Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[PyramidHead]

I wouldn't say that, she's not that immune to facts.

Seems more of a newbie mistake, success at attracting attention going to her head and impairing judgement. Talks a good fight, time now to see what she can do.

Most of her errors can be chalked up to newbie mistakes. However, she said that morality is more important than the facts. That's the position of a fanatic.

In context, I believe she meant that the moral point she was making was not lessened by showing her math error, and the focus should be on the moral point, not the math.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think she's right, even out of context. I mean, would you rather get an A- on a test or murder your neighbor?

 

[PyramidHead]

I think she's right, even out of context. I mean, would you rather get an A- on a test or murder your neighbor?

That's how a sane person would interpret the dichotomy she was presenting. However, Loren is worried that she is willing to bend or ignore facts to suit her preferred moral position, which would be bad of course, but she hasn't shown any indication of that so far. If anything, she usually wipes the floor with her detractors in terms of understanding the facts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think she's right, even out of context. I mean, would you rather get an A- on a test or murder your neighbor?

That's how a sane person would interpret the dichotomy she was presenting. However, Loren is worried that she is willing to bend or ignore facts to suit her preferred moral position, which would be bad of course, but she hasn't shown any indication of that so far. If anything, she usually wipes the floor with her detractors in terms of understanding the facts.

It sounds like Loren's interpretation is contradictory. She is saying morality is an important thing. If she is willing to lie then that is immoral and contradicts the value she is asserting that belongs to morality, i.e. morality would not be an important thing to her if she is willing to lie. Even more so, neither would being reckless with facts nor failing to apply due diligence with facts be practices she would engage in since these practices would create significant probabilities of lying. It seems one has to look at this through a lens, then, of an accidental error of fact while still being morally right in the big picture.

 

[skepticalbip]

Most of her errors can be chalked up to newbie mistakes. However, she said that morality is more important than the facts. That's the position of a fanatic.

In context, I believe she meant that the moral point she was making was not lessened by showing her math error, and the focus should be on the moral point, not the math.

And that has been the problem with utopians and the reason the 'utopias' they try to establish has resulted in failure and the suffering of those involved. It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker. Unfortunately, there is no economic mathematical support for such ventures even though the 'caretaker' confiscates more and more of what is available.

 

[PyramidHead]

Most of her errors can be chalked up to newbie mistakes. However, she said that morality is more important than the facts. That's the position of a fanatic.

In context, I believe she meant that the moral point she was making was not lessened by showing her math error, and the focus should be on the moral point, not the math.

And that has been the problem with utopians and the reason the 'utopias' they try to establish has resulted in failure and the suffering of those involved. It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker. Unfortunately, there is no economic mathematical support for such ventures even though the 'caretaker' confiscates more and more of what is available.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread topic or anything I said, but sure, I can agree with all that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker.

Since we're taking people out of context, let me just say that your worship of Fidel Castro is noted.

 

[skepticalbip]

And that has been the problem with utopians and the reason the 'utopias' they try to establish has resulted in failure and the suffering of those involved. It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker. Unfortunately, there is no economic mathematical support for such ventures even though the 'caretaker' confiscates more and more of what is available.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread topic or anything I said, but sure, I can agree with all that.

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering.

But that would be immoral and she is not advocating anything immoral as one of the starting premises. Your logic in taking her out of context failed.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker.

Since we're taking people out of context, let me just say that your worship of Fidel Castro is noted.

Cute editing....

 

[PyramidHead]

And that has been the problem with utopians and the reason the 'utopias' they try to establish has resulted in failure and the suffering of those involved. It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker. Unfortunately, there is no economic mathematical support for such ventures even though the 'caretaker' confiscates more and more of what is available.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread topic or anything I said, but sure, I can agree with all that.

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

I think he's saying this:
Let a = capitalism
Let b = socialism

a > b ; see Moral Theorem and Corollary 1.0 & 1.1


======

Also, this

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

Let a = OMG, SOCIALISM!!!!11!1

a
a
a
a
a
aaaaa
aaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[blastula]

The morality depends on the facts.

 

[skepticalbip]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

Please start with this in your explanation:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It would certainly be a moral victory if everyone had everything they wanted and needed provided by some benevolent caretaker.

Since we're taking people out of context, let me just say that your worship of Fidel Castro is noted.

And skepticalbip should be praised for it.

 

[PyramidHead]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

I figured it was something like a resource calculation, which is disappointing because it's totally false, and a perfect example of the point AOC was trying to convey. Here is why.

The resources to provide basic health care, housing, food, clothing, and education to everyone in America (or, indeed, the entire world) are already available many times over. What prevents these resources from being transferred to people on the basis of who needs them is a system that prioritizes transferring them to those with the most money, and doesn't bat an eye at wasting obscene quantities in the name of accumulating more wealth.

Separating the goal of universal health care (which is indeed lofty) from the reality of its implementation, then, is not a matter of mathematics at all, because the numerator is many orders of magnitude higher than the denominator in all senses, and has been since the industrial revolution.

It comes down to how we choose to produce and distribute the fundamental necessities of human life, and who we deem as worthy recipients of the surplus we are easily capable of producing, all of which can be neatly encapsulated by the word 'morality'.

 

[skepticalbip]

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

I figured it was something like a resource calculation, which is disappointing because it's totally false, and a perfect example of the point AOC was trying to convey. Here is why.

The resources to provide basic health care, housing, food, clothing, and education to everyone in America (or, indeed, the entire world) are already available many times over. What prevents these resources from being transferred to people on the basis of who needs them is a system that prioritizes transferring them to those with the most money, and doesn't bat an eye at wasting obscene quantities in the name of accumulating more wealth.

Separating the goal of universal health care (which is indeed lofty) from the reality of its implementation, then, is not a matter of mathematics at all, because the numerator is many orders of magnitude higher than the denominator in all senses, and has been since the industrial revolution.

It comes down to how we choose to produce and distribute the fundamental necessities of human life, and who we deem as worthy recipients of the surplus we are easily capable of producing, all of which can be neatly encapsulated by the word 'morality'.

Thus illustrating why utopian ideals fail when there are attempts to implement them. Wealth is not a fixed commodity to be distributed. Wealth is a commodity that is created daily and consumed daily. For any system to work, the creation of wealth must be encouraged or, at a minimum, allowed or the available funds for the government dries up. Over taxation decreases wealth creation because companies can move to where there are lower costs of operation (taxes) or they can just close down because the minimal reward does justify the effort or risks. For comparison, there are plenty of fish in the sea but they must be allowed to continue to multiply for that to remain so. If too many are taken to feed the population then they vanish and no one eats fish.

 

[Elixir]

...the creation of wealth must be encouraged or, at a minimum, allowed or the available funds for the government dries up.

The classic central fallacy of trickle-down nonsense.
The people paying most of the taxes are NOT the wealthy.

 

[laughing dog]

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

I figured it was something like a resource calculation, which is disappointing because it's totally false, and a perfect example of the point AOC was trying to convey. Here is why.

The resources to provide basic health care, housing, food, clothing, and education to everyone in America (or, indeed, the entire world) are already available many times over. What prevents these resources from being transferred to people on the basis of who needs them is a system that prioritizes transferring them to those with the most money, and doesn't bat an eye at wasting obscene quantities in the name of accumulating more wealth.

Separating the goal of universal health care (which is indeed lofty) from the reality of its implementation, then, is not a matter of mathematics at all, because the numerator is many orders of magnitude higher than the denominator in all senses, and has been since the industrial revolution.

It comes down to how we choose to produce and distribute the fundamental necessities of human life, and who we deem as worthy recipients of the surplus we are easily capable of producing, all of which can be neatly encapsulated by the word 'morality'.

Thus illustrating why utopian ideals fail when there are attempts to implement them....

Since UHC exists in a number of countries, it is hard to argue that it is a utopian ideal. Moreover, I think Pyramid's position is that there is sufficient wealth to implement UHC without depleting the national wealth to an unsustainable or undesirable level.