• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The End of Democracy In The USA

Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
But conservatism isn't. So facts are biased towards liberalism, which (more frequently) is.
Click to expand...

It would be better phrased to say that liberals are biased toward facts.
Click to expand...

The facts of the universe also bias themselves towards social interest and maintainence, as the game theoretic result of such in the universe yields better results for the entities participating, be they viewed on the individual or species participation level.

Both are true. Liberals are biased towards facts (because their model filters facts for truth, and applies such true facts to both filter which model to apply when, and to drive the models themselves), and reality is biased towards facts (owing to the aforementioned fact that the universe acts consistently with particular behavioral models, and thus provides benefit to those who act within those factual models).
 
In order to have bias of the sort being discussed, the object in question must have beliefs and sapience. Neither of those prerequisites are true of facts. Facts simply are. Nothing more.

This is a bit pedantic though, I just get tired of that cliché because it's so completely irrational and illogical.
 
Emily Lake said:
In order to have bias of the sort being discussed, the object in question must have beliefs and sapience. Neither of those prerequisites are true of facts. Facts simply are. Nothing more.

This is a bit pedantic though, I just get tired of that cliché because it's so completely irrational and illogical.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Bias doesn't require beliefs or sapience. It just requires a filtration preference. Anywhere a selection is made, be it by decisions or mere mechanism (though arguably there is not a clear point where one becomes the other...), It constitutes a "bias".
 
Jarhyn said:
Emily Lake said:
In order to have bias of the sort being discussed, the object in question must have beliefs and sapience. Neither of those prerequisites are true of facts. Facts simply are. Nothing more.

This is a bit pedantic though, I just get tired of that cliché because it's so completely irrational and illogical.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Bias doesn't require beliefs or sapience. It just requires a filtration preference. Anywhere a selection is made, be it by decisions or mere mechanism (though arguably there is not a clear point where one becomes the other...), It constitutes a "bias".
Click to expand...
EL is all boop-booping about a joke made by Stephen Coulbert. It's an accurate, if pithy, summary of the modern political theater in the US. There's no point trying to explain it to her. I recommend the ignore feature. :D
 
Worldtraveller said:
Jarhyn said:
Emily Lake said:
In order to have bias of the sort being discussed, the object in question must have beliefs and sapience. Neither of those prerequisites are true of facts. Facts simply are. Nothing more.

This is a bit pedantic though, I just get tired of that cliché because it's so completely irrational and illogical.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Bias doesn't require beliefs or sapience. It just requires a filtration preference. Anywhere a selection is made, be it by decisions or mere mechanism (though arguably there is not a clear point where one becomes the other...), It constitutes a "bias".
Click to expand...
EL is all boop-booping about a joke made by Stephen Coulbert. It's an accurate, if pithy, summary of the modern political theater in the US. There's no point trying to explain it to her. I recommend the ignore feature. :D
Click to expand...

My ignore list is quite short, and I don't think Emily has risen to the challenge of earning that dubious honor at this time. As it is, I'm coming up on the review period I have set for myself of muting people; permanent administrative action is, in my estimation, not ethical. I think censure only rightly should last as long as the underlying problem lasts, with regular opportunities to present a changed outlook and behavior.

That said, I don't have much faith in this next trip around the horn being what it took for any of them.
 
Jarhyn said:
Emily Lake said:
In order to have bias of the sort being discussed, the object in question must have beliefs and sapience. Neither of those prerequisites are true of facts. Facts simply are. Nothing more.

This is a bit pedantic though, I just get tired of that cliché because it's so completely irrational and illogical.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Bias doesn't require beliefs or sapience. It just requires a filtration preference. Anywhere a selection is made, be it by decisions or mere mechanism (though arguably there is not a clear point where one becomes the other...), It constitutes a "bias".
Click to expand...

What "preferences" do facts have? How do "facts" engage in filtering for those "preferences"?
 
Jarhyn said:
Worldtraveller said:
EL is all boop-booping about a joke made by Stephen Coulbert. It's an accurate, if pithy, summary of the modern political theater in the US. There's no point trying to explain it to her. I recommend the ignore feature. :D
Click to expand...

My ignore list is quite short, and I don't think Emily has risen to the challenge of earning that dubious honor at this time. As it is, I'm coming up on the review period I have set for myself of muting people; permanent administrative action is, in my estimation, not ethical. I think censure only rightly should last as long as the underlying problem lasts, with regular opportunities to present a changed outlook and behavior.

That said, I don't have much faith in this next trip around the horn being what it took for any of them.
Click to expand...

WT has a pretty serious hate-on for me. Hell, even when I agree with him I still get shit flung at me. It's okay though, my skin isn't that thin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom