Once again, the Counselor displays his mastery of the art of changing the subject. Damn, but he’s good at that!
Losing a bit of money.
Or winning it, if they were right in addition to being convinced.
Doesn’t it depend at least somewhat on the purpose of the ultrasound provider? Wouldn’t we expect at least somewhat different results from the dedicated anti-choice “crisis center”?
Are they legally entitled to provide inaccurate medical information, like abortions cause breast cancer and make future pregnancy more difficult? Lies, not to put too fine a point on it. Would such lying be kosher, if it protects an unborn citizen?
Well, not if we notice him doing it. The magician’s misdirection fails if we don’t look at his right hand waving the handkerchief but instead notice his left hand digging into his pocket.
I don’t see what “being convinced” has to do with it - either the agreed conditions of the wager were met or they were not.
And of course… define “bit”. Is $2 not a “bit”? In old-time slang terms, it’s actually sixteen bits.
Not necessarily… I might think “there’s only a 10% chance that this will work, but it would have SUCH benefits if it did that we should enshrine it into law”. I’m totally sincere in my belief that it might work, my hope that it will work, and my motive for proposing it; but would still not be incentivized to make a bet on it.
In any case, the claim you made in post 865 was something like “well, I see that it did in fact work, therefore I accept that the people proposing it were sincere”. I think it’s quite possible for people to insincerely propose something that ends up having an effect, and also for sincere people to propose something that ends up not having an effect.
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/130530NARAL.pdf
A .pdf from NARAL about the prospect of “free” ultrasound providers…
(Emphasis added)
If true, I find that extremely troubling. Women should be able avail themselves of an abortion without being required by law to be harassed by a group of anti-abortion activists.
I really want to see this go to the SCOTUS and get resolved.
Well, I’m a bit embarrassed, John. Trying to drag the conversation away from the crucial issue of Bricker’s betting habits and what sincerity they may reflect.
D’oh! He’s a better magician than I thought!
Is one of the outright lies, “This is your baby’s arm?”
If it’s a crack baby, can they say “This is your baby’s arm on drugs” ?
Anyway, are we dropping the betting discussion? If Bricker’s next two posts don’t mention it, I’ll assume so.
This was bothering me, so after more searching I found this: NARAL says crisis pregnancy centers abuse ultrasound law. I knew I had read something about it, but this makes it look like an aberration rather than a policy:
No.
The purpose of betting remains unchanged. The only valid objection I’ve seen was the comment that someone could genuinely believe in an outcome, but also believe that outcome had a less than optimal chance of happening. And of course that’s not what I am talking about here. I’m talking about the hyper-confident, “This law will be declared unconstitutional!” or “The only effect will be to harass and delay.”
Neither claim so much as hints at the speaker’s lack of total confidence.
Sounds more like a personal issue than a defense of Winconsin’s law. So we’re confident. Get over it.
Personally, I’m prepared to bet two bucks on SCOTUS overturning the ultrasound requirement. I certainly believe they should. I’m less then 100% certain they will. I’ve made predictions on eight of the individual justices and I’d be surprised if I got less than six correct.
Besides, harassment and delay are but two of several effects of this law, so anyone who says “only”, well, you correct them to your heart’s content.
As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, here.
Inasmuch as Debs died over eighty years ago, I agree he’d make an excellent witness for most of your pronouncements.
No, you’re not confident. You’re willing to pretend to be confident but not actually risk anything. No stigma attaches to you on this board for being wrong in such a good cause, after all. You’re free to flap your gums until proven wrong, at which point the dialogue will shift to wondering why I am bringing up that past, telling me to stop gloating, and sorrowfully announcing that the writer has lost “all respect” for me and how I used to be so reasonable…because here, “reasonable” is defined as not calling people out on being wrong, as long their wrongness was in support of the preferred narrative.
A wager changes that. A wager makes you actually risk something – it places a cost on your ability to claim confidence when none is there.
He certainly won’t have an 8 or 10 to 1 money advantage the next time. He also won’t have 8 months to campaign against 1 month, but he’ll still be hard to beat for re-election.
It seems the Democrats in the state don’t really have a good strong candidate to put up against him. Barrett has failed miserably to excite voters and hardly anyone else seems interested.
The WI Democratic Party has learned some of the best ways to piss off voters that I’ve ever seen. First there was the ridiculous stunt to flee the state and try to shut down the government instead of fighting and voting on their principles and educating the voters about the issues. Before the recall election they sent out what must have been an incredibly expensive mailing – each recipient got a piece of mail that showed the voting status of their 8 closest neighbors. It showed whether you neighbors voted in each of the last 3 state elections and was intended to shame people to going to the voting booth, and give the activist types (lots of them in Madison) ammunition to go harass their not so politically active neighbors. I’m sure a lot of people were so pissed that they stayed home for the recall, but that’s just MHO.