Mixing up your taser with your handgun

[The Architect Of Fate]

‘Easy” and “Seems pretty self-explanatory” do not qualify as “explain how exactly it follows”.

Not only does it not qualify as an explanation, it is also wrong

Actually, they do as long as you don't exclude the rest of what I wrote as you have.

Fundamentally, The probability of an event happening at all encompasses all possible causes, including design, accident, as well as all others.     Whether an individual event is more likely to result from one cause rather than another cause depends on the relative probability of each cause, not the total probability of the occurrence of the event.    

Nope, the only factor we need is either Accident or Design unless you can think up an alternative. And failsafes can render accidents less likely so even by your own rules my argument holds up. 

The fact that only 15 events occurred out of a total or however many cops-hours where both guns and tasers were carried just says shooting off one when the other is called for is quite an unlikely event.   It says nothing about whether, when it occurs, it was more likely to have been by design or accident.   To address that requires you to look at the ratio of occurrence of design to that of accident amongst the 15

Until you consider failsafes rendering Accidents less likely as I have pointed out over and over,

That’s why I asked you if 14 out of 15 were caused by design.    You said no, not one of the 15 was by design.  So the basis for estimating the odds of it being by design:  0 out of 15.  The basis for,estimating the odds of it being caused by factors other than design:  15 out of 15

I said I believed the others were accidents because there was nothing to make accidents less likely. The fact failsafes existed makes an accident less likely in Potters case.

That would say before evidence of Potter’s actual reason for her action can be gained, the expected probability of her action being unintentional is overwhelmingly greater than that of her actions being intentional.

Not even close as again you clearly didn't factor IN WHY I can accept the others were accidents.


So you ignored my actual point 

---

You make 4 mistakes:

Again nope 

1. you assert the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,  if that were true awful lot of plane actual crashes would be impossible and inexplicable. 

My point was that failsafe makes the likelihood of it being an accident. Not that accidents never happen. Why do you keep straw-manning me?

2. You assert mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of time, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterward,   If that were true no one who has a pilot with a perfect record for 25 years can have an accident due to his own fault on the 26th year

I said that a 26-year vet would be less likely to make a stress-related mistake again. You had time to edit this but didn't remove the strawmen in it.

3. You assert If an event is known to have only happened once or a few times, that means when it happened it must have been made to happen on purpose.   Creationists would love you. 

I said that the event has only occurred 15 times in US history And that after failsafes were put in place the likelihood of it being an accident like those other instances is less likely, And no creationists would love you as both enjoy making strawmen to knockdown.

4  You think 1, 2, and 3 constitute “back up”

You think 1,2.3 are my mistakes. They are not.

But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expedient positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.

And again inventing "agenda's "I apparently have