Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 217: Line 217:  
::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are.  It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded.  All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis.  We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
 
::::::: Maquissar, I did not suggest that you are a closed-minded liberal, but you seem to be in denial that others are.  It doesn't take any analysis to conclude that someone is closed-minded.  All that is needed is for him to irrationally reject and refuse even to consider a hypothesis.  We even have a simple test for [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:12, 25 February 2010 (EST)
 
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)
 
:::::::: I don't think anyone has said that there ''cannot'' be a cause-and-effect relationship between politics and sporting achievement. The dispute is over whether or not there actually ''is'' one. It is logically plausible to suppose that the socialist mindset, which disdains the competition of the free market, could adversely influence the mindset of young athletes (or perhaps that lack of ambition / discipline among athletes and socialist thinking among a population both share a common root cause). The issue now is: does the data support the hypothesis? After all, mere plausibility is not sufficient to establish truth. Judging from the analyses provided above by Rubashov and Maquissar, there does not appear to be a correlation between the hypothesis and the facts. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 15:25, 25 February 2010 (EST)
 +
 +
::::::::: No, despite my repeated attempts, I don't think Rubashov admitted that a cause-and-effect is even ''possible'' above.  Another editor above, Cjohnston, called the hypothesis "just silly" without any discussion of the evidence or possible correlations.  There may have been another above who was in denial as well.  Such denial is itself worthy of studying.  Why the refusal?  Socialism surely affects the economy, which surely affects the luxury of athletic competition, particularly in events that require costly equipment or facilities, so socialism plainly could affect athletic achievement in a free society.  Indeed, it would be far-fetched to think there was no effect at all, as though the two variables are ''completely'' independent of each other.  Ditto for same-sex marriage, as traditional marriage plainly affects productivity.  Moreover, athletic achievement in many sports such as football and baseball does seem to be correlated to heterosexual orientation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 25 February 2010 (EST)
Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789

edits

Navigation menu