ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   ChiefsPlanet Attention petezg23: Bets are taxes on bullshit. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=266140)

Direckshun 11-03-2012 04:02 PM

Attention petezg23: Bets are taxes on bullshit.
 
As many of you know, I am engaged in two high-stakes bets this election season, and at this point I am surely to win them. So whatever last statements LVNHACK and sportsshrink need to say here in DC, please say them, because your time is short.

But it is too frequently the case here in DC that somebody can just spout off bullshit and never have to be accountable for it.

That's why I really like betting. It proves to you folks that I'm always genuinely sincere in my statements, and it exposes people like patteeu who just say shit as frauds due to his complete resilience from ever entering into a bet that give his words consequences.

So allow this thread's purpose to be twofold: (1.) all hail the forced intellectual honesty of a bet, and (2.) to put Pete's ass on the line for his hilarious prediction that Romney will win Ohio.

Pete: if you think Romney is going to win Ohio, then enter into a bet with me.

I'll let you pick the terms, so long as they aren't unequal.

I'll let you decide the consequences, so long as they aren't unequal.

But it has to be hinged on one idea: that if Obama wins Ohio, you lose, and I win.

Time to pay your taxes, Pete.

http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...-bullshit.html

A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit
by Alex Tabarrok
on November 2, 2012 at 7:35 am

Nate Silver, whose models give Obama a high probability of winning reelection, has offered one of his critics a bet. “Putting your money where your mouth is,” is a time-honored principle of integrity in my view but the NYTimes Public Editor is very upset. Margaret Sullivan, however, never offers an argument against betting instead treating it as unseemly.

Quote:

[Betting is] inappropriate for a Times journalist, which is how Mr. Silver is seen by the public even though he’s not a regular staff member.

“I wouldn’t want to see it become newsroom practice,” said the associate managing editor for standards, Philip B. Corbett. He described Mr. Silver’s status as a blogger — something like a columnist — as a mitigating factor…

…When he came to work at The Times, Mr. Silver gained a lot more visibility and the credibility associated with a prominent institution. But he lost something, too: the right to act like a free agent with responsibilities to nobody’s standards but his own.
The closest to an argument against betting is this:

Quote:

…whatever the motivation behind it, the wager offer is a bad idea – giving ammunition to the critics who want to paint Mr. Silver as a partisan who is trying to sway the outcome.
My best parse of the argument is that by betting Silver has given himself an interest in the election and this hurts his credibility. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

A properly structured bet is the most credible guarantor of rigorous disinterest. In order to prove his point, Silver is not required to take the Obama side of the bet! At the odds implied by his model (currently between 3 and 4 to 1) Silver should be willing to take either side of a modest bet. Indeed, we could hold a coin toss, heads Silver takes the Obama side, tails he takes Romney.

In fact, the NYTimes should require that Silver, and other pundits, bet their beliefs. Furthermore, to remove any possibility of manipulation, the NYTimes should escrow a portion of Silver’s salary in a blind trust bet. In other words, the NYTimes should bet a portion of Silver’s salary, at the odds implied by Silver’s model, randomly choosing which side of the bet to take, only revealing to Silver the bet and its outcome after the election is over. A blind trust bet creates incentives for Silver to be disinterested in the outcome but very interested in the accuracy of the forecast.

Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge.

petegz28 11-03-2012 04:32 PM

Hmmm....

Nope


thank you

petegz28 11-03-2012 04:36 PM

You whine about every thread I post. You assume they are always from Drudge and hi-jack just about any thread I make whining about it. You're a douchebag and I've told you that.

And now you want me to dignify your bullshit with a bet?

Go **** yourself

HonestChieffan 11-03-2012 04:51 PM

If they taxed bullshit the budget would be in surplus

FD 11-03-2012 05:06 PM

I am going to sincerely miss sportsshrink.

ClevelandBronco 11-03-2012 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FD (Post 9080352)
I am going to sincerely miss sportsshrink.

See you around the main lounge.

SNR 11-03-2012 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FD (Post 9080352)
I am going to sincerely miss sportsshrink.

Yep. The Lounge isn't a suitable enough place to allow him to post his "we the people" and "other" "unnecessary" and weird "shit" that "nobody" knows what the hell it "all" means :thumb:

Can't really do that when talking about the Chiefs

SNR 11-03-2012 05:30 PM

Direckshun, would you be lenient enough to allow shrink like... one day every year that he can post a thread in DC and spout as much crap as he wants to?

Because right now you're like an NBC executive canceling Community

La literatura 11-03-2012 05:40 PM

I also have the same bet with sportsshrink. So even if Direckshun decides to relieve sportsshrink of the consequences, I'd still have to reciprocate it.

Dave Lane 11-03-2012 05:40 PM

Hell I think 1 day a month would be more than fair and definitely worth the lulz. I don't hang in here much anymore but I would on his "special" day.

Dave Lane 11-03-2012 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Literature (Post 9080435)
I also have the same bet with sportsshrink. So even if Direckshun decides to relieve sportsshrink of the consequences, I'd still have to reciprocate it.

You're a quality dude, and really one of my favorites in all of DC. I know you have it in you to have a day of mayhem a month. It would be awesome to see how much he could spew in 24 hours.

Direckshun 11-03-2012 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 9080291)
You whine about every thread I post. You assume they are always from Drudge and hi-jack just about any thread I make whining about it. You're a douchebag and I've told you that.

And now you want me to dignify your bullshit with a bet?

Go **** yourself

Let's make that the bet, then.

If Romney wins Ohio, I'll never complain about the Drudge Report again. Ever again.

If Obama wins Ohio, you have to post "from Drudge:" at the start of every one of your threads for six months.

Direckshun 11-03-2012 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9080406)
Direckshun, would you be lenient enough to allow shrink like... one day every year that he can post a thread in DC and spout as much crap as he wants to?

Because right now you're like an NBC executive canceling Community

Quote:

Originally Posted by Literature (Post 9080435)
I also have the same bet with sportsshrink. So even if Direckshun decides to relieve sportsshrink of the consequences, I'd still have to reciprocate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane (Post 9080436)
Hell I think 1 day a month would be more than fair and definitely worth the lulz. I don't hang in here much anymore but I would on his "special" day.

I told Literature that if he wanted to be lenient, I would likely honor it.

Talk to him about it. His decision gets my support.

If it were up to just me, I would not let him post again in this forum. If I never see his "O'Marxist" or birther shit ever again in this forum, I'd be a happy man.

But I am, above all, a man of the people. :D

nstygma 11-03-2012 06:00 PM

Direckshun, this is a clear attempt to have the best of both worlds. If you win, well, you win. but if you lose, you have found a way to hide your shame. You have manipulated the others into thinking you'll be punished by not posting here, but in reality, you will be off tending to your wounds. So, in fairness to intellectual honesty, i propose that your punishment in any bet should include the requirement that you start no less than three threads in DC per day, in addition to whatever else you and other parties agree upon.

consider this the house getting its cut.

Direckshun 11-03-2012 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstygma (Post 9080495)
Direckshun, this is a clear attempt to have the best of both worlds. If you win, well, you win. but if you lose, you have found a way to hide your shame. You have manipulated the others into thinking you'll be punished by not posting here, but in reality, you will be off tending to your wounds. So, in fairness to intellectual honesty, i propose that your punishment in any bet should include the requirement that you start no less than three threads in DC per day, in addition to whatever else you and other parties agree upon.

consider this the house getting its cut.

Haha.

That'd be up to the winners, I suppose.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.