Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[hgc]

Please, give me some credit of course they are the same.

The original assertion was that .33% rounds to 0%. Art came back and said .4827 also rounds to 0. He couldn't say 48.27% rounds to 0% so he restated the percentage as a decimal. It is mathematically correct, but intellectually dishonest. Does that make sense?

Equating 0% with 0 is not even mathematically correct.

 

[gnome]

Please, give me some credit of course they are the same.

The original assertion was that .33% rounds to 0%. Art came back and said .4827 also rounds to 0. He couldn't say 48.27% rounds to 0% so he restated the percentage as a decimal. It is mathematically correct, but intellectually dishonest. Does that make sense?

Ok, now I catch it. Tip of the hat to DJ, wag of the finger to AV, and to myself for missing the point. (I've been watching too much Colbert Report)

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art - can you list the complete set of natural rights?

Obviously you're not interested in having a rational discussion.

I suppose so, the number five has no colour, and natural rights have no existence.

You are missing the point. The fact that five has no color no more means that it doesn't exist, than the fact that rights can't be "proven" means that they don't exist.

Wrong on all counts. Rights are defined by dictionary.com as "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

How can they be due to a person by law or tradition, unless the people making those laws had a right, prior to those laws and traditions, to make laws and traditions that confer rights? Ultimately, the only place from which rights can come is nature.

Sorry Gnome but despite your math correctness, 48.27% rounds down to 0% in two places, one being Planet X and the other being the Art V's whimsical post.

48.27%, rounded to the nearest hundred percent, is zero. Why do you people insist on flaunting your idiocy?

For some reason, Art doesn't want Kerry to get 48%.

No, for some reason, Claus doesn't want Badnarik to get .33%. And for some reason, he's trying to distract from that by lying about me.

You are dishonest because you are changed Claus's assertion.

What assertion?

He presented the question using the percent sign YOU changed to a decimal.

What question?

Why would you change Claus's number from 48.27% to .4827, you did that, why?

My number was .4827. Why did Claus change that to 48.27%?

You deliberately misrepresented him, why?

You are deliberately misrepresenting me. Why?

The original assertion was that .33% rounds to 0%.

No, it wasn't. The ORIGINAL assertion was that Badnarik received "zero percent of the vote".

He couldn't say 48.27% rounds to 0% so he restated the percentage as a decimal.

Sure I could. 48.27% rounds to zero. It's just that it's clearer as a decimal.

It is mathematically correct, but intellectually dishonest.

No, TCS's statement, that Badnarik received "zero percent of the vote" was intellectually dishonest. It was defended on the basis that .33 rounds to 0. But .48 rounds to zero, too. So why is it "intellectually dishonest" to point out that .48 rounds to zero, but not to pretend that .33 is equal to zero? Because in your world, "intellectually dishonest" means "disagreeing with me", apparently.

You're a ********, DavidJames.

 

[DavidJames]

You are deliberately misrepresenting me. Why?...

I didn't misrepresent you, I quoted you exactly. Claus started the discussion, setting the ground rules, by using 48.27%, not .4827, you were the first to one drop the percent sign and use decimal notation .

You're a ********, DavidJames.

Can I buy a vowel?


Edit to add.

Art: You have a computer right? Do you have access to Excel?
Enter the following in Cell A1: .4827
Enter the following in Cell A2: .0033
Highlight the two cells and press cntl-1
On the "Number" Tab Highlight Percentage
In the Decimal places field, change the number to zero
Press the Ok button
Tell me what you now see in cells A1 & A2.

The discussion was about percentages.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I didn't misrepresent you, I quoted you exactly.

You didn't quote me at all.

Claus started the discussion,

No, TCS did.

setting the ground rules, by using 48.27%, not .4827, you were the first to one drop the percent sign use decimal notation

I introduced .4827. Claus changed that to 48.27%. You are rewriting history. BY YOUR OWN RULES, I set the ground rules, and Claus (and you) are trying to change them.

Can I buy a vowel?

**i**ea*.

Art: You have a computer right? Do you have access to Excel?

Yes, I do. Try this: enter "=48.27%". What do you see? Now what happens if you choose the "round to 0 decimal places" option? Hmmm?

The discussion was about percentages.

No, it wasn't. I specifically said "share". SHARE. Not percentage. Share. Got that? Share. Claus then changed it to percentage. Even though the issue was share. You are either a liar or an idiot, and probably both.

 

[DavidJames]

I introduced .4827. Claus changed that to 48.27%. You are rewriting history. BY YOUR OWN RULES, I set the ground rules, and Claus (and you) are trying to change them.

Perhaps you can point out where I'm wrong.

The first reference in this thread to the amount of vote Badnarik received was by TCS on 12/9, at 8:27 PM, he used the word percent.

Interesting. So if there are all of these "registered" LP members, why didn't they take over the convention and nominate a non-loony toon? That just seems plain odd to me. Oh wait. Is it perhaps that they were all rabidly behind him, like shanek & billydkid & etc, during the race, but when he came up with ZERO percent of the vote, they were all quick to claim that they never really supported him, in order to avoid embarassment? Is that possible?

The next reference to the percent of the vote Badnarik received was on 12/12 at 12:46 AM

Browne, 2000: 0.37%

Badnarik, 2004: 0.33%

Of course, it's both 0%.....

On 12/17, you introduce Kerry in the discussion. Up until this point, both TCS and Claus used percentages. But you change it to "share".

If you had paid attention to math past the second grade, you might have learned that “rounds to” and “equal to” are completely different concepts. After all, Kerry’s share of the vote rounds to 0 as well. “Anti-woo-woo” indeed.

Note, you did not state .4821.

On 12/18 at 1:03 AM Clause introduces Kerry's exact percentage of the vote. At this point, you have not used mentioned .4827.

Erm, no, you're wrong again. Kerry's share of the vote is 48.27%, which is 48% rounded.

Finally, on 1/4 you switch gears, remove the percent sign.

Kerry's share of the vote was .48, which rounds to 0. You're the one that needs to refresh your math (as well as many other things). Here's a hint for the future: if you and I disagree on a math issue, you can just save time and assume that you're wrong. Because you are.

Pay real close attention here. Prior to your quote above, you quote the exact Claus quote I quoted above, with Claus making the first reference to 48.27 AS A PERCENT

You actually first use .4827 for the first time today about almost a month after Claus used 48.27%

To summarize.

TCS broached the subject, using percent
Claus was next and used percent
You brought in Kerry, and changed percent to share (did not mention the number)
Claus mentioned 48.27%
You changed 48.27% to .48

Should you be able to post mature responses, without childish asterisks, and actually be able to support your claims, I will respond.

 

[Kerberos]

You are missing the point. The fact that five has no color no more means that it doesn't exist, than the fact that rights can't be "proven" means that they don't exist.

Wait so are your telling me that the number five does have a colour? A natural colour perhaps? Things either exist, don’t exist or are abstract concepts and concepts are social creations, not something that comes from “nature”.

How can they be due to a person by law or tradition, unless the people making those laws had a right, prior to those laws and traditions, to make laws and traditions that confer rights?

Because "rights" are concepts that exist among groups of humans AKA socierties.

Ultimately, the only place from which rights can come is nature.

Nonsense, nature as you use the thing isn't even a thing, or a place or anything concrete at all. The bushes, trees and birds didn't give you your rights, they're not imprinted in your DNA or written in the stars. Nature is simply a shapeless metaphysical concept that you can use to defend any logically indefensible positions you might wish to.

 

[Art Vandelay]

On 12/17, you introduce Kerry in the discussion. Up until this point, both TCS and Claus used percentages. But you change it to "share".

I did not "change" it to share. This was the first time Kerry's vote was mentioned, so there was nothing to "change". You are trying pretend that because Badnarik was discussed in terms of percentages, that every single other issue must be discussed in terms of percentage. That is ridiculous.

On 12/18 at 1:03 AM Clause introduces Kerry's exact percentage of the vote. At this point, you have not used mentioned .4827.

I mentioned Kerry's share, which was equal to .4827. The fact that I did explicitly mention .4827 is an irrelevant nit that you are trying to pick.

Finally, on 1/4 you switch gears, remove the percent sign.

I didn't "switch gears". I was always considering Kerry's share to be a decimal. Note that I specifically said Kerry's share, NOT Kerry's percentage, and I specifically said that it rounds to 0, NOT that it rounds to 0%. The idea that I was discussing percentages is pure BS.

Prior to your quote above, you quote the exact Claus quote I quoted above, with Claus making the first reference to 48.27 AS A PERCENT

I made the first reference to .4827.

TCS broached the subject, using percent

TCS broached the subject of Badnarik, using percent. I broached the subject of Kerry, using decimals.

Claus mentioned 48.27%
You changed 48.27% to .48

I didn't "change" it. Just because Claus posted one thing, and I posted something else, does not mean I "changed" it. If you eat eggs, and I eat apples, have I "changed" eggs to apples?

Should you be able to post mature responses, without childish asterisks, and actually be able to support your claims, I will respond.

It's rather hypocritical for you say that. Whining about me "changing" a number is hardly mature. Now, do you have ANY argument against the fact that Kerry's share rounds to 0? THAT is the real issue, which you are trying to distract from by all your BS about "changing" numbers.

My POINT is that whether something rounds to zero depends COMPLETELY on how one decides to round it. The idea that my point is somehow invalid because I didn't choose the rounding method that YOU like shows that you have COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT.

You accused me of intellectual dishonesty, and you have utterly failed to support that accusation. I think I am therefore well within my rights to consider you a jackass, and to express that opinion.

 

[varwoche]

Restating the election results using Art's whimsical rounding system...

Bush: 100%
Kerry: 0%
Badnarik: 0%

 

[Darat]

Obviously you're not interested in having a rational discussion.

...snip..

I'm very interested in having a rational discussion about rights and where they come from - I've participated in many of the threads here regarding this matter, most recently the one started by Luke T where I argued that there are no such things as "natural" rights, that all rights are constructs of humans (albeit there may be some biological reason why we construct such rights).

You made a very strong claim that rights are not social/human constructs: i.e:

""Natural rights" is redundant, as all rights are natural. "Socially constructed rights" is a contradication, since if they are socially constructed, they aren't rights. As such, it cannot be defended rationally."

and

"How can they be due to a person by law or tradition, unless the people making those laws had a right, prior to those laws and traditions, to make laws and traditions that confer rights?"

"Ultimately, the only place from which rights can come is nature.

"Saying that natural rights exist is simply the same as saying that there are actions which are morally wrong. "

Given your statements then I think it is rational in examining your claim to ask what rights you believe exists in "nature". I am not asking for your interpretation of each and every rights and what they may mean - merely the list of these natural rights that exist as something other then a human construct.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Perhaps you can point out where I'm wrong.

The first reference in this thread to the amount of vote Badnarik received was by TCS on 12/9, at 8:27 PM, he used the word percent.
The next reference to the percent of the vote Badnarik received was on 12/12 at 12:46 AM
On 12/17, you introduce Kerry in the discussion. Up until this point, both TCS and Claus used percentages. But you change it to "share".Note, you did not state .4821.

On 12/18 at 1:03 AM Clause introduces Kerry's exact percentage of the vote. At this point, you have not used mentioned .4827.


Finally, on 1/4 you switch gears, remove the percent sign.Pay real close attention here. Prior to your quote above, you quote the exact Claus quote I quoted above, with Claus making the first reference to 48.27 AS A PERCENT

You actually first use .4827 for the first time today about almost a month after Claus used 48.27%

To summarize.

TCS broached the subject, using percent
Claus was next and used percent
You brought in Kerry, and changed percent to share (did not mention the number)
Claus mentioned 48.27%
You changed 48.27% to .48

Should you be able to post mature responses, without childish asterisks, and actually be able to support your claims, I will respond.

Oh dear. Little Arty just got his butt kicked.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think the main thing wrong with libertarianism is their healthcare plans. Not paying for poor people's healthcare when they can't afford it? No more welfare programs such as food stamps for poor families? No more govt health plans for seniors who can't afford their expenseive medicine? What? Should we just let all of the sick people who can't afford expensive health care die?
Someone mentioned their grandmother is on Oxygen funded by the govt...My grandparents also don't have enough money to pay for their medical bills or prescriptions,I know I can't do it..No one in my family can. So what would the libertarians have us do? Let them Die? Privatize our health care plans and rely on corrupt donation agencies? It simply would not work...It does not work now even with govt support private donations nowhere near solve the inadaquate health care problems in america..So you expect me to believe making it completly private would? That's just stupid.

If we were to stop spending so much on stupid things like the drug war,Iraq war we could support our own citizens and offer every single american a health care plan.

And We should be able to import drugs from Canda without restrictions.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Beware of political propaganda.

In 2001 the % of netherlanders who used marijuana as a lifetime usage was 17%. (Source 1)
In 2001 the % of Americans who used marijuana as a lifetime usage was 36.9%(Source 2)

ages 12+ for both

(1)Trimbos Institute, "Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, The Netherlands Drug Situation 2002" (Lisboa, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Nov. 2002), p. 28, Table 2.1.

(2)US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109, Table H.1.

It would seem that legalizing marijuana in the netherlands did not make the usage rates "skyrocket" as you would have us believe. In reality the percent of Dutch who use marijuana is about half that of the percent of Americans who use.

A REVIEW OF FIREARM STATISTICS AND REGULATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
Research, Statistics and Evaluation
Directorate Department of Justice Canada
April 25, 1995

Excerpts:

Homicides with firearms (per 100,000 capita)

Canada 0.67
Australia 0.36
New Zealand 0.49
Japan 0.06
Switzerland 1.4
Britain 0.14
France 2.32
United States 6.4

Another in the same league:

US Census Bureau, Death rates from injuries by mechanism and country (Bookmark No. 1356)

Excerpts:

Average annual injury deaths per 100,000 population for time period indicated

Murders:
USA, 1995: 13,7
Australia, 1993-95: 2,9
Canada, 1994-95: 3,9
Denmark, 1994-95: 2,1

The US Census Bureau and the FBI has some interesting data showing how people get murdered in the USA:

US Census Bureau, Murder Victims, 1990-1998 (Bookmark No. 333)

Excerpts:

Murders, type of weapon
Guns 1) Handguns
1990: 64,3% 49,8%
1995: 68,2% 55,8%%
1997: 67,7% 53,3%
1998: 64,9% 52,1%
1999: 65,3% 78,7%

1) Guns, total

Note: Numbers from 1999 is from: The crime rate FBI, Crime in the United States - 1999 Table 2.13 Circumstances, by weapon, 1999

66% of US murder victims are killed by firearms. Between 50% and 79% of these are killed by handguns. This, after almost a decade of decreasing crime and increasing gun possession?

It would seem that not only is the USA by far the most violent country in the Western world, they have far more guns than any other. They rank first in murders per capita, murders by firearms per capita, and firearms per capita.

Beware of political propaganda.

The number of murders in america from firearms is about 9 times that of canada. America has about 18 times as many firearms as canada. I'm sorry,But your stat's don't make a corelation between firearm numbers and gun crimes.

In fact,The number of firearms in Canada Double the number of firearms in Switzerland yet the firearm murder rate is double that in switzerland than it is in canada. Two times as many firearms but half the firearm murder rate? Hmm..


http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt_e.asp




You've had your arguments about firearms debunked dozens of time CFLarson yet you continue with them over and over. You remind me of a fundamentalist who keeps going and going and going even though his arguments have been refuted over and over.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Restating the election results using Art's whimsical rounding system...

Bush: 100%
Kerry: 0%
Badnarik: 0%

That is NOT my rounding system. You're a liar.

Given your statements then I think it is rational in examining your claim to ask what rights you believe exists in "nature".

And given that there are multiple lies being posted about me, I think it is rational to know what conditions would cause you to give a poster a warning. Can you list every single such situation? If not, does that prove they don't exist?

I think the main thing wrong with libertarianism is their healthcare plans. Not paying for poor people's healthcare when they can't afford it? No more welfare programs such as food stamps for poor families? No more govt health plans for seniors who can't afford their expenseive medicine? What? Should we just let all of the sick people who can't afford expensive health care die?

1. I don't think that is appropriate to call that the "libertarian" health care plan. Maybe the "Libertarian" health plan. Not all libertarians are opposed to government-paid healthcare.
2. No matter how much we spend, there's going to be some people that are going to die. It's not a question of whether we're going to allow people to die because they don't have money; that's going to happen no matter what. The only question is how much money we're willing to spend to save someone. If someone needs a $100,000 operation to save their life, will we pay? What if it's a $1M operation? $10M? $100M? Where do we draw the line?
3. Why does someone have the right to force someone else to pay for their health care?

If we were to stop spending so much on stupid things like the drug war,Iraq war we could support our own citizens and offer every single american a health care plan.

Got numbers for that? The cost of the Iraq war works out to about $300 per person. That's hardly going to pay for comprehensive health care.

And We should be able to import drugs from Canda without restrictions.

So it's okay to dictate to drug companies what prices they may charge?

 

[Earthborn]

In 2001 the % of netherlanders who used marijuana as a lifetime usage was 17%. (Source 1)
In 2001 the % of Americans who used marijuana as a lifetime usage was 36.9%(Source 2)

What does 'lifetime usage' mean? It sounds like 'using it during your entire lifetime', but the figures more closely match the figures for 'using any cannabis product once or more during your entire lifetime'.

Here is a link to the international comparison by the Trimbos Institute. In Dutch.

It would seem that legalizing marijuana in the netherlands did not make the usage rates "skyrocket" as you would have us believe.

That would of course be a little difficult, as marijuana is not legalised in The Netherlands.

If not, does that prove they don't exist?

They exist, but since Darat's modaration decisions are subjective, they exist in his head. I would be worried if he started claiming those conditions were somehow derived from nature. I think he'll agree that instead they are derived from his own interpretation of the forum rules.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

1. I don't think that is appropriate to call that the "libertarian" health care plan. Maybe the "Libertarian" health plan. Not all libertarians are opposed to government-paid healthcare.
2. No matter how much we spend, there's going to be some people that are going to die. It's not a question of whether we're going to allow people to die because they don't have money; that's going to happen no matter what. The only question is how much money we're willing to spend to save someone. If someone needs a $100,000 operation to save their life, will we pay? What if it's a $1M operation? $10M? $100M? Where do we draw the line?
3. Why does someone have the right to force someone else to pay for their health care?

1.From what i've read it looks like it is.

2.People will always die,But we should do whatever we can to help people who can be helped. And i've never seen an operation that costs 100 million dollars.

3.As long as you live in this country you should pay taxes that go to public services. Public services that include helping those who don't have money to pay for health care.

I'm sorry but....Without any govt funded health care millions of americans would be unable to pay for doctor visits or medicines. Thus would likely die.
Including members of my family.

Got numbers for that? The cost of the Iraq war works out to about $300 per person. That's hardly going to pay for comprehensive health care.

I don't have any numbers....But getting rid of dozens of worthless things we spend money on..We would be able to spend alot more money on health care for americans than we do now.

So it's okay to dictate to drug companies what prices they may charge?

No,I said we should be able to import drugs from canada without restrictions which would lower the cost of health care drugs. Nothing about dicatating what prices the companies use.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What does 'lifetime usage' mean? It sounds like 'using it during your entire lifetime', but the figures more closely match the figures for 'using any cannabis product once or more during your entire lifetime'.

Here is a link to the international comparison by the Trimbos Institute. In Dutch.

Ok...

That would of course be a little difficult, as marijuana is not legalised in The Netherlands.

I don't know what semantic game you're playing...But you can't get put in jail for using marijuana in the netherlands in your own home or in specified coffee chops. It's "Decriminalized".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

http://www.jellinek.nl/tourists/

 

[Earthborn]

I don't know what semantic game you're playing...

A rather important semantic game, because if it was legalised, the Netherlands would be in violation with international law.

But you can't get put in jail for using marijuana in the netherlands in your own home or in specified coffee chops.

But you can be put in jail for growing or selling it. And you can be fined for carrying more than a few grams.

It's "Decriminalized".

Only its use.

 

[CFLarsen]

Obviously you're not interested in having a rational discussion.

What kind of snooty answer is that? You claim such rights exist. Why not contribute to the debate by listing them, so we know what you are talking about?

It was defended on the basis that .33 rounds to 0. But .48 rounds to zero, too. So why is it "intellectually dishonest" to point out that .48 rounds to zero, but not to pretend that .33 is equal to zero? Because in your world, "intellectually dishonest" means "disagreeing with me", apparently.

If Kerry got .48, then Badnarik got .0033

You have a problem with decimal points.

In fact,The number of firearms in Canada Double the number of firearms in Switzerland yet the firearm murder rate is double that in switzerland than it is in canada. Two times as many firearms but half the firearm murder rate? Hmm..

You've had your arguments about firearms debunked dozens of time CFLarson yet you continue with them over and over. You remind me of a fundamentalist who keeps going and going and going even though his arguments have been refuted over and over.

I'm way ahead of you:

Military service in Switzerland is compulsory and all male Swiss citizens
incorporated in combatant militia units are taught how to shoot, beginning
at age 20 with basic military training. Rifle clubs teach younger men how to
shoot in voluntary preparatory courses.

All combatant militia troops (ages 20 to 50) are obliged to keep their
personal weapon, normally an automatic assault rifle and ammunition at home.

It is strictly forbidden to use the military weapons for any non-authorized
purposes. While each militiaman keeps some sealed ammunition at home, he is
under no circumstances allowed to use the ammunition for any private use.

A militiaman who uses his military weapon for unauthorized and improper
purposes may, under military criminal law, be sentenced to prison or, if the
offense is of small gravity, be punished by disciplinary action.
Source

 

[Earthborn]

I'm way ahead of you:

Using one of your own posts as a source, which uses a non-existant text file as a source. Well done!