I actually liked how there were little bits of sense in there. This is my favourite, as a super-short summary of the "Islam is dangerous" crowd, of which I am a member I guess:

The data wasn't wrong, you just flat-out misapplied Bayes's theorem.

FoldN commenting on logic and reasoning is like that special kid who they let hang out at the local fire station trying to write articles for Firehouse Magazine.

Yup. Not even debatable.

Whether it should be banned is a slightly different question from whether it would be banned.

Maybe I have too high an opinion of wookie but I doubt he would snap ban that obvious joke.

I agree with you here. He let's folks like Falcon do it all the time.

Sklansky post does a lot to fight the stereotype that Jews are funny.

I might be secretly Jewish idk.

Wouldn't even make it into the top ten offensive D. Skalanski posts. Still offensive ldo.

Self-depreciating unfunny jokes - sound English to me.

Sorry about that.

One less vowel and you have the right word there, chez.

Srry

How is that true?

First of all i established in my last post (point 13 i think) that in recent news about terrorism attacks or failed attempts or plots stopped etc in US the frequency of Islam/muslim reference is like near 30% since 2013. Given that only 10% is needed for that 1% of US population people to make them over 10x more likely than anyone else in a suspicious situation, i already proved my case.

What case is that again? That in a random situation that a person is suspected momentarily and they also happen to be of muslim background the chance to be a real risk is 30 times larger than a random person. 30 times is a ridiculous large relative number and is the true reason for any profiling either by proper people who are careful about conclusions they draw that affect actions or by racists/bigots that are irrational about it and careless in how they react.

Furthermore i also said repeatedly that it is still an overall small number eg like 1 in 10000 which means its not a justification to treat someone badly etc but it is a justification to have elevated concern and investigate the situation or handle it with care. Exactly in what way is the kid victimized here if people investigate the situation? The kid should have known the implications and the risk introduced to people that do not instantly understand the construction. Care to imagine that this might have been his intention all along?

The fact is i am almost convinced precisely because there is nothing original in the "clock" that the entire point was a farce attempt and the fact the first teacher didnt make a big deal out of it proves the point that there was little scientific technological value in the device.

The kid was looking for a rise out of this. He got it. It was a prank and do not let anyone else tell you his intentions were pure and remotely scientific. I actually think the kid is an entitled little spoiled brat to be frank. And it has nothing to do with Islam or his family origin but possibly a lot to do with the exact nature and history of his family and how he was raised (or possibly treated at school sometimes even).

There are many ways to see Bayes here. First initially (before the device is examined to be shown a harmless nothing) in establishing concern. In fact it has nothing to do at this point with the fact the kid may be muslim. It has to do with the fact that when a foreign device is introduced out of place in a room/class etc the teacher needs to be concerned by definition of their protective/adult function. For the police it is also a test that needs to be examined and cleared. Investigating who did it and why is standard. Now if they went overboard after that its another issue.

Bayes can be seen at another level too. After we have established the device is harmless and that its just a clock and not even a real invention/original design of parts, therefore not a real science project, the fact the kid has past prank history makes it easier to the school to imagine a farce hoax play. Same for the police since the kid isnt cooperating to describe in detail the device and what would be original and noteworthy school presentation material about it.

At none of these points the fact the kid is looking foreign or may have a muslim name etc makes any difference. If you want to make it an issue though for some reason yes you have a 30x factor right there because of that connection if its established. I do not go out imagining every brown skin kid i see is a muslim do you? They are all kids to me.

Additionally as a near joke (if you assume you know he is muslim) i can offer the argument that in a worldwide sense the combination muslims+boxes+circuit boards+clock mechanisms have a high correlation with home made bomb events or a joke/comedy effort about that above high correlation. Get it? How many other people you know that put clocks in boxes. I can only imagine art exhibitions about it possibly lol as another legitimate idea. Have you seen many of these lately?


The police has a reason to investigate if this is a hoax etc precisely because its more likely that someone that is on an anti Islamophobia campaign would do that rather than another student if you examine them by nationality etc.


Any way you examine this funny incident it has Bayes written all over it depending on the angle you view it. LOL

nasque is just going to restate his same terrible justifications for racial profiling(and straight from the derposphere theories about it being a hoax) over and over apparently just rearranged in each post. Life imitating art.

And people who do not understand me or want to not understand me will continue to say their bs lies about what i am describing and distort it for comedic effect and other idiotic functions or think its vitriolic bs.

There are hundreds of legitimate incidents of bias against minorities directed at clean innocent people and almost nobody does anything about it. This is where one takes a stand when you see them happen around you. Document this. Fight it.

How about someone make a documentary collecting random evidence cases of how people treat a child at school or someone dressed differently suggesting religious affiliation etc. In those cases there is absolutely no risk and no reason to be hostile to those people and yet the bullies and other losers will find easy targets.

These are the true racists and bigots. Or try to find cops that harass people for nothing because of how they look. Record them and end their stupid jobs. Try to find such clean cases and do not fall for opportunistic spoiled brats like the case is here. What you end up falling for allows the other side to undermine your argument!!!

How many things do you want to get it?

First of all no invention, not even a different parts composition. He showed it to one teacher, the only teacher that would matter in that case. No rise. Second teacher , no rise, Third teacher no rise. After having had no success he finally puts the clock on with alarm function on to be noticed during an unrelated topic class, twice! Finally a rise!

And you want to take this as your hero, the innocent poor kid that they victimized. Are you kidding me? Is the school that knows the case better and suspended him morons? Maybe the police went on overkill to escalate to arrest. Criticize them for it. It ends there, then search and find responsibility in all involved. This is what proper journalism is all about. Is this what we got instead?

Why dont we focus instead on the other case that Saudi Arabia is about to crucify and behead another teen for standing up for freedom.

Why dont we also find real muslim family kids that excel at local schools and make them a story. Why dont we (journalists) make a project to go to every major city and investigate such good students and force the high tech companies to create funds for their education. Do any such stories ever get that kind of coverage? Why isnt that a far more legitimate effort that is the most effective way to defeat xenophobia by showcasing those exceptional people. Are you sure you have a clean kid in this case that was purely innocent in all this and not manipulated?

What news? Fox?

And also, who cares?

This isn't a viable metric to determine what % of attacks or attempted attacks are initiated by Muslims. Doing so would lead us to conclude that little blonde girls are abducted/missing at a vastly disproportionate rate because they're who get all the media's attention.

Aren't you supposed to be a logic expert or something?

I already explained this to you, but here goes again:

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.

Frankly, Masque, it's embarrassing to have to explain this to you and I think if you weren't blinded by residual BruceZ butthurt you'd avoid making these kinds of mistakes. Calm down, stop posting stream-of-consciousness diarrhea, and find a better reason to justify being ****ty to Muslim-Americans.

Or just go back to SMP and post youtubes at each other or whatever it is you people do there.

Masque - if you want to try to explain Bayes to Trolly you're going to have to pick a neutral example. Not one that sets him off on his SMP thingy. Or, to be fair, maybe you will learn from him.

Then maybe try to apply it to a political argument.

Cliffs: He's no angel.

Was that like every 10th word of all of MdZ's posts?

Trolly doesn't need Bayes explained! Jesus Christ the arrogance is sickening.

I dont know lets try this;

If we were told masque has just received random insulting posts by people for a recent post he made (say you have no access to his recent posting history only up to some date ending lets say 2 weeks ago and you do not know what he has done since then) what is the chance it took place in politics or politics unchained, SMP , probability, poker theory or various other poker forums?

Is that good enough for Trolly?


Here is another one;

Men have XY chromosomes. Women have XX.

A random test was conducted and it was found that a subject has at least one X chromosome (say we have a test that presence of X always passes). What is the chance the subject is a woman?

So that there is no ambiguity in the framing here i mean that one of the 2 sex chromosomes was tested and found to be X. For example we might be testing germ cells (sperm or egg) from each person for the sex chromosome in each.

What if we performed the same test in a group that had 90% men and 10% women. What then?

If we start making guesses who it was (that have no actionable consequence for now to them) are we bigoted/prejudiced towards that group?

If Trolly can answer the last example then no need to explain to him anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

By the way i am not claiming he doesnt know or understand how to do it. But he did claim i dont which is interesting.

Oh my God masque really is terrible at math. Incredible. This:

is the dumbest attempt by a racist to math that I've ever seen. Dude, that test provides literally no information to plug into a "Bayesian" analysis, 100% of people will pass it. Who taught you how to make hypotheticals?


And he's at like post 10 of this thread where he's attempting to explain the concept of "racial stereotypes" as if that **** was some cutting edge research he just cooked up!