I think the willingness to forgive is important. — Bitter Crank

It shows magnanimity of character - which typically impresses all but the most cold-hearted people, but there are limits to it as you say. Nietzsche said a great man can tolerate even his parasites - he has sufficient strength for it. But all this must be skillfully used to change the other person so that in the future there is no more need for forgiveness.

Regardless of the manner you describe proper love, it's possible two people are incompatible. — Hanover

It is possible, you are right. However, if you ended up in a romantic relationship with them, presumably you did get along with them at some point I would think, and so you weren't incompatible. So from where the incompatibility? I have to say that I've seen a lot of couples fighting but these incompatibilities arise with time, which means that in my opinion they are more superficial. For example, there were "incompatibilities" in my relationship with my first girlfriend that arose, but there was nothing that could not be surmounted.

I think incompatibilities - provided that there exists (or once existed) a background of compatibility which accounts for the commitment in the first place - arise out of selfishness or inability to love the other.

I cannot possibly be incompatible with a woman at the time I commit to the relationship, for then I wouldn't commit would I? First I make sure that - in my case - she's the kind of person who likes intelligent conversation, doesn't get easily bored, is independently minded, takes sexual morality seriously, is a spiritual person and so on so forth. If she doesn't meet this criteria why would I enter into a relationship with her in the first place? Even if I loved her, I would try to prove my love to her as a friend, and subtly through self-sacrifice convince her of the right values, and only then would I commit to her and enter into a romantic relationship. She must understand who I am as a character, and that it is good to be like this. Just like in war, there is lots of groundwork there, it's not so easy.

If I love my wife for example, and she feels my job is incompatible with our relationship, what shall I sacrifice? Her, or my job? I think the answer is very clear, my job, if I love her. And the sacrifice of my job will carry a lot of weight in proving who I am to her. Self-sacrifice is essential for love.

Now it is possible to get to be in a relationship with a selfish and abusive person. But I have not met such cold-hearted people (who nevertheless are compatible enough at first) who cannot be mellowed and broken down with the application of the right strategies. For example, if your wife offends you time and time again, but you bear the offence, does that not show greatness of character? What if you show her mercy multiple times? Does that not show magnanimity? For how long will she ignore it? There may be people who will keep on abusing - but I'm just saying I haven't personally met people who cannot be won over - or at least made to feel very guilty and regret what they've done - by the application of the right strategies. In fact, it may be possible to turn such a person from someone who hates you at the time, into someone who deeply loves you once they realise who you really are.

At least in part due to yours truly, who dutifully brings back items of post-truthiness on a regular basis.... — Wayfarer

How much does Crooked pay you? >:)

Glorying in your own ignorance. Stats is a basic literacy. — Banno

And what makes you think I don't know stats? I know stats very well, that's exactly why I have the privilege of distrusting them. Because I understand what is going on.

An atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a jew, a muslim, a hindu, and a christian all walk into a bar and sit down. After a while they drink, talk, and quickly become friends...

If you're waiting for a punchline... don't, cause it ain't a joke. That's just what happens when you're not an asshole. — creativesoul

I think this is actually a serious misunderstanding of the gravity of our modern situation. I think Alasdair MacIntyre was right in his book After Virtue that we, as a society, no longer have the tools and the means required to settle moral disputes.

You presuppose that the atheist, agnostic and so on so on (to adopt a Zizek line) can become friends, but this is already to presuppose the victory of the atheist. The real problem of course is that these are very different ways of life, which are mutually contradictory. When you say we can all get along, you are effectively doing harm to non-atheistic (I'm using atheist in a very loose sense here) ways of life. It is what the atheist always promotes - toleration - but toleration means the destruction of beliefs that disagree with his.

Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal. Indeed, living together in the so-called modern Western society is being defeated and humiliated for a religious person. A Hindu and a Christian have more in common, and indeed can be friends, much better than a Christian and an atheist. There is after all not such a big divide between the Hindu and the Christian. The divide is superficial - different doctrines here and there, different theologies, and so on so forth. But fundamentally the Christian and the Hindu agree on the means of living in a community. We agree about the importance of respecting traditions, respecting authority, respecting one's family, sexual morality, how people should dress and so on so forth. There is a deep agreement that there exists a spiritual realm which is more important hierarchically than this material realm.

However, with the atheist, this is very different. The atheist cannot comprehend for example how sex has a spiritual meaning, and thus the atheist has a completely different understanding of sex. This understanding of it translates into his behaviour - and how he interprets the behaviours of others. We cannot have both his behaviour and my behaviour in society because they are mutually opposed. Indeed, if his behaviour is accepted, then mine is rejected. And I cannot allow that to happen. For example, he will interpret me teaching my daughter that it is immoral to have an abortion as oppression of women. Neither can the atheist allow his behaviour to be rejected. He cannot allow me to have my moral standard, because if I do, and I am successful, there is no place for his way of life, for his way of life will disappear since people will shun what is now viewed as immoral behaviour. Thus conflict is inevitable.

And these labels aren't very useful because many religious people are actually atheists in the West. They are religious only in name. That is not of much use, is it?

It is possible that ending a relationship is better than persevering just for the sake of proving your commitment if that relationship isn't offering many positive effects. I wouldn't call someone particularly good simply because he can suffer through a worn out relationship better than the next guy. — Hanover

Well, my idea at least, if you're in a relationship to get something out of it (the positive effects), then I don't think you really love the other person. You're just being a utilitarian - maybe an enlightened utilitarian - and seeking your own benefit first, and secondly mutual benefit. To me, this cannot be love, because love implies self-sacrifice.

I personally would argue that it's better to avoid romantic relationships of the utilitarian kind, since it will inevitably lead to either you or your partner feeling like you have been just a tool to the other.

Very sensible thoughts, I quite agree with what you say here (Y)

Nowdays it seems that people are OK with statistics if the statistical result tells something they want to hear. Otherwise it's fake news. — ssu

No, if someone came with such statistics to me to predict a result, I'd bet against it and win some money actually :D - so I would like it very much!

Are they hard to find? — Bitter Crank

Yes, very very difficult :D especially if we insist that they meet all those characteristics. It's very hard to find a suitable marriage partner, whether male or female, in today's world (which explains why our divorce rates are 50%+)

As a heuristic I'd imagine a good woman is one who thinks a thread like this is bullshit. — StreetlightX

Why? I don't think it's bullshit thinking about what's good and bad...

"good woman" — Bitter Crank

Well let's see... intelligent, independent, compassionate, chaste, not-selfish (I will not say obedient because if I use that word people will misinterpret my statements once again and say it's sexist), courageous, loyal, doesn't give in to peer pressure (this last one is very very important), doesn't get easily bored.

It's very similar to what a good man would be in my opinion.

>:O >:O >:O

What is it with Republicans and experts?

Next you're going to be a climate change denier. — Michael

Everyone should be skeptical of experts, not just Republicans. To me, it's more amazing how easily people bow their heads to experts once the experts perform some mathematical magic tricks that they don't understand ;) Much like witch doctors did 2000 years ago.

Of course, as the article I linked to said, "it is possible that pollsters sample 1,013 voters who happen to vote for Bush when in fact the population is evenly split between Bush and Kerry", but "this is extremely unlikely (p = 2−1013 ≈ 1.1 × 10−305) given that the sample is random". — Michael

No, it's not that unlikely, because that assumes the whites (to pick an example), etc. are randomly distributed through the cities, geographical regions of US, and so forth.

And if 5% of blacks are in Minnesota and 5% are in DC then due to the random sampling it is likely that 5% of the blacks in the sample are from Minnesota and 5% are from DC. — Michael

Right, so about 8 black people will be taken as representative for all blacks in Minnesota, and all blacks in DC :s

The expert statisticians are the one's who actually have the training and knowledge to determine these things. I'm showing you their results. — Michael

Yes, that's why unfortunately I think you'd make a not so good decision maker because you trust the "experts" quite blindly. I'm an engineer by profession. I've been trained not to trust any expert whatsoever unless I verify for myself and think through their assumptions.

Yes. If 10% of the population are black and 5% lesbian and 50% religious then a random sample size of 1,500 is likely to also have 10% black, 5% lesbian, and 50% religious, etc. Hence why a random sample size of 1,500 is representative. — Michael

And that presumes that the 10% black out of the 1500 - meaning 150 people - are representative of the black population in the whole country. That's false. Blacks in Minnesota will probably be different than blacks in DC. And you're not adequately going to quantify that.

Yes, and if we take 1,500 random Americans then that would be representative of Americans. — Michael

Wrong. There's a lot of diversity in Americans. There's black non-religious Americans, black religious Americans, black homosexuals, black lesbians, etc. you're telling me you'll capture each of those groups accurately within 1,500 people total? :s

I linked you to an article on the subject. That's the explanation. — Michael

:s nope, that's no explanation at all. That's just parroting the theory to me, not showing that you've actually thought about it. You'll start thinking about it when you start thinking about all the things that can go wrong, and realise how uncertain it really is.

No, because a sample size of 2 is terrible. A sample size of 1,500 people chosen at random from all black people in Arizona would be representative of how blacks in Arizona vote. — Michael

Oh yeah!! if we were talking just 1500 random black people from Arizona, sure! They'd be representative - of black people from Arizona.

The whole point of a random sample is that it represents diversity. You clearly don't understand statistics. — Michael

Sure. And I'm telling you that you cannot capture the actual diversity in just 1500 people and I've even explained you why.

Again, you're fooled by numbers.

Which assumptions are wrong? — Michael

To name a few.

That the probability distribution is normal.
That the sample is random.
That the sample is representative.
That there are no systematic errors.
That people answer honestly.
That people would actually behave as they say they'd behave if they actually had to vote.

On what grounds do you justify such an assertion? — Michael

On the grounds that the US is very diverse geographically speaking, and it's impossible to quantify this diversity in 1500 people. 50 states. That's 30 people per state assuming they were polled equally, which again wouldn't be representative since some states have more people. Those 30 have to be further divided into categories, blacks, whites, religious, non-religious, etc. When we get down to it, some categories will have very few people. We're going to say how blacks in Arizona vote based on two "randomly" polled black people. Give me a break... That's not representative.

He isn't. It gives a 2.53% margin of error with a CI of 95%. That's pretty good. — Michael

Yes provided the assumptions are good. They're not.

I brought this up specifically to address Buxtebuddha's claim that "1,500 people is a minuscule tally". — Michael

But Buxtebuddha is absolutely right. It is.

Look at these. Why do they assume probabilities are normally distributed? :s

It is possible that pollsters sample 1,013 voters who happen to vote for Bush when in fact the population is evenly split between Bush and Kerry, but this is extremely unlikely (p = 2−1013 ≈ 1.1 × 10−305) given that the sample is random.

This is an assumption. Read about what being random means mathematically.

However, the margin of error only accounts for random sampling error, so it is blind to systematic errors that may be introduced by non-response or by interactions between the survey and subjects' memory, motivation, communication and knowledge

Population size doesn't really matter, except when the sample size is greater than 5% of the population (so in this case). See here. — Michael

Does this assume a particular mathematical model? What if those assumptions are wrong? There's a very important effect that comes with size, especially in a country like the US. Maybe the probability is indeed 2.53% or whatever if you're dealing with physical atoms, obeying physical laws, not with people. The fact that you - and your statistics - would claim that the probability of error is the same in both cases is a fault with the methodological/statistical method applied. Unquestionably so.

Others think that because they do argue, they are right. — Banno

Sure, and I certainly think that those who go in the ring and fight have a lot more right to claim victory compared to those who sit on the sidelines.

is a non sequitur, since it does not follow from the support of the mob that one has divine right. — Banno

It does not follow in what way? It does not follow logically, that's true. But I made an inductive statement there. I said that having the support of the people is evidence that the person in question has divine right. It's not sufficient for that to be the case, but it is evidence. I mean, could someone have divine right to rule and have no one's support? Then in what sense would he even have right to rule? :s

Then you shifted your ground from evidence to necessity. — Banno

I haven't. I merely pointed out, that if you are going to say it's a non-sequitur - that one doesn't follow from the other - you're probably assuming a logical necessity between the two. Of course there is no logical necessity there. But that doesn't mean it's not evidence. First of all, historically it is evidence. And secondly, we wouldn't expect someone who has divine right to rule not to have the support of the people (in most instances at least).

Perhaps this goes to explaining your infatuation; you want to be like him.

That probably should incite pathos, but instead i find myself disgusted. — Banno

Actually I merely pointed to Trump to illustrate that you have this attitude to everyone who disagrees with you on politics. It's not a very productive attitude, since you can't even have a conversation with people who disagree with you that way.

It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously. — Banno

Your behaviour towards me is identical to your behaviour towards Trump. You sit there throwing your hands in the air that it's astonishing that Trump won... well, if you stop being such a self-righteous person, you may start to see that it's not at all so astonishing. But of course, you won't. You'll keep on, never questioning yourself.

Do you think that this is an indication of divine right, or a will to dictatorship? — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be both.

To detail on this, the way it can be both is that often divine right to rule can make itself manifest through such means as well.

No; there is no point in engaging with you. I'll leave these few comments here for others to consider. — Banno

Well yeah, exactly. Like you always do. Run away. That certainly means you're right. That's how crazy some people are. They think if they don't argue they're right... *shakes head*

I suggest you go back and re-read it, and please show me, where the hell do you see that I support there being a logical necessity between the two statements?

That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. — Agustino

So now you shift your ground.

It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously. — Banno

Can you please explain how I've shifted my ground? I never claimed there was any logical necessity between the two statements. On the contrary, it is you who have strawmanned my point.

That goes a long way to explaining your position, despite not watching television. — Banno

You haven't shown this. Sorry.

You can't see the obvious non sequitur here? — Banno

Yeah, sure, there is no logical necessity that someone who has the support of the people has divine right to rule, BUT it's a very good indicator. I don't care about logical necessity. There's no logical necessity that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have no problem believing it!

Sounds like a dictator to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

A dictator would be an illegitimate ruler. The point is precisely that such a ruler would be legitimate until he lost that legitimacy.

Divine right is something completely different. Monarchs may have claimed divine right, as the king might say that it is the direct will of God that I rule. But such a monarchy requires a powerful church and allegiance to that church, to support the claim. The concept can't apply in democracy where the rulers are elected by the people, and anyone claiming divine right would be regarded as a dictator. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. Now this doesn't require a church. The Chinese never had a church. But they understood that there are spiritual forces at play in the world.

It beats me. I don't understand it. Sometimes I honestly think it might be the long-term effect of too much exposure to television - a kind of mass loss of grip on reality. But really, I don't know. — Wayfarer

What about people like me then? I barely watch TV at all.

As I said above, a representative sample of 1,500 gives a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval. — Michael

It's ludicrous to think 1,500 gives only 2.58% margin of error (within 95% CI). To get these margins of error and the confidence intervals we make a ton of assumptions about the probability distribution of the population (such that we're dealing with a normal distribution where 2 standard deviations takes us to 95% confidence). Most of these assumptions are part of mathematical models that are necessary for us to make any kind of prediction whatsoever. However, there's no way - and I tell you this as a person who has worked with statistics and even took decisions based on them - that this is actually the case in reality.

There's just no way you'll get a 2.58% margin of error based on 1,500 people. Guaranteed. Not when the population is 320 million, spread across very different cultural and geographical regions. If my life depended on taking a decision based on that poll, I'd ignore what it says. This is one instance - which are actually getting more common - when we're deceived by numbers. It's very easy to be deceived by numbers in a scientific culture.

Not to mention that it's really easy for me to pull out whatever numbers I want out of these calcs. And everyone who works in research knows this. That's why mathematical models are known as "black boxes" - you see what goes in, and what comes out, but you don't see what happens inside.



Leaving that behind, if someone comes with that poll to you asking you to - say - make a bet on it, then you should send them to walk your dog in the park, and make no bet whatsoever.

This is just nonsense. — Michael

It is a recognised factor through history though. In China, for example, they called it divine mandate. Whoever held the divine mandate was simply unstoppable while holding it. In Europe we called it divine right to rule. All these are metaphors for interpreting the spirit of the age.

People don't get it. When you try to predict elections, you don't look at the polls. You try instead to perceive in which direction the energy is shifting. The spirit of the times always makes itself manifest. If someone has the blessing of the gods it is clear, and nothing - regardless of what that is - can stop them.

They're bussed in. Greater numbers of Americans believe Trump ought to be impeached, than believe he's doing a good job. — Wayfarer

Doesn't matter. Bus or no bus, if you can gather such crowds you're winning. All politicians try to bus people in, but it's hard or very expensive to do when you have no popularity.

Damn right, I overestimated the intelligence of the US electorate. — Wayfarer

>:O You're the guy who used to claim that Hillary Clinton is the best politician there is >:O >:O Just look at this: