Indeed. I’m reminded again about the leftist economist’s plaintive complaint: “Yes, yes, it works in practice – but does it work in theory?”
Um… you regard adaher as a liberal?
No. I regard him as somebody who is blatantly, AMAZINGLY wrong to the point of absurdity and is never called on it by conservatives, and still engaged with in discussion by liberals, despite the fact that somebody to his level of blatant wrongness (“all the polls are lying and conspiring against conservatives!”) should be treated roughly on par as the conspiracy theorists in GD are.
I am certain I’ve called adaher out a time or two.
But let’s look again at your question:
if you feel that liberals specifically aren’t allowed to get away with wrong predictions, and allow each other to get away with being blatantly wrong, how the hell do you explain adaher?
Adaher’s case doesn’t either confirm or deny your predicate. He’s not a liberal. He doesn’t demonstrate the truth or the falsity of the claim that liberals here allow each other to get away with being blatantly wrong.
He’s (generally) someone who espouses more conservative positions. For this reason, liberals are eager to expose his many failings. As well they should.
I am perfectly willing to attack other conservatives when I see their errors, especially if i see that no one else is. There may be times I don’t join a pile-on, but that’s simply a matter of being confident that the flaws in the argument have already been well-exposed. Shodan has – to some degree – come to my defense here, and I appreciate it, but there have been many times I’ve called him out on an error of fact or reasoning as I saw it. Correct, Shodan?
Bricker apparently wanted me to bet that the lawsuits against the Texas Voter ID Law would win–or shut up. Alas, if they go all the way to the Supremes, the same Conservative Judicial Activists who gutted the Voter Rights law might well continue their antics. As a Texan, I think the law is unnecessary & will continue to express myself.
It’s not like betting on the outcome of an election, as his pal adaher so famously did.
I explain him as a non-liberal, and therefore someone who is not allowed to get away with wrong predictions.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Shodan has – to some degree – come to my defense here, and I appreciate it, but there have been many times I’ve called him out on an error of fact or reasoning as I saw it. Correct, Shodan?
[/QUOTE]
Of course. (You were wrong every time, dammit.)
But that’s the point - there is no shortage of Dopers slavering to attack those of us who post from one set of convictions, and rather more reluctance when it’s the other side’s turn in the barrel.
Regards,
Shodan
A general reminder here: the issue for this thread is betting, not politics.
I don’t entirely agree with this moderation. And, hey, we’re in ATMB, a perfect place to express my disagreement with a mod ruling!
In my defense of the betting issue, I argue that there is general, pervasive reluctance on this board to take a liberal to task when he or she is wrong about a factual prediction but has still hewed to the liberal line. It’s for this reason that the expected social sanction against being wrong fails.
Therefore, politics is a somewhat integral part of the discussion.
In my opinion. Obviously I’ll abide by your ruling, but I’d appreciate your reconsideration.
Instead of complaining about **Bricker’s **wannabet gambit, I would encourage more liberals to call his bluff and bet when you have confidence in your judgement. I have won three out of four bets with Bricker, and am up $200 for my efforts. I don’t think he is right any more often than other posters, but the wannabet bluff discourages some who may be right, but just don’t want to indulge his peccadillos. I, on the other hand, have no morals, so I don’t mind taking his money. Who knows, maybe if he loses enough cash he will hit hit rock bottom and stop digging.
Someone should bet Bricker that he can’t go six months without making a bet.
Don’t do it, Bricker… the odds favor the house.
And if he doesn’t accept the bet… well, I guess that shows that he knows he would lack the willpower to manage it. That’s how it works, right?
I didn’t. Gimme 5 bucks.
Anyway, I thought there was some kind of occasionally-enforced rule around here about not being a jerk. Strutting into a thread and daring people to “bet on it!” is ludicrous, and anyone who disagrees is probably a rich guy. This behavior is threadshitting (bankshitting?) in its purest form. It’s also nauseatingly classist.
Sure. I wouldn’t take such a bet.
In other words: I’m not disagreeing with the underlying proposition. If this is an attempt to show betting doesn’t chase out the insincere proponents of a proposition, it fails.
Bets don’t have to be monetary, as I’ve noted repeatedly.
Here’s a good example:
Accusations like this – classist – are interwoven with political overtones. How can i reply to this accusation without invoking the differing views about classism that arise from liberal and conservative viewpoints?
I’m a little confused here. I thought the betting was on the objective outcomes of legal decisions. How is it about conservative vs. liberal viewpoints? Wasn’t it Bricker who said the SCOTUS would find a way to make ACA constitutional?
I mean people from both sides of the aisle come into threads all the time with half-assed legal theories as to why a case will go one way or the other. Hell I’m surprised we don’t have a thread on the UN overturning ACA because the American flag in the SCOTUS chamber has gold fringe. I think it’s a great idea for posters to have to put something up when they claim that US v. Windsor will be decided on equal protections grounds as opposed to state sovereignty issues.
I understand that your view is that this is necessary to deal with a partisan double standard. That’s fine. I am saying that partisan commentary doesn’t belong in this thread.
First: if you’re going to cite a nine-year-old story to justify your behavior, complete with quotes, a link would be helpful so that the rest of us could gain context.
Second: from the bit that you tell us, this story of yours is a prime example in which a bet isn’t appropriate. A decrease in domestic violence prosecution statistics is not the same thing as an increase in domestic violence, nor is it the same thing even as a decrease in people being protected from domestic violence. Many things can confound the data-gathering process, such as different attitudes of victims toward legal protection, new state initiatives to protect victims, cultural trends, an aging populace, and so forth. And a person saying such an effect might emerge may well be suggesting that there’s an unacceptable risk of such a trend, not saying the trend is certain. (Of course, without a link to the thread in question, it’s hard to say which of these factors applies.) Reducing everything to a bet over a statistic ignores all of these confounding factors.
Third: if your goal is to get people to introduce caveats into their hitherto overconfident assertions, you’ve got some more effective alternatives. You could, for example, suggest clarifications: “Bob, are you saying that domestic violence prosecutions will absolutely go down, or simply that there’s an unacceptable risk that they’ll go down?” You could parse their post, saying which parts you agree with and which ones you don’t. By betting people, you create a situation in which accepting the bet is, for many folks, losing face, and so they’ll just flat-out argue with you in a total-war fashion, and then the chance for clarification and productive discussion is lost. (Don’t believe me? Look at the thread spawning this one).
Fourth: in what way is the result of betting people actually turned board opinion in a direction you like? You say it levels the playing field, and fine, that works in theory, but does it work in practice?
I think it more as affirming the consequent:
-If your belief in X is insincere, you won’t wager on it.
-You won’t wager on it.
-Therefore, your belief in X is insincere.
Fallacy 101.
As a side note, I have a $2 wager with Bricker on SCOTUS’s response to Wisconsin’s mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds. The wager is silly, and I described it as such. At the time, I’d no idea he was making a habit of this sort of thing. In hindsight, I should have offered a wager of one hundred jillion bazillion dollars, then acted all indignant at any suggestion I wasn’t being absolutely 100% serious, as if my honour was being insulted.