FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » How to kill a child and get away with it (Page 15)

  This topic comprises 26 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  24  25  26   
Author Topic: How to kill a child and get away with it
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
Btw, Rakeesh, the "self-appointed" you keep saying is false.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/41053/5361

"W-21 is the board president for the homeowner's association. He describes how the neighborhood watch started (after a string of burglaries), the police participation in getting it going, and that more than 50 people attended the first meeting, where George was appointed by the board to be watch captain. (The police representative puts the number at 25, but still, that's a far cry from only George and one or two of his buddies.) He says the watch group met the same days as the Board, just an hour earlier. He says George went around the neighborhood for a week or two asking people to support the creation of the board (not asking to lead it). Another example of misreporting by mainstream media, which continually referred to GZ as the "self-appointed" watch captain. (According to Lexis, the first use of the "self-appointed" meme came from a certain Miami Herald reporter, both in print and on TV, and seems to have spread virally from there. One night Diane Sawyer called him "the neighborhood watchdog" on the evening news which got spread by reporters from the Caribbean to Toronto.)"

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If my reasoning consistently leads me to the right conclusions, it is proper reasoning. If it leads me to wrong conclusions, it is flawed.
A detailed explanation of why this is this is not correct.
You confuse propositions with reasoning methods, Orincoro. The page you linked to illustrates the fallacy of 'Affirming the consequent' exactly by showing how the method of 'Affirming the consequent' leads you to reach false conclusions.

If "Affirming the consequent" led to *right* conclusions, it wouldn't be a fallacy.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If "Affirming the consequent" led to *right* conclusions, it wouldn't be a fallacy.
Wrong. You have implied that if Zimmerman is found innocent, it will prove that you a skilled in analyzing the case. This does not logically follow.

If a theory is valid, it will accurately predict the outcomes but the converse is not true. A theory can predict the some outcomes and still be completely incorrect.

If A, then B does not imply if B then A.

If you disagree with this, I think we are safe in concluding you suffer from the Denning-Kruger effect.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If "Affirming the consequent" led to *right* conclusions, it wouldn't be a fallacy.
Let me offer an example. Suppose I claimed that I could predict the outcome of a coin toss from the time of day, the latitude, the phase of the moon and the age of the coin flipper. If I correctly predicted one or two coin flips this way, would it be valid to conclude my methods were sound.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You have implied that if Zimmerman is found innocent, it will prove that you a skilled in analyzing the case.
No, it won't "prove" anything, if by proof you mean 100% certainty; it's just significant evidence towards that effect -- I think the problem is you think I'm using Aristotelian logic of the "if A then B" type. What you say is correct, given Aristotelian logic, but the problem with Aristotelian logic is that it doesn't handle uncertainty and probabilities.

But I only use such Aristotelian expressions as a necessary shorthand: In reality I'm trying to use informal Bayesian reasoning of conditional probabilities, where new evidence leads you to update the assigned probabilities.

Let's say that "V" stands for "my reasoning is valid".
Let's say that "Z" stands for "my positions about the Zimmerman case are correct".

By Bayes' theorem: P(Z|V)/P(Z) = P(V|Z)/P(V)

So conditional probabilities mean that if P(Z|V) > P(Z) (if a valid reasoning makes it more likely for the position to be correct) it also stands that P(V|Z) > P(V) (a correct conclusion makes it more likely that the reasoning is valid)

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
The above btw is why "absence of evidence" is indeed "evidence of absence" -- but "absence of proof" isn't "proof of absence".

The latter is Aristotelian and is about 'proof', the former is probabilistic and is about 'evidence' -- the two work slightly different, because proof means something that leads you to 100% certainty, while evidence just means something that cause you adjust your certainty upwards (without needing to reach 100%).

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Because that's the crux of what's at issue here: your "logical evidence" is anything but; it's direly illogical
In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If my reasoning consistently leads me to the right conclusions, it is proper reasoning. If it leads me to wrong conclusions, it is flawed.
I have reasoned that the sun is a sentient mass that thinks it is a giant ball of butterscotch pudding. I predict conclusively that it will rise tomorrow morning and I will continue to analyze its mindset every morning thereafter with similar predicted output. That, powered by its desire to escape death at the hands of hungry terrestrial children, or whatever else I predict it is thinking that day, it shall rise, run out of power in the evening and descend to its closest approximation of a hiding place. If this reasoning consistently leads me to the right conclusions (i.e., if the sun rises tomorrow morning ... and is continued to be proven by the sun rising every morning thereafter) then according to you, this reasoning is proper reasoning, and is not flawed.

Furthermore, I have reasoned that you murdered a young girl in 1990, much like a certain TV host, and that your guilt over this senseless murder drives you to post in this forum and that your posting is, in fact, a byproduct of that guilt. Let's see where this additionally proper chain of reasoning goes.

quote:
But what part of your reasoning process have you revised when you found out *you* were wrong about Zimmerman's injuries. What was the flawed logic you had succumbed to, which you afterwards determined you should not succumb to again?
"Part of the process of doing this while not being AWARE of it is to, I suppose, pathologically distract to talking about the bias you see in others when you have it pointed out in yourself."

See, I'm better at this predictive thing.

Anyway, looking back — flawed logic? You mean where I concluded that Zimmerman had to be guilty?

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You mean where I concluded that Zimmerman had to be guilty?
I told specifically: Where you concluded that he hadn't suffered the injuries reported (back at the same time that I concluded that he *had*).

You made that conclusion. You've admitted yourself wrong I think. What flawed reasoning lead you to that false conclusion?

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I predict conclusively that it will rise tomorrow morning
Wait, Samprimary, are you implying that my predictions in this case (e.g. that it was Zimmerman's voice crying out for help) are as certain to turn out correct as a prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow?

If so, you've gone much further than I myself have in your support of Zimmerman. :-)

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I told specifically: Where you concluded that he hadn't suffered the injuries reported (back at the same time that I concluded that he *had*).
You understand the difference between strongly doubting self-reported levels of injury given available data, and concluding "Zimmerman definitely was uninjured," right?

My correctly reasoned (according to you) giant ball of sentient butterscotch pudding sun does; you should too.

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
I predict conclusively that it will rise tomorrow morning
Wait, Samprimary, are you implying that my predictions in this case (e.g. that it was Zimmerman's voice crying out for help) are as certain to turn out correct
No; but you can try to figure it out again if you want.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
and concluding "Zimmerman definitely was uninjured," right?
I didn't say you used the word 'definitely', I said you reached the wrong conclusion.

Let me quote you: "Zimmerman on video after the supposed assault by candy-wielding kids. Supposed serious head injuries from his minute-long assault by Trayvon reported by cops — mysteriously invisible to video cameras. Ha ha. Ha."

Here's your conclusion, word for word: "I highly doubt Zimmerman's injuries were simply invisible to a camera, I think they did not really exist to even remotely the extent claimed by the involved police department. "

You were wrong about this conclusion. This non-definite conclusion, if you want. What false reasoning led you so astray?

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You were wrong about this conclusion. This non-definite conclusion, if you want.
non-definite conclusion? You're getting closer ...

quote:
You understand the difference between strongly doubting self-reported levels of injury given available data, and concluding "Zimmerman definitely was uninjured," right?

My correctly reasoned (according to you) giant ball of sentient butterscotch pudding sun does; you should too.

(if it helps you, you can remove 'definitely' from that and it is the exact same point, btdubs)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
I see. So basically you can constantly be wrong and never have to correct yourself, just because you never use the words "I conclude", or "definitely" -- you just say things like "I think" or you mock people who think otherwise. And you therefore never even have to notice when you constantly believe things that are proven false. Because you just "think" them, you didn't "conclude" them.

For the same reason you'll never have to correct yourself when it's proven beyond reasonable doubt (even for you to acknowledge) that it was Zimmerman's voice. Because there's never a post where you use the word "conclude" to say it wasn't -- you just mock and attack those of us who actually state different positions clearly.

Brave, brave sir Samprimary, bravely voicing his position...

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I see. So basically you can constantly be wrong and never have to correct yourself, just because you never use the words "I conclude", or "definitely" -- you just say things like "I think" or you mock people who think otherwise.
No. You're wrong, and blustering, as usual. The issue is that you are loudly trumpeting poor reasoning and prejudgment as good reasoning. You are making statements of 'logical fact' which are bogus, you are sticking to reasoning which is false on its face regardless of the outcome of the trial, and think yourself vindicated on the most tenuous of 'resolutions,' and you steadfastly refuse to change them.

You're mocked for having bogus positions you treat as 'logical' and sound reasoning, when they can so transparently be mocked through things like the butterscotch sun example (by the way, if you can't understand how that demonstrates the illogic of your position on 'sound reasoning,' you've done more than just fallen to pure hubris, so I'd at least like to see you TRY, so I'll just keep asking) and then you translate that as meaning "I'm just mocked for actually stating my positions clearly!"

It's troubling. You are in so far over your depth that you are embarrassing yourself and you don't understand why. And I'm not stating that to 'score a point' or sit here and sneer over you, I really seriously want to point out to you that you are doing yourself no favors.

Here's the most important bit: you notice how the lot of us are continually harping on the bit where you said this:

quote:
If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't -- which is my exact point, that we know who the assailant was.
Here is the

*ABSOLUTE MOST IMPORTANT PART*

of this argument: WHAT do you think people's objection to this logic is? Based on anything you have picked up from the continual retorts you have gotten to this statement, WHAT do you think our point is? WHAT do you think we think is wrong with it? I am straightforwardly asking you if you even understand our objection to this 'logic.' Can you demonstrate? Will you try? Or will you shift away again (you're up to five times now, which makes this back-and-forth pretty wibbly).

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The issue is that you
No, you expressed that wrong conclusion before I participated in the thread, so the issue about you reaching a wrong conclusion and then refusing to examine *why* you came to such a wrong conclusion can't be me. I wasn't in this thread yet when you expressed that wrong conclusion.

That was all you.

The rest is just rambling *yet again* about how wrong I am -- except that your idea of 'wrongness' doesn't have anything to do with accuracy of predictive power, so it's not my idea of wrongness it seems.

If I'm so wrong about my logic, you'll be able to tell me so when my predictions are proven wrong. Instead you spent a lot of time, trying to explain away in advance the eventual *correctness* of my predictions.

This implies to me (if we're now psychoanalyzing each other, it seems) that deep down you really recognize that I'll turn out correct in my predictions, and therefore try to deny any significance to such accuracy. You wouldn't bother otherwise.

quote:
I am straightforwardly asking you if you even understand our objection to this 'logic.'
"Our" objection? Are you a hive mind in there? I'm sure that *some people* object, because they think it overconfident prediction based on the evidence at hand. *Some* would object, because they felt I shouldn't use the word "we know", as if I speak for them as well. *Some* would object, because they don't realize that I informally use "know" to mean extremely high levels of certainty (e.g. 98%), not necessarily 100% guarantee of anything (which as I've repeatedly said can't be assigned to *any* event in the real world).

[ May 29, 2012, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to clarify: am I understanding you correctly, that reasonable people ought to think young black men wearing clothing that says 'No Limits N@$ga!' as more likely to be violent towards white people than someone who didn't? Does this apply as a comparison only of other young black men not wearing such clothing, or to any young men in any clothing, or to men period, or to humans period

To be perfectly up front here, I think that if you *do* actually believe such clothing ought to be considered a danger signal, you're so far out of touch as to be completely unaware of your ignorance. Which would be fine, there's no obligation for anyone to be current on the slang of cultural groups not their own...except when they use them as tools for analysis and then claim that as accurate.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This implies to me (if we're now psychoanalyzing each other, it seems) that deep down you really recognize that I'll turn out correct in my predictions, and therefore try to deny any significance to such accuracy. You wouldn't bother otherwise.
Wow, rabbit really was right about the dunning-kreuger effect, wasn't she. I assume you think you are pretty good at psychoanalysis? Because this is pretty ... uh, profoundly wrong. Haha.

quote:
"Our" objection? Are you a hive mind in there? I'm sure that *some people* object, because they think it overconfident prediction based on the evidence at hand.
Yes, because what you claimed as something that gave you certainty of Zimmerman's evidence is based on poor reasoning, and actually does no such thing. That's what I'm asking you if you can understand. I'll wait on that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Wow, rabbit really was right about the dunning-kreuger effect, wasn't she.

Please note that I predicted this outcome 4 days ago. [Wall Bash]

All hail The Rabbit!!! The proof is in the pudding after all.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"am I understanding you correctly, that reasonable people ought to think young black men wearing clothing that says 'No Limits N@$ga!' as more likely to be violent towards white people than someone who didn't?
Oh, I think it's a bit more generic than that: I'd guess that anyone who self-identifies in an account (that's a bit more self-revealing as it's a bit more permanent than clothing) with his underprivileged group's "reclaimed" slur, is more likely to be hostile towards a member of the privileged group. A woman labelling herself 'c*nt' would probably be more likely to be hostile towards men, some gay guy labelling himself 'f*g' would probably be more likely to be hostile towards heterosexuals.

That's not the kind of label you attach to yourself to make yourself converse and coexist comfortably with privileged-group members.

Such hostility doesn't need to become aggression of course. That's why I called it just "minor" evidence.

And it would of course be even better evidence to the contrary if Martin is known to have had friends of different races. I honestly don't know about that - anyone knows?

[ May 29, 2012, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Oh, I think it's a bit more generic than that: I'd guess that anyone who self-identifies in an account (that's a bit more self-revealing as it's a bit more permanent than clothing) with his underprivileged group's "reclaimed" slur, is more likely to be hostile towards a member of the privileged group. A woman labelling herself 'c*nt' would probably be more likely to be hostile towards men, some gay guy labelling himself 'f*g' would probably be more likely to be hostile towards heterosexuals.
This set of reasoning is so vague and general, and uses comparison between such radically different cultures and terms, as to be almost meaningless. You can't possibly measure this on an individual level within any sort of margin of error. It's another wild-ass guess.

If you had said, "This use of the term is a reason to look for other signs of higher likelihood of racially motivated violence," that would be one thing. Instead you just plug it right on into your never-actually-stated set of equations (and how could it be?) and insist your reasoning be considered credible.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But all the slight evidence seems to pile up. And frankly that's the fundamental difference in our methodologies. All the sum of slight evidence, which individually you can dismiss with a contemptuous wave, but it seems to pile up... in mostly the same direction.
Now if only this analysis went both ways. Carrying a gun to grocery shop without a reason to feel one needs it, many (even dozens) of unnecessary 911 calls, a restraining order, dropped resisting arrest charges, the (un)likelihood he would've turned his back on Martin if Martin was as he would need to be for Zimmerman's account to be accurate, so on and so forth. These things, to me, individually tick towards a man who is confrontational, shows poor judgment, is overzealous in his 'duty', and when we're comparing just the two people involved, it adds up to quite a higher degree of likelihood of starting both a verbal confrontation in this scenario and starting an initially mild physical one.

As has been said at great length, your claims notwithstanding, it may very well be that there are other factors that come to light that tip this balance in Zimmerman's favor, or even that nothing else comes out and yet in spite of the probabilities, this time it was the less likely guy who turned things physical.

Your defense is basically that the witnesses (so far, and only in some ways) support Zimmerman. You even acknowledge that stories have changed, but expect to be taken seriously when you say in effect, "Well sure, but it's unlikely they would've changed their stories *much."

You're probably right, though. The reason people are disagreeing with you is a secret pride in our predictive ability (secret, because nobody except you has prided themselves for that skill, or with such poor stated reasons), and a secret fear that this pride will prove unwarranted. That seems actually to be much more applicable to your thoughts on prediction, though.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You even acknowledge that stories have changed, but expect to be taken seriously when you say in effect, "Well sure, but it's unlikely they would've changed their stories *much."
What? This doesn't make sense. And it's certainly nothing I've ever claimed.

From the witnesses that Sentinel claimed to have "changed" their stories, we know which ones were major changes (e.g. the guys who on the 911 call seemed to not have seen anything, and then later claimed to the media to have seen the whole shooting ), and which ones were minor changes (e.g. the woman who initially said wasn't sure who was on top, later said that it must have been Zimmerman on top because it was the *bigger* person on top -- of course we know the larger person was Trayvon Martin, but the media kept showing his picture as a 12-year kid, so the woman afterwards assumed that the larger person was Zimmerman)

You can judge the approximate value of those changes yourself. Or perhaps you can't.

And there of course remain those witnesses who *didn't* change their stories.

quote:
You're probably right, though. The reason people are disagreeing with you is
I don't think I have stated *why* I think people are disagreeing with me, and I'll ask you not to go out of your way to misrepresent my positions twice in the space of a single post, or even worse misrepresent me as misrepresenting others.

quote:
because nobody except you has prided themselves for that skill
I know that. You would be tons better if you at least acknowledged predictive capacity as a virtue. Nobody else here seems to think it's even of importance, to have your theorizing and ideas be evaluated and checked by actual reality.

Nobody here has even granted that *if* I'm proven correct, they will update upwards the credibility they assign to my reasoning. Several people have gone out of the way to imply the opposite, that they'll still be mocking and paying no attention.

[ May 30, 2012, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think I have stated *why* I think people are disagreeing with me,
quote:
This implies to me (if we're now psychoanalyzing each other, it seems) that deep down you really recognize that I'll turn out correct in my predictions, and therefore try to deny any significance to such accuracy.
hmm
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary, are you really that bad at reading comprehension, or are you just pretending?

The first sentence is about people disagreeing with my positions/predictions/reasoning.
The other sentence is about people spending time denying the significance of correct (hypothetically) predictions.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
quote:
In the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If my reasoning consistently leads me to the right conclusions, it is proper reasoning. If it leads me to wrong conclusions, it is flawed.
A detailed explanation of why this is this is not correct.
You confuse propositions with reasoning methods, Orincoro. The page you linked to illustrates the fallacy of 'Affirming the consequent' exactly by showing how the method of 'Affirming the consequent' leads you to reach false conclusions.

If "Affirming the consequent" led to *right* conclusions, it wouldn't be a fallacy.

I can't even unravel the irony of affirming the consequent when it comes to committing that *same* formal fallacy. You are affirming the consequent in claiming that affirming the consequent is valid reasoning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"You are affirming the consequent in claiming in claiming that affirming the consequent is valid reasoning."
Orincoro, you seem to not recognize certain English grammatical constructions: This sentence for example:
quote:
"If "Affirming the consequent" led to *right* conclusions, it wouldn't be a fallacy. "
actually means that I claim 'Affirming the consequent' to *be* a fallacy in reality -- I was simply talking about a counterfactual world in which it led to right conclusions. That's what the "If..., it wouldn't" means.

You somehow misunderstood this to mean that I claimed it valid reasoning. No, I was claiming it a fallacy.

We have enough real disagreements without having to deal with grammatical misunderstandings as well.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Samprimary, are you really that bad at reading comprehension, or are you just pretending?

quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
There needs to be less discussion about who is full of crap, lying, playing dumb, etc. If it doesn't stop, individuals are going to start being called out.

hmm

Really though, I'm not bad at reading comprehension. Second sentence is you doing exactly what you describe yourself as not doing in the first.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
Really, Samprimary? Fine, let's play that game, and quote all the bits in just page 15, where you're discussing/hypothesizing/speculating about my own person and motivations, or attempt to provoke me by getting personal, JUST ON PAGE 15.

quote:
Furthermore, I have reasoned that you murdered a young girl in 1990, much like a certain TV host, and that your guilt over this senseless murder drives you to post in this forum and that your posting is, in fact, a byproduct of that guilt
quote:
You're wrong, and blustering, as usual
quote:
It's troubling. You are in so far over your depth that you are embarrassing yourself and you don't understand why. And I'm not stating that to 'score a point' or sit here and sneer over you, I really seriously want to point out to you that you are doing yourself no favors.
quote:
Wow, rabbit really was right about the dunning-kreuger effect, wasn't she. I assume you think you are pretty good at psychoanalysis? Because this is pretty ... uh, profoundly wrong. Haha.
Since you seem to be asking for moderator intervention now, I'm now asking the same in regards to all the above comments.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
You guys should probably move this to the "jerk/drama" thread.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Really, Samprimary? Fine, let's play that game, and quote all the bits in just page 15, where you're discussing/hypothesizing/speculating about my own person and motivations, ...
You were stating why you think I was disagreeing with you. That's it. That's all there is to it. You can act like this in response to it all you want.

The moderator comment, you will note, was precipitated by the repeated tendency to say people were acting dumb or pretending. Since you went right back to that, I thought it would be pertinent to mention that there's already a prodding response to that. Hmm. If at any time there is a prodding response to what I am doing in the future, I'm sure you can reference that again too.

Anyway, hope that behind the outrage and consternation, you can see that my point stands.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
My request for moderation still stands. If the moderator decides that what I said is a no-no, but everything I quoted *you* saying are fine, then fine.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You guys should probably move this to the "jerk/drama" thread.

No kidding!
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My request for moderation still stands.
Great! Now, we can recycle back to:

quote:
what you claimed as something that gave you certainty of Zimmerman's evidence is based on poor reasoning, and actually does no such thing. That's what I'm asking you if you can understand. I'll wait on that.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you asking for understanding or for agreement?

I've already stated both my understanding of what you're saying, and my disagreement to it.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, so let's c/p again:

quote:
If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't -- which is my exact point, that we know who the assailant was.
basically, you're saying that if Zimmerman was the only one to suffer injuries before the shooting, we KNOW that Trayvon was the assailant. It's completely false, of course. It provides no such guarantee. I'm asking if you understand why this, as written, is poor reasoning of assurance for Zimmerman's innocence.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
So, you're gonna just spam the board now?
Once again: I understand what you're saying and I disagree with it.

If you ask the same question again, I'll report you for spamming.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
HOW are you disagreeing with it. Under what conceptualization of reality are you saying that the presence of injuries on Zimmerman but not on Martin, prior to gunshot wound, prove Zimmerman's innocence in 100% of situations, even when it's easy to come up with conceptual situations in which Zimmerman has acted criminally yet has 100% of the evident physical injury?

Also, I get that you're now big on reporting me. Go ahead, just report me for whatever you want. ESPECIALLY report me for continuing to try to get answers out of you about pertinent points. I get that you want to. It is totally understood.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"HOW are you disagreeing with it."
For starters, I disagree that your rephrasing and interpretation of it is fair. I disagree that I was using the word "know" to mean "100%" (In fact I've repeatedly clarified, in several places in this thread, that I wasn't using it to mean 100%").

quote:
"ESPECIALLY report me for continuing to try to get answers out of you about pertinent points."
Getting answers out of me has never been difficult, as long as you *actually* ask what you want to get an answer to, not express it in terms of "Do you understand why you're so very stupid?"

In fact, it's getting me to shut up with my answers that is more difficult.

Compare and contrast the continuing refusal of anyone here to e.g. assign their actual level of certainty as to it being Martin's voice that was shouting for help. Are they 90% certain? 80% certain? 70% certain?

Or compare and contrast that nobody here responded when I asked a question about which testimony they would choose as more likely to be sincere if they had to bet their lives on it.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a suggestion for Aris and all the people (myself included) who have been disagreeing with him.

Give it up!!!

It was evident at least five days ago that this was a pointless discussion. Either Aris is too incompetent to recognizing sound reason or the rest of us are. No amount of elaborating is likely to fix that underlying problem.

I understand the temptation to keep trying. I keep giving into it myself, but it really is an exercise in futility. Unless you are getting some sort of perverse pleasure in goading your opponents into making claims that are more and more ridiculous, just give it up. Find something else to talk about.

[ May 30, 2012, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For starters, I disagree that your rephrasing and interpretation of it is fair. I disagree that I was using the word "know" to mean "100%" (In fact I've repeatedly clarified, in several places in this thread, that I wasn't using it to mean 100%").
So when you say "we know X" you are really more saying "I am guessing X"

Hmm. Good to know, I guess. Or know.

Rabbit:

And even if everyone else decides it's best not to engage him, does that really work if he remains in the thread constantly asserting that other people's rationales are flawed?

I suppose I could be part of a concerted effort among most parties to NOT engage him, and just leave it at "you are wrong." I mean, if Squicky's attempts to straightforwardly work him through his errors in understanding certainties was going to do no good, it might be the only course of action.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So when you say "we know X" you are really more saying "I am guessing X"
No. I wouldn't use the word 'guess' to refer to the same ranges of probability that I'd use the word 'know' for.

Nor would most people. I think few people would use the word 'guess' for something they're e.g. 99% sure of.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And even if everyone else decides it's best not to engage him, does that really work if he remains in the thread constantly asserting that other people's rationales are flawed?
I'm not sure. What do you see as the worst likely consequences of allowing Aris to continue to making fallacious assertions in this thread, uncontested? What is the probability that continuing to contest Aris' claims will reduce the severity of those consequences?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Samp: I agree with Rabbit that the best course of action is to disengage. This thread has utterly derailed into the argument room (although not as funny by far) and the more you engage him, the more fuel he has to inflame.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I'm not sure. What do you see as the worst likely consequences of allowing Aris to continue to making fallacious assertions in this thread, uncontested?

I dunno, it just doesn't work usually. It would be nice if there were some way to ensure that it would be feasible, but this seldom happens. It's like why "Do not feed the trolls!" is pretty much useless advice, overall, because only rarely can you get EVERYONE to follow it, and there's no ignore feature.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Does everyone have to stop feeding the trolls for it to be an improvement?

I honestly understand the dilemma. Even since I've asked people to just drop it, I keep being tempted to post just one more response to Aris. It will certainly be easier for me to resist if other people do as well.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Misha McBride
Member
Member # 6578

 - posted      Profile for Misha McBride           Edit/Delete Post 
It really sucks, nothing you say is going to make him shut up and his stone headed arguments have managed to suck every bit of readability out of this thread. I've only been scanning it for the last few pages hoping it will get un-derailed but looks like this one's pretty much ruined at this point.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm the one who was willing to say "Fine, I won't argue anymore, let's see how it goes, and it gets decided from that."

I'm willing to say it again.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, when I was a little kid, I used to try to bargain for things that I didn't deserve and hadn't earned. And then I grew up and realized that it doesn't work.

You know how little kids make up rules and set conditions on things that favor an outcome they desire, because they don't really have a concept of the agency of other people, and think reality can be bent to accomodate their needs? Yeah, that's what this reminds me of. Not really "reminds," I should say.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"You know how little kids make up rules and set conditions on things that favor an outcome they desire"
In which case the "rules" and "conditions" in question are "I'll be proven right in my predictions, and you'll be proven wrong in yours"?

People can judge by themselves whether that's a fair test or not, or if I'm cheating in some manner.

Tempted to report for unwarranted insult.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
See, I was so right.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 26 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  24  25  26   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2