So don’t use it, since it is meaningless.
Argument Clinic - Monty Python’s The Flying Circus:
3 Likes
You asked me to “address why [Michelle’s education] isn’t causal” to Barack being President and her being First Spouse. I obliged by defining causality and explained why her education isn’t causal to her position. In doing so, I rejected butterfly-effect causality (i.e., I don’t use it, because it’s meaningless), and adopted a standard of reasonably foreseeable causality, under which standard (again) her education is isn’t causal.
I’m not sure what else you want me to do, or why you think this is insufficient.
Because it has nothing to do with the argument. If I answered “swordfish” it is as relevant as “butterfly effect”. The numbers don’t even come close to adding up.
Princeton. And. Harvard.
Do I need to spell out how elite education works? Do you deny Eaton and Oxford produces more PMs than others?
…did I just pay a fiver for an argument? 
4 Likes
This is statistically un-freaking- believable.
I am enjoying this insane back and forth between you and @bwv812… Please, continue folks!
1 Like
I must admit I enjoy the process more than the result. @bwv812 we are cool regardless, right?
1 Like
What the hell are you talking about? You’re quibbling with definitions of causality that I’ve rejected, as opposed to the definition I’ve proposed? Why do the definitions I’m not using matter?
On in 300 million? There are 300 million natural born citizens over the age of 35 of the sex you prefer and have a realistic shot at the presidency?
And all First Spouses go to Princeton and Harvard Law School, and if you do the same you’ll cut your odds accordingly?
Before you drop your deep lessons on elite education on me, lets look at First Lady post-secondary education in recent years:
- Laura Bush: Southern Methodist, UT Austin
- Hilary Clinton: Wellesley, Yale Law School
- Barabara Bush: one year at Smith College
- Nancy Reagan: Smith College
- Rosalynn Carter: Georgia Southwestern College (didn’t graduate)
- Betty Ford: none
- Pat Nixon: USC
- Lady Byrd Johnson: UT Austin
So it looks like Smith College, UT Austin, and not graduating carry about as much weight as an Ivy League education.
Nevermind that Michelle didn’t meet Barack at either of these places, but at the law firm she was working at (though Sidley overwhelmingly draws from elite law schools).
Sure. I think your “I think I’ll go to Princeton and HLS so I can marry the POTUS, because this is a reasonably foreseeable outcome” position is insane, and I wish you would respond in single posts instead of multiple one-liners, but whatever.
When did I say that!? Cause that is insane. And if you think that is what I said then I have failed at communication.
Because you asked me to define causality, and I defined it as covering things that are reasonably foreseeable… yet you still insist that there is causality between Michelle’s advanced degree and her being First Lady. Heck, you can discard the reasonably foreseeable if you want: “I think I’ll go to Princeton and HLS so I can marry the POTUS,” or simply “Going to Princeton and HLS will cause me to marry the POTUS.”
As an aside I had a similar conversation recently. Not to get too much into the weeds but you.are using words in a specific way, in relationship to your profession. But words are mutable (to borrow from my domain). So your reasonable causality in a programmers mind encompasses a 1:100,000 set just fine.
On point, I still believe casual dismissal of an advanced degree is at least unempathetic, if not just being a jerk.
1 Like
I have an undergrad degree in computer science, but I still don’t think it is reasonable to say that getting a law degree causes one to become the First Spouse.
I still think you’re missing the context: I’m only discounting the importance of an advanced degree when that degree isn’t being used and isn’t relevant to one’s position. And heaven forbid someone be unsympathetic to the second most powerful person in the world by not believing it was their degree that got them where they are.
And that is that. I disagree, but this is probably a civil point to end this.
…
Unless you want to have another argument >:)
(Ear is itching… Must not re-engage… )
That line was not in the article. That was someone dismissing the first ladies accomplishments because it seems she is to be arm candy. That was my take away, and it was offensive enough to my sensibilities to single out as one line among many which I read that way.
Surely I could have, but I am actually griped at by the mods when I attempt to speak to that commenter, as they have long since given up on trying to get civility to go both ways in those -specific- conversations, despite my attempts at peacemaking. Or @japhroaig’s for that matter. Why go throught he rigamarole of politeness when straight conversation will not happen with an individual? I mean, people dislike -my- shock tactics, rare though they are - they seem to define me round here, but so many others just, you know, whatever. I take it as a compliment, that I can be reached and will give an honest reply. Too bad nearly nobody notices who I save them for *(hint, I don’t shoot first) until they go back and look at all my comments and see me not-namecalling, not-rabble rousing, and generally not removing nuance from the statements of others, but rather checking to see where the nuance is that I must have missed, since I -do- assume it’s there. Sometimes it is not, and as a result, a reflection of a lack of nuance is what will be my output. If you jump in there, your assumption will be it’s me. Not my loss, since I’m not here for popularity nor do I mind being misunderstood most of the time. It’s the human condition.
Perhaps you, towards your ends, could avoid such black and white statements as “no-one… has said… anywhere near that”, since time saving and fair-characterizations are your concern?
Thank you, however, earnestly, for asking! Nice to see some conversation and not just ‘being hit on the head lessons’ in a thread. I know you can be counted on for the former.
That seems to be an incredibly narrow definition of the term “causality”.
There are things that happen in anyone’s childhood which affect choices they make 50 years later; are you saying there’s no causality there?
If humans can’t foresee something happening, there’s no way it will happen? That explains creationists and climate change deniers to a T.
Okay? So basically you were talking to thin air? I can’t even respond to that.
Look, Michelle Obama is bad ass. That’s just the facts, k? K. She’s cooler than all of us combined. This is obvious.
1 Like
That’s a reasonable objection, and maybe reasonable foreseeability is too narrow, but I think it’s a good starting point that covers most of what we think of as causality. Or more specifically, what sorts of causality can fairly be attributed to people/actors and their actions.
Sure, but the causality is frequently the totality of the circumstances and events surrounding one’s childhood.
An experience with a scientist may cause one child to want to be an astronaut and have no effect on another child. Another child may see a combine and want to be come a farmer, while the machinery has no effect on other kids. In contrast, there are experiences that will likely affect all children (such as abuse). In my opinion it only makes sense to ascribe causality to the second circumstance, and because those are circumstances where there is reasonable foreseeability.
I’m not saying it won’t happen, just that you can’t ascribe causality (in an intentional or moral sense) to the actors that caused it to happen. Things will happen. Maybe butterflies in New York do cause typhoons in Tokyo. Did they cause it? Sure. Am I going to ascribe causality to the butterfly, and praise it or blame it for the result? No.
Are humans morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for doing things that caused climate change before they could reasonably foresee these actions would result in climate change? I don’t think so (though I do think we’ve been able to reasonably foresee the effects of pollution for a long time).
I’m not sure how your creationist objection is really an objection, especially since no one can reasonably foresee what evolution will result in.
Anyway, bringing this back to Michelle Obama, it’s true that her education and background were a small part of a larger set of circumstances that made her a good match for Barack. I’m not going to say that her decision or ability to go to law school is the cause of her becoming First Spouse, nor do I think her education is morally praiseworthy on this account or that she is a good aspirational figure on the basis of her education + First Spouse status.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
