|
| ▲ | fc417fc802 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think that's fair. He asked about statistical defensibility (implies an entire dataset) and was handed something that definitely does not qualify. What was provided certainly makes it clear that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about but it doesn't (at least I don't think) rise to the level of actually supporting the claim in question. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > statistical defensibility Requesting an arbitrarily high standard doesn’t create any obligation. Evidence of a high standard does. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's no obligation in either direction in this context (idle chitchat) unless of course you care to convince someone of something. He objected to what was provided and you accused him of ignoring evidence. I'm voicing agreement with his objection. The original claim was one of a statistical nature. Thus any purported evidence should be expected to match. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > of a statistical nature. (True) … should be expected to match. (False) If a group is more likely to be X than the average population then being a member of that group is statistical evidence you are X. Really when referring to statistical evidence here it’s an indication the evidence is of a very low standard not a high one. He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists which doesn’t actually mean much which is kind of a point on its own. That being it’s the same low standard as used by actual racists, but as you said there’s no actual obligation to go beyond such wordplay. Personally I was very amused by the whole thing but obviously it’s quite offensive to some people. Taking the other side of this one, you could say something like “sure the odds at least one of them are white supremacists is non trivial, but suggesting all seven are is unlikely.” Again not a strong argument, but it’s at minimum an actual argument. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tt24 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sorry, that's not how this works. Claims must be supported by evidence. I didn't ignore it, I reviewed it and explained how it doesn't support the claim. I have no obligation to provide evidence to the contrary. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Court cases look at things like when someone arrives in a city as evidence, that alone doesn’t make someone more likely to have done whatever than a million other people, but it’s still evidence. So you dismissed it, but it is in fact evidence that there were white supremests just as your post is evidence you are a serial killer. It’s not poof after all you could be a bot. But out off all humans who ever lived 95% of them can’t be a serial killer because they are dead, that post is evidence you where alive recently therefore it is evidence that you are vastly more likely than the average person who have ever lived to be a serial killer. Again as apposed to a dead person who at most could be a former serial killer. Thus demonstrating that evidence isn’t the same thing as strong evidence just something that increases the likelihood of something being true. |
|
|
| ▲ | kstrauser 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And to expand on that, this isn’t even a debate. It’s a casual chat about an actual courtroom debate. Here, no one is judging our presentation. We don’t have to meet a high standard of evidence to speak our opinions, lest they be judged invalid. However, in the actual courtroom where very similar arguments played out with real consequences, Afroman was found not liable for saying more inflammatory versions of the same things. That is, he was judged, for worse, and he won. |
