I think the objection is that his approach is an error of reason. It's specified that the contents of the envelopes are X and 2X. So whatever value you see has to be either X and the smaller amount (in which case switching only gives you a larger amount of X+X)) or 2X and the larger amount (in which case switching only gives you the smaller amount of 2X-X). @Micheal tries to use maths to break those logical connections creating erroneous possibilities that lead to imaginary gains.

@Moliere States reduce violence by monopolizing it.

What makes you believe this? — Moliere

All the evidence.

E.g.





https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/theory-the-inverse-relationship-between-warfare-and-homicide/
http://primarydeposits.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-and-archaeology.html

No violence, no state. But no state, more violence. Lamentable. If we all just stayed online insulting each other rather than fucking about in the real world, we might be able to solve this.

After eight years I was expecting something a little more exciting than tomatoes. But given your recent comments, I've given up on grenades. :(

I think you missed the context of my reply to Agu there. Africa in general is no picnic violence-wise.

He was an addict, apparently. :) Yes, good guy, genuine. His last discussion was a bit of an unfortunate idea though. None of us are paragons of reason to the extent he might have hoped.

(Cross posted).

And before anyone asks, @Mr Phil O'Sophy asked us to ban him today because he wanted to leave the site. Eventually one of us granted the request. He wasn't warned of a banning and did nothing to deserve one and wasn't banned for disciplinary reasons.

EDIT: I see now that he announced it in the Shoutbox anyway.

@Agustino

And there was discussion in the mod forum where the mod who banned Buxtebuddha asked several times if there were any objections. And this was the second time we had such discussions over the past year or so. The last time some mods stood up for Buxte and we didn't ban him. This time no one did and we did. It was an extended process. I might add that only about one in ten of Buxte's posts was of any quality at all imho, so I don't feel we've lost in that respect. Although, we have lost some diversity, I guess.

Trolling, anti-semitic jokes, dick sucking comments, ignoring warnings,, laughing at being warned and so on. Again, most of the reason he's been banned has been deleted or happened by PM. It's unfortunate that people don't take that into consideration before jumping to the conclusion that we're draconian. We're not.

So, you have 10. But only one scenario applies to your choice, either the one where you lose by switching in which case X is five and 2X is 10, or you gain by switching in which X is 10 and 2X is 20. You can't be in both scenarios at the same time and X has a different value in both, so your calculation fails.

We know the chosen envelope has £10 in your scenario and we also know that one of the envelopes contained an amount X and one of the envelopes contained an amount 2X, and therefore we know we can only move from X to 2X or from 2X to X by switching. Therefore we know we have a 50% chance of gaining X by switching and a 50% chance of losing X by switching and that therefore there is no point in switching.

You're using X to refer to both the X in the scenario where switching gets you less and in the scenario where switching gets you more. But given any given amount you see in front of you after already choosing an envelope, those are not the same X.

The problem is he's painted himself into a corner about the whole thing being a massive success and by the time he manages to admit he's made a mess of it, it'll be too late. Kim will just string him out. Played.

Take any given pair of envelopes X+2X
Let X=10 (for example)
If you choose Envelope X you see £10 and switching to Envelope 2X gains you £10
If you choose Envelope 2X you see £20 and switching to Envelope X loses you £10.

Should you switch? As there is a 50% chance you have already chosen Envelope X and a 50% chance you have already chosen Envelope 2X, it doesn't matter.

@Michael I'll leave it for now as we're coming at it from different angles. I think you are treating the first and second event as independent and I am treating them as dependent (the second dependent on the first). Maybe someone else has a more formal way of putting that.

There can never be a possible spread from £5 to £20 given that you've chosen an envelope already. Given that you've already chosen and you've chosen only either X or 2X, switching can only take you from X to 2X(+X) or from 2X to X(-X). So no matter what X is you can only gain or lose that X by switching.

I don't understand why you don't understand. There is no point in this scenario after an envelope is chosen where X( £5) and 4X(£20) are compatible possibilities. The second choice (to switch) is dependent on the first, which limits you to Envelope X or Envelope 2X.

No. 20 and 5 are incompatible possibilities given you've already chosen an envelope. 20=4(5). There is no 4X.

Baden told me in another thread that I should have complained about StreetlightS merging threads about Trump into the lounge thread which has lower standards of discussion. — frank

No I didn't. I said I don't know what happened with that but in future if something gets folded in you don't agree with you have the right to complain.

And I don't know anything about what's been folded in here. You can take that up with Street. The OP is the OP and we're in the Lounge. That's the context as it stands. If something gets folded in in future that shouldn't be, let us know. — Baden

Whether you benefit by switching or not is dependent on what envelope you just chose, which must be Envelope X or Envelope 2X where X is a given sum of money. So, switching can only ever take you from Envelope X to Envelope 2X (+X) or from Envelope 2X to X (-X).

Let X=10.

If you choose Envelope X then you get 10 and switching gains you ten. If you choose Envelope 2X then you get 20 and switching loses you 10.

The same applies for all X.

Not sure if you saw my edit:

The only combinations given that you have a 10 are A or B. Therefore picking 10 is incompatible with both a possibility of 5 and of 20. Therefore your program which presumes it is is incompatible with the OP.

So switching gives me a 50% chance of gaining £10 and a 50% chance of losing £5. There's more to gain by switching than there is to lose. — Michael

No, you never get to that position. Switching gives you a 100% chance of gaining £10 iff you are in scenario two and 100% of losing £5 iff you are in scenario one. You can never be in both. That's impossible by the time you get to seeing the £10. The fact that you don't know which scenario you are in needs to be separated out from the actual possibilities available to you at that time which are dependent on the reality of the scenario that applies at that time.

If the envelope contains 10 then the original pair must have been either A(5 and 10) or B(10 and 20) according to the OP description. If it was A(5 and 10) then switching gives you 5. There is never any possibility of 20. If it is B(10 and 20) there is never any possibility of 5. The only combinations given that you have a 10 are A or B. Therefore picking 10 is incompatible with both a possibility of 5 and of 20.

Therefore your program which presumes it is is incompatible with the OP.

Two envelopes are e.g. 5 (X) and 10 (2X) - Pick 10(2X) and switch get X - But if you've already picked 2X you cannot get 2(2X). There is no 4X (20). That's no longer a possibility. Once you pick once, you eliminate either a double or a halving. Your array presumes three possibilities 5, 10, and 20. That contradicts the description in the OP. Right?

Mm, that sounds right. I certainly can't think of any (non-religious) principle that would cover regular sexual intercourse and not also cover oral and anal sexual intercourse. It must be a package deal.

(They're not "my moderators" by the way nor am I theirs. We all can be flagged equally and we have modded each other and will no doubt again).

If it's ok for people to shout "idiot", then it must be equally fine for people to ask that the tone be tempered. — frank

Yes, it is, which is why I answered you and Phil O Sophy and Free Emotion. It's just getting repetitive. The answer's not going to change: I'd like to see reasoned discourse here as everywhere but it's less formal here in the Lounge, it doesn't have to be philosophical, and words like "idiot" about a third party are certainly OK.

You want me to notify you the next time a political topic is folded into this one because it's about Trump? You want me to flag your own moderators? — frank

Yes, of course I want you to notify any of us on this if you have reason to think the topic shouldn't have been folded in and a mistake has been made.

And I don't know anything about what's been folded in here. You can take that up with Street. The OP is the OP and we're in the Lounge. That's the context as it stands. If something gets folded in in future that shouldn't be, let us know.

The stance is not specifically about Trump. The stance is that if the conversation, any conversation, is in the Lounge and the OP specifically describes the nature of the conversation as being inclusive of "laughing, crying, hating" (Trump in this case) then a less formal level of discourse, certainly including use of the word "idiot", is legitimate. If, on the other hand, someone starts a conversation on an aspect on the Trump presidency in 'Politics and Current Affairs' or especially, 'Political Philosophy', a more formal level of discourse would be required and use of the word "idiot" would be less acceptable and expected at least to be qualified and supported. Note that 'Politics and Current Affairs' is a less formal category than 'Political Philosophy', and 'The Lounge' is a less formal category than 'Politics and Current Affairs'. i.e. The site is set up with categories of various levels of formality that are expected to be adhered to.

And again, I don't know how many million times I have to mention this, but we're in the Lounge in a discussion that is meant to include, for example:

3) Shouting whatever you want at Trump.
4) Laughing, crying, hating, liking Trump. — René Descartes

So, please let's save the philosophical virtue signaling for actual philosophical discussions, many of which could do with more of it, and understand the context here.

That's just the way it is. — frank

No it's not. And you've just made a bare assertion without trying to reason for it, so that puts you in a self-defeating position here regarding reasoned discourse. Of course, you have to back the charge up with evidence and qualifications. But it's just a fact that some politicians are idiots or idiotic, at least in certain respects. On foreign policy, I don't think it's unfair to call Trump an idiot. There is a massive amount of evidence he is. In business, he's not. But the word "idiot" is most definitely not barred from inclusion in a serious point. It's just a synonym for very stupid and or ignorant. I'd agree that its emotive and can be unhelpful at times, but it's sometimes apt.

We are in the Lounge category, so this is not a philosophical discussion (plus again, see the OP). If it were a philosophical discussion, it would need to be moved to the Political Philosophy category. Ergo, reasoned philosophical discourse is not required here. I would hope that we would get at least reasoned discourse. But it's not unreasonable to assume that some politicians are actually idiotic and/or clueless. Trump may be one of those. Certainly on foreign policy, every analyst that I've heard comment on him has described him in words that can be considered synonymous. Obama, on the other hand, regularly demonstrated a high degree of knowledge on foreign (and domestic) policy in speeches and public pronouncements. So, it's quite probable that those calling him an idiot were wrong (presumably, they were idiots). The point being that it's silly to assume that just because one politician is unfairly called an idiot or clueless that it's unfair to call all politicians that. That in itself could be seen as a partisan attempt at false equivalency depending on how it's stated.

Isn't the disagreement precisely over whose double standard everyone should follow? — Srap Tasmaner

There'll always be bias and there'll always be a degree of double standard in that sense, but the specific argument is over whether outrage from the left (and centre) directed against individuals on the right can be classed as illegitimate/hypocritical based on examples of the sort Hanover provided. I'm saying "no" as even under a cursory analysis, the equivalences he's tried to draw fall apart (or at least don't hold enough to make said outrage illegitimate/hypocritical to any significant degree). Hanover appears to be responding to that by saying something like "Republicans don't care about this kind of analysis, they're still going to see this as a double standard and still not going to see the outrage as legitimate/fairly directed". Which is fine as I still consider that fighting the ideological fight to marginalize those who engage in racist/anti-semitic/Islamaphobic comments is worthwhile in a wider ethical context and is of pragmatic use, maybe not in the sense of convincing those whose ideology is already fully baked in of anything, which is generally futile anyway, but in winning over those in the center ground that can be got on side to the extent that it disempowers the objectionable discourse at least to some degree. And that's about the best that can be hoped for.

It seems credible to me as it's unlikely all those that witnessed and reported it are lying, and let's face it considering Trump's actions and words before and after becoming President, it fits right in to who he is, but until the tapes come out it's unprovable so I hope they get them out, and then watch the Whitehouse implode as it tries to spin the "n" word. Hopefully, mass protests and civil disobedience to follow until he's impeached.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-racist-apprentice-tape-sexist-claims-producer-678944

“We recorded constantly. We went into the boardroom to set up discussions about how and who should get fired [on the show] without talking and saying directly who got fired, so there was a big, long exchange, all of which was recorded,” he said. “Out of those exchanges came some really unfathomably despicable words said by this guy who is a TV star. I heard it. I watched it, and those things are somewhere in some warehouse.”

Asked more specifically about the content of the tapes and whether they contain only disparaging comments about women, Pruitt said, “No, very much a racist issue.” Pressed further on whether it was about African-Americans, Jewish people or all of the above,” Pruitt responded “yes” to all three.

...
Nobody, Pruitt says, ever confronted Trump about his offensive remarks."

More outrage was needed about this kind of stuff not less.

Trump is a racist with Neo-nazi sympathies as Charlottesville showed but Hanover will vote for him anyway because of those lefties and their outrage.



Good points and I want to get back with more when I have time. Short and dirty version for now is legitimate outrage only, authentic or inauthentic doesn't matter. Also the 50% or so of Republicans who, according to polls, think Obama was a Muslim, supported the birther movement, think global warming is a liberal conspiracy etc. are not worth trying to move, and I wouldn't try to move them. And neither are a lot of other Republicans. The pragmatic effort is to occupy the middle ground particularly that of swing voters and marginalize the right, and particularly the racist/islamophobic/anti-semite elements through, amongst other things, outrage. This will likely increase the intensity of hate towards the left by many on the right but they've only got one vote each. By the way, Trump didn't win the general imo because of the outrage directed by the left against the horrible things he said (this is more like why he won the Republican nomination because that's where extremists have way more say); he was at his highest in the polls for the general actually when he was being moderate and at this lowest after the outrage at the pussy-grabbing comments. And anyway, it was mostly about the economy and name recognition and the fact he's been on TV for so long. And it's also more like he won because Hillary was just about the worst possible person the Dems could have run and stimulated outrage on the other side (and even on her own side amongst the left). So, outrage worked but in the wrong direction.

:grin:

The joke would be outrageous if Rush Limbaugh was asked to do some menial task and he responded by saying he was a house N and he wasn't fit for the fields. It's not funny. It references a horrible episode in American history where black people were divided into subgroups where those who had more European features (most notably skin tone) were permitted the better work in the house and the blacker ones were left out in the field. Hilarious Rush! You're too white to do that work. Yeah, good one. — Hanover

You didn't answer to my point: Roseanne comparing a black person to an ape in order to belittle her is worse in degree of offensiveness to Bill Maher comparing himself to a house n**** as a joke. That's crucially important to recognize because we are arguing over the degree of outrage that's appropriate and that is proportional to the degree of offensiveness. I never claimed the joke was funny (in fact I said it was objectionable and Maher should have been punished more) nor did anyone else claim that, so you're arguing against a strawman rather than addressing the issue. The fact is your attempted equivalence does not hold therefore your argument fails. Period.

Again, sit on what you consider to be your logical distinctions all you want, but every time it happens, you further polarize. — Hanover

So, I should be illogical or not make distinctions? That's a pointless line to take. If we're not going to attempt to do an intelligent analysis, it's going to be a short and boring disagreement.

The right does not buy into your distinctions, and candidly, neither do I. It pushes me more toward voting for Trump actually. — Hanover

They're not my distinctions. I'm trying to apply reason here. So this is another pointless response. And telling me I'm pushing you towards voting Trump by analyzing the situation is flattering in an odd way but you can hardly expect me to modify my analysis in order to please you or anyone else. If you want to shoot yourself in the face to spite a political opponent, go ahead. I'll happily record the occasion and post it as a contender for the metaphorical Darwin awards.

My point is that you've got to look at the practical application of these things and worry less about some academic distinction you want to make. If, for example, black people didn't care about being called cotton pickers, then such comments wouldn't be outrageous. They'd be just as logically offensive, but to be truly offensive, you have to actually have that emotion. By the same token, if it is the case that the right is being offended by the application of what they perceive as a double standard, it's of limited relevance whether they ought logically be offended. The simple truth is that they are, so stop it. If you think it's fair game to say "Fuck Trump," but you scream and yell at "Fuck Obama" (despite you're personally thinking he's less offensive than Trump), you're going to continue to insult the right. If that's what you wanted to do anyway, then have at it, but don't expect any great respect back at you. — Hanover

The question we were arguing was not whether the right should be offended over the application of double standards, the question was whether there are actual double standards or not. You claimed there were. I've argued against that and told you why, and you've refused to reasonably engage. So, I don't accept there are double standards (at least in the examples we've dealt with. It's up to you to raise more if you want) to be offended by in the first place. The double standards argument appears to me to be an invention of the right in order to distract from the behaviour of some of their public representatives, spokespeople and fellow travelers, and a very weak attempt to justify that behaviour by drawing false equivalences. I've seen this strategy time and time again where pundits compare, for example, racist comments by a right winger to rude or vulgar comments by a left winger, two completely different categories of offense (though not in the case of Bill Maher where both comments were racist but in very different ways, one being a stupid attempt at being self-effacing, the other a straightforward racist attack).

On the example of DeNiro, I said he was wrong to say what he did, so it's not exactly accurate to say I said it's fair game. I said I understood the reaction. On Obama, I would not scream and yell if someone said Fuck Obama, I would probably on the contrary say, yes, Fuck Obama. I would think it hypocritical for an actor to say that in public if part of the reason for saying it was that the target was lowering the tone of public discourse as Trump is. But again, Trump deserves these kinds of insults more in the sense he does the same to others all the time. If right wingers are so bound up in their own partisan cloud of self-delusion that that simple common sense point cannot be admitted, it's again, their loss. I'm not going to stop pointing out reality because it's uncomfortable for them.

And I've refuted you and don't think you have much on this one. In fact, I think you're just hanging on to your argument because you feel you've already invested in it so you won't let go. Not really, but those are the sorts of things you like to say. — Hanover

Yes, not really. In fact, not at all. Because you haven't responded to my arguments so much as simply expressed your dislike of them. And if you think I didn't refute you and therefore shouldn't have claimed I did, actually respond and defend the equivalences instead of just shrugging the point off on the basis of anyone can be offended by anything they like. They can. But not justifiably. And therein lies the rub.

You don't have to apologize, I'm pretty sure that's an accurate assessment. ;)

Maybe you do not know what country you live in. — raza

That's a good one. Can you write a poem about it?

Never mind, I will.

There was a young lad called Baden,
Who knew not what country he lived in,
raza called him out true,
And he got really blue,
So he grabbed Sarah Sanders and kissed him

(Little bit of poetic license there.)