In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is certainly a controversial statement. It is logically equivalent to
>the statement that:
>
> "Non Bush-voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters"
>
>and I assume that the intended reading is that:
>
> "Gore voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters".
Given the near equal split between Gore and Bush, this is in turn
equivalent to the statement:
Illiterate people are more likely to vote for Gore than for Bush.
I'm baffled as to why someone who would certainly appear to be a Gore
supporter would be offended by the suggestion that this statement is
true. Doesn't the Democratic Party promote itself as the party that
better represents the interests of the weak and downtrodden, some of
whom either lack the ability to become literate, or have been prevented
from becoming literate by the deficiencies of the social or educational
environment in which they grew up?
And for that matter, wouldn't the Republicans also be delighted to
learn that they had the support of a majority of this group?
Surely it is wildly implausible to think that the original statement
was meant to imply that support for Gore *causes* illiteracy, which
would be the only reason to take offense. The reverse causation, or
some common cause, would be the more reasonable explanation for an
association of this sort.
Radford Neal
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
