Coronavirus on a crag that is in the sun

Dave K wrote:

I'm not able to follow your math there, but your post reminds me of someone that used a lot of numbers: Ross Perot

I'll pass on responding to your list of strawmen.

You seem to be missing the point of elections: To arrive at an outcome. An outcome that affects the lives of millions of real people.

Ted is spot on.

Dave K wrote:

I'm not able to follow your math there, but your post reminds me of someone that used a lot of numbers: Ross Perot

I'll pass on responding to your list of strawmen.

You seem to be missing the point of elections: To arrive at an outcome. An outcome that affects the lives of millions of real people.

And you’re missing the fact that not all actions affect that outcome.

Hey y’all...stop arguing and go climb a rock!

Ooops, forgot you can’t

Dave K wrote:

Yup the ol' "my vote doesn't count" argument ... and yet no one person's vote carries more weight than yours.  How does that work?

If you vote in an election, and the winner wins by exactly two votes, did your vote count?  You could have not voted and it would not have affected the outcome. Regardless of whether you voted for a winner or loser, your vote didn't count.

That's also true if the winner wins by three votes, or four, or any larger number... it really didn't matter if you voted. The outcome would have been the same.

So it turns out your vote only counts when the election outcome is decided by a single vote.

Since no national election outcome has ever been determined by a single vote, nobody's vote has ever counted.

Does this make sense? Only if you believe your vote doesn't count.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Again, this is why I made a caveat for close races and states with proportional representation.

Big Dick Johnson wrote: Voting is an act of aggression, imposing your will upon others.
By voting, you provide consent and thus are liable for the transgressions the resulting State commits.
Peaceful Anarchy, the Voluntary Transactions humans engage in improve their lives is what builds and mobilizes a moral society. The State is the opposite of that, therefore immoral

Huh?

Big Dick Johnson wrote: Voting is an act of aggression, imposing your will upon others.
By voting, you provide consent and thus are liable for the transgressions the resulting State commits.
Peaceful Anarchy, the Voluntary Transactions humans engage in improve their lives is what builds and mobilizes a moral society. The State is the opposite of that, therefore immoral

Can you clarify your views Dick?

B P wrote:

Can you clarify your views Dick?

Why would you ask him to do that???? 

Dave K wrote:

The caveat doesn't apply.

You and I have never voted in a national election where our vote mattered. Why do we bother?

That’s a fair question.  To that I would say It’s not about the individual but the group.  If large numbers of people believe their vote doesn’t matter (as they do) then they end up affecting the election.  Therefore, everybody should vote.  The ultimate goal is of course to change the system and break the duopoly, or at least replace the existing parties with functional ones.  In the event that enough people did what I did and voted third party enough to sway one of the “safe” states, this would have a positive outcome that would greatly outweigh any negative electoral consequences in this election.  Many people see Trump as some existential threat and believe that our Democracy is at stake if he wins re-election.  I don’t.  I’m sure many Republicans felt the same way about Obama.  News flash: Democracy intact.

^^^
Well-said, Ted. And that rhymes.

Dave K wrote:

The caveat doesn't apply.

You and I have never voted in a national election where our vote mattered. Why do we bother?

Let's say your basketball team wins a game 95-94.

And you scored two points in the first minute of the game, before fouling out. (All that MP training :-)

Would you say your points didn't matter?

Is the only point that counts the single one that puts you ahead? Aren't the other 95 vitally important also?

And say the score is 95- 75?
Does it matter if it's a close game vs a blow-out?
Or a mandate, which is what a politician would call it.
Does a mandate matter?

This would be a different country if people voted for policy rather than party.
But that goes against human nature.
As politicians on both sides realize and exploit.

sDawg wrote: My only addition is that "sunlight" is not a quantity. Between latitude, angle of incidence, and light haze, UV energy intensity can vary by more than an order of magnitude and your eyes wouldn't be able to perceive it  because they adjust. "Bright sunlight" is not a quantity and you can't start a calculation with it as one of your constraints.

Wow, I think learned that in my first year of high school.    Got anything new?   But you are close to getting a point or two.

"Solar light" or "sunlight" is also not how a scientist would describe light intensity. You should have very serious doubts about the conclusions of anyone who discusses energy flows this way.

Energy flows?  Oh brother...

Mark E Dixon wrote:
This would be a different country if people voted for policy rather than party.
But that goes against human nature.
As politicians on both sides realize and exploit.

The exploitation is over the fucking top 100% of the time now. That or I'm just now noticing in old age.

Its probably just China.

“I’m not an expert ....BUT ... here’s a wall of text and links explaining how incorrect your wall of text and links actually are”  #Thread 

Ted Pinson wrote:

 Many people see Trump as some existential threat and believe that our Democracy is at stake if he wins re-election.  I don’t.  I’m sure many Republicans felt the same way about Obama.  News flash: Democracy intact.

I'd agree with that statement applied to any serious contender for any election I've  been old enough to follow here in Canada as well as to the US, but not this one. I feel like you underestimate the damages this administration has had on your democracy. This general views, e.g. "elections outcomes don't matter that much" is generally sensible, but it's also easy to fall into the trap of thinking that nothing really matters.

 It seems hard for me to agree that it is "intact". "Intact" means nothing has changed, nothing was lost in the process. I agree that Trump didn't just flat out established a one-party rule, or hasn't started locking up political opponent (though it's not for failure of raising the issue, however populist/ not literal it was). But then few autocracies and losses of democracies start out that way, and the damage done to various agencies, processes and political norms that were still standing are worrying. What is more worrying is that the adults that were still in the room are largely gone, those who dared standing up to Trump's idiocies and have been able to limit the damages. It took about 3 years for that process to unfold. If Trump is re-elected, he will start out with fewer leashes on his stupidity than 4 years ago.

We should talk about this again in the fall, if you do have a presidential election. I'm not making a prediction you won't - but I would bet a small amount of money that there will be some serious attempt at postponing or tempering with the process by this administration. I personally wouldn't be all that surprised if come February, Trump is still in office, but hasn't yet been elected to a 2nd mandate. I'm not sure I trust the Rs in office to prevent something like that, should that attempt actually comes.

I understand that you feel that way, but if you actually focus on policies Trump has been relatively mild and largely ineffective.  His rhetoric is horrible and he has no filter.

Dave K wrote:

I just don't buy into the idea that everything sucks and a third party is the saviour we need. A third party that is successful isn't a third party any more, just like Pearl Jam is no longer alternative music.

Your Obama and Trump "both sides" claim lacks depth. There's a huge and important distinction that has nothing to do with party or policy: Trump has openly and continuously condemned the institutions that have keep our democracy intact: freedom of the press, accountability and transparency of the executive, the rule of law, the checks and balances built into the constitution... This not even a parisian issue, no president in modern history from any party has ever outright ignored the constitution as he has. Nixon tried as an act of desperation but didn't get away with it. Trump has made it his policy since day one.

Despite that, I don't lose sleep over the idea of Trump destroying our democracy. He'd clearly like to be a king, but we've learned that he's too incompetent and even too lazy to make it happen. But it's pathetic and embarrassing that this guy is the one in charge, out of so many better choices. If Trump wins again he won't destroy our democracy, but he will accelerate the decline of our standard of living and standing in the world while trying a bunch of stupid and possibly scary shit that he (eventually) won't get away with. He also will do some near permanent damage with his supreme court picks. That's certainly not a step closer to getting the M4A that you want and not good for public lands or climbing either.

Every election in my lifetime has been “the most important election of our lifetime” where you couldn’t possibly mess around because “it could be the end of our Democracy.”  It’s how they stay in power.  If any party can count on your vote no matter who they drag across the finish line for the nomination, then they are no longer accountable and they do not represent you.

Dave K wrote: I agree that he has been largely ineffective. For three years nothing substantial has changed. It's as if he turned on the autopilot so that he wouldn't have to be distracted by his job while he spewed his childish tweets.

But it was inevitable that he would be tested and, relevant to the topic of this thread, he was. We are well on course for 100K dead and he's not even trying anymore because his feelings have been hurt by "the media."

This thing started in February, it's now May and Americans still can't get hand sanitizer or a proper protective mask. Largely ineffective is now imposing a very dear cost.

Leading the world in deaths and Covidiots. Many blame our countries leader, our leader passes the blame back on everything and everyone besides his own leadership. The covidiots lap it up like dogs and blame China and liberals. God bless America!

Ted Pinson wrote: I understand that you feel that way, but if you actually focus on policies Trump has been relatively mild and largely ineffective.  His rhetoric is horrible and he has no filter.

Every election in my lifetime has been “the most important election of our lifetime” where you couldn’t possibly mess around because “it could be the end of our Democracy.”  It’s how they stay in power.  If any party can count on your vote no matter who they drag across the finish line for the nomination, then they are no longer accountable and they do not represent you.

Yes, but there is a point at which government matters.  I mean effective government. You can apparently do mostly without it for a mandate. Can you for 2? maybe, maybe not. Maybe it depends on just how ineffective, or just how big / urgent the problems are. 

Let's get this thing to 50 pages.

Joe Prescott wrote:

I'm picturing you strapped to a chair wearing a Guzzler Helmet in front of 3 TVs tuned to CNN, FOX, NBC, with 2 news radios turned up, and a large orange man screaming FAKE NEWS! at you (with some history books stacked in the corner).

Nope.  You're wrong as usual.   

As I said earlier, when all this is done and the final tallies are counted, we'll see who was closer to the truth.  

And just by the way, I met an ICU doctor at the crag yesterday and had a good conversation.  He'd had Covid (like I did) and recovered too.   He agreed with me: it's not a big deal for healthy people.   The people he sees in the hospital with Covid were all unhealthy to start with.   Unfortunately, most of the world these days is unhealthy... maybe Covid is a wake-up call?

Anyway, I hope you're feeling safe in your toilet paper fort.  Have a nice day and watch out for them fomites!

John Byrnes wrote:

Nope.  You're wrong as usual.   

As I said earlier, when all this is done and the final tallies are counted, we'll see who was closer to the truth.  

And just by the way, I met an ICU doctor at the crag yesterday and had a good conversation.  He'd had Covid (like I did) and recovered too.   He agreed with me: it's not a big deal for healthy people.   The people he sees in the hospital with Covid were all unhealthy to start with.   Unfortunately, most of the world these days is unhealthy... maybe Covid is a wake-up call?

Anyway, I hope you're feeling safe in your toilet paper fort.  Have a nice day and watch out for them fomites!

Um, I think you are responding to the wrong post John. I didn't make any predictions about cases or fatalities, pathogenesis, or anything else. Just your incorrect 'scientific' statements regarding virology and immune responses. And your claim that you know you had COVID19, without even getting tested. Was this the same with your ICU Dr? Was his last name Seuss by chance? I'm guessing you aren't in the sciences in any capacity, which is fine. Likely your first exposure to the word 'fomite' pun intended.

I am feeling fairly safe, thanks for your concern. I've taken several minutes off my 10k run time and have had some amazing (and quiet) bike rides through Berlin and have seen neighborhoods that I normally wouldn't...