5 ms·

> I don't want to see cab drivers turn into homeless drifters This is wrong. This is exactly how they want you to think. Cab drivers are not going to become ho

by 0xFFC 10y ago

> I don't want to see cab drivers turn into homeless drifters This is wrong. This is exactly how they want you to think. Cab drivers are not going to become homeless or jobless, they will work(drive) for a new companies(I agree if market is healthy enough, which is not).But they frame the issue kind of like "losing job" and "becoming homeless" just because they don't want to change. (I said cab drivers because it is what we talk. Other sectors are the same) P.S. when it comes to education and health and natural environment, I am 100% pro regulation and government interference(kind of like I am firm communist in those three categories). But other than those three I am 100% percent for free market, and I believe invisible hand will get the job done.

dsacco 10y ago
It doesn't make sense to say, "Except for [subset of policy a], I am 100% in favor of [policy a], but for [subset of policy a] I am 100% in favor of [policy b]." That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point. Just a nit.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  It makes sense to me. Try something more like "I don't think people should get into debt, except for student loans". They support policy A for some markets, and policy B for other markets. That's not muddled.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    This is exactly my point. There is no reason to use an arbitrary percentage. More to the point, if you're "100% for something, except for [whatever]", you're simply not 100% for that thing. Why even use a percentage at that point, let alone 100%? It's just involving numbers with no purpose.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      Inside the category, it's 100%. It's a good way to signal that it's not a vague thing. Let's take the statement "I'm 100% for punishing people that deserve it". That's a perfectly good statement, and the "100%" shows certainty across the category. Reinterpreting it as "I'm 40% for punishing people" is just being bad at discourse. The scope is not arbitrary, and shouldn't be treated separately.
      - dsacco 10y ago
        Technically speaking, you're correct. But would it not be linguistically simpler (and maybe less taxing for the reader) to use emphasis without resorting to percentages? The fact that 100% can be mapped to an unqualified boolean ("Yes, in favor, no buts.") and 40% cannot be doesn't mean that either are appropriate. It's not elegant to parse sentence structure as categories to contrive percentage use as correct, even if it's technically sound. I understood the parent's sentence, but I had to read it several times because it just came across as a bit odd. Honestly, when we start using category theory to analyze whether or not someone has appropriately quantified their stance on something, we've gone pretty far off the reservation. I suppose my overall point here is that we shouldn't use percentages to quantify our opinions in place of emphasizing in a more linguistically elegant way. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        The way I see it, "100%" and "completely" serve the same purpose, and there's no problem with either. It's not something that actually involves math. You can treat it as a non-number.
- woah 10y ago
  It doesn't make sense to drive every viewpoint to an absurd conclusion either. I'm guessing you're close to 100% communist about roads, unless you would like to pay someone every morning when you walk out your door. The government does some things horribly, but the private sector does some things even worse. I think it's reasonable to look at the evidence and conclude that the balance is wrong sometimes.
- 0xFFC 10y ago
  Honestly , no matter how much I think, I cannot understand how did you frame my sentence this way : > Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free
mikerichards 10y ago
You people always have to preface with "...I'm always for regulation and government interference...but".
- rhizome 10y ago
  "Everybody's got a big 'but'." --Pee Wee Herman

by 0xFFC 10y ago

dsacco 10y ago

It doesn't make sense to say, "Except for [subset of policy a], I am 100% in favor of [policy a], but for [subset of policy a] I am 100% in favor of [policy b]." That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point. Just a nit.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 10y ago
It makes sense to me. Try something more like "I don't think people should get into debt, except for student loans". They support policy A for some markets, and policy B for other markets. That's not muddled.
- dsacco 10y ago
  This is exactly my point. There is no reason to use an arbitrary percentage. More to the point, if you're "100% for something, except for [whatever]", you're simply not 100% for that thing. Why even use a percentage at that point, let alone 100%? It's just involving numbers with no purpose.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Inside the category, it's 100%. It's a good way to signal that it's not a vague thing. Let's take the statement "I'm 100% for punishing people that deserve it". That's a perfectly good statement, and the "100%" shows certainty across the category. Reinterpreting it as "I'm 40% for punishing people" is just being bad at discourse. The scope is not arbitrary, and shouldn't be treated separately.
    - dsacco 10y ago
      Technically speaking, you're correct. But would it not be linguistically simpler (and maybe less taxing for the reader) to use emphasis without resorting to percentages? The fact that 100% can be mapped to an unqualified boolean ("Yes, in favor, no buts.") and 40% cannot be doesn't mean that either are appropriate. It's not elegant to parse sentence structure as categories to contrive percentage use as correct, even if it's technically sound. I understood the parent's sentence, but I had to read it several times because it just came across as a bit odd. Honestly, when we start using category theory to analyze whether or not someone has appropriately quantified their stance on something, we've gone pretty far off the reservation. I suppose my overall point here is that we shouldn't use percentages to quantify our opinions in place of emphasizing in a more linguistically elegant way. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        The way I see it, "100%" and "completely" serve the same purpose, and there's no problem with either. It's not something that actually involves math. You can treat it as a non-number.
woah 10y ago
It doesn't make sense to drive every viewpoint to an absurd conclusion either. I'm guessing you're close to 100% communist about roads, unless you would like to pay someone every morning when you walk out your door. The government does some things horribly, but the private sector does some things even worse. I think it's reasonable to look at the evidence and conclude that the balance is wrong sometimes.
0xFFC 10y ago
Honestly , no matter how much I think, I cannot understand how did you frame my sentence this way : > Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free

mikerichards 10y ago

You people always have to preface with "...I'm always for regulation and government interference...but".

rhizome 10y ago
"Everybody's got a big 'but'." --Pee Wee Herman