One of the two terrorists involved in the Boston bombing has been killed

[DeistPaladin]

Organicman, are you a fellow Louisvillian? Just curious.

[CapnAwesome]

Whether you are correct or not is not relevant: anything could have easily been 'the reason'. Your 'mathematical evidence' is anecdote, whether or not I accept it

It was good enough for me to make a call on an internet forum. I see you are still having problem understanding cross population percentages and probability. Nothing like getting called stupid by someone who has such basic logic problems to really ruin my self-esteem.

[Violet]

It was good enough for me to make a call on an internet forum. I see you are still having problem understanding cross population percentages and probability. Nothing like getting called stupid by someone who has such basic logic problems to really ruin my self-esteem.

Skittles taste good enough for me to call my grandmother with an internet forum's bananaphone. I see you are still talking and yet saying nothing... luckily for you: my grandmother invented medicinal compound. Shame that she took it with her when she died... but I just might be able to cook something similar up for you

I do suppose that there is nothing quite akin to being declared stupid by someone who has yet to inform you of your impressive retardation as anything but a scathing response to a childish insult... but: you're making quite the case for yourself. What do I really have to tell you at this point?

I might even be serious.

[Shell B]

Of course it effects it, because there are so few sociopaths and so few Muslims the probability of a sociopathic (non-religiously motivated) attack by a Muslim in the US is far far less than that of a sociopathic attack (non-religiously motivated) by a Christian. I don't know why this concept seems to be so hard to understand.

---

I can assure you that nothing about numbers is getting over his head. If I recall the conversation he and I had about it correctly, what he is saying is that the statistical incidence within that subgroup would be the same. Therefore, while the chances of the person being a Muslim are smaller, the chances of the person being a crazy Muslim once we have established he or she is Muslim is actually exactly the same as had it been any other subgroup. For example, had it been a white Christian, the chances still would have been .1% (or whatever statistic you gave for crazy). In other words, once we know the person is Muslim, the .8% becomes highly irrelevant. You now have an even playing field, as the rest of the population has been eliminated in the scenario. What remains are only Muslims, of which the very same amount are crazy as in any other subgroup. Does that make more sense?

---

Lilly is right. You have to be careful with statistical evidence, as it is often obtained using poor methods, whether the analysts know it or not. At least, it is according to Professor Ram Neta. However, it is not always anecdotal. I wouldn't have used that term. Now, that being said, population statistics are a little bit harder to fudge. Census is data really is not that bad, considering. It was a decent argument until the conclusion.

A=Muslims B=Americans C=Crazy people

.8 B are A
.1 B are C
.1 A are C

Therefore, it is less likely for A to be C.

That is essentially your argument and, in my opinion, it falls apart more clearly when represented thusly. Do you see how the first statistic becomes irrelevant when the rest of the 99.2% of the population are out of the equation?

I think I need to go to bed.

[orogenicman]

Organicman, are you a fellow Louisvillian? Just curious.

Indeed I am.

[A Theist]

Exactly the way I see the leftwing, can't cope with reality because you're all isolated from it in your PC bubble world...you guys are fanatic radicals who can't wait to crucify some conservative white guy whether he be a tea partier or one who supports 2nd amendment rights...and talk about about hate speech, there's no lack of it coming from your side...

We've talked in the past about the "both sides do it" argument. It's the last line of defense for conservatives after they get caught screwing everything up, being abusive or having a scandal. It's their way of trying to get out of any responsibility by trying to turn it into a wash. Beyond the fact that this defense is an ad hominem tu quoque, we usually find that this argument doesn't bare close examination.

No...I didn't say both sides do it...That's conservatives calling out the hypocrisy and the double standards of the leftwing...

[orogenicman]

It is misdirection, nothing more.

[A Theist]

It is misdirection, nothing more.

No it's not...the left are hypocrites.

[DeistPaladin]

It is misdirection, nothing more.

No it's not...the left are hypocrites.

Specific examples anytime. Otherwise, it's "No U!"

[A Theist]

No it's not...the left are hypocrites.

Specific examples anytime. Otherwise, it's "No U!"

...that almost immediately after the bombings in Boston, leftwingers like Chris Matthews and Wolfe Blitzer began "speculating", (accusing) the right? You did it yourself...you leftists will waste no time to throw out baseless speculations, (accusations) against conservatives and tea partiers and be too spineless and cowardly to call out Islamic extremists for the terrorist bombings in Boston...as far as the hate speech from you leftwingers, you don't have to go off this forum to see it...and from a few members in particular...