Pitting Great Debates

[Squink]

@Finagle

in fact it’s a truism that people tend to gravitate towards a more conservative philosophy as they age, although one doesn’t expect either intelligence or education to decrease with time

How does the brain change with age?

Most people notice subtle changes in their cognitive abilities as they get older. It may take longer to think through a problem or make a calculation. Memory also may be affected. Older adults often report having increasing difficulty with short-term memory, such as forgetting where they left the car keys. They also may falter as they try to recall someone’s name or a familiar word that is “on the tip of the tongue.”
…
Along with these cognitive changes, there are physical changes that occur in the brain. The brain shrinks in size, and brain cells (neurons) in certain areas atrophy or become faulty. These age-related changes are most likely responsible for some of the declines in cognitive abilities. However, the exact mechanisms for how this takes place are not entirely clear and are the subject of much current research.

[Finagle]

@Squink

How does the brain change with age?

 The change in political philosophy generally tends to take place as one ages from the early 20's to the late 30's (and understand that I'm talking in broad generalities here).     The cognitive effects you are describing don't become noticeable until considerably later in life.    Further, many scientists have pointed out that humans develop coping mechanisms to compensate for age-based cognitive changes, replacing computing power with experience.

[alaricthegoth]

@Finagle

The Further, many scientists have pointed out that humans develop coping mechanisms to compensate for age-based cognitive changes,.

judicious titration of central nervous system stimulants of the “amine” class, with a preference for those that have less peripheral and greater cerebral impact is said to offer some palliative intervention…

That is to say, I have heard this–I myself have no experience upon which to draw…

[Shodan]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Not can you make me dishonest. It’s nice how that works, huh?

It has its disadvantages. For instance -

@Hentor the Barbarian

No, I characterized it as not dramatic. Sam dramatized it. That is entirely the point.

See, there is the disadvantage. You are the one who characterized Sam’s point as “dramatic”. He made no use of the term, nor anything synonymous to it. So when you claim that you characterized it as “not dramatic” by referring to it as “dramatic”, the disadvantage is that I cannot force you to admit that you are lying. I can only make the point, and hope that the rest of the board can read for comprehension.

@Hentor the Barbarian

So, rebutting Sam’s claim that over the past 30 years, Bush I and Bush II are the only two times that NASA received “greater than average” increases by actually looking at the budgets of the past 30 years and finding them to be not at all greater than average is a “strawman”? I don’t think you understood his assertion nor my rebuttal.

I do, and that is the problem.

You are claiming that Sam made a claim about the last 30 years. Again, this is incorrect to the point of dishonesty.

@Sam Stone

look at what happened under Clinton - NASA saw constant budget erosions, a lack of focus, no vision, and the only mandate that came out of 8 years of the Clinton administration was, “Faster, Better, Cheaper”.

Notice two things. One is that the reference is to Clinton. The other is that the figure cited is eight years, not thirty.

Again, you are mischaracterizing the plain sense of what Sam posted, reacting to something you wish he had said, and getting irritated when it is pointed out that this is what you are doing.

@Hentor the Barbarian

I am starting to doubt that you know the meaning of the term.

And if I am ever unclear, I am sure you can provide us with further examples.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mtgman]

@wring

RE: the thread - seems like it’s now meandered into a “have Sam defend every post he’s ever made”.

Nah, just the ones where he took a factoid or two, assumed a bunch of other stuff would fall into place if he actually bothered to look, then made assertions based on the factoids and his assumptions. A good bit of the time those assumptions will bite you in the ass(e.g. the electrical situation in Iraq). If you’re going to use this method of analysis then you better be prepared to deal with the flaws it produces instead of berating people who have done their homework and came up with different conclusions based on an analysis which included a broader range of facts and not so many assumptions.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Squink]

@Finagle

The change in political philosophy generally tends to take place as one ages from the early 20’s to the late 30’s (and understand that I’m talking in broad generalities here).

Funny how that corresponds with the downturn of leading edge productivity amongst mathematicians, scientists and the like. The pit isn’t really the best place to argue this, and I doubt that it could be done civilly in GD, being one of those sensitive subjects. However, your claim that people become more conservative as they age, in the absence of other cognitive changes, requires a lot more backing than a few “gut feelings.”

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

You are claiming that Sam made a claim about the last 30 years. Again, this is incorrect to the point of dishonesty.
Notice two things. One is that the reference is to Clinton. The other is that the figure cited is eight years, not thirty.

Taken verbatim from Sam Stone’s original quote, which was clearly reposted above:

@Sam Stone

…look at what happened under Clinton - NASA saw constant budget erosions, a lack of focus, no vision, and the only mandate that came out of 8 years of the Clinton administration was, “Faster, Better, Cheaper”. And we all know how that worked out.
And this is not just electioneering on Bush’s part. The Bush family has always been nuts about space. Bush and his Dad are both pilots. Jeb governs Florida, home to the Cape. **Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years. If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second. **

@Shodan

Again, you are mischaracterizing the plain sense of what Sam posted, reacting to something you wish he had said, and getting irritated when it is pointed out that this is what you are doing.

See bolded sentences above.

@Shodan

And if I am ever unclear, I am sure you can provide us with further examples.

See bolded sentences above.

I am honestly confused. To me, it appears that he wrote “Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years. If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second.” You are telling me that he never said anything about the past 30 years.

Do you not see what he wrote? Is there some other way of interpreting these sentences?

In all honesty, I wonder if you are simply stopping at the part about Clinton. Please read the whole thing.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@wring

RE: the thread - seems like it’s now meandered into a “have Sam defend every post he’s ever made”.

Well, leaving aside the hyperbole, it seems to me that the two things (his OP assertion regarding the nature of Great Debates and his behavior in Great Debates) are of a piece. I believe that he made the assertion because of the way his behavior in Great Debates is met - skeptically, critically and empirically. I think it worthwhile to set the context of his argument clearly, and to me reviewing several examples of ill-supported, fallacious or overly broad assertions clearly sets the context.

[Ms2001]

@jshore

I think the reason that things are going so badly for conservatives here on the SDMB is because events are making it quite clear how badly some of their ideas are working out.

Well, you know as well as Rob Corddry and I do that the events themselves are biased. How can we objectively discuss current events when nearly everything that takes place is determined to portray Bush in a negative light?

[Sam_Stone]

Hentor, you’re starting to piss me off. You keep going on about how ‘dishonest’ I was. First, let me remind you that you started off by claiming that Reagan neglected to invest in NASA. In fact, its budget went up under Reagan. Later, you admitted your error, and I magnanimously accepted that and didn’t say another word about it, despite that thread being peppered with insults against me, calling me a liar, you saying that I was a person of dubious morals, etc. A courtesy that you never offered to me, I might add. When I made a small math error in that thread (one which didn’t even change the conclusion), your response was to say LIAR! in bolded uppercase letters. And now you’re trying to nit-pick to death something I was largely correct about. So now I’m going to play the same game, and put you through the Hentor treatment.

In the linked thread, Hentor started with this gem:

Bush I appears to have increased the NASA budget markedly, but that appears to be more of an indictment of Reagan’s lack of investment in NASA than Clinton’s. In fact, if you graph the numbers from the latter site, which you can do by cutting an pasting them into Excel, the primary feature you will see is a pretty consistent line (the numbers are in constant dollars) around 10 - 11K, with a marked nadir around 4,000 in 1983.

Note the claim here is that Bush I increased NASA as a response to Reagan’s lack of investment in NASA. And other than that, in constant dollars, the budget is ‘pretty consistent’. This is in response to my claim that the budget went down under Clinton, and up in both the Bush I and Bush II administrations.

Now, here is a table of actual constant-dollar NASA budgets since 1982 (link. First, the Reagan ‘neglect’:
(Reagan budgets were between 1982 and 1989 - 1982 not shown)

Last Carter Budget NASA outlay: 9.04 billion

Year      NASA Budget (constant dollars, billions)
------------------------------------------------------------
1982     (not shown)
1983     9.63
1984     9.68
1985     10.4032
1986     9.3
1987     10.49
1988     12.13
1989     13.95

HUGE increases under Reagan. Hentor characterized the Reagan years as ‘lack of investment in NASA’. I guess I should regret giving Hentor a pass on this huge mistake, since he apparently feels like insulting me for anything he perceives as a mistake on my part.

Now here are the Bush years, 1990-1993:

 Year      NASA Budget (constant dollars, billions)
------------------------------------------------------------
1990     14.78
1991     14.99
1992     15.172
1993      15.08

Another increase, albeit smaller.

Now here are the years that are described by Hentor as ‘pretty consistent’, as a way of refuting my claim that the NASA budget was eroded by Clinton and expanded by Bush II.

CLINTON:
 Year      NASA Budget (constant dollars, billions)
------------------------------------------------------------
1994     13.77
1995     13.99
1996     14.05
1997     14.15
1998     14.44
1999     13.01
2000     13.36

(linked chart gives estimates for the next few years, forcing me to go to another source)

So let’s go to The Historical Budget Document Itself. It’s not in constant dollars, but with inflation being so low for the last few years, the difference is minimal.

Last Bush budget in real dollars:  14.305 billion 
CLINTON:
 Year      NASA Budget (real dollars, billions)
-------------------------------------------------------
1994     13.69
1995     13.38
1996     13.88
1997     14.36
1998     14.206
1999     13.664
2000     13.442
2001     14.095

Even In real dollars, it shows a slight decrease under Clinton, which turns into a larger decrease in constant dollars.

Now we get to Bush II:

Year      NASA Budget (constant dollars, billions)
------------------------------------------------------------
2002     14.43
2003     14.55
2004     14.6
2005     16.2

Now, let’s go over all this again…Hentor is spitting mad and hurling insults because of my original claim that NASA saw big increases under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, and constant erosions under Clinton. Now, ‘constant’ isn’t strictly correct, because there were a couple of years in which the budget for NASA went up under Clinton. And that seems to be what triggered him into repeatedly calling me a liar, etc. But overall, it wound up down over a period of eight years.

Then, Hentor tried to claim that NASA’s budget was ‘pretty consistent’ after Bush I, as a way of refuting the claim that Bush II was better for NASA than Clinton. As you’ll note, NASA has seen substantial funding increases in just the first four years of Bush, and a decrease under Clinton. Does anyone think Hentor’s claim of “Pretty constant budgets” is in any way shape or form reasonable in the context of this debate?

And yet, Hentor seems to think that this is an example of gross malfeasance on my part, and an example of how I lie and twist things.

[Sam_Stone]

@Mtgman

Note that the quoted phrase does not appear in any of my posts. Nor does the word “lying”. I asked a very simple question. Do you, or do you not feel the need to present balanced datapoints when you introduce them to a debate?

Did I miss the memo where you are supposed to argue your opponent’s side for them? Or if you post a statistic from Handgun Control, inc, are you morally compelled to also provide an offsetting study from the NRA? Or do you let your opponent take care of that responsibility?

I try to take care that the information I provide is not doctored, or presented misleadingly, and represents an honest attempt at understanding the issue. Of course, both sides present studies that are worthy of debate. That does not compel me to provide them all. If that standard were upheld here, every OP would be about ten pages long, and there would be nothing to debate.

Do you or do you not feel the need to examine causality and context before pronouncing things like “We could go down the list of environmental indicators, and you’re going to find that the U.S. is better than many industrial nations on most of them.”?

Absolutely. The larger context is my background knowledge of things like safety standards, certain environmental standards, worker safety standards, standards protecting the handicapped, and a host of other measures of civil society in which the U.S. excels. Ever notice that some European cars can’t be imported into the U.S. because of inadequate safety standards? Lotus couldn’t ship the Elise to the United States because its engine couldn’t meet the stricter U.S. emissions standards. Superfund cleanup did a huge amount to clean the environment - an investment that wasn’t matched in a lot of countries. It’s no stretch to believe that the U.S. does a better job at a lot of things than other countries. I thought that might be the case, so I did a google search, and the first environmental stat I found showed the U.S. was significantly better than many other industrialized nations in at least one category. So I figured that was worth debate, and posted my thoughts here along with a link to the source data. Exactly what you’re supposed to do, no? You know, rather than calling me names, it might be more interesting if you had actually gone looking for some opposing data so we could actually have, oh I don’t know, a DEBATE?

So you’re claiming you don’t belittle people who tell you that things in Iraq aren’t as good as your bulleted lists cribbed directly from Bremer’s press releases imply? You’re saying you haven’t derided people who have questioned the quality of the rebuilding of schools, or the ability of the “open” hospitals in Iraq to actually treat patients? Or argued with people that oil production numbers are just ducky when they point out that Iraq is facing real issues with providing for internal need and their exports are still way under target? Is any of this jarring your memory Sam?

Belittle people? If my tone ever comes across as belittling, I apologize. As for ‘bulleted lists cribbed from Bremer’s press releases’, is there something wrong with that? As a way of presenting one side of a debate? What the government’s spokesman says is happening isn’t even worthy of being brought into a discussion?

As for ‘deriding people’ or ‘arguing with them’, I think that’s pretty subjective. What is a debate if not an argument? And I have been guilty of deriding people, but only in response to obnoxious behaviour on their part. Something I’m going to tone down, because I like it in myself even less than I like it in you. Pit threads notwithstanding.

[Zoe]

Sam Stone: As you’ll note, NASA has seen substantial funding increases in just the first four years of Bush, and a decrease under Clinton. Does anyone think Hentor’s claim of “Pretty constant budgets” is in any way shape or form reasonable in the context of this debate?(bold type added)

Yes, after examining your numbers, I think that Hentor is right on target.

Sam, you do seem to have missed the part where some of us (Hentor, Mgtman, and others) have tried to explain that part of your problem is your choice of words. When you exaggerate (or go “overboard” as Steve put it), you not only have to back down, but your arguments just beg to be challenged. Words such as substantial and * huge* are certainly hyperbolic just as massive was when you used it. Their use do not help your credibility and may be part of the reason that some feel that you are dishonest. This site has a different view of the data.

http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html

In fact, since 1975 NASA’s budget has varied only between 0.7% and 1.0% of total federal expenditures. NASA’s highest ever share of total federal expenditures was 5.5%, which occurred in 1966. (Below is a graph illustrating NASA’s share of federal expenditures for the [most recent relevant years available].

http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html
(1974 through 1981 are in thousands of dollars; 1982 through 1999 are in millions of dollars.)

Year…NASA Budget…Total Fed Exp… ** NASA % of Total Fed Exp.**

1974…3,252,305…268,391,983…1.2%
1975… 3,329,924…324,641,586… 1.0%
1976… 3,669,502…365,610,129… 1.0%
1977… 3,943,817…401,896,376… 1.0%
1978… 3,980,022…450,758,000… 0.9%
1979… 4,187,232…493,221,018… 0.8%
1980… 4,849,924…579,602,970… 0.8%
1981… 5,421,388…660,544,033… 0.8%
1982… 6,026…728,424…0.8%
1983… 6,664…795,916…0.8%
1984… 7,048…841,800…0.8%
1985… 7,251…945,987…0.8%
1986… 7,403…990,231…0.7%
1987… 7,591…1,003,804… 0.8%
1988… 9,092…1,063,318… 0.9%
1989…11,036…1,144,020…1.0%
1990…12,429…1,251,776…1.0%
1991…13,878…1,323,757…1.0%
1992…13,961…1,380,794…1.0%
1993…14,305…1,408,532…1.0%
1994…13,695…1,460,553…0.9%
1995…13,377…1,515,412…0.9%
1996…13,882…1,560,094…0.9%
1997…14,358…1,600,911…0.9%
1998…14,206…1,651,383…0.9%
1999…13,664…1,704,545…0.8%

(If someone has info on the percentage of the federal budget that has been assigned to NASA for the past five years, that would be interesting to see.)

I had hoped that you would respond to my earlier question (posted twice now). I am one of the few that may actually deserve the label “fringe left.” And I have been civil in my posts to you. You are much more likely to respond to someone who is critical – and even then, you sometimes slightly twist their words to make it sound as though they’ve said something much worse than they really have. (That’s why people accuse you of playing the martyr or suggesting that you should come down from your cross. Of course, you may not be playing the martyr at all, but with that twisting of words to even greater insults, you come across as one.) You might want to ask yourself why you do that.

I wish you well, Sam. You’re a passionate person and concerned about your country. I admire that in you.

[Sam_Stone]

You mean this question:

Zoe: Sam Stone, why do you think that GD has more and more threads lately that show anger toward the President and his administration? I’m not saying that you are wrong; I’m asking for your opinion on why so many people seem to have shifted positions?

Because they don’t like what Bush is doing. Why is this important question? Are you saying that once a majority believes something, the minority should shut up about it and just admit that the majority is always right?

Bush has screwed up lots of things. But he’s also being blamed for a lot of things that he shouldn’t be blamed for. A majority of the people (a big majority) think that the economy is in bad shape. It’s not. There are many other issues on which I think the majority is simply wrong. Am I not allowed to challenge the conventional wisdom?

Or let’s turn it around - back when Bush had a popularity rating of over 90%, what would you have said if I tried to insinuate that any opposing viewpoint you might hold is clearly wrong for no other reason than that you are in the minority?

[Sam_Stone]

BTW, why do you think that a comparison of NASA’s budget as a percentage of total expenditures is a more valid example than just showing how much money NASA got?

[iamme99]

@Sam Stone

It’s no stretch to believe that the U.S. does a better job at a lot of things than other countries. I thought that might be the case, so I did a google search, and the first environmental stat I found showed the U.S. was significantly better than many other industrialized nations in at least one category. So I figured that was worth debate, and posted my thoughts here along with a link to the source data. Exactly what you’re supposed to do, no? You know, rather than calling me names, it might be more interesting if you had actually gone looking for some opposing data so we could actually have, oh I don’t know, a DEBATE?

You just don’t get it. In this particular case which you insist on focusing upon, a number of people have already explained to you why what you posted (and your further attempts to justify the post) were misguided and wrongheaded. For someone with 8000+ posts here, one might expect that by now you would understand that ONE DATA POINT does not a case make. Whoopee! You found one DATA POINT, said AH!, decided to quit reading and jumped right over to SDMB to post your one point revelation! Based on your experience here, you should have known what would happen when you did this, especially since this is something that you do rather regularly.

Furthermore, as I said originally, your introduction of this point and it’s surrounding thought were not germane to the thread focus in the first place.

[Sam_Stone]

I did a hell of a lot more than provide one data point, and you know it. I linked to several source documents, and I linked to an article published by the Brookings institution. I INVITED other data, said that the record was mixed, and in general did everything I thought was necessary to start a reasonable debate.

You don’t think I provided enough source data? BOO HOO. You might try doing some legwork yourself.

[iamme99]

@Sam Stone

I did a hell of a lot more than provide one data point, and you know it. I linked to several source documents, and I linked to an article published by the Brookings institution. I INVITED other data, said that the record was mixed, and in general did everything I thought was necessary to start a reasonable debate.

You don’t think I provided enough source data? BOO HOO. You might try doing some legwork yourself.

Wrong again Sam. Instead of learning from what has been said previously, you keep on squirming, ducking and jiving, unable to let go of anything. This characteristic of yours only gets people even more on your case as you cost everyone precious time refuting your constant bullshit.

First to keep repeating (and hopefully it will get through your stubbornness and thick skull), you were OFF TARGET TO THE THREAD from your very first post. The thread WAS about corporate environmental responsibility and consumer disposable toilet brush heads (and we had a little side banter about germs). Then you jump in and hijack the thread in post #15 (love you for that!) to discuss unrelated relative pollution levels between countries. Had you really read the source article in the OP, you should have understood what the subject was. Instead, you read the headline only, focused on one word there and chose to fly off the handle.

Second, even if I accept your hijack, you DID introduce ONE DATA POINT and ONE LINK on SO2 ONLY. Here for the record is the pertinent excerpt from what you posted in post #44 in “Screw the planet, I’m an American!”.

@Sam Stone

For example of some comparative values, have a look at these graphs of SO2 emissions in North America, which shows that on a per-populated area Canada is significantly worse than the U.S.

You discussed one data point (SO2) and posted one line to an SO2 chart.

In post #47, I again tried to explain to you what the focus of the thread was and told you that you were getting side-tracked.

But of course, this wasn’t understandable to you. So you came back in post #48 , with your tinfoil hat pulled down tightly to introduce “if you’re trying to claim that the air quality is worse under Bush than under Clinton” (huh?), confirmed that you only read the headline of the OP (“Well, the OP seemed to indicate that Americans are especially bad”) and then fell into a comparison of capitalism vs. who knows what (“Ah. It’s an anti-capitalism rant”).

I figured if I ignored you, maybe you’d go away, but no, it wasn’t to be. In post #50, you declared “And since this thread is now devolving into yet another tiresome anti-Bush rant, how about a cite from the Brookings Institution, which is generally considered to be pretty fair and centrist (Everything you know about the Bush environmental record is wrong)”. It wasn’t going in this direction and it wouldn’t have taken off on a political direction if YOU hadn’t taken the thread wildly off topic with your first post (#15 again).

Sheese. And you have to wonder why people think your an asshole?

[Liberal]

His not an asshole. Your just mean.

[Brutus]

iamme99, have some tasty waffles and relax.

[iamme99]

@Brutus

iamme99, have some tasty waffles and relax.

I don’t eat waffles. Too much sugar and too fattening.