[ExI] Signal

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Mon Aug 15 00:30:30 UTC 2016

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:41 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ​> ​
>> California's electors will go to the Democratic candidate, with over 99%
>> probability.
> ​I don't know where you got that 99% figure. Historically betting odds
> have proven to be a better predictor of the future than polls

On a yes/no basis, perhaps.  Getting exact probabilistic percentages from
them, especially in edge cases like this?  They're not accurate down to
infinite detail.

> your discomfort doesn't change the facts and reality can not be fooled. ​

But you can, and have been, by your own hysteria and myopia.  Just because
you live in a battleground state does not mean that the political truths
that factor into your vote are true for the rest of us who live in other
states.  We get it: you won't vote Libertarian because you don't want Trump
to win.  We can vote Libertarian on your behalf, far more safely precisely
because we are not in battleground states.

​> ​
>> I might almost wonder if you are a paid employee of the Democratic party:
> ​Oh for Christs sake.

No, seriously.  Your apocalyptic tone matches what I see repeatedly in
their spam emails begging for donations.  It's gotten very tiring.  Some of
them have equated not donating all one's money and time to them to actively
working for Trump, just like you equate voting for anyone but Clinton to
voting for Trump.

You have explained your reasoning, but for most of us it is a false dilemma
- a logical fallacy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160814/42c55e74/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list