Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Air Grievances about BruceZ Getting Called Racist ITT: New Posts Arriving All the Time! Air Grievances about BruceZ Getting Called Racist ITT: New Posts Arriving All the Time!

10-13-2015 , 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Is it possible you are misinterpreting what he intended, and sticking to it even after about three days of him explaining it to you like a child?
I've very patiently explained his error to him three times, and not a one of you mathematical geniuses has once posted any kind of substantive response or rebuttal.
10-13-2015 , 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
I've very patiently explained his error to him three times, and not a one of you mathematical geniuses has once posted any kind of substantive response or rebuttal.
Lol, no. All you and wookie have been doing is quibbling with specific numbers he already qualified as ballpark estimates. It's some weird fixation you have on missing the overall point. Yeah, hmm, he didn't use the precise numbers we would use and said bayesian, let's assume the astrophysicist doesn't understand maths and troll him for five days.

It's just like when I was arguing this is probably at least in part about zero tolerance policies run amok. No, you cannot prove that there was any specific zero tolerance issue here so it is of course most definitely only racist and nothing else. And by the way so are you, go back to SMP you bigot.
10-13-2015 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Lol, no. All you and wookie have been doing is quibbling with specific numbers he already qualified as ballpark estimates.
If I copy my Baysean argument here, will you take a shot at disproving the math?
10-13-2015 , 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
If I copy my Baysean argument here, will you take a shot at disproving the math?
How about you first copy the part of Masque's post you think you're arguing with, then your argument. But before you waste your time, you could very slowly read what masque took the time to reply after you wrote it the first time.
10-13-2015 , 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
How about you first copy the part of Masque's post you think you're arguing with, then your argument. But before you waste your time, you could very slowly read what masque took the time to reply after you wrote it the first time.
Masque:

Quote:
Start adding details now in that particular case that enhance a probability something is strange here (is it a hoax bomb, is it a clock etc) and yes its elementary probability theory that if the population of bombmakers or ISIS sympathizers in the past 5 years is 70% Muslim family people it becomes relevant to the search that this kid is in that group too.
Me:

Quote:
Knowing that Muslims commit a large percentage of terror attacks tells you nothing about whether Clock Boy is likely to be a terrorist. Men commit an overwhelming percentage of serial killings, but you'd never conclude that we need to be suspicious of some random dude. To use Bayes's Theorem correctly, you need to know what percentage of Muslims are terrorists. Guess what, it's a vanishingly small percentage.
10-13-2015 , 10:57 PM
You probably need to bold the second to last sentence to help joe 6 pack find the relevant bit of maths.
10-13-2015 , 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
You probably need to bold the second to last sentence to help joe 6 pack find the relevant bit of maths.
As if they're even going to try. idk why I bothered to even go back and find it other than I got time during dem debate commercial breaks.
10-13-2015 , 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Lol, no. All you and wookie have been doing is quibbling with specific numbers he already qualified as ballpark estimates. It's some weird fixation you have on missing the overall point. Yeah, hmm, he didn't use the precise numbers we would use and said bayesian, let's assume the astrophysicist doesn't understand maths and troll him for five days.

It's just like when I was arguing this is probably at least in part about zero tolerance policies run amok. No, you cannot prove that there was any specific zero tolerance issue here so it is of course most definitely only racist and nothing else. And by the way so are you, go back to SMP you bigot.
Quote me where I ask for specific numbers.
10-13-2015 , 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Masque:



Me:
As I suspected, you didn't bother to read the rest of the post where he specifically explains it's a very small probablity that the kid made a bomb and why you wouldn't use the information that recently muslims have been responsible for so many attacks.

Quote:
Keep in mind though that a proper police investigation doesnt care the kid is from such family unless they are forced to a quick action in a group of suspects and they are constrained to search only one person. Then they are profiling and potentially making an error because the higher probability may be with their decision to focus on that person vs others but the reality can be very different. Its not a perfect treatment of the situation.

The mistake with profiling is not that it is done. The mistake is that it is done when its not necessary to do it, possibly even at the cost of the truth and the mistreatment of the people being profiled.

The fact of the matter is that if you told me i have 2 kids one is an asian girl that built a clock and the other is a muslim family boy that built a clock and one of the 2 may be a bomb the chance its the muslim family kid that built the bomb is statistically higher given recent events worldwide. It is still however a ridiculous 1/1000 or whatever small chance like that and the most likely thing is that still both kids built an innocent clock.

If you also told me one of the two built a hoax clock to trigger a media frenzy event, who is it, again the chance its the kid from an activist muslim antiislamophobia father is higher than the chance its the asian girl with a doctor father.

It is mistake to check the mulsim family kid and ignore the asian family kid in a search when you can do both. I must investigate both because i have the resources to do both. If the police only focuses on one group of people and are not thorough then with others their profiling is detrimental and unethical.
It appears that, after all, the rocket scientist actually does understand basic probability. I realize he makes long posts, and you have a short attention span, but there you go. Also, I noticed he didn't respond when you asked, and it looks like you question got lost in a barrage of similar misinterpretations and personal attacks and he couldn't make time to respond to yours specifically. Maybe he will drop in here and explain some more, so you can continue to ignore him and spout crap about things you don't understand.
10-13-2015 , 11:21 PM
Way to cite a paragraph that doesn't address the issue at all.
10-13-2015 , 11:23 PM
If you told me we had a forum user that posts in SMP and another that posts in politics, and one of them might be a racist clown...
10-13-2015 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Quote me where I ask for specific numbers.
I said you quibbled with his numbers, like where he takes ~30% of terrorist attacks in the US are from muslims and with 1% of the population that gives a ballpark 5 times greater chance that a muslim will be responsible for terrorism than an average american. Of course, he makes similar estimations about anti-govt groups and bullied kids, but you jumped on that number for no reason.

Look, it's painfully obvious to anyone what you guys are doing. As always, you are reading bits and pieces, interpreting them any way you can imagine they can be racist, freaking out and ignoring the overall point, every time.
10-13-2015 , 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Way to cite a paragraph that doesn't address the issue at all.
Yes it does, you politard. It shows that masque was never claiming what trolly says he was. That Trolly, as many of you frequently do, was arguing a made up point for no godamn reason.

Anyway, I don't need to be arguing masques points in here. If you simply read his responses in that thread, he explains them over and over again and takes the time to clarify almost all of your objections in great detail. Read them, slowly.

Last edited by FoldnDark; 10-13-2015 at 11:42 PM.
10-14-2015 , 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I said you quibbled with his numbers, like where he takes ~30% of terrorist attacks in the US are from muslims and with 1% of the population that gives a ballpark 5 times greater chance that a muslim will be responsible for terrorism than an average american. Of course, he makes similar estimations about anti-govt groups and bullied kids, but you jumped on that number for no reason.

Look, it's painfully obvious to anyone what you guys are doing. As always, you are reading bits and pieces, interpreting them any way you can imagine they can be racist, freaking out and ignoring the overall point, every time.
And for someone alleging I don't bother trying to understand posts, I specifically asked him if the 30x number was one for the sake of argument or one that he was using as a true number. I was literally trying to understand and asking for clarification! I didn't even doubt it. I just got clarification, and I explained further for those who wouldn't tally the wiki.
10-14-2015 , 12:06 AM
I mean, if you want to legitimately quibble about me quibbling about specific numbers, then cite the post where I take masque's source and count to 0. Sanctioning me for wanting to understand where masque's own number came from is ridiculous.
10-14-2015 , 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
I mean, if you want to legitimately quibble about me quibbling about specific numbers, then cite the post where I take masque's source and count to 0. Sanctioning me for wanting to understand where masque's own number came from is ridiculous.
Fair enough. That may have been a bit of a quixotic quibble. Yours was better.
10-14-2015 , 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
If you told me we had a forum user that posts in SMP and another that posts in politics, and one of them might be a racist clown...
If we apply Bayes theorem...
10-14-2015 , 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
As I suspected, you didn't bother to read the rest of the post where he specifically explains it's a very small probablity that the kid made a bomb and why you wouldn't use the information that recently muslims have been responsible for so many attacks.
Nope try again. Here's exactly what he said:

Quote:
and yes its elementary probability theory that if the population of bombmakers or ISIS sympathizers in the past 5 years is 70% Muslim family people it becomes relevant to the search that this kid is in that group too.
10-14-2015 , 08:42 AM
You guys are wasting your breath trying to explain math to an smp reject

Or sentence structure, for that matter. Or logic. Or...
10-14-2015 , 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Nope try again. Here's exactly what he said:
And the preceding paragraph:

Quote:
The moment someone becomes an investigation target for potentially having a device that is suspicious the fact they are of muslim origin/family becomes relevant. Why? Look up the conditional probability to see why. Should the search stop if it was a white boy? Of course not. So in a case that the police is able to do a thorough job the muslim thing doesnt enter the picture at all again even now. If they cant do a thorough job it enters the picture as a bias.
I mean, dude, masque has taken great pains to explain conditional probability to you all, very slowly, like goddamn school children. When the fact he was muslim would be relevant to the search and when not. He clearly says it would only be relevant if the police cannot do a thorough search, which of course they could, so it was not relevant in this case.
10-14-2015 , 11:03 AM
FoldN, he also says repeatedly that Ahmed being a Muslim is relevant in this case.

Don't worry, the subject turns to something you have expertise on like drunk driving or raping women, we'll be sure to let you know.
10-14-2015 , 11:17 AM
So wookies not coming back to acknowledge the existence of personal attacks in the clock thread?

Maybe despite examples he still wasn't able to notice them.
10-14-2015 , 11:19 AM
He's certainly okay with wall de text's personal attacks.

Also, I al let thought for a moment chez would be able to not post in this thread for like a whole day.

Temptation too great for his alcohol-soaked mind to resist.
10-14-2015 , 11:21 AM
Personal attacks and complaining about moderation are both offenses under the rules. Perhaps Wookie should start strictly enforcing the complain about moderation part so we don't have to read 25 passive aggressive complaints a day? Id certainly rather be personally attacked than have to read another 20 chez posts talking about how he thinks all the mods are awesome, but gee golly didn't they notice this thing (not FoldN, Masque, or spank) did to (Foldn, Masque, or spank, some racist) and oh gee golly that's the problem with the forum.
10-14-2015 , 11:33 AM
Well sure, wook gets to pick and choose when to enforce the rules, that's his job. We're pointing out he does a terrible job at it and it ruins his forum by cluttering it up with fights and pushing out decenting opinions. He should be welcoming those opinions, especially in light of how often they are right and you are stupid.

Also, big lol at pointing out how masque finally cracked and resorted to personal attacks after being pelted with them, lied about and trolled for several days.

      
m