So, how long do we have to wait until racist & gay jokes are funny again?

Originally posted by By Crom!
You can't criticise a sampling method without a lot more detail the fact it is a website may make it more or less random.

Actually it's significant within that number that's another issue. Size of sample group is significant only to that sample group.

and significancenot being important is a probability issue, it means you don't get the nomenclature. 1 is the measure used. Probability affects it's importance.

🙂

Just one question do you honestly believe that 150 people is enough to measure the attitudes of 6.5 billion?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just one question do you honestly believe that 150 people is enough to measure the attitudes of 6.5 billion?

No, but that's not the point 🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!
No, but that's not the point 🙂

It was until you started messing with the point of the argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It was until you started messing with the point of the argument.

Really?

Sorry 🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!
No, but that's not the point 🙂

What is your point then? You congratulated him for "proving his point" and then claimed "he provided evidence", yet you (like the rest of us) dismiss his proof as being unsubstantial, which any sane person would do considering what he provided.

let the artful dodging continue

Originally posted by Robtard
What is your point then? You congratulated him for "proving his point" and then claimed "he provided evidence", yet you (like the rest of us) dismiss his proof as being unsubstantial, which any sane person would do considering what he provided.

the point is the results were significant statistically within that sample group. That is using stats fact. Now the methodology can be questioned but not completely disregarded without far more detail. The big issue is is that sample group representative of the whole worl. Without evidence otherwise you would have to say yes, no matter how spurios the proof is. Now if you produce a counter set of statistics based on another sample group. It in terms of evidence both refutes the claims of the previous sample and brings the whole premise into question. Can you do this? Obviously! Have you? No!

🙂

Originally posted by PVS
let the artful dodging continue

hooray validation for our actions clap

Originally posted by By Crom!
the point is the results were significant statistically within that sample group. That is using stats fact. Now the methodology can be questioned but not completely disregarded without far more detail. The big issue is is that sample group representative of the whole worl. Without evidence otherwise you would have to say yes, no matter how spurios the proof is. Now if you produce a counter set of statistics based on another sample group. It in terms of evidence both refutes the claims of the previous sample and brings the whole premise into question. Can you do this? Obviously! Have you? No!

🙂

1) Valid proof was/is required to make claims "fact" (he failed in doing so)

2) As noted before, I cannot prove a negative.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) Valid proof was/is required to make claims "fact"

If you understood this you'd get the point

Originally posted by By Crom!
You can't criticise a sampling method without a lot more detail the fact it is a website may make it more or less random.

Actually it's significant within that number that's another issue. Size of sample group is significant only to that sample group.

and significance not being important is a probability issue, it means you don't get the nomenclature. 1 is the measure used. Probability affects it's importance.

🙂

🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!
If you understood this you'd get the point

So I can prove things true without valid proof awsome!

Originally posted by By Crom!
If you understood this you'd get the point

🙂

Awesome... So I can make a claim no matter how preposterous, say it's "fact", provide unreliable evidence as proof and then say "I WIN I WIN!" while dancing like a monkey around an organ-grinder. Glad to see how things run on your planet.

-edit You beat me to it SC.

Originally posted by PVS
let the artful dodging continue

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hooray validation for our actions clap

Perhaps the funniest thing of the year 🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!
Perhaps the funniest thing of the year 🙂

Your range of emoticons seems limited 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So I can prove things true without valid proof awsome!

😆 Not exactly, but almost!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your range of emoticons seems limited 🙂

🙂 Fortunately my maths isn't.

Originally posted by By Crom!
Perhaps the funniest thing of the year 🙂

Perhaps, but it has competition...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'll let you know that it's hardly impossible to either find or even start a poll on this issue but how can I prove a fact-less racist comment to be a fact, you idiot.

Wouldn't the comment have to indeed be fact in order for me to prove it it is..

Originally posted by By Crom!
😆 Not exactly, but almost!

OK lets see

the data is statistically relevant
the data cannot be generalized sufficiently

so although there is nothing to say that FotN's poll data was untrue it can be reasonably claimed that his intereperetation is rather flawed

How is that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
OK lets see

the data is statistically relevant
the data cannot be generalized sufficiently

so although there is nothing to say that FotN's poll data was untrue it can be reasonably claimed that his intereperetation is rather flawed

How is that?

When you're 16 and you do basic staistics you'll understand.

🙂

It's a within the sample thing. 🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!

It's a within the sample thing. 🙂

But we're not talking about within the sample. The point is that FotN cannot validly (not the stat term stop w/ the semantics) generalize about every white person based on the given data.