Thread: This is Lame! More Neutering of the American Male!

**edit to remove double post**

Originally Posted by Bruno

Why? Do you think that we are a secret chapter of the Democrats?
I think most US staff and senior members vote republican actually.

We did a general poll in 2008 right after the election, and the 'vote' in our US membership was 3 or 4 to 1 in favor of the Republicans. That was an interesting slant. Given the landslide victory for Obama, I would have expected a 1/1 ratio.

We took some guesses about the reason. The most plausible reason I could think of was that if you are a republican, you are likely to be more of a conservative mindset and therefore more likely to have an interest in historical activities. That said, it is hardly a conclusive argument.


EDIT:
Btw, if you should have the idea that we close threads in which conservatives express their opinion, that is certainly not by design. Even though we don't express political bias, there are 4 republicans for every democrat, so if we can assume that threads go out of bounds at random, then there will be more 'republican' threads closed than 'democrat' threads.

I don't think you guys close threads for political reasons, I'm just surprised this thread remained civil for so long. That's all I was saying. Of course, Gugi got my blood boiling, but what else is new? Good conversation though. We can remain respectful, even if we disagree.

The pursuit of knowledge should be held above all else, including personal opinions. Unless, of course I'm right and you're wrong. In that case, that's just how it has to be.

Human nature is human nature. Power corrupts.

Originally Posted by Bruno

To me, they look identical. They just pick different issues to fight over.

+100

Also, sorry for the multiple posts, tapatalk doesn't do multi-quotes.

Cool, finally something interesting!!!

Here's the easy stuff first - according to the definition of 'exponential' and the grammar of your sentence the probability that a child tries and smokes tobacco is related with the number of the child's parents by the following relationship

Code:

probability = X^(number_of_parents)

where ^ denotes a "power" or "exponent". If you restrict the number of parents to just one or two then the relationship is meaningless because any two datapoints would fit on that curve. You would have the exact same problem if you use 'linear' it's equally valid and equally meaningless. If you also add data point for zero parents then you can in fact distinguish between exponential and non-exponential relationship, but then the trouble is that you don't really have the data to show that. Now, english isn't my native language, so I actually had to learn the meaning of the words instead of just using them in a meaning that 'sounds about right', but nevertheless exponential is not a synonym for 'very rapid increase'.

Now the interesting stuff - just looking at the data (smoking has been steadily decreasing over the last 50 years) is a nice bit of trivia, but what is actually important is 'why'. There can be many reasons, here are two that should cause you to put your ideological stance on hold (if you're interested in reality) - (1) people decided to quit all on their own (2) the government regulations changed people's behavior.
Of course, both of your links are from government sources and they advocate government involvement (you surely noticed that the second website is initiating a targeted campaign at parents). Obviously unlike yours their conclusion wasn't that the government has no role whatsoever, or that parents only ought to worry what behavior they impart to their kids only within the age period 2-6 and no further (that was the study group).


Next, if we're going to be examining a single data point, why stop at the superficial conclusion and not try instead to get as much mileage out of that datapoint. Yes, apparently the cause of John Lafakis' tobacco addiction was peer pressure, but that doesn't just come out of a vacuum. The peer pressure was a result of a very specific 'image' of what consists a successful player. I mean why did they pick 'chewing tobacco' as a precondition of joining the team instead of say 'drinking a glass of water exactly 34.7 minutes before the game'? Which would actually argue the exact point those two senators are trying to make - alter that very image of the baseball star.


Obviously there is no need to address any other points since you didn't show any interest in a rational discussion on them.

Originally Posted by medicevans

Of course, Gugi got my blood boiling, but what else is new?

Why, because I challenged you to go and find real data, and make a rational statements instead of just declaring 'It's so because I said it'?
You are relatively new to the forum, but if you have read my posts you shouldn't be surprised that I do not have much use for the koolaid, or pointless shouting matches.

The pursuit of knowledge has nothing to do with 'beliefs', and very little with 'personal opinions'.

Thank you for the information on math. This is why I'm a paramedic, not a math teacher. Honestly, I should have just written my sentence differently, because your post really doesn't make sense to me at all. Not because how you wrote it, just because other than drip calculations and lbs to kilo conversions, I'm pretty much math dumb.

As far as my other two points, you are correct. There are many reasons people may have stopped smoking. Government legislation is certainly one of those reasons. I'm am perfectly prepared to cede that point. If one were to look at it a different way, those legislators are elected to pass laws that they think the people that elected them want. Otherwise, they won't get re-elected. So, was it government regulation or changing social norms that prompted the change? To reflect a post you made earlier in this discussion; it would be considered morally reprehensible to own slaves today, but would be equally as wrong to condemn many of the founders of this nation for doing so, as they were conforming to their social norms. The same thing with women voting. In 1900, our great grandfathers wouldn't have dreamed of a woman voting in a presidential election. Now, I know my wife deserves to vote. Changing social norms.
Is it government regulation, society's increased scientific awareness of the dangers of smoking, or just plain free will that caused the decline in tobacco use? We'll never know, there's just no way. It is like arguing about how many stars there are. Everyone can argue a point, and no one will ever be proven right or wrong.

As far as my third point, it is in line with what I said earlier. Which relationships are correlated, and which are causal? They are too interconnected, too much grey and not enough black and white. Each person is going to have an opinion. Mine is that baseball players have very little effect on childrens' tobacco habits. To design an experiment in which the only variable is exposure to baseball players that use tobacco would be impossible. Therefore, we are stuck back in the correlated or causal argument. How do we prove it?

As far as the fourth point, we will have to agree to disagree, sir. It's my opinion. I'm certainly open to hearing yours, if you'd like to share it.

Gugi, it's 0240 here. I'm going to bed. I hope you will post and we can continue this tomorrow/later this morning.

Yeah, I'll post once more, as it's 3:50 here, but am still finishing up some stuff I need for the morning.

Originally Posted by medicevans

If one were to look at it a different way, those legislators are elected to pass laws that they think the people that elected them want. Otherwise, they won't get re-elected.

Not in this country's political system. It's a representative, not direct democracy for the exact purpose that people in charge can enact policies that may not be popular, but are nonetheless good for the society. Of course, they still have to consider the cost of doing unpopular stuff.

It is true that evaluation of a policy is a hard thing to do, but it generally is not impossible. And slightly complicated math can extract useful data from experiments with multiple variables, without the need to set up a series of experiments where only one of the variables changes at a time. That's extremely efficient and is used in virtually any industry, as well as policies.

This really isn't a topic that I'm particularly interested researching, but I'm always interested to learn more, if I only have to look at somewhat processed data (like the articles you had, though I would prefer more in depth ones).

I am not sure I quite buy the "don't blame the founding fathers for their slaves" argument. The problem with a social norms argument is that it makes them hypocrites. After all they also wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I prefer to consider them as regular human beings who weren't any better or worse than the current crop of politicians. I'd rather call the good things they did good and the bad things bad.


As far as my politics, I'm a flip-flopper (I also don't vote). I don't believe in an ideology, I'd rather do what is the best solution for a particular scenario without having to be restricted by dogma. I do not have to pretend that something is always absolutely right - in almost all important problems it's a matter of a trade off, and I like to make my own evaluation of where that trade off should happen.

Keep it cool and civil, guys.
Noone benefits from hot, excited, and the various other negative adjectives that may be applied to a conversation.

Originally Posted by gugi

I like to make my own evaluation of where that trade off should happen.

Moses rolled over in his grave when you posted that. "You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes"

Might I suggest you get thee to a tasselry? "You must have this tassel so that you may look at it and remember all the commandments of the Lord (Bruno?) and obey them and so that you do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes that lead you to unfaithfulness"