ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags american culture , Rural values , urban values

Reply
Old 22nd June 2017, 01:31 PM   #201
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
No, I'm not making that claim as a general claim, nor have I massaged the data at all. You can go see the responses all by yourself.
You have massaged the data by assuming that anyone who did not select that rural Americans were important must then think that rural Americans are unimportant, for one example.

Quote:
Unless you want to claim that anyone who agreed with a negative sentiment regarding rural people was just messing around or pushing buttons at random (which seems remarkably unlikely), your statement here is nothing at all but a strawman.
Have you established that your selections can only be interpreted as negative? For example, atheism is over represented compared to the population on ISF. Atheists tend to view religious beliefs as regressive. Religious beliefs are more dominant in rural communities. Why would an atheist believing that religious beliefs are both prevalent in an area and backwards automatically mean that that person views rural people negatively? Many atheists can believe religious beliefs are backwards and yet hold favorable opinions of people with religious beliefs.


Quote:
Then quit complaining about it. Either do better or drop it.

I contend that based on that poll, at least some posters on ISF have negative sentiments toward rural people.

Prove me wrong. You have the means to do so, and clearly you believe you know more about survey design and interpretation than me. Put your money where your mouth is.
You haven't even ensured that negative sentiments about beliefs or opportunities equal sentiments about rural people. You have no way of knowing if any single negative selection was made seriously and honestly. You have no way to tell if, even made seriously or honestly, those selections represent opinions towards rural Americans that are at odds with their opinions about the rest of Americans (not all participants are American, and some posters on this forum claim to dislike all Americans).

Your opinion is that the meanies on ISF hate rural people. I can't prove that opinion wrong, I can only show that what you used to prove that opinion does not actually prove you right.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 01:46 PM   #202
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people though. The Senate is supposed to represent the state as an entity. Whether the states have different populations immaterial.
Not supposed to, but does, is the thing. The state's voters elect the senators. They're representing their electorate, not a geographical area.





Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I understand that view, but there's an extremely unbalanced distribution of people, and there are often cultural differences, as well as economic and geographic differences. Some states face flooding, others face drought. Some have little in the way of businesses and are very poor, some are very metropolitan with thriving wealthy populations. There's a lot of opportunity for some extremely disparate treatment to occur.
This is a justification for local administration, for sure. Not sure if it's a justification for abstract geographical representation for national topics.



Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
In the US, bill shave to go through BOTH avenues. They have to first be approved by the House (which is a proportional representation of the citizenry), then also be approved by the Senate. Yes, there is some risk that smaller states will veto something that would be beneficial across the board... but it also prevents populous regions from taking undue advantage.
I'm not sure I see it as 'undue' advantage. The principle being that if the majority vote for something because (they think) it benefits them, that's how democracy is supposed to work. Sometimes minorities just don't get what they want. The Canadian approach is to establish protections that the majorities can't trample on (eg: freedom of religion to protect minority religions, this freedom can't be voted away by a majority).



Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Imagine a far-fetched scenario where states with really big cities band together and put forth a bill to cut off all funding and support going to states with less than 5 million residents. If the voting were based solely on population, it would pass. It's shockingly inconsiderate and unjust... but the majority of the population is there, so at the end of the day, strength of numbers wins. Might makes right.
Lots of far-fetched worst case scenarios. For example, fifty one states with one person in them vetoing programs that benefit 300 million people in cities.

The difference between the scenarios is that in my opinion, a tyranny of a majority is less tyrannical than a tyranny of a minority.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:23 PM   #203
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Wow. That's a remarkably disingenuous statement. Each state holds exactly two seats in the senate. Senate seats have nothing to do with population.

<snip>

Yes. That's the point.

16% of the country's population lives in twenty two states. Because every state gets two seats in the Senate, that means that roughly one sixth of the population controls nearly half the seats in the Senate.

That's some pretty good clout, right there.

That's how the system was designed. It's on purpose.

This seems to get overlooked when the poor, pitiful "rural" states whine about how bullied they are by the big, mean, populous "urban" states.

Quote:
For those who seem to have missed their civics classes growing up, Senate represents the interests of the states as entities to themselves. House represents the interests of the citizenship as a whole. House seats are proportional to population. Trying to hold Senate seats up as being somehow unfair because of population demonstrates either purposeful misinformation or a profound misunderstanding of how US representative democracy works.

I never said anything about "unfair".

Quit making stuff up. It doesn't improve the quality of your arguments.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 22nd June 2017 at 03:26 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:53 PM   #204
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You have massaged the data by assuming that anyone who did not select that rural Americans were important must then think that rural Americans are unimportant, for one example.
Well, no, not really. I didn't assume that they think they're unimportant. I did assume that the 1/3 of voters who did NOT select that box do NOT believe they're an important element of the US as a whole - that leaves room for a neutral view, but not a positive one. How else would you interpret that?

Re-read my commentary, I've aded some additional bits to clarify:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
2/3 of voters think that rural people are an important element of the US as a whole, which still leaves 1/3 who don't believe their important (but may believe they're neither important nor unimportant). Indeed, 5% believe the US would be better off without them.

53% think they're overall good people, leaving 47% who don't believe they're good people in general (but may believe they're either neutral or bad people). Mixed in there are 17% who think that rural people are mostly bigoted people.

Only 37% of voters believe that the beliefs of rural people are just as valid as any other belief... and 28% believe their beliefs are backward or regressive.
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Have you established that your selections can only be interpreted as negative? For example, atheism is over represented compared to the population on ISF. Atheists tend to view religious beliefs as regressive. Religious beliefs are more dominant in rural communities. Why would an atheist believing that religious beliefs are both prevalent in an area and backwards automatically mean that that person views rural people negatively? Many atheists can believe religious beliefs are backwards and yet hold favorable opinions of people with religious beliefs.
Thinking that another person's beliefs are regressive IS a negative view of their beliefs. That doesn't mean you think they're bad people, but it is still a negative view of their beliefs. If one thinks that everything another person believes is wrong and/or bad, how can one interpret that as not believing the other person is in some fashion inferior?

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You haven't even ensured that negative sentiments about beliefs or opportunities equal sentiments about rural people. You have no way of knowing if any single negative selection was made seriously and honestly. You have no way to tell if, even made seriously or honestly, those selections represent opinions towards rural Americans that are at odds with their opinions about the rest of Americans (not all participants are American, and some posters on this forum claim to dislike all Americans).
It is my assumption that *most* of the respondents took part honestly. As far as determining whether they're at odds with their beliefs about city people... the question was specifically about rural people. You have a point with respect to questions that don't explicitly include comparative language (more/less than urban people). I suppose I also assume that *most* of the posters on ISF are intelligent enough to have taken that comparison from context.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your opinion is that the meanies on ISF hate rural people. I can't prove that opinion wrong, I can only show that what you used to prove that opinion does not actually prove you right.
That's not my opinion.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:56 PM   #205
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The difference between the scenarios is that in my opinion, a tyranny of a majority is less tyrannical than a tyranny of a minority.
Yeah... I'm gonna say that centuries of oppressed minorities might disagree with you on that point.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:58 PM   #206
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I never said anything about "unfair".

Quit making stuff up. It doesn't improve the quality of your arguments.
I can totally see how your post was intended to be neutral, and didn't express any of your own opinion at all. Totally.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 03:58 PM   #207
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people though.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Quote:
The Senate is supposed to represent the state as an entity. Whether the states have different populations immaterial.

<snip>

The elected delegates to the Senate are there to represent their constituents exactly the same way that delegates to the House are. The only difference is that they are elected at large (And even that has only been consistent across the U.S. since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed.) and not from districts. This is not a mandate to somehow represent the people of their state differently.

The structure of the Senate was set up the way it was specifically to insure that states with smaller populations would not get steamrolled by states with larger ones.

That was the entire purpose of assigning representation the way they did. It was all about states having different populations.

Learn your history. Don't make it up.

Looks like someone else might be the one with a profound misunderstanding of how US representative democracy works.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 22nd June 2017 at 05:07 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 05:04 PM   #208
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Well, no, not really. I didn't assume that they think they're unimportant. I did assume that the 1/3 of voters who did NOT select that box do NOT believe they're an important element of the US as a whole - that leaves room for a neutral view, but not a positive one. How else would you interpret that?
The only reasonable interpretation is that they did not select that box. You have been given a variety of reasons why boxes were and were not selected which do not align with the viewpoints of posters. I believe we are up to 2 admissions of selecting every single box despite the contradictions, and one poster who merely selected them at random. A box not being checked clearly has more implications than you admit. On top of that, how do you mean "important"? Economically? Culturally? In some feel-good, fuzzy way?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Re-read my commentary, I've aded some additional bits to clarify:
Change all uses of "belief/believe" to "answered", and you'd be more accurate. Then realize how many respondents have already admitted to not answering honestly, and your poll suddenly has no merit.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Thinking that another person's beliefs are regressive IS a negative view of their beliefs. That doesn't mean you think they're bad people, but it is still a negative view of their beliefs.
First it was a negative view of rural people, now it's just a negative view of one of their beliefs? Wait, are we all supposed to hold positive views of every single belief out there, or we hate those people?
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If one thinks that everything another person believes is wrong and/or bad, how can one interpret that as not believing the other person is in some fashion inferior?
Who said anything about "everything"? We were discussing one thing only, religious beliefs. On top of that, do you honestly thing everyone who does not agree with you is "in some fashion inferior"? This poll already said a lot more about the beliefs of the author than the beliefs of the respondents, but your explanation of your interpretation of the results is sure digging that hole deeper.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It is my assumption that *most* of the respondents took part honestly.
Based on what?
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
As far as determining whether they're at odds with their beliefs about city people... the question was specifically about rural people.
You are now happy that you got a poster/posters who already claim to hate all of America to respond to a poll saying that they hate a specific group of Americans? What a helpful thing you have found.
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You have a point with respect to questions that don't explicitly include comparative language (more/less than urban people). I suppose I also assume that *most* of the posters on ISF are intelligent enough to have taken that comparison from context.
What context? A poll written in such a clearly biased way to get a specific result of 'look someone doesn't think rural Americans are the bestest most wonderfulest people ever!!1!one! deporable!!'

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That's not my opinion.
Sorry, I'm getting that it is from context.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 05:04 PM   #209
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I can totally see how your post was intended to be neutral, and didn't express any of your own opinion at all. Totally.

My post pointed out an area where rural parts of the country have political clout. As a response to a post commenting on how much political clout rural America has.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything else you chose to read into that is purely of your own imagining.

Don't try to force your preconceptions onto my words.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2017, 06:06 PM   #210
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,420
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't understand. Can you relate this more closely for me?
The expansion westwards went ahead of effective government, if any government at all. Obviously it was not a uniform process (the conquests of the Mexican-American War have their own history, for instance) but the first-comers were generally ranchers, who needed river-front to water their cattle during the dry months. This naturally led to conflict during which the winners arrived at agreed rules for water-rights, principally based on catchments (to stop other people damming or diverting tributaries). When effective government did emerge it was these same winners who ran it, and enshrined their rules in law.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 08:21 AM   #211
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
The only reasonable interpretation is that they did not select that box. You have been given a variety of reasons why boxes were and were not selected which do not align with the viewpoints of posters. I believe we are up to 2 admissions of selecting every single box despite the contradictions, and one poster who merely selected them at random. A box not being checked clearly has more implications than you admit. On top of that, how do you mean "important"? Economically? Culturally? In some feel-good, fuzzy way?
In whatever way the person taking the poll interprets it. Stop trying to foist some grand scheme on me here. That's your own perspective, not mine.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Change all uses of "belief/believe" to "answered", and you'd be more accurate. Then realize how many respondents have already admitted to not answering honestly, and your poll suddenly has no merit.
3 out of 77 doesn't invalidate the entire poll.


Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
First it was a negative view of rural people, now it's just a negative view of one of their beliefs? Wait, are we all supposed to hold positive views of every single belief out there, or we hate those people?
What do you mean "first"? Seriously, did you read the questions? The rest of your posts is absurd hyperbole.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Who said anything about "everything"? We were discussing one thing only, religious beliefs.
No, nobody was discussing exclusively religious beliefs. That is your own assumption.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
On top of that, do you honestly thing everyone who does not agree with you is "in some fashion inferior"?
Only if you assume (which you seem to) that other people's beliefs are regressive or inferior. Maybe you noticed the "Their beliefs are as valid as any other belief" option?

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
This poll already said a lot more about the beliefs of the author than the beliefs of the respondents, but your explanation of your interpretation of the results is sure digging that hole deeper.
Really? Enlighten me - what does it say about my beliefs?

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Based on what?
Based on not believing that ISF is packed to the gills with liars

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You are now happy that you got a poster/posters who already claim to hate all of America to respond to a poll saying that they hate a specific group of Americans? What a helpful thing you have found.

What context? A poll written in such a clearly biased way to get a specific result of 'look someone doesn't think rural Americans are the bestest most wonderfulest people ever!!1!one! deporable!!'
And yet more hyperbole and absurdity. I'm not expecting anyone to think rural Americans are the bestest ever, and I think it's pretty clear from my interpretations that I am NOT interpreting the results in the way you suggest. Stow your own baggage, please.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 09:07 AM   #212
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yeah... I'm gonna say that centuries of oppressed minorities might disagree with you on that point.
How do you think a South African might feel about it?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 09:20 AM   #213
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
How do you think a South African might feel about it?
Tyranny of minority in one place doesn't invalidate tyranny of majority in a different place.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 09:44 AM   #214
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yeah... I'm gonna say that centuries of oppressed minorities might disagree with you on that point.
I'm not sure they would. This is why I mentioned the importance of defining rights that cannot be taken away. Any government can do that at any time, it does not bear on senatorial representation.

If anything, senatorial representation is a key element in the delay of American race social progress for minorities, which is why it's top of mind for somebody like myself with black children.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 10:24 AM   #215
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm not sure they would. This is why I mentioned the importance of defining rights that cannot be taken away. Any government can do that at any time, it does not bear on senatorial representation.

If anything, senatorial representation is a key element in the delay of American race social progress for minorities, which is why it's top of mind for somebody like myself with black children.
Seriously?

The fact that states can act independently of other states, regardless of population, is exactly why we finally ended up with gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalized weed! If we leave it up to nothing but population, it would take far longer to get those adopted. But states can act independently, and their senators act on behalf of the views of the state as a whole. They're not limited by the population of the state.

It hasn't been large states legalizing gay marriage. It started with very small ones - Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire.

These things make it to congress, most of the time, because states, as independent entities, support them.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 23rd June 2017 at 10:29 AM.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 10:36 AM   #216
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,420
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Seriously?

The fact that states can act independently of other states, regardless of population, is exactly why we finally ended up with gay marriage, euthanasia, and legalized weed!
And why Jim Crow hung on so long. Remember him?
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 10:59 AM   #217
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
And why Jim Crow hung on so long. Remember him?
Basically. I think EC is completely out of touch with minorities' views on state equal representation in the Senate. I read a survey last December where black women were 97% opposed, and something like 99% opposed to the Electoral college.

From a national perspective, a national initiative that could benefit millions of Americans (gay marriage being folded in to civil rights interpretation) is slowed by disproportionate resistance from overrepresented rural states. The delay is a tyrrany of the minority, from a gay person's perspective.

Just as blacks South of the Mason Dixon had to wait for the power of the majority to overrule a minority of states and march in the National Guard so they could go to the beach.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 11:46 AM   #218
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Tyranny of minority in one place doesn't invalidate tyranny of majority in a different place.
I made no such claim. My response involved the relative insidiousness of a tyranny by majority versus tyranny by minority. You were originally responding to Blutoskis' value judgment that the former is preferable to the latter.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 12:08 PM   #219
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
And why Jim Crow hung on so long. Remember him?
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Basically. I think EC is completely out of touch with minorities' views on state equal representation in the Senate. I read a survey last December where black women were 97% opposed, and something like 99% opposed to the Electoral college.

From a national perspective, a national initiative that could benefit millions of Americans (gay marriage being folded in to civil rights interpretation) is slowed by disproportionate resistance from overrepresented rural states. The delay is a tyrrany of the minority, from a gay person's perspective.

Just as blacks South of the Mason Dixon had to wait for the power of the majority to overrule a minority of states and march in the National Guard so they could go to the beach.
Are you guys aware that black people aren't the only minority status in the US? Hell, race isn't even the only minority category!

Regarding the highlighted bit... The first states to pass gay marriage are ones that are "overrepresented" by your standards. Vermont is second only to Wyoming in terms of being overrepresented in that sense. New Hampshire is 8th.


ETA: The top 10 "overrepresented" states are half & half in terms of political views - Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Maine are in there along with Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, and Montana.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 23rd June 2017 at 12:21 PM.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 12:22 PM   #220
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I made no such claim. My response involved the relative insidiousness of a tyranny by majority versus tyranny by minority. You were originally responding to Blutoskis' value judgment that the former is preferable to the latter.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Blutoski made a value judgment that one is better than the other. I disagreed (I think they both suck and would rather avoid either). I guess I'm not sure what you were intending to imply by referencing South Africa. Can you expand?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 12:43 PM   #221
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
ETA: The top 10 "overrepresented" states are half & half in terms of political views - Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Maine are in there along with Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, and Montana.
Adding... all the complaints about small states being overrepresented works both ways, folks.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census...Electors.phtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_st...nd_blue_states

Using those two references, I've got 22 Blue states, 25 Red states, and 3 Purple.

The ratio of population to electors is:
Red: 543,749 citizens per elector
Blue: 594,020 citizens per elector
Purple: 632,510 citizens per elector

It's not a very big difference.

Blue states, on average, have better representation in the house, they have fewer citizens represented by each House Representative, so on average blue states have a "disproportionate" voice in the House:
Red: 711,573 citizens per Rep
Blue: 709,670 citizens per Rep
Purple: 713,256 citizens per Rep
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 23rd June 2017 at 12:46 PM.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2017, 01:54 PM   #222
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Adding... all the complaints about small states being overrepresented works both ways, folks.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census...Electors.phtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_st...nd_blue_states

Using those two references, I've got 22 Blue states, 25 Red states, and 3 Purple.

The ratio of population to electors is:
Red: 543,749 citizens per elector
Blue: 594,020 citizens per elector
Purple: 632,510 citizens per elector

It's not a very big difference.

Blue states, on average, have better representation in the house, they have fewer citizens represented by each House Representative, so on average blue states have a "disproportionate" voice in the House:
Red: 711,573 citizens per Rep
Blue: 709,670 citizens per Rep
Purple: 713,256 citizens per Rep

Did you forget that we were discussing the Senate?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2017, 05:39 AM   #223
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
In whatever way the person taking the poll interprets it. Stop trying to foist some grand scheme on me here. That's your own perspective, not mine.
You admitted you created the poll in order to prove that some on the ISF view rural America as deplorable. There was a goal from the get go, and it was no one's perspective but yours. If you can't identify what you mean by the question, however can you honestly and correctly identify what the responses to vague questions with undefined terms accurately represent?


Quote:
3 out of 77 doesn't invalidate the entire poll.
It appears to be 3 more than the people admitting they honestly answered the poll. Obvious push polls aren't going to get a lot of honest answers, around here.



Quote:
What do you mean "first"? Seriously, did you read the questions? The rest of your posts is absurd hyperbole.
First means in the beginning. Your original statement or premise.


Quote:
No, nobody was discussing exclusively religious beliefs. That is your own assumption.
No, we were specifically discussing atheist views on religious beliefs in that example. You then moved the goalposts from viewing those religious beliefs as regressive to thinking "every" belief these people hold is regressive.


Quote:
Only if you assume (which you seem to) that other people's beliefs are regressive or inferior. Maybe you noticed the "Their beliefs are as valid as any other belief" option?
You are trying awfully hard to find someone to pin your negative views on. I made no such assumption. Your projection is not going to stick, here.


Quote:
Really? Enlighten me - what does it say about my beliefs?
What I and others have been saying since you dropped this push poll on us. Do try to keep up.


Quote:
Based on not believing that ISF is packed to the gills with liars
Not answering a dishonest push poll honestly does not make one a liar. On top of that, 77 out of how many active users, (1200?) would not be "packed to the gills" even if every single respondent wasn't taking the possibility out of a bad push poll.

Quote:
And yet more hyperbole and absurdity. I'm not expecting anyone to think rural Americans are the bestest ever, and I think it's pretty clear from my interpretations that I am NOT interpreting the results in the way you suggest. Stow your own baggage, please.
If viewing any single thing about rural Americans in even a neutral manner means one actually thinks they are deplorable, then yes, you are.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 07:11 AM   #224
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,344
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Instead the Senate in conjunction with the gerrymandered House offers the tyranny of the minority.
But it is the majority of white men, so the will of the founders still shows itself. If we kept it to white male property owners like god and the founders intended we wouldn't have the problem.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 07:13 AM   #225
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,344
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Yeah... I'm gonna say that centuries of oppressed minorities might disagree with you on that point.
Yes just look at south africa. The majority was being oppressed and that was far better than giving them power.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 07:16 AM   #226
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,344
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you guys aware that black people aren't the only minority status in the US? Hell, race isn't even the only minority category!

Regarding the highlighted bit... The first states to pass gay marriage are ones that are "overrepresented" by your standards. Vermont is second only to Wyoming in terms of being overrepresented in that sense. New Hampshire is 8th.
And vermont is a huge aberration in rural states.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 08:56 AM   #227
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Did you forget that we were discussing the Senate?
We were discussing electoral votes.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 08:57 AM   #228
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
What I and others have been saying since you dropped this push poll on us. Do try to keep up.
Do try to actually state what you think my belief is.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 05:39 PM   #229
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
We were discussing electoral votes.

Look again.

We (as in, you and I) were discussing the relative imbalance of control of the Senate between low population 'rural' states and high population 'urban' ones.

At least the conversation which you and I were engaged in.

If you were engaging in other separate discussions as well then it's up to you to keep track of which is which.

Not me.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 26th June 2017 at 05:41 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2017, 10:41 AM   #230
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Look again.

We (as in, you and I) were discussing the relative imbalance of control of the Senate between low population 'rural' states and high population 'urban' ones.

At least the conversation which you and I were engaged in.

If you were engaging in other separate discussions as well then it's up to you to keep track of which is which.

Not me.
I was discussing EC, but it's actually immaterial. Each state gets exactly 2 votes in senate. That's it's purpose.

As far as "over" or "under" representation in the senate goes, the same work holds. It's a pretty even split between blue and red.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2017, 11:27 AM   #231
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I was discussing EC, but it's actually immaterial.

Do you need me to reconstruct the conversation which we (as in you and I) were engaged in for you.

It appears your memory needs jogging.

Quote:
Each state gets exactly 2 votes in senate. That's it's purpose.

As far as "over" or "under" representation in the senate goes, the same work holds. It's a pretty even split between blue and red.

But "blue and red" wasn't the subject, 'urban and rural' was.

Are you suggesting the two are identical?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2017, 12:33 PM   #232
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
But "blue and red" wasn't the subject, 'urban and rural' was.

Are you suggesting the two are identical?
They aren't identical, but they're fairly highly correlated.

What's your point? I seem to have lost it, so instead of going round and round the argument bus, just tell me what your point is so we can move on.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2017, 02:33 PM   #233
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
They aren't identical, but they're fairly highly correlated.

What's your point? I seem to have lost it, so instead of going round and round the argument bus, just tell me what your point is so we can move on.

My point was made quite succinctly at the beginning of this chain of posts.

Follow them back and refresh your memory yourself. The rest is all mostly you anyway.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2017, 02:32 PM   #234
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
My point was made quite succinctly at the beginning of this chain of posts.

Follow them back and refresh your memory yourself. The rest is all mostly you anyway.
This was your point:
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Did you forget that we were discussing the Senate?
Prior to that, I was discussing tyranny of the majority vs minority and the EC with CapelDodger and blutoski.

So I'll ask again: what is your "succinclty made" point?

ETA:
WAYYYYYYY back, you and I had this little interaction after which you shut up and I had a lovely long conversation with other people:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
The 22 states with the lowest populations in the U.S. (16% of the overall population, I think), all ones which would commonly be called mostly "rural", hold 44 seats in the U.S. Senate. Out of 100.
Wow. That's a remarkably disingenuous statement. Each state holds exactly two seats in the senate. Senate seats have nothing to do with population.
I stand by that. Senate has nothing to do with population. The senate represents the voice of the states as entities.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 28th June 2017 at 02:36 PM.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2017, 04:54 PM   #235
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
<snip>

ETA:
WAYYYYYYY back, you and I had this little interaction<snip?

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Quote:
I stand by that. Senate has nothing to do with population. The senate represents the voice of the states as entities.
You can stand by it.

But you haven't done anything to support it.

A Senator represents each of his constituents in exactly the same way that a Representative does theirs.

The only difference is that that constituency is larger, because the position is chosen by a statewide pool of those constituents instead of a smaller district.

It does not change the fundamental or the practical nature of that representation at all.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2017, 05:05 PM   #236
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?


You can stand by it.

But you haven't done anything to support it.

A Senator represents each of his constituents in exactly the same way that a Representative does theirs.

The only difference is that that constituency is larger, because the position is chosen by a statewide pool of those constituents instead of a smaller district.

It does not change the fundamental or the practical nature of that representation at all.
There's nothing to support. That's how the senate is built. That's what it's for. It's not intended to represent the popular viewpoint, it's not intended to represent the views of the people proportionately. It's intended to give every state an equal voice in the governing of the nation, regardless of the size of the state. The Senate's constituency is the state. It's not the same way that a Representative represents constituents. Representatives represent the will of the people within their district. Part of the reason (not necessarily a good reason, and definitely abused) for gerrymandering is to ensure that representatives are representing as cohesive a view as is reasonable. That's not the case with Senators. They're not representing the will of a semi-cohesive group of people with shared views - they're representing the will of the state as an entity.

The House protects against the tyranny of the minority by representing the popular view. The Senate protects against the tyranny of the majority by giving each state an equal voice. That's how it's supposed to work. That's how it works.

Well, except for neither of them working at all right now, but that has nothing to do with the design of the system.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 28th June 2017 at 05:09 PM.
Emily's Cat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.