[jonottawa]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-22, 00:11, said:

I don't think any of us can be sure that it doesn't apply to us. If I had to guess, I think both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance as you described it.

It's unlikely that we are right about every point, and it's unlikely that they are right about every point. There are some very smart people on both sides of this article (I'm talking nationally, just not here.)

I absolutely agree with that.

However, when someone frames an argument in a dishonest way, you can (if the misrepresentation is blatant enough) certainly reply with near-metaphysical certainty that their accusation doesn't apply to you. Cognitive dissonance doesn't enter it.

I can't (and don't) claim to be right about every issue. Though as someone who greatly admired Bill Clinton when he was president & who supported Hillary and then Obama (after Hillary lost the nomination) in 2008, and who now is more excited (though prepared to be disappointed yet again) about the Trump presidency than any presidency in my lifetime, I think I'm in a better position to argue that I'm FAIRLY RESISTANT to cognitive dissonance than your average bear (or than a lifelong leftist.)

Here are some examples of things I DON'T like about Trump (or his agenda,) for instance:

Kowtowing to Bibi (especially on Jerusalem, which I find incredibly offensive & counter-productive.)
Preemptively ruling out a prosecution of Hillary instead of letting the FBI/DoJ do their jobs once he takes office.
Abolishing the estate tax.
Saying an unqualified yes to torture (I'd much rather he just said 'I'll keep them guessing' or at least 'only in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances' to torture.)
Involving his children in his administration.
Signaling a willingness to compromise too easily. The other side HATES him & showing weakness won't change that. Obama made the same mistake in 2009. Then Democrats got crushed in 2010, so his show of 'good faith' was NOT rewarded by the voters either.

Oh look! More racist Hillary supporters:

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2015-October-21, 12:23, said:

After many years of often invigorating, sometimes frustrating and almost always informative participation in this forum I have decided to leave. Only time will tell whether this is a permanent decision or something that will prove to be temporary.

What precipitated this was an increasingly acrimonious exchange with a valued contributor to the forum. It descended to accusations of dishonesty. At the same time, I was reading a thread on BW about a poster who had been banned, and I read some of the posts that had got him into trouble, and was disturbed to realize that on occasion I used a similar tone in my posts here. So the decision, while prompted by an exchange with one particular poster, is more about recognizing issues in how I have communicated here than it is about anyone else. The recent exchange is the trigger, not the cause. To the extent that anyone wishes I did not quit, please do not cast blame on anyone other than me.

In hindsight, I believe that one of the problems has been that I have allowed something that is an asset in my vocation, as a trial lawyer, to colour the way I write here. I tend, as counsel, to present arguments and assertions in a manner suggestive of a confident belief in my position, even if I harbour more doubt than is apparent. In addition, as a trial date approaches, I tend to become ever more convinced of the validity of my ideas...as I tell clients, when warning them that my objectivity diminishes on the eve of trial, if I can't convince myself, I am unlikely to convince a Judge or jury. I think that sometimes that ability to convince myself overcame more considered judgement.

I think, therefore, that despite (usually) good intentions, many of my posts come across as less respectful of other opinions than would be warranted or appropriate.

I think that this problem is compounded by the nature of the medium. I sometimes write posts with tongue firmly in cheek only to find that someone has taken it seriously and problems ensue. I don't want to inflate the significance of this: such instances are rare. More commonly, either I read into someone's post something that was either not there or not intended, or someone reads into one of my posts something I did not, at least, consciously intend to convey. In other cases, I post too quickly, and end up saying something that is clearly wrong or inappropriately phrased.

All of these issues are accentuated, in seriousness, by the tone I often use. That tone has often infuriated some readers...I suspect that there have been more than just the handful who have responded publicly.

So on reflection I think it best that I take at least an extended break from posting. I hereby apologize to those I have offended. I am not pretending that I never knowingly offended a small number of posters, but I suspect that the number I have offended well exceeds the number I intended to offend, and to those and to those who read my posts with some disquiet, I apologize. And to those I intentionally offended, I also apologize. Disagreement is fine, but should be more respectful than I sometimes was.

Explanations of how some of that offence was unintended do not constitute and are not offered as justifications or excuses. As someone who uses language as a tool in my vocation, I ought to be more fully aware than I was to the effect of tone and the possibility that nuances I had in mind (on some posts) would not be apparent to anyone simply reading the printed word. The faults were mine, and I regret them sincerely.

I wish all who post or browse here all the best. I have learned a lot about bridge in my time here, and have come to think of some posters here as friends despite never meeting them in real life. Thank you all.

QFT

[hrothgar]

Life might get interesting

http://nymag.com/dai...on-results.html

Note that Halderman has some serious chops in this area.

Please note: Much as I despise the thought of a Trump Presidency, I'm not sure whether this fight is a good one to wage.
Its very unclear whether you could come to a definitive finding.
Its possible that the fight could be more destructive than the alternative.

At the same time, if this is legitimate then we have some serious issues to figure out.

FWIW, I think that we'd all be a lot happier if the entire country was using a voting system like the one in use in Arizona.
It has some very good properties and seems well designed. (For example, it uses electronic voting machines that produce a physical/audit-able paper ballot)

[Kaitlyn S]

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

[Kaitlyn S]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-22, 17:18, said:

Here are some examples of things I DON'T like about Trump (or his agenda,) for instance:

Kowtowing to Bibi (especially on Jerusalem, which I find incredibly offensive & counter-productive.)
Preemptively ruling out a prosecution of Hillary instead of letting the FBI/DoJ do their jobs once he takes office.
Abolishing the estate tax.
Saying an unqualified yes to torture (I'd much rather he just said 'I'll keep them guessing' or at least 'only in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances' to torture.)
Involving his children in his administration.
Signaling a willingness to compromise too easily. The other side HATES him & showing weakness won't change that. Obama made the same mistake in 2009. Then Democrats got crushed in 2010, so his show of 'good faith' was NOT rewarded by the voters either.

On Bibi: I feel pretty strongly that we should try to stay allied with the only Democratic state in the Middle East, for if they fall, it will only embolden their destroyers with their disastrous ideology.
On Hillary: I assumed he wouldn't do anything. However, he might have some intelligence that we don't have that nothing is likely to come from the investigation.
On the estate tax: I agree. This sounds self-serving to me.
On torture: I agree. Sad to say it seemed that several of the leading Republican candidates were in favor of torture. While I was at one time, I realized that I couldn't really call myself a Christian and support torture.
On involving his children: If he honestly thinks they are the most qualified people to do the job, that's fine. I'd bet 60% of Americans would rather see one of his children replace Banner. I'm one of them - one of his children would be benign and Banner is divisive.
On compromise: I'm OK with it. If he doesn't compromise, half the country is not represented since the GOP has both houses of Congress and will have the Supreme Court (which should not be partisan IMO but I don't know what to do about that.) Plus, I don't think Obama showed good faith; it seemed to be his way or the highway, and his appointment of Holder was anything but compromising.

[jonottawa]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-22, 18:40, said:

On Bibi: I feel pretty strongly that we should try to stay allied with the only Democratic state in the Middle East, for if they fall, it will only embolden their destroyers with their disastrous ideology.
On Hillary: I assumed he wouldn't do anything. However, he might have some intelligence that we don't have that nothing is likely to come from the investigation.
On the estate tax: I agree. This sounds self-serving to me.
On torture: I agree. Sad to say it seemed that several of the leading Republican candidates were in favor of torture. While I was at one time, I realized that I couldn't really call myself a Christian and support torture.
On involving his children: If he honestly thinks they are the most qualified people to do the job, that's fine. I'd bet 60% of Americans would rather see one of his children replace Banner. I'm one of them - one of his children would be benign and Banner is divisive.
On compromise: I'm OK with it. If he doesn't compromise, half the country is not represented since the GOP has both houses of Congress and will have the Supreme Court (which should not be partisan IMO but I don't know what to do about that.) Plus, I don't think Obama showed good faith; it seemed to be his way or the highway, and his appointment of Holder was anything but compromising.

You're offering false extremes on Israel. It isn't kowtow to Bibi or drop all support for Israel.

On Hillary it gains him nothing, costs him credibility with his supporters & gives aid and comfort to his enemies. We elected him in part to restore America as a Nation of Laws. Not to insert himself into an ongoing investigation.

I wish you'd stop calling him Banner. Bannon's not going anywhere, nor is there any justification for vilifying him when we've had Jarrett & Rove as the last 2 presidential consiglieres. And I have no interest in what 60% of Americans want to see. I'm interested in what's right. He (understandably) has a blind spot where his children are concerned.

You're again offering false extremes, this time on compromise. You don't negotiate with yourself. You don't signal a willingness to work with an enemy who hates you UNTIL they offer to work with you. Obviously if the Democrats signal a willingness to compromise to help push parts of his agenda forward in exchange for something they want, THEN you compromise.

As for Obama's signaling a willingness to act in a bi-partisan way at the beginning of his first term, that's in the past so I'll just agree to disagree.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-22, 18:27, said:

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

The fact that you admit to knowing little is a start. The next step is to THINK and research before you post more of the lies you have absorbed from your friends and the right wing bubble in which you seem to have spent most of your life. I do in fact know more than you do, about many of the topics under discussion, as do many here. But little of that knowledge is hidden or difficult to find. Heck, just google whatever factual matter you think is true and you will soon learn if there is reason to be doubtful. A combined time of 5 mins on google would have prevented you from displaying your appalling ignorance on just about everything factual that you have posted here. btw, I don't for a second claim any special status: the things I know are known by many, which is why I know them. Indeed, I have learned much from this site, and not just about bridge. I hope you do as well.

I don't have contempt for you. I have contempt for the liars who populate the information sources that you and your friends use. You're a victim. Maybe now that you have seen that there is an entire world of evidence-based reality available to you, you will cast off the shackles of ignorance. I can but hope.

As for jon, he has revealed himself for what he is, and I'm not going to respond to that ugly person anymore. As for Al, he is delusional, a reality denying fool who haunts here for reasons unknown to the rest of us since he never references bridge. I don't know if jon does, but I know of pretty much all the better players in Canada and I don't think he is one of them. So I suspect he is just one of those trolls with no life, who finds a website or two where he can post his angers and fears and make himself seem like someone important. In the words of his hero: sad.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-22, 19:35, said:

but I know of pretty much all the better players in Canada and I don't think he is one of them.

TBH you could know the better players in the US and not know me because I'm not one of them If you play in the Main Bridge Club, you know that being a good player is not a prerequisite for being here

[Winstonm]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-22, 18:27, said:

Mike, while I realize that you're being as nice as you can, it's really hard for you to hide your contempt or disdain. You want someone to discuss issues with that knows as much as you do. My interest in politics and issues is fairly recent, so I'm probably not that person. I realize that now. As we both are constantly learning, I will probably never be that person. Unfortunately, someone that might be that person already agrees with you on most points so the discussion isn't going to go very far. Al_U_Card and Jon certainly do not agree with you but I think you have even less desire to discuss things with them than you do with me.

I strongly suggest you read Merchants of Doubt. It is a documented tracing of the attempts over decades by a relative handful of scientists to use their reputations to create confusion and doubt about scientific findings they thought would lead to government intervention and were a threat to profits.

[Vampyr]

I think that when someone says that they will accept the scientific consensus if it can be proven that scientists who disagree with it are somehow being suppressed, there is no hope for them. Gravity and electromagnetism are theories about which there is broad scientific consensus, and in fact these are mainly accepted by the general public. However, perhaps dissenting scientists have likewise been suppressed. The Sun moves around the Earth. Does it not? Am i to believe the liberal heliocentric conspiracy?

[StevenG]

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

[Kaitlyn S]

 StevenG, on 2016-November-23, 05:10, said:

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

I agree. I believe there is massive suppression of discoveries (or research of) alternative medicines and supplements to keep the drug companies bringing in the big bucks.

[Winstonm]

 StevenG, on 2016-November-23, 05:10, said:

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

It is rather unlikely - maybe even impossible - to prevent genuine scientific research findings from being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In most cases of previous attempts to smear science with doubt the presumed motive has been zealotry and fierce loyalty to free-market, anti-regulation ideology.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-23, 09:29, said:

I agree. I believe there is massive suppression of discoveries (or research of) alternative medicines and supplements to keep the drug companies bringing in the big bucks.

This is another fact-free belief. Think about what you are saying. The fake remedy industry is booming like never before. Fraudsters pimp their products on mainstream media...Dr. Oz makes a huge living out of promoting fake remedies (green coffee, anybody?).

Homeopathy is extremely popular despite there being no reputable study showing that it works. Btw, the peddlers of homeopathy have more than enough money to run real trials if they wanted to do so. Look into how it is supposed to 'work' and, unless you are incredibly credulous, you'd soon realize why no such studies are run.

Chiropractic, despite being extremely lucrative for its practitioners, is based on non-scientific ideas about anatomy, formed well over 100 years ago. It happens to afford relief in some cases, but so too does physiotherapy, which happens to be based on more current, and correct, ideas about the human body. Meanwhile, I have read reports from chiropractors claiming to be able to treat concussions and other non-spinal/non-muscular conditions. Not all chiropractors make such claims, but enough do to cause me concerns. Btw, I wouldn't let a chiro near my body.

Acupuncture: a triumph of the placebo effect. No proper study has, to my knowledge, ever shown any objective effect. How do they study this? They use both real needles and fake needles...in which the point of the needle draws up into the body of the needle rather than breaking the surface of the skin. It looks to the patient as a real needle. Such studies show that the fake needle is as effective as the real.

Rieki energy healing. Energy, whatever that means in this context, is somehow transferred from the practitioner to the patient without any physical interaction. A study performed by a teenager (it was well done, a really valid study, btw) as a science project became famous for debunking the practice, but of course it continues to generate lots of money for the quacks.

Btw, if anyone claims that their therapy uses 'energy', in an undefined way, that is a pretty good indicator of fraud. Energy and quantum are sciency sounding words so fraudsters love to use them in order to sound sciency.

I rarely link directly to sources, but am happy to suggest google search terms that will lead you to resources. Google 'studies of acupuncture'. Or 'reiki studies'

Do your own research.

Conspiracy theories are everywhere. Anti-vaxxers still promote deadly diseases in previously immune communities, based largely on the fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield (who has been struck as a doctor for that fraud but who still rakes in profits from books and speaking engagements).

I give up on you, Kaitlyn. You have absolutely zero interest in understanding reality if it contradicts your beliefs: you value ignorance as superior to knowledge. I know you will deny that, but your posts demonstrate it beyond argument.

Muffled climate change scientists could disprove human involvement in global warming

Professor demonstrates futility of socialism by experiment in marking

Journalists are intimidated into not criticizing Islam

Employers won't hire blacks because they fear baseless discrimination lawsuits by blacks, but not, apparently, by latinos, women, gays, trans, disabled, Asian people

Big Pharma suppresses life-saving alternative treatments


The only time you have indicated that you did ANY fact-checking was after you were challenged on your employer nonsense, and even then, after admitting that a key underlying assumption was untrue, you maintained your belief. Most rational people, on learning that a basic assumption was wrong, revisit their belief. Not you. No, you just find another reason to cling to your fantasy.

I do give up. No more responses to your never-ending demonstrations of gullibility and ignorance.

[barmar]

 StevenG, on 2016-November-23, 05:10, said:

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

Perhaps this is why we should be more willing to accept the concensus about climate change.

The "vested interests" want to suppress information about climate change. They should be able to pay plenty of scientists to spread their party line, much like the tobacco industry did decades ago. But with all their money, they haven't been able to suppress the overwhelming scientific concensus that human-caused climate change is real.

Someone suggested that the naysayers are being muffled. Who would be doing all that muffling, and how would they achieve it when there's so much money on the other side?

The general problem with conspiracy theories is that it's really hard to maintain all the secrecy that they require. It's probably more plausible that 9/11 or the JFK assassinations were inside jobs than that all the scientists with evidence against climate change are being suppressed. The former just require a conspiracy of a small handful of people within some government organization, not a worldwide network of scientists and journals.

[jonottawa]

*consensus*

As for climate change, assuming it's real & man-made, I'm still waiting to hear solutions that address the #1 driver of environmental devastation: 3rd world overpopulation.

[jonottawa]

Duplicate post. I might as well put something here:

Good article on Breitbart about letting Hillary & Bill off the hook. I completely concur with Schweizer.

Peter Schweizer: Letting Hillary off the Hook Is ‘Definition of a Rigged System’

"“My bottom line position, Alex, is, look, he should not even be commenting on this. It’s not appropriate for a President of the United States to be talking about a possible criminal investigation that’s taking place by the FBI at this point. It’s just simply not his place,” Schweizer said."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-November-23, 10:41, said:

Perhaps this is why we should be more willing to accept the concensus about climate change.

The "vested interests" want to suppress information about climate change. They should be able to pay plenty of scientists to spread their party line, much like the tobacco industry did decades ago. But with all their money, they haven't been able to suppress the overwhelming scientific concensus that human-caused climate change is real.

Someone suggested that the naysayers are being muffled. Who would be doing all that muffling, and how would they achieve it when there's so much money on the other side?

The general problem with conspiracy theories is that it's really hard to maintain all the secrecy that they require. It's probably more plausible that 9/11 or the JFK assassinations were inside jobs than that all the scientists with evidence against climate change are being suppressed. The former just require a conspiracy of a small handful of people within some government organization, not a worldwide network of scientists and journals.

I see ths as a "How do we know what we know" issue, and my outlook agrees with yours. I was in a conversation the other day at Starbucks with a guy younger than I but not a lot younger. The age matters because I was 24 when Kennedy was shot. The conversation hopped around and he had come to learn that the Warren Commision report was not to be trusted. Well, sort of. I read Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment. lane was good at poking holes in this and that aspect of the Commission's report, he was muc less effective in putting together an alternative possibility. Of course the latter is much tougher than the former. I had friends who really got into this, I figured I had a thesis to write. And a two year old daughter.

This is important. We only have so much time, we have liited resources and, frankly, only so m uch interest. Of course i care who killed Kennedy, but in practical terms I have to decide whom I am going to trust. Sometimes things look vary fishy. Bu sometimes it is the skeptics who look fishy.

So I want to be right about climate change. It's important. But the realistic choices area. going with the broadly held scientific view, b. going with the minority report, or c. devoting my life to working it all through. The latter might be the best path, but then turn to another to[pic. I can only devote my life to one or two, three at most, things.


People lie. I got that. Still, we must choose. And going with the broad consensus of scientific opinion is a very plausible approach. It doesn't stop us from exercising a little skepticism, but it allows us to move forward.

[andrei]

 hrothgar, on 2016-November-22, 18:10, said:

Life might get interesting

http://nymag.com/dai...on-results.html

Note that Halderman has some serious chops in this area.

Please note: Much as I despise the thought of a Trump Presidency, I'm not sure whether this fight is a good one to wage.
Its very unclear whether you could come to a definitive finding.
Its possible that the fight could be more destructive than the alternative.

At the same time, if this is legitimate then we have some serious issues to figure out.

FWIW, I think that we'd all be a lot happier if the entire country was using a voting system like the one in use in Arizona.
It has some very good properties and seems well designed. (For example, it uses electronic voting machines that produce a physical/audit-able paper ballot)

This is "horrifying".

Quote

While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation

Quote

The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000

So Trump received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on optical scanners and paper ballots compared with counties that used electronic-voting machines. Based on my statistical analysis, due to ballot stuffing Clinton have been awarded as many as 30,000 votes which she was not entitled to.

[hrothgar]

 andrei, on 2016-November-23, 11:06, said:

So Trump received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on optical scanners and paper ballots compared with counties that used electronic-voting machines. Based on my statistical analysis, due to ballot stuffing Clinton have been awarded as many as 30,000 votes which she was not entitled to.

Bullshit

(Please note, I'm not claim that there might not have been ballots stuffed by Clinton loyalists, rather the thought that you performed any kind of statistical analysis is laughable...)

Put up or shut up...

Let's see the numbers
Let's see the regression analysis

Or,, alternatively, please feel free to admit that you lie when its convenient