Tali Sharot Wrote:And while you may assume such biases are a trait of the less intelligent, the opposite is true. Scientists discovered that those with stronger quantitative abilities are more likely to twist data at will. When volunteers in that study were given data about the effectiveness of gun control laws that did not support their views, they used their math skills not to draw more accurate conclusions, but to find fault with the numbers they were given.

Why have human beings' brains evolved to discard perfectly valid information when it does not fit their preferred view? This seems like bad engineering, so why hasn't this glitch been corrected?

Cognitive scientists have proposed an intriguing answer: our brain assesses new information in light of the knowledge it has already stored, because in most cases that is, in fact, the optimal approach. More likely than not, when you encounter a piece of data that contradicts what you believe with confidence, that piece of data is in fact wrong. For example, if I told you I had observed a pink elephant flying in the sky you would assume I was either lying or delusional, as you should. It is a reasonable strategy, but it also means that confidently-held opinions are difficult to change.

(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

Quote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:09 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 09:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-11-2017, 11:11 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

I was surprised to discover this when I drove up to see the eclipse in Oregon. Interesting; one gas-filler guy told me Oregon adopted this law because it rains so much that it's not nice to make people get out of their cars and pump gas. But Oregon isn't the only state where it rains a lot, and New Jersey is probably not one of those states. Oregon has some good ideas and goes its own way a lot.

I'm not sure the law is needed, if gas stations are required instead to provide roofs over the gas tanks and the drive-through areas. I think most CA stations have those.

No requirement at all is needed.  If roofs are really an issue, people will go to gas stations with roofs and the other gas stations will have to get them or go out of business.

When I get gas in New Jersey, I preferentially go to a station that looks the other way if you decide to pump your own gas.

Whether a requirement is needed is a matter of opinion, much depending on whether you are a free market conservative like yourself, or whether you think business needs to be regulated for the good of the people. I have no opinion on this particular issue; it was just interesting to experience the difference between Oregon and CA. 

But I am sure that relying on the free market alone does not necessarily lead to a business having no customers if they do not supply what the people need. As a democratic-free-market/socialistic inclined person, I don't agree that the market will necessarily supply what the people need if left to itself. Much experience quite convinces me otherwise.

A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

(09-13-2017, 04:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I was discussing this with my wife recently. As I've noted previously, she is the arch-arch-conservative of our household - she makes me look like a Marxist in comparison. We both initially despised Obama care (we have a great employer provided plan, and Obama care has really fucked with it). Be that as it may, when Trump stepped in it, we said to each other, here comes Single Payer. It's almost as if these faux "Rightist" Trump cultists actually want Single Payer. Everything they are doing is setting it up for that outcome. And now, I turn you over to Capitol Hill ... something's a brewing.

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-09-2017, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.

As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

(09-14-2017, 06:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

I would argue that being insulting and demeaning is a requirement for having freedom of speech.  Some people actually deserve it you know.

(09-14-2017, 06:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-14-2017, 06:24 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

I would argue that being insulting and demeaning is a requirement for having freedom of speech.  Some people actually deserve it you know.

Negative rights traditionally do not convey a right to harm.  I don't see the exception.

I do confess a desire to lock extreme partisans in a room together and let them have at it.  However, the absolute style of insulting and demeaning sought by some of the alt right has no limits on targets.  They seem to be seeking to insult and demean for their own sake.  This is not a good way to run a culture.

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

(09-14-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If the Alt Right and Antifa want to duke it out, I might call the police slowly.  Neither are my favorite people.  However, many of both seem to be seeking out verbal ugliness and violence.  Let them have joy of one another.

But the Alt Right and allies want to be ugly to everyone.  That I don't want.  If that means you don't think you have free speech, so be it.  Your delusion, not mine.  Negative rights never guaranteed a right to harm.  You think this a fine exception to a general rule, while I don't.

Any negative right implies an organization that prevents it from being taken away.  Any negative right that can be abused, that its exercise can cause harm, needs somebody to enforce it.  Some think this is a major reason why "Governments were instituted among Men."  Why is this one special?  Are you suddenly an all out anarchist?

(09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon?  That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess.  Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.

(09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

He is a mean-spirited demagogue.

(09-16-2017, 12:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

He is a mean-spirited demagogue.

Ha ha. Yes, and he is BOTH a Neo-con and a Neo-lib, especially the latter.

(09-13-2017, 01:23 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

There are any number of examples of Federal intervention that began in response to some failing in the private sector.  Look at the airlines.  They are pushing more and more people on planes because they can.  Travel is worse than uncomfortable, especially on long flights, and they want to push even more.  It's already life threatening to  some people, but who cares.  Right?  This will lead to a resumption of Federal regulation at some point, because that's the only way to protect the public.  Don't blame the government when that happens.

Quote:

Warren Dew Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

I'm on Medicare and it works really well.  There's even room for private insurance for those who want it.  Part D is bad, but it was the mandate that drug prices could not be negotiated that makes it bad.  I'll be happy to kill that requirement.  So what involvement would you end?  How about the FDA drug approval process.  We can go back to believing what the drug companies say.  Or maybe you wish to kill the requirement that keeps every medical practice from operating an MRI, making them impossibly expensive to use.  Give me an example or two.

(09-15-2017, 07:14 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I'm starting to wonder what you're smoking and where I can get some.

1.  I for one do not want the left or the right duking it out in the streets--as for calling the police, feel free to.  But in Blue Cities it seems there are stand down orders from the political leadership so it always devolves into a riot.

2.  I disagree with you on your negative rights position.  This concept is really simple, so simple it is actually beyond most people really.  Either one has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, not including incitement, or slander/libel or they do not.  It is a binary a hard binary it is either on or off.

If the price of freedom is speech is that someone gets their fee fees hurt so be it.  Life is tough, get a helmet.

3. I wouldn't say that the first amendment is special.  I am also pretty partial to the second too.  The kid found me a nifty tee-shirt about it.


https://teespring.com/shop/get-shall-not-be-infringed#pid=2&cid=2122&sid=front