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin
toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the
probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up
heads. That's about 1 in 4,300—roughly the same as the probability
you'll someday be shot to death.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it
assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a
slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the
conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of
your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then
your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 1.4 times 10 to
the 1,046th power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the
Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far
worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major
party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al
Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my
chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 1.4
times 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the
Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's
outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
30 Sep 2004 12:31:02 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qPU6d.393263$8_6.2487@attbi_s04...
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could
really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it
never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
No single raindrop ever feels that SHE's the one responsible for the
rainstorm.
Vote up a storm!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
01 Oct 2004 12:49:31 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <sanderskaufman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qpX6d.66$q%7.53@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qPU6d.393263$8_6.2487@attbi_s04...
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
No single raindrop ever feels that SHE's the one responsible for the
rainstorm.
Vote up a storm!
"Vote up a storm" is just a figure of speech, of course. Voters are not
raindrops. More like
sheep actually:
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes-and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Wustner" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
30 Sep 2004 02:40:37 PM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <sanderskaufman@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.net> wrote:
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could
really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it
never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.
No single raindrop ever feels that SHE's the one responsible for the
rainstorm.
Vote up a storm!
*grin* "She?" What forms of weather are male?
--
Frank Wustner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Weather |
23 Jan 2005 02:41:09 PM |
|
|
Frank Wustner <fwustner@hotmail.com> wrote:
*grin* "She?" What forms of weather are male?
Icicles, obviously. :)
Tornadoes always seemed male to me, as well: they're loud,
windy, indiscriminate, unware of the extent of their destructive
power and indifferent about it in any case.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Weather |
23 Jan 2005 08:52:46 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in
news:MPG.1c5dd5eb60fcfedb9896f0@news.comcast.giganews.com:
Frank Wustner <fwustner@hotmail.com> wrote:
*grin* "She?" What forms of weather are male?
Icicles, obviously. :)
Tornadoes always seemed male to me, as well: they're loud,
windy, indiscriminate, unware of the extent of their destructive
power and indifferent about it in any case.
Sounds like some women I know as well.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
01 Oct 2004 05:33:58 PM |
|
|
In article <qpX6d.66$q%7.53@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Sanders
Kaufman <sanderskaufman@hotmail.com> wrote:
Vote up a storm!
You mean, like, "early and often"?
Good plan.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
‹ Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
30 Sep 2004 03:15:24 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<qPU6d.393263$8_6.2487@attbi_s04>...
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
This type of "reasoning" was thoroughly and rationally debunked by
Douglas Hofstadter way back in 1985, _Metamagical_Themas_, Chapter 30,
Dilemmas for Superrational Thinkers, Leading Up to a Luring Lottery.
In summary:
"As long as you feel your decision is _independent_ of others'
decisions, you should defect [not vote]. What Scott failed to take
into account was that cool-headed calculating people should take into
account that cool-headed calculating people should take into account
that cool-headed calculating people should take into account that . .
..
"This sounds awfully hard to take into account in a finite way, but
actually it's the easiest thing in the world. All it means is that
all these heavy-duty rational thinkers are going to see that they are
in a symmetric situation, so that _whatever_reason_dictates_to_one_,
_it_will_dictate_to_all_. From that point on, the process is very
simply. Which is better for an individual if it is a universal
choice: C [vote] or D [not vote]? That's all."
And the fact that people don't actually behave this way does not
support Landsburg's conclusion nor rebut Hofstadter's reasoning --
it's irrelevant to the question. All it shows is that most people are
not (super)rational, which does not support any argument that you
should not be. (Fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
01 Oct 2004 12:36:59 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0409301215.7d5431c4@posting.google.com...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<qPU6d.393263$8_6.2487@attbi_s04>...
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
This type of "reasoning" was thoroughly and rationally debunked ...
You are mistaken. See below.
... by
Douglas Hofstadter way back in 1985, _Metamagical_Themas_, Chapter 30,
Dilemmas for Superrational Thinkers, Leading Up to a Luring Lottery.
In summary:
"As long as you feel your decision is _independent_ of others'
decisions, you should defect [not vote]. What Scott failed to take
into account was that cool-headed calculating people should take into
account that cool-headed calculating people should take into account
that cool-headed calculating people should take into account that . .
.
"This sounds awfully hard to take into account in a finite way, but
actually it's the easiest thing in the world. All it means is that
all these heavy-duty rational thinkers are going to see that they are
in a symmetric situation, so that _whatever_reason_dictates_to_one_,
_it_will_dictate_to_all_. ...
So the question is, "What if everyone thought like that?" You are forgetting
the following part of the piece which deals with that question, aren't you?
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
01 Oct 2004 02:34:30 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<%167d.146232$MQ5.43426@attbi_s52>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0409301215.7d5431c4@posting.google.com...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<qPU6d.393263$8_6.2487@attbi_s04>...
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
This type of "reasoning" was thoroughly and rationally debunked ...
You are mistaken.
I am not mistaken. You did not understand Hofstadter's argument. See
below.
... by
Douglas Hofstadter way back in 1985, _Metamagical_Themas_, Chapter 30,
Dilemmas for Superrational Thinkers, Leading Up to a Luring Lottery.
In summary:
"As long as you feel your decision is _independent_ of others'
decisions, you should defect [not vote]. What Scott failed to take
into account was that cool-headed calculating people should take into
account that cool-headed calculating people should take into account
that cool-headed calculating people should take into account that . .
.
"This sounds awfully hard to take into account in a finite way, but
actually it's the easiest thing in the world. All it means is that
all these heavy-duty rational thinkers are going to see that they are
in a symmetric situation, so that _whatever_reason_dictates_to_one_,
_it_will_dictate_to_all_. ...
So the question is, "What if everyone thought like that?"
Incorrect. The argument _shows_ that you should (super)rationally
_assume_ that everyone thinks the same, _for_the_sake_of_argument_,
i.e. _even_when_ the fact is that they don't. (And _then_ ask the
question "Is it better for me if everyone (including me) votes, or is
it better for me if everyone (including me) does not vote?)
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ."
Hofstadter's reply is, "To be (super)rational, you must assume that in
a symmetric situation everyone will (super)rationally reason alike,
_regardless_ of how people actually reason." Which is _not_ the
so-called "traditional" reply, Septic's confusion notwithstanding.
<snip>
And Septic thus remains the completely refuted, debunked, confused,
mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
02 Oct 2004 04:11:46 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
...
_assume_ that everyone thinks the same, _for_the_sake_of_argument_,
i.e. _even_when_ the fact is that they don't.
...
Say what? Sorry, sir, but to assume something contrary to the fact we
already know [that people continue to vote by the millions and tens of
millions] doesn't appear to be at all rational.
Did you miss the following part of the article?
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
02 Oct 2004 04:32:44 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<mhu7d.188002$3l3.7175@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
...
_assume_ that everyone thinks the same, _for_the_sake_of_argument_,
i.e. _even_when_ the fact is that they don't.
...
Say what?
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
And Septic thus demonstrates yet again the fact that he remains the
completely ignorant, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot
fool lying loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
03 Oct 2004 01:53:08 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0410021332.13be47cc@posting.google.com...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<mhu7d.188002$3l3.7175@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
...
_assume_ that everyone thinks the same, _for_the_sake_of_argument_,
i.e. _even_when_ the fact is that they don't.
...
Say what? Sorry, sir, but to assume something contrary to the fact we
already know [that people continue to vote by the millions and tens of
millions] doesn't appear to be at all rational.
Did you miss the following part of the article?
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
I understand it very well. You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote). Landsburg deals with that idea in
his article. See above, the part that says,
<quote>
The traditional reply begins with the phrase But if everyone thought like
that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't
think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
<unquote>
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to your
barrage of argument _ad hominem_, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
03 Oct 2004 11:28:11 AM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<olN7d.403876$8_6.68745@attbi_s04>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0410021332.13be47cc@posting.google.com...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<mhu7d.188002$3l3.7175@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
...
_assume_ that everyone thinks the same, _for_the_sake_of_argument_,
i.e. _even_when_ the fact is that they don't.
...
Say what?
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
I understand it very well.
Incorrect. As you demonstrate yet again below.
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote).
Incorrect as to "don't vote". The Hofstadter argument goes "thinks
the same", not "thinks like that". So Septic has got yet another big
fat Strawman Fallacy going again, demonstrating his complete lack of
understanding.
Landsburg deals with that idea
Incorrect. Landsburg says nothing about the superrational requirement
that one must assume (ftsoa) that everyone in a symmetrical situation
thinks the same, thus indicating that he is completely unfamiliar with
Hofstadter's complete prior refutation of his stale "point" (1985).
<snip more Septical clueless Strawman argumentataion>
And Septic thus demonstrates the fact that he remains the completely
clueless, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
03 Oct 2004 08:08:53 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit:
...
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote) when the fact is that they do vote by the millions and tens of millions.
Incorrect as to "don't vote".
Jeffie Young wrote:
In summary:
"As long as you feel your decision is _independent_ of others'
decisions, you should defect [not vote]."
You are beginning to argue like Dubya; you can't even remember what you
said yesterday.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
04 Oct 2004 12:46:04 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<Fo18d.65433$He1.10571@attbi_s01>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit:
...
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote)
Incorrect as to "don't vote".
Jeffie Young wrote:
"As long as you feel your decision is _independent_ of others'
decisions, you should defect [not vote]."
you can't even remember what you
said yesterday.
You are demonstrating again that you are clueless. The first
statement has nothing to do with the condition "as long as you
feel...", and the second statement has nothing to do with how
"everyone thinks". You've got a Frankenstein of a Strawman Fallacy
going, yet again, Septic.
Hofstadter argues that the feeling of independence from others is
_incorrect_, based on the fact of a symmetric situation (all voters
having basically the same information).
And once again, Septic demonstrates the fact that he is the completely
ignorant, dishonest, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot
fool lying loser of alt.atheism. And I do mean completely.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
05 Oct 2004 11:53:55 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
...
Hofstadter argues that the feeling of independence from others is
_incorrect_, ...
You and Hofstadter are clearly mistaken, since everyone does not think
like Landsburg does (don't vote). People continue to vote by the
millions and tens of millions.
Maybe you missed that part of Landsburg's article?
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
<...>
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
05 Oct 2004 07:37:30 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<DkA8d.125689$wV.110175@attbi_s54>...
Jeff Young wrote:
...
Hofstadter argues that the feeling of independence from others is
_incorrect_, ...
You and Hofstadter are clearly mistaken, since everyone does not think
like Landsburg does
Incorrect and irrelevant. Hofstadter _shows_ that it is _incorrect_
to presume independence of thought in symmetrical situations.
_Regardless_ of what people actually do. The fact that people _think_
they are independent only shows that people generally are
non-(super)rational. You being a prime example, Septic.
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic; Landsburg has been
soundly _refuted_ already>
And Septic once again demonstrates the fact that he remains the
completely irrational, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old
idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
19 Oct 2004 01:38:16 PM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0410051637.2156f744@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<DkA8d.125689$wV.110175@attbi_s54>...
Jeff Young wrote:
...
Hofstadter argues that the feeling of independence from others is
_incorrect_, ...
You and Hofstadter are clearly mistaken, since everyone does not think
like Landsburg does
Incorrect and irrelevant. Hofstadter _shows_ that it is _incorrect_
to presume independence of thought in symmetrical situations.
_Regardless_ of what people actually do.
Ignoring what people are known to actually do is known in the trade as
"Delusional Disorder" (lost contact with reality), sir. And what the
people are known to actuall do is continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions, as Landsburg correctly points out, so your argument
is lame.
Assume everyone thinks alike?? Why assume that when it is clearly
contrary to the facts in evidence, since people continue to vote by
the
millions and tens of millions while Landsburg does not, moron?
Maybe you missed the part of Landsburg's piece dealing with that?
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
<...>
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that
voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
03 Oct 2004 07:51:16 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit:
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote).
Incorrect as to "don't vote".
What the ***** do you think we are discussing, "Don't play with matches"
or something??
You are insisting that we must take for granted something contrary to
the fact we already know [that people continue to vote by the millions
and tens of millions]. That does not appear to be rational at all, much
less 'super rational'.
Did you miss the following part of the article?
[unsnip]
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
I understand it very well. You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote). Landsburg deals with that idea in
his article. See above, the part that says,
<quote>
The traditional reply begins with the phrase But if everyone thought like
that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't
think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.
<unquote>
Any questions on this point, or are you in a hurry to get back to your
constant barrage of argument _ad hominem_, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
04 Oct 2004 12:31:17 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<8818d.316071$Fg5.295388@attbi_s53>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit:
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote).
Incorrect as to "don't vote".
What
<snip Septic demonstrating yet again that he doesn't understand>
The Hofstadter argument does not specify _which_ way everyone is
assumed to think, only _that_ everyone is assumed (ftsoa) to think
alike.
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
I understand it very well.
I deny that you understand it at all. And I actually have evidence
for that denial. But the unmet burden is totally on you to
_demonstrate_ that you understand it, _according_to_you_, and you have
not done that (I deny that you've done that, also). Q.E.D.
And Septic thus demonstrates the fact that he remains the completely
clueless, self-refuting, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old
idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
05 Oct 2004 07:57:19 PM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0410040931.47eb7103@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<8818d.316071$Fg5.295388@attbi_s53>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit:
You mean assume for the sake of argument that
everyone thinks like that (don't vote).
Incorrect as to "don't vote".
What
<snip Septic demonstrating yet again that he doesn't understand>
The Hofstadter argument does not specify _which_ way everyone is
assumed to think, only _that_ everyone is assumed (ftsoa) to think
alike.
<snip Septic demonstating complete ignorance of the concept of
"assumption for the sake of argument">
I understand it very well.
I deny that you understand it at all. And I actually have evidence
for that denial. But the unmet burden is totally on you to
_demonstrate_ that you understand it, _according_to_you_, and you have
not done that (I deny that you've done that, also). Q.E.D.
I deny that you've demonstrated any understanding by simply repeating
the Landsburg article as you've done Septic. And my denial that you
understand the Hofstadter argument thus stands, your snipping
notwithstanding. Hah!
And Septic thus demonstrates the fact that he remains the completely
clueless, self-refuting, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old
idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Indecision 2004 |
05 Oct 2004 12:07:25 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
...
The Hofstadter argument does not specify _which_ way everyone is
assumed to think, only _that_ everyone is assumed (ftsoa) to think
alike.
Assume everyone thinks alike?? Why assume that when it is clearly
contrary to the facts in evidence, since people continue to vote by the
millions and tens of millions while Landsburg does not, moron?
Maybe you missed the part of Landsburg's piece dealing with that?
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
<...>
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
