This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cadenza has moved on
Pages: 1 ... 345 67 ... 20
121
« on: January 20, 2016, 07:26:17 PM »
Fascinating stuff but having blue balls for the next five years isn't something I'll enjoy.
122
« on: January 20, 2016, 07:21:54 PM »
And the majority of people are average. That's why it's called an average.
No. An average, or a mean, measures the central tendency of a group of numbers; this does not imply that most people are in the center, it implied that the mean of the sample is concentrated there. How "smart" varies greatly from person to person, there isn't a clearly definitive pattern. There are a lot of outliers, meaning that an average is pretty useless for guessing the intelligence of a random person plucked off of the street.
I'm using average as a synonym for usual. Usual=most common
If you look at a graph like this 68% of people have around average intelligence. That's a majority of people.
Hold the fuck up right there, that's not what average means and that's not quite how standard/normal/Gaussian distributions work. As you should know there are three kinds of averages, mean, median, mode, all of which provide information about a given sample, but provide very different kinds of information. Let's look at a sample of 101 people who took a test which gives a number as a result (say an intelligence test). The mean is the common definition of average; you add up all 101 scores then divide the answer by 101; this works well provided all the scores are numerically close together, but doesn't distinguish between different clusters; for instance, if 51 people scored 10 and 50 people scored 90, then the mean is 49.6, despite nobody having that score, or anything close to it. The median gives a rough idea of a middle value; if you take all 101 results and order them from smallest to largest, then the median is result number 51, the middle of the set. This tells us that half the people in the set scored lower than or equal to #51, and half scored higher than or equal to #51; using the example before the median is 10; half the remaining people scored exactly that, and the other half scored greater than that; so the median can partition the population into "below average" and "above average" but it doesn't say anything else. The third average is the mode, the number the occurs most frequently, to illustrate i'll use a better set: {1,1,1,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,9} The mode in this case is 8 because it shows up the most; the mode alone says nothing about how frequent this result is, how much more frequent it is than others, and it doesn't even say if it's the majority, but you can do something interesting, removing all the values that are equal to the mode you get another set: {1,1,1,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7,9} In which case the mode is 4; repeating this process you can order the size of different groups, though it alone says nothing about how large those groups are. The point to realize is that this is really basic stats here, everyone who can count should already know this; and if you are going to talk maths, make sure you know your definitions. Now what's not quite basic stats, but still fairly basic is the graph you posted, the Gaussian distribution has the property that all three averages are the same, mean = median = mode But here's the catch that I've been building up to; if that graph represent intelligence, and you pick a random person, what's the probability that they're average? ZeroIf you try to calculate the probability of a person being exactly one intelligence value, you need to integrate a probability function from one value of x (intelligence in this case) to the exact same value of x, and for any function the answer is always zero. (you should know elementary calculus by now) What you can do is integrate between different values of intelligence and say: " there's a 34.1% chance that your IQ is between 100 and 115" but if you try to narrow the range , say between IQ 99 and 101, then the probability drops to almost nothing and the answer becomes meaningless. TL;DR Do some maths egg. EDIT: The corollary being that effectively no one is average.
123
« on: January 19, 2016, 06:29:58 PM »
They were "tell me how you believe I should think" questions. If you want to phrase it that way then you were asking people to strawman you and then use that strawman as a basis for your arguments, which doesn't even make sense. Ehehe, when reading the sentence I read the "NOTHING" part and skipped over the "of value" part, which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. We both agree that the benefits exist, that's fine.
Now what isn't fine is that those benefits have no value, but again that depends on the specifics: Who are you with, what's the event, how much are you drinking, how do you normally socialize with these people, how do you socialize drunk...
Depending on the answer to these questions and others, the benefits may be minimal, huge, nothing at all, or harmful - it's not a question you can answer abstractly because human interactions isn't abstract.
It doesn't depend on the specifics--no matter who you are, you should not need to drink alcohol in order to be social in public. Therefore, any and all "benefits" received from alcohol consumption are thus superfluous, and the harm of the substance far outweighs the benefits.
"need" You're the one saying "need". I'm not at all saying you need alcohol to be social, I'm saying that benefits to drinking exist, but determining what they are requires more information than we have because it boils down to how people interact with people; the answer depends on the people.
124
« on: January 19, 2016, 06:17:38 PM »
You start from propositions "Alcohol shouldn't be consumed..." deduce implications of those propositions "...because alcohol is a harmful substance." then evaluate the implications "I disagree with that, because x." then people question your propositions, deductions, and implications, potentially by introducing their own propositions, deductions, and implications, "Drinking alcohol may be harmful, but it's still okay, because x, y, and z. then you get your turn and so on. "You're wrong; here are my counterarguments."
You see, that's what you should've been doing instead of asking loaded rhetoricals.
As i currently stands we're still stuck on the "tell us what you think" stage, and you're refusing to say so. All I have fucking done in this thread is explain to you people PRECISELY what I think about alcohol consumption.
Again the only reason I replied was because you kept quoting those meaningless " tel me what I'm thinking" questions. The only other argument I'm having here is he existence of benefits provided by alcohol, which has nothing to do with either of our opinions on it.
Ahem:
Yes. Obviously.
The difference is that you get something of minor value in return. You get NOTHING of value in return when you drink.
Exactly. The social benefits achieved from getting drunk aren't anything of value.
You should be gregarious enough without alcohol.
First there's no benefit to alcohol, now there are but they're superfluous These are one in the same proposition.
If the benefits are superfluous, then there are no benefits.
Ehehe, when reading the sentence I read the "NOTHING" part and skipped over the "of value" part, which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. We both agree that the benefits exist, that's fine. Now what isn't fine is that those benefits have no value, but again that depends on the specifics: Who are you with, what's the event, how much are you drinking, how do you normally socialize with these people, how do you socialize drunk... Depending on the answer to these questions and others, the benefits may be minimal, huge, nothing at all, or harmful - it's not a question you can answer abstractly because human interactions isn't abstract.
125
« on: January 19, 2016, 06:01:33 PM »
This is a new one guys, she's actually fleeing the state.
Will the next one leave the country, and then the planet?
Imagine if roman's romanness got us to mars.
126
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:57:15 PM »
tbh fam I fucking hate it too.
smh
127
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:51:57 PM »
I tend to think of myself as below-average in most areas, to be honest.
Was that before of after you heard about this kind of bias though?
128
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:46:56 PM »
Do you see the problem yet? No, because you should be able to argue to me why I should think a certain way.
That's how arguments work.
No that's not how the work at all, that's completely wrong. You start from propositions, deduce implications of those propositions, then evaluate the implications; then people question your propositions, deductions, and implications, potentially by introducing their own propositions, deductions, and implications, then you get your turn and so on. As i currently stands we're still stuck on the "tell us what you think" stage, and you're refusing to say so.
If you don't care how I feel about alcohol or people who consume alcohol, why are you engaging with me?
Because you were talking to kupo as if your begging the question was actually a watertight argument, when infact it isn't an argument at all. Nobody said need, I'm claiming that such benefits to alcohol exist, you're claiming they don't.
No, I never claimed that. I'm claiming that it doesn't matter. All "benefits" of alcohol are superfluous and unneeded.
If you don't need it, you shouldn't do it. That's the philosophy.
Ahem: Yes. Obviously.
The difference is that you get something of minor value in return. You get NOTHING of value in return when you drink.
First there's no benefit to alcohol, now there are but they're superfluous, make up your damn mind and say what is you're actually thinking, nobody can think for you.
129
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:37:12 PM »
130
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:31:17 PM »
Because you've assumed that everybody who reads that question will answer as though they were verbatim No. I've assumed that everybody who reads those questions will be rational people.
Because the correct question to be asking is: Why wouldn't any of those things I listed be an issue for me?
That's the implication, and that's the question I'm asking YOU people. Why the fuck wouldn't it be an issue for me?
You're questions were of the form: "Why would _____ be a problem for Verbatim?" Well Verbatim, I don't know how Verbatim thinks because i'm not Verbatim, so when Verbatim asks me what Verbatim is thinking, I can't give Verbatim an answer; maybe Verbatim knows the answer, but Verbatim refuses to say what Verbatim is thinking. Do you see the problem yet? If you're drinking alone then that's probably true, but drinking with friends/in a social situation has social benefits If you need those social benefits, that's a problem.
You shouldn't need those social benefits. You should be social without alcohol.
Nobody said need, I'm claiming that such benefits to alcohol exist, you're claiming they don't.
131
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:01:31 PM »
That assumption is what makes it begging the question, you're asking people to make your argument against themselves for you. Literally what?
My argument is clear and simple. ALCOHOL IS HARMFUL. HARM = BAD.
Demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning.
Actually your argument is: "Why would ___________ be an issue for me?" Nobody but you can answer those questions because nobody but you has your exact opinions. Because you've assumed that everybody who reads that question will answer as though they were verbatim, and in doing so create an argument against alcohol for you, is what makes it begging the question. You see, I or anyone else could copypaste those questions and without giving an answer, claim they were an argument for alcohol, because they're not actually an argument at all, they're a fallacy. Also, exercising is literally just repeatedly ripping your muscles apart, you have to deliberately damage yourself. Is exercise harmful?
Yes. Obviously.
The difference is that you get something of minor value in return. You get NOTHING of value in return when you drink.
If you're drinking alone then that's probably true, but drinking with friends/in a social situation has social benefits; whether or not you actually gain those benefits is a much more specific question that you can't answer abstractly.
132
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:49:23 PM »
Are you going to answer those questions? because begging the question isn't an argument let a lone a proof. I'm not "begging the question." I asked a series of rhetorical questions that anybody with a sound mind could answer.
It all can be summed up with "it's harmful."
Harming yourself is axiomatically stupid.
That assumption is what makes it begging the question, you're asking people to make your argument against themselves for you. Also, exercising is literally just repeatedly ripping your muscles apart, you have to deliberately damage yourself. Is exercise harmful?
133
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:41:25 PM »
So you porked your presentation
That implies that I did poorly, which I didn't.
Did you ham it up at least?
134
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:39:43 PM »
Why would something as trivial as to whether someone wants to drink or not be an issue to him? That's what I don't understand.
Why would people who put harmful chemicals into their bodies for "fun" be an issue to me?
Why would people who voluntarily reduce themselves to an incoherent mess be an issue to me?
Why would people who fuck around with the most important organ in their body be an issue to me?
Why would people who can't function in social situations unless they take this substance be an issue for me?
Why would people who use this dangerous substance to cope with their depression be an issue for me?
Why would getting addicted to said substance be an issue for me?
Why would acute liver failure be an issue for me?
Why would people risking prison for the underage possession/consumption of said substance be an issue for me?
Why would the potential domestic abuse or otherwise violent behavior caused by imbibing said substance be an issue for me?
Why would living in a universe where people think it's a smart idea to relinquish their sobriety for cheap, temporary thrills be an issue for me?
i have no idea
i should really quit being so uptight, amirite? XD
Are you going to answer those questions? because begging the question isn't an argument let a lone a proof.
135
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:26:10 PM »
This playthough is already fantastic.
136
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:24:56 PM »
I you're not going as a magic class(forgot it's name) then make your pawn the magic class, it'll make things less annoying and more fun. If you're up for it, or playing archer class, play on hard mode, infinite money and very little extra risk.
Regardless of what class you pick you can change it later, and you'll want to do so anyway since it's fun and you get to transfer same skill between classes. Most of the game will be spent going from place to play and fighting monsters on your way, take your time with it because the combat and the fun of exploring are the best things about the game.
IMO Ranger + archer pawn is the best way to play, there's some skills that make you attack like Dante and you have several options for ranged attacks; meanwhile your pawn is always buffing/healing you (though you almost never get hit as ranger) and debuffing enemies, which makes it even more fun.
137
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:16:42 PM »
Viral videos should be generally taken with a grain of salt. Even if the basic claims may have be valid, there can a ton of ways to exaggerate the claims, and it's usually not worth the effort to debunk it. See below.
Again that's exactly my point, it would take time and effort to come through the video and attempt to debunk it which, is what they would do if they weren't biased. But instead they make a tiny article that hardly even mentions the video and instead focuses on the surrounding politics, and then they have the balls to claim that they've debunked the entire thing. And then people like you are somehow convinced that they've so thoroughly debunked it that it's not even worth watching the video in question, "because it's obviously bullshit just look at the snopes article!". That's fucking political maneuvering on snopes part. You're also judging the entirety of the website on one article by one author. It doesn't account for more fact-based articles like this or this or this. Snopes has often been accused of political bias, but these claims are shaky at best. Your factcheck article is seven years out of date. Likewise political bias doesn't imply that they have to be blatant about it every chance they get; I used to read ars technia for a few years but I dropped them entirely over a feminist article, it's the same tactic here, hide the bias under credibility. Because snopes didn't move heaven and earth to debunk a barrage of alleged migrant clips doesn't mean that there's bias to be found. Given that the video is viral and not, like, being picked up by the mainstream media likely means that snopes simply didn't care to put in a major effort. They could, but the early evidence (and your own lack of), plus their reluctance to actually put a true/false icon like their other articles, seems to indicate they're being reasonably fair with the little amount of effort put into it compared to their other articles. Are you even reading my posts? They didn't put any effort into debunking so they have no justification to claim that they've debunked it and you have no justification to claim that they don't need to. And that's the point I brought up this article, why would they claim to debunk something yet not put any effort into doing so? political bias.
138
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:03:55 PM »
Reading comprehension is a very valuable skill
Indeed.
"I was a liberal when I was young, therefore all young liberals will eventually be conservatives. Also I was dumb then and I'm not now so all young liberals must be dumb."
This doesn't even belong on the serious board in my opinion.
I was mirroring what this guy said.
Reading comprehension.
Ah, it's hard to tell replies to the OP from replies to other posts without quotes.
139
« on: January 19, 2016, 04:02:34 PM »
But no, we have to quibble over whether to ban the future president of the USA
Was that a Freudian or do you want to make America great again?
I want to see america restored to it's former glory
Only donald trump can deliver upon this
Thats what they said about Hitler
Hitler wanted to unite his country, you know who else wanted a united country? The civil rights movement.
140
« on: January 19, 2016, 03:59:32 PM »
A good understanding of the world is a moving target and the assumption that merely being older means you have attained a better understanding of the world as it exists today is baseless, not to mention that views tend to become more deeply entrenched over time which leaves them more resistant to change and therefore less responsive to reality
The depends entirely on how you define "good understanding of the world". Knowing how to budget, knowing how to drive a car, knowing how to cook, knowing newton's laws of motions, knowing basic chemistry, knowing how to talk to people, etc.: These are all things that give you a good understanding of the world that you need time to learn about, and aside from driving they've always been useful (even if you didn't understand newton and chemistry rigorously in terms of modern definitions, everyone has an intuitive understanding about motion and what keeps you warm and such). The older you get the more time you have to learn about these skills and get proficient at using them, and understanding their limitations.
141
« on: January 19, 2016, 03:54:17 PM »
"I was a liberal when I was young, therefore all young liberals will eventually be conservatives. Also I was dumb then and I'm not now so all young liberals must be dumb."
This doesn't even belong on the serious board in my opinion.
"If you're not a conservative by adulthood, you have no head, hurr durr"
Reading comprehension is a very valuable skill, that wasn't what he said at all.The young are the dumbest (in terms of politics) in EVERY group.
142
« on: January 18, 2016, 04:22:37 PM »
But no, we have to quibble over whether to ban the future president of the USA
Was that a Freudian or do you want to make America great again?
143
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:49:22 PM »
I actually haven't heard of this before, is it an American thing?
What the fuck type of shithole country do you live in where cars don't have electronic locks?
I actually haven't heard of this before, is it an American thing?
What the fuck type of shithole country do you live in where cars don't have electronic locks?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that electronic locks have been the industry standard in the developed world for years now.
Never in my life have I ridden in a car that wasn't opened with a key.
My car doesn't have a key... in a way.
Push buttons and similar ignition systems are apparently the new trend.
That sounds like a pointless trend, is it any better than a key?
144
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:47:13 PM »
Also even a non-christian would acknowledge that only having anti-christian works in the religion category is pretty vapid. You're not even helping atheists or anyone else with that list given the fame of the authors.
145
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:42:03 PM »
Science and Sanity, Korzybski.
The founding text of General Semantics.
The Tao of Physics, Capra
Explores parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.
[/b]
I tried reading the Tao of physics, it's overview of physics was good and the over view of eastern religion was nice but I'm not sure if it was good or not since I know little about it. But damn does it get blatant at parts with shitting on Western culture, every time it tries to make a point it boils down to "the greeks got it all wrong and the west got it all wrong by copying the greeks and only modern physicists are enlightened enough to realize that dt suzuki was right because being inarticulate is the pinnacle of human intelligence" I mean at one point he takes a pretty big shit on euclidean geometry, then later uses euclidean geometry as a way to articulate his point, then goes on to quote some eastern mystic saying "you can't know shit so stop trying"; it's hypocritical weabooism.
146
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:32:05 PM »
So this is what a loaf thread is like.
147
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:30:08 PM »
So do you Bernie supporters believe that younger voters are of equal or greater intelligence than older voters? You're all pretty vague and dismissive.
148
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:25:19 PM »
I actually haven't heard of this before, is it an American thing?
What the fuck type of shithole country do you live in where cars don't have electronic locks?
I actually haven't heard of this before, is it an American thing?
What the fuck type of shithole country do you live in where cars don't have electronic locks?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that electronic locks have been the industry standard in the developed world for years now.
Never in my life have I ridden in a car that wasn't opened with a key.
149
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:24:09 PM »
Someday I'll finish a level 1 pyromancer playthrough, fuck keloggs though.
150
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:20:40 PM »
Aw shit I'm enjoying this already. Don't worry too much about parrying, I didn't use it until new game+ Spoiler Because it took me that long to learn. This thread has given me the biggest blue balls.
Arbiter of Judgement scum.
I aint a fun killer, I always roll dragon.
Literally a closet scalie.
Literally no fun allowed.
Metaphorically speaking, that is.
I literally metaphorically don't understand what you're saying.
Pages: 1 ... 345 67 ... 20
|
Show Posts
