| Line 123: |
Line 123: |
| | * '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter | | * '''Liberals/Population''', the obvious choice. Ranges from 0 to 1. Choose an suitable transformation, such as x-> tan(x*pi/2) if you want it to range over [zero,infinity]. Or take the negative logarithm of (1-Liberals/Population), to whatever base you like. Would make it behave like pH, or scale of Richter |
| | * '''Liberals/(Population-Liberal)''', the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity. | | * '''Liberals/(Population-Liberal)''', the second obvious choice. Maps naturally from zero to infinity. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Both scales above are unacceptable because they don't take into account the number of conservatives. A population of 20% liberal, 80% moderate is obviously very different from a population of 20% liberal, 80% conservative. Yet on your scale, the liberal quotient is identical!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | * Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates? | | * Funny, your idea that moderates do not matter. So if you have in a group only 99 moderates, and one Liberal, it would be as Liberal, as if it had 100 Liberals, and no moderates? |
| | + | |
| | + | : You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | * Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air. | | * Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | * And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]] | | * And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]] |
| | + | |
| | + | : As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == Re: #6 (Great Flood) == | | == Re: #6 (Great Flood) == |