Who pissod off Penn?

[luchog]

I'm talking about the Libertarian 0% results in the elections.

Once again, Claus demonstrates his profound ignorance of the American political environment, and of the US in general. Interesting how someone who knows so little about something can make such sweeping statements, completely unsupported by evidence, and still claim to be a skeptic.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116504.html

Pew’s libertarians amount to 9 percent of the electorate.

Note: the definition of libertarian used here is rather more strict than typically used by self-described libertarians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._favor_obama_and_other_looks_at_election_2008

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters... All data in this survey is based upon interviews with 15,000 Likely Voters as part of the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299_pf.html

In April 2006, the Pew Research Center published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans -- more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 -- espouse a "libertarian" ideology that opposes "government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres." That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715

We find 9 to 13 percent libertarians in the Gallup surveys, 14 percent in the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and 13 percent in the American National Election Studies, generally regarded as the best source of public opinion data.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8058247

Using data from Gallup polls, they found that, in 2005, 13% of the voting-age population shared [libertarian] views, up from 9% in 2002.

So, the numbers vary between 4% and 13%, depending on how strict a definition of "libertarian" is used (keep in mind that many voters reject the "libertarian" lable, preferring others such as "classical liberal" while adhering to essential libertarian principles); with the majority of estimates between 9% and 13%; with the general consensus around 10%.

Anyone who claims that libertarian voters are "0%" is either egregiously ignorant, a complete idiot, or a flaming liar.

While looking up the numbers, I stumbled on this interesting interview with Michael Shermer, who also self-identifies as libertarian, which touches on (among many other things) libertarian politics.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

 

[MattusMaximus]

To the question in the OP, I think a lot of people piss Penn off. If that weren't the case, he wouldn't have anything to rant about. Personally, I like watching him rant - it's funny

On the whole global warming thing, to be fair to Penn, he included more in his answer than Ms. Begley stated in her article. After he mentioned that he loathed Al Gore, he went on to say that he "just wasn't sure" about the reality of AGW or not since a lot of really smart scientists have concluded its real. He has also admitted to being open to the possibility that it's the real thing, because he couldn't conclusively say that it wasn't real.

Coming from a devoted libertarian like Penn, that means a lot.

Just a little something to add more context to the discussion.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What I heard from Penn was a lot more of "I think Al Gore is a jerk/idiot/sanctimonious S.O.B" than "I don't know." Yes, he did say he didn't know much about the subject, but that he was inclined toward the nothing-to-see-here-move-along point of view because of his strong personal dislike for Al Gore. That is exactly the point of Ms. Begley's article. And quite frankly, his not referring to Begley by name and describing her as "one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers" is childish and rude.

Penn freely admits to acting in both a childish and rude manner on a regular basis. I appreciate his honesty in this regard, but I still wouldn't want to argue with such a jerk.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I trust the peer-review process. People who proclaim that climate scientists are part of a vast conspiracy which is subjugating scientific integrity to a political agenda sound an awful lot like ID creationists.

During the public Q&A, I asked P&T at TAM6 what their particular "gris-gris" (superstitions) were, and among many Penn mentioned his devotion to libertarian ideals. He stated that they'd like to do an episode of B.S. on Libertarianism at some point. Perhaps they'll address this very point - I hope so.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Once again, Claus demonstrates his profound ignorance of the American political environment, and of the US in general. Interesting how someone who knows so little about something can make such sweeping statements, completely unsupported by evidence, and still claim to be a skeptic.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116504.html

Note: the definition of libertarian used here is rather more strict than typically used by self-described libertarians.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._favor_obama_and_other_looks_at_election_2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299_pf.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8058247


So, the numbers vary between 4% and 13%, depending on how strict a definition of "libertarian" is used (keep in mind that many voters reject the "libertarian" lable, preferring others such as "classical liberal" while adhering to essential libertarian principles); with the majority of estimates between 9% and 13%; with the general consensus around 10%.

Anyone who claims that libertarian voters are "0%" is either egregiously ignorant, a complete idiot, or a flaming liar.

While looking up the numbers, I stumbled on this interesting interview with Michael Shermer, who also self-identifies as libertarian, which touches on (among many other things) libertarian politics.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

You've misunderstood Claus' point which is fairly easy considering he just threw a factoid out there. I'm pretty sure he meant that Michael Badnarik got 0% of the vote in the last presidential election.

Now Michael Badnarik got 397,265 votes in the last election so to say 0% is, IMHO, misleading. Technically correct but misleading (like saying Kerry got 0% of the vote if you round to the nearest 100%...technically correct but terribly misleading). If you round to the nearest percentage point it makes the reader think he did even more poorly than he did. Basically, it makes his performance more laughable to say 0% than, for example, he got close to 400,000 votes or to round to a decimal place or two so the data actually tells you something.

 

[CFLarsen]

You've misunderstood Claus' point which is fairly easy considering he just threw a factoid out there. I'm pretty sure he meant that Michael Badnarik got 0% of the vote in the last presidential election.

Ayup. A fact that Libertarians just hate.

Now Michael Badnarik got 397,265 votes in the last election so to say 0% is, IMHO, misleading. Technically correct but misleading (like saying Kerry got 0% of the vote if you round to the nearest 100%...technically correct but terribly misleading). If you round to the nearest percentage point it makes the reader think he did even more poorly than he did. Basically, it makes his performance more laughable to say 0% than, for example, he got close to 400,000 votes or to round to a decimal place or two so the data actually tells you something.

No, it isn't misleading. If you said that Badnarik got 0 votes, then it would be wrong. But it is not misleading to say he got 0% of the votes. He did, no question about it. It is mathematically correct to say so - and you can't get more correct than that.

When you round to 0 decimals, then you can't say that Kerry got 0%. You can say that he lost the election.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Ayup. A fact that Libertarians just hate.

Which is why you pull this useless statistic out of your hat so often. For some reason you like to antagonize Libertarians.

No, it isn't misleading. If you said that Badnarik got 0 votes, then it would be wrong. But it is not misleading to say he got 0% of the votes. He did, no question about it. It is mathematically correct to say so - and you can't get more correct than that.

But you can get more precise. Telling someone he got 0% is useless. It doesn't tell anyone anything. I also got 0% of the vote. Of course, Badnarik got over 390,000 more votes than me.

Just adding one decimal place...0.3%...puts you a lot closer to his actual vote count. But you don't find that very low figure embarrassing enough for Libertarians so you trot out the non-informative 0%. It's so childish on your part that you feel the need to take someone's very poor showing and try to make it look even worse than it is. Man, talk about your sore winners.

When you round to 0 decimals, then you can't say that Kerry got 0%. You can say that he lost the election.

Huh? You need to reread my example. Round to the nearest 100%

 

[CFLarsen]

Which is why you pull this useless statistic out of your hat so often. For some reason you like to antagonize Libertarians.

Nope. Libertarians just can't deal with reality, that's all.

But you can get more precise. Telling someone he got 0% is useless. It doesn't tell anyone anything. I also got 0% of the vote. Of course, Badnarik got over 390,000 more votes than me.

Just adding one decimal place...0.3%...puts you a lot closer to his actual vote count. But you don't find that very low figure embarrassing enough for Libertarians so you trot out the non-informative 0%. It's so childish on your part that you feel the need to take someone's very poor showing and try to make it look even worse than it is. Man, talk about your sore winners.

Huh? You need to reread my example. Round to the nearest 100%

My point is that you never round to the nearest 100% in elections. That doesn't make any sense.

But do they say that Kerry got 48.3% of the vote? No, he got 48%.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So your statement "Libertarians vote Republican..." is false.

Do you see the word "all" anywhere in that post?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, Claus demonstrates his profound ignorance of the American political environment, and of the US in general. Interesting how someone who knows so little about something can make such sweeping statements, completely unsupported by evidence, and still claim to be a skeptic.
...

Oh, now I get it. I still couldn't figure out what he was talking about until you posted this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've misunderstood Claus' point which is fairly easy considering he just threw a factoid out there. I'm pretty sure he meant that Michael Badnarik got 0% of the vote in the last presidential election.

Now Michael Badnarik got 397,265 votes in the last election so to say 0% is, IMHO, misleading. Technically correct but misleading (like saying Kerry got 0% of the vote if you round to the nearest 100%...technically correct but terribly misleading). If you round to the nearest percentage point it makes the reader think he did even more poorly than he did. Basically, it makes his performance more laughable to say 0% than, for example, he got close to 400,000 votes or to round to a decimal place or two so the data actually tells you something.

But what does this have to do with the fact he was writing that bizarre stuff in response to my post about how Libertarians voted?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you see the word "all" anywhere in that post?

It is implied. Saying "Libertarians vote Republican" is like saying "Cars are blue".

So your statement was false.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's nothing at stake for him in believing in German atrocities; indeed, it helps justify his country's greatest war.

How is that historical event a matter of belief? This is a bit of a semantic question, perhaps, or maybe not.

Why that usage?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So keeping this OT, why is that not as important as any Gore movie if one is claiming a reason for not trusting the science?

Because Gore's particiption in the movie wasn't about science, it was about politics. In his defense, he is aware that getting people to change habits, in a global sense, is an exercise in political action at some level. I concur that this is the reality.

I went to see it, with my son, as I wanted to hear about Global Warming from someone passionate about the environment, and partly due to the buzz. While it was interesting in points, and was great for follow on discussions with my son, I was disappointed by how much politics and "Al Gore is great" was in the film, as well as how often he was about to make or approach a killer point, and the film moved on. I've given a lot of PowerPoint briefs in my day, without the help of a film editor. His was fair at best, with that assist. The narrative was IMO harmed by refusing to stay on topic, the world climate change, and the science behind it, but instead diverging again and again to focus on Al.

It's the message, Al, not the messenger.

To his credit, and that of the film's procuder and director, he helped keep the topic alive and well in the public debate. For that alone I think it was worth making the film, any shortcomings aside.

Penn's distaste for the Al Gore method of politicizing science is very understandable, particularly since he's a skeptic. Like Al Gore, he too has a political slant, which comes off as libertarian.

OK, fine, sue the both of them. They are human.

Begley's appeal to a variation on the No True Skeptic line was a cheap shot at Penn.

Tell me how any skeptic ignores the censorship of science when the story was this big and this important?

Your own "No True Skeptic" line didn't help much, though others have effectively addressed this.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Though it does set up a great counterexample, could CFLarsen stop confounding threads with one to three word querious attacks on skeptigirl?

Yes, pithiness is great if you have a minimal word count containing substantial detail, unfortunately I think you may be lacking in the latter.

He's not attacking her. He pointing out her own inconsistencies of argument, in his own, inimitable style. It's part of his charm.

Give us something we can chew on.

I recommend Red Man(TM) chewing tobacco.

DR

 

[Big Les]

On the face of it, saying you don't know much about an issue yet siding against it regardless, is wilful ignorance and flies in the face of scepticism. A 9/11 truther, for example, may not be aware of certain evidence, but their position in against the consensus of what happened that day is still reprehensible. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

However, it sounds like Penn is at least a) aware of his knowledge gap, b) aware of his political prejudices and c) open to have his mind changed when he has time to actually address the issues. That's only human.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is implied. Saying "Libertarians vote Republican" is like saying "Cars are blue".

So your statement was false.

Cars are blue. They are also red. It is merely a limited brain that only hears one thing in a sentence which can be interpreted more than one way. Common sense would say that since no group of any size would likely vote monolithically, the sentence implied either 'some' or 'a majority', not 'all'.

And implied or not, my supporting source clarified the claim.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

My logic teacher told me that:

"A vote B" usually means all A vote B unless otherwise stated

It's just a semantical quibbling.

 

[dudalb]

Why is it so hard for people to just realize that a lot of rational thinkers abandon their rational thought when political ideology comes into play?
I overall throughly enjoy Penn's "BullS--t" show, but feel a few of it's episodes are pretty questionable because his libertarian dislike of ANY government regulation comes into play.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My logic teacher told me that:

"A vote B" usually means all A vote B unless otherwise stated

It's just a semantical quibbling.

You may be misremembering or your teacher may have been wrong.

Implication rules in logic

In this chapter, you will meet two puzzles. They show the difference between one- and two-way implication rules. Mastering the difference is a simple, first step, in rule and pattern-based thought. This first step is needed to precisely read rules, definitions and statements in all disciplines, including mathematics.

Are you a careful thinker?... [snipped example, to see go to link]

Seeing the difference in meaning in this simple example is the key to precision reading and writing.

More generally, there is a difference in meaning between the two suggestions or statements

* situation B arises if and only if situation A arises
* situation B arises if situation A arises.

Like I said, cars are blue. They are also red. Libertarians vote Republican. They also vote otherwise. I made the comment because I knew Libertarians helped elect Bush.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is it so hard for people to just realize that a lot of rational thinkers abandon their rational thought when political ideology comes into play?
I overall throughly enjoy Penn's "BullS--t" show, but feel a few of it's episodes are pretty questionable because his libertarian dislike of ANY government regulation comes into play.

In this case, I think 'person' ideology is also at play.

I also like Penn and Teller and their entertainment including the BS episodes. I too questioned a couple of the episodes.