Get yer polls, bets, numbers &amp; pretty graphs! Elections 2008

That's not a tautology. That's an ipse dixit.

Actually, it's an ipse dipshit.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Why do I think he is a nutcase? Because he is.

This is a Tautology, Okie. You didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, but instead asserted the validity of it without providing any details.

That's not a tautology. That's an ipse dixit.

Actually, it's neither. It is the man's opinion... and he said as much immediately after the quoted text. Having heard Franken babble for 15 minutes once; I'd say it’s a reasonable opinion at that.

But this is still really funny:

LionTamerX wrote:

Actually, it's an ipse dipshit.

1 Reply

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Why do I think he is a nutcase? Because he is.

This is a Tautology, Okie. You didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, but instead asserted the validity of it without providing any details.

That's not a tautology. That's an ipse dixit.

Actually, it's neither. It is the man's opinion...

What makes you think that an ipse dixit can't be an opinion?

1 Reply

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Why do I think he is a nutcase? Because he is.

This is a Tautology, Okie. You didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, but instead asserted the validity of it without providing any details.

That's not a tautology. That's an ipse dixit.

Actually, it's neither. It is the man's opinion...

What makes you think that an ipse dixit can't be an opinion?

I didn't say an ipse dixit couldn't be an opinion. I said that opinion wasn't an ipse dixit. It was Okie's reasonable opinion... which is clear because immediately after the text quoted by Cyclo, Okie wrote, "just my opinion, you are free to disagree." This is obviously no claim of authority, and no rational person would confer an authority onto Okie in general. (You’d have a point if Okie hadn’t disclaimed his opinion as such; but he did.)

1 Reply

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't say an ipse dixit couldn't be an opinion. I said that opinion wasn't an ipse dixit. It was Okie's reasonable opinion... which is clear because immediately after the text quoted by Cyclo, Okie wrote, "just my opinion, you are free to disagree." This is obviously no claim of authority, and no rational person would confer an authority onto Okie in general. (You’d have a point if Okie hadn’t disclaimed his opinion as such; but he did.)

A reasonable opinion from a person upon whom no rational person would confer authority can still be an ipse dixit.

1 Reply

Perhaps so, but that one wasn't an example of one in any meaningful way. If that qualifies as fallacious reasoning, and it was clearly Cyclo's intent to disqualify it as such, than so too would pretty much every other personal opinion on character ever offered... which would render it a rather meaningless distinction. With no suggestion of authority, and in fact, a statement to the contrary, it is a silly charge to make in the first place.

2 Replies

Okay, if you need the evidence:

http://www.swelltown.com/newsImages/2008-11-20/4924ef60ec6e1.jpg

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Perhaps so, but that one wasn't an example of one in any meaningful way. If that qualifies as fallacious reasoning, and it was clearly Cyclo's intent to disqualify it as such, than so too would pretty much every other personal opinion on character ever offered... which would render it a rather meaningless distinction. With no suggestion of authority, and in fact, a statement to the contrary, it is a silly charge to make in the first place.

He basically said, 'Why do I think he's a nutjob? Because I think he's a nutjob.' It's a self-justifying opinion, and not one built upon factual information; or perhaps he just didn't care to list it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... or perhaps he just didn't care to list it.

Cycloptichorn

A picture is worth a thousand words. See my last post.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Perhaps so, but that one wasn't an example of one in any meaningful way.

It "wasn't .. one in any meaningful way", in your definition, apparently meaning: "ok so it was one, actually, technically speaking, but I just don't think it was an important one, so there."

0 Replies

Looks like Franken is going to discover enough lost ballots, re-interpret voter intents, etc. etc. etc..
The interpretations of "x's" sure seems to be a double standard. If a voter x'ed over a darkened oval for Franken, it counts for Franken, if the same thing is done for Coleman, it doesn't count, according to the following. Pictures of ballots are provided:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/FrankensXs.html

1 Reply

Go actually look at the ENTIRE ballots okie. Lott's analysis is clearly based on not looking at the entire ballots or the originals. His complaint about the x that Franken gets is from a ballot that put in x in every race. The voter intent is pretty clear in that case.

The Coleman campaign went back to the board with 16 rejected ballots, most of those that Lott selected, and the board told him their rulings stand and copies don't always show everything on the originals.

1 Reply

parados wrote:

Go actually look at the ENTIRE ballots okie. Lott's analysis is clearly based on not looking at the entire ballots or the originals. His complaint about the x that Franken gets is from a ballot that put in x in every race. The voter intent is pretty clear in that case.

The Coleman campaign went back to the board with 16 rejected ballots, most of those that Lott selected, and the board told him their rulings stand and copies don't always show everything on the originals.

Sure, sure, I'm glad you are a mind reader, Parados, when it comes to counting votes. You I am sure would assume everybody would vote for Franken I suppose? Guessing at what a vote means in one race from how the voter voted in other races, you have lost your mind, in my opinion.

1 Reply

Tell me who this voter wanted to be President
okie.
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/mower_SargentTwp_challengedballot14.pdf

How about this one?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Minnetonka_2C_challengedballot6C.pdf

Should this one count for Coleman okie?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/LacQuiParle_Nassau_challengedballot1.pdf

1 Reply

parados wrote:

Tell me who this voter wanted to be President
okie.
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/mower_SargentTwp_challengedballot14.pdf

How about this one?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Minnetonka_2C_challengedballot6C.pdf

Should this one count for Coleman okie?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/LacQuiParle_Nassau_challengedballot1.pdf

Unless I am missing something here, I would count the votes in the order you gave them to me:
McCain, Franken
Obama, Franken
McCain, Coleman.
Looking at the ballots, I cannot read the mind of the voter, all I can do is see what they marked, and whether they put an x over the darkened oval, I cannot assume they wanted to cancel the vote, because if they did they should have asked for a new ballot, and hopefully the old spoiled ballot should not be counted. I would take a hard look to make sure that is not happening with the recounts. If they had placed an x over the one candidate and darkened in another oval, essentially double voting, I still cannot assume what they were thinking, so the ballot should not be counted. In this case where they just marked one of the candidates with darkening in the oval and also placing an x on it, it could be one of two scenarios, they wanted to emphasize the vote and thus both darkened it and placed an x on there for emphasis, or they could have wanted to cancel the vote. I cannot read their mind, all I can do is count what they marked.

1 Reply

Congratulations Okie.. You just said Franken should get the votes Lott said he shouldn't have and you didn't have to read anyone's mind to do it. You marked the ballots exactly like the canvassing board did.

1 Reply

Tell me who you think got this ballot okie?
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/clay_ParkTwp_challengedballot1.pdf

or this one
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/chisago_challengedballot1.pdf

and this one
http://senaterecount.startribune.com/media/ballotPDFs/Clearwater_ShevlinTwp_challengedballot1.pdf

1 Reply

According to this report, the exact same thing done for some Coleman votes with an x over the oval was not ruled the same way, Parados. And on this site, another case with an x over Coleman and marked also for Franken was ruled a vote for Franken. Plus other weird examples of favoritism to Franken. Not logical, Parados.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html

"The primary problem isn’t the rules. The real problem is the lack of consistency. Take some of the ballots that only marked the oval for Coleman, but where the oval is also marked through with an “X.” The Canvassing Board determined that those marks meant those voters intended to support “other/no one.” Here are a couple of examples, with more here."

1 Reply