Bricker is a disingenous punk.

[Ensign_Edison]

I’ve made plenty of comments on this topic already, just not in this thread. I also made no pretense to be entering this particular permutation of this now pointless discussion as anything but a wise-ass commenting from the sidelines, but thanks for pointing it out, Captain Obvious.

Why are you licking psycholan’s ass like this? Did he cry to you in email that somebody was picking on him? Does it make your pussy hurt to see him so unfairly savaged by such a cad and layabout as myself? Or are you just so fucking bored that searching through a six+ page thread for my name serves as a pastime now?

[you_with_the_face]

@magellan01

Do you realize what a punk that makes you look like?

He’d only be a punk if he tried to wiggle out of defending a position he put forward, doing the equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and chanting “lalala, I can’t hear you, poopy head!”, as friend psychloan (and the target of this thread) have done.

Please note that EE’s two posts are actually one of the few that are on-topic in this thread. This thread wasn’t supposed to be about stats or Bayesian reasoning or credibility. It was supposed to be about disingenous punks who don’t take ownership of their ideas but rather try to cover them up with vague disclaimers and tortuous algebraic formulations.

So thanks EE for reminding us why we are all gathered here.

[Bricker]

@you with the face

He’d only be a punk if he tried to wiggle out of defending a position he put forward, doing the equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and chanting “lalala, I can’t hear you, poopy head!”, as friend psychloan (and the target of this thread) have done.

That’s not what I’ve done. (In my view, anyway).

My problem with continuing to talk to you its that - again, in my view – it’s useless. That is, you don’t make even the slightest effort to understand what I’m saying. Instead, you grossly misrepresent my position in your replies. I’d say something like, “This adds the slightest,tiniest scintilla, the most insignificant bit of credibility…” and you’d reply with something like, “Oh, so she’s automatically not believed!” No matter how often or in what creative ways I tried to rephrase, you’d continue this tactic.

After a while, I began to realize that this subject is very personal to you, and, in my view yet again, this made you incapable or at least unwilling to debate it calmly and rationally. I didn’t see the upside in continuing to post.

No doubt, to you, my approach to this is equally irrational.

I will leave it to the readers of this thread – those that comment here and those that do not – to determine for themselves which of us was more persuasive.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

My problem with continuing to talk to you its that - again, in my view – it’s useless. That is, you don’t make even the slightest effort to understand what I’m saying. Instead, you grossly misrepresent my position in your replies. I’d say something like, “This adds the slightest,tiniest scintilla, the most insignificant bit of credibility…” and you’d reply with something like, “Oh, so she’s automatically not believed!”

So you accuse me of misrepresenting you, and you do so by misrepresenting me. Bloody priceless. I won’t even bother asking you to cite support for this bullshit, because the probability that it exists is zero.

The thing that you don’t get, Bricker, is that I don’t need to invent a strawman of you completely disbelieving a report of w-o-b rape to have a problem with your position. Get this: the fact that you *grant any degree of credibility to a claim on the basis of its frequency does not speak well of you as a lawyer. I’m relieved that Hamlet and Noel seemed to recognize this right off the bat. As a veterinarian, I just assumed that this kind of thinking violates what you guys are taught in school, but I didn’t know that for sure. Good to see my assumption confirmed at least somewhat.

After a while, I began to realize that this subject is very personal to you, and, in my view yet again, this made you incapable or at least unwilling to debate it calmly and rationally.

Was Scylla debating this rationally? Hentor? DMC and holmes? How about John Mace, who authored the hypothetical in the OP and seemed to be equally perplexed by your thought process? I’ve argued with a bunch of people in this thread and others, and even though I didn’t agree with hardly anything they were saying, at least they had the balls to stick their necks out and defend their POVs. Even Malacandra, who got on my last nerves with those obnoxious maroon and red cars.

I am more than willing to go toe to toe with you intellectually on this subject, but it’s actually not my fault that we haven’t been able to do so. A few months ago, you got on bad side by A) taking the side of a race-obsessed moron who, if his “probablistic modeling theory” took off as he hopes, would probably take us back to a Jim Crow-era style justice system B) calling me stupid for reasons that are unfathomable if your “all things being equal” disclaimer means what you now say it means. Either take full ownership of your ideas without trying to hide behind lawyerly bullshit, or retract them. That’s all I ask.

• either inside or outside of court (because I know you’re going to say that you already stated that this is inadmissible in trial blah, blah, blah)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@you with the face

So you accuse me of misrepresenting you, and you do so by misrepresenting me. Bloody priceless. I won’t even bother asking you to cite support for this bullshit, because the probability that it exists is zero.

This is not helpful, ywtf. If you think he’s mischaracterizing you, you’d get a helluva lot farther by saying, “That’s not what I intended; here’s what I’ve been trying to say. Can you show me why you think I said that?”

Instead, you’re still firing both barrels, which is, I think, a big part of why this argument refuses to die.

Daniel

[Ensign_Edison]

Seriously. At least psycholan could back up his gibberish with more nattering. Bricker can’t even seem to realize that he’s been refuted by many more people than face, none of whom seemed in least bit irrational or emotionally invested.

[Ensign_Edison]

Are you fucking KIDDING ME, Daniel? Bricker has said over and over again that face is stupid, worthless, irrational, and so on. But you think she should be NICER to him? Holy fucking shit.

[you_with_the_face]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This is not helpful, ywtf. If you think he’s mischaracterizing you, you’d get a helluva lot farther by saying, “That’s not what I intended; here’s what I’ve been trying to say. Can you show me why you think I said that?”

Sure, I’ll do that. You tend to have good ideas, so I’ll take your advice. But he’s not going to oblige me so what’s the point?

Can you show me why you think I said that, Bricker? ::batting eyelashes::

[magellan01]

@you with the face

He’d only be a punk if he tried to wiggle out of defending a position he put forward, doing the equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and chanting “lalala, I can’t hear you, poopy head!”, as friend psychloan (and the target of this thread) have done.

Please note that EE’s two posts are actually one of the few that are on-topic in this thread. This thread wasn’t supposed to be about stats or Bayesian reasoning or credibility. It was supposed to be about disingenous punks who don’t take ownership of their ideas but rather try to cover them up with vague disclaimers and tortuous algebraic formulations.

So thanks EE for reminding us why we are all gathered here.

You know, I was happy to simply say that the two sides will not see eye-to-eye to this and move on. But your defending EE’s punkish action shows me that you are unhinged. That Bricker is correct in that this is a personal emotional thing for you and that you are intent on “winning”, even if “winning” means haviing more people agree with you (assuming that’s even the case). I was going to point this out earlier. Here’s your Post #5:

@you with the face

So honing in on a person’s race as if it is something more than a “codependent variable” is wrong, ridiculous, and despicable.

The revealing word here is “despicable”. It shows that you are imposing a value judgement and a hypothetical having to do with probabilities. The two do not belong in the same argument. You could have use “illogical” or “unsound” in your list of attriburtes, but you didn’t. In fact, I would surmise that your “wrong” was meant in its moral sense, but since I can’t prove it I’ll keep the focus on despicable. This would explain both your stubborness to not understand the other side and your apoplexy that some might even think one exists.

Psychloan—right or wrong—has debated well and honorably. A fair-minded person would see that. Instead you come to the defense of that punk EE. That does not refect well on you. Whether it reflects accurately we’ll see by the steps you take, if any, to rectify this.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@magellan01

Psychloan—right or wrong—has debated well and honorably. A fair-minded person would see that.

Perhaps I’m not fair minded, but I would disagree. As I noted, jumping up and down yelling SHOW ME WHERE MY MATH IS WRONG is not debating well, particularly after he has already been shown where his math was wrong.

Proclaiming that others are wrong and are just too stupid to understand his level of reasoning, or simply saying that if others understood Bayesian reasoning, is not debating honorably. I say again that someone who truly understood it would be able to convey that understanding to others quite a bit better than he has.

Tell me, do you think he has enough mastery of the topic to be speaking as patronizingly and offensively to others as he has? Is that debating honorably?

[holmes]

magellan01 Everything stems from the original Lying Whore thread and that wasn’t a hypothetical. While this thread and others may use hypotheticals as a means to express an idea or concept, the underlining reasons for those hypotheticals is to defend or reject why Bricker’s and others .0000001 possibility of credibilty based on racial statistics is still wrong. I don’t why you guys keep trying to shift the focus away from that. This thread and the others is a continuation of the black woman is less credible than that of a white women…of things being equal of that thread and so’s the 'tension".

While YWTF as given as good or bad as she’s gotten, lets not treat her any differently than the other posters including Bricker who were hurling personal insults at each her.

There’s a thread in Great Debates, that IMO debunks the “math”, and I’ll note what I noted there, no one with differing opinion ever answers the hyptothetical when it’s offered, straight up…it’s always modified or claimed to add too much complication, as if asking to chose between animals writing and midgets isn’t.

And no I don’t think Psychloan debated honorably. He created another thread to support his postion here. When that thread IMO went against him, not only did bail on that one, but hasn’t had the honestly to admit that his conclusion was subjective based on what others said there and here.

Sorry, being honorable IMO, means being honest.

YMMV…of course.

[you_with_the_face]

@magellan01

You know, I was happy to simply say that the two sides will not see eye-to-eye to this and move on. But your defending EE’s punkish action shows me that you are unhinged.

How is EE’s behavior any more punkish than psychloan’s? I could just as easily accuse you of becoming unhinged for appointing yourself Lord and Protector of someone who frankly doesn’t deserve it, but that would be unseemly ad hominem to use against someone who I respected enough (you) to debate on civil grounds, despite never reaching agreement.

I have a feeling you guys don’t get out a lot, if you think I’m what an unhinged and irrational person looks like. Seriously, what the fuck is this? “I can’t win the debate so now it’s name calling time?” I almost feel bad for you. Almost.

And magellan, I stand by my “despicable” characterization 100%. I should hope if this was a predominately black message board and people were suggesting that the lacrosse players’ race had anything to do with their credibility–either directly or indirectly–someone would be brave enough to call that position despicable, too. Yeah, I’m a crazy heifer for believing that. But I happen to love crazy heifers. Crazy heifers make the world go round.

[magellan01]

Hentor, Holmes,

First, I did not read the Lying Whore thread. I heard it was a train wreck and stayed away. My comments are based on this thread. And I do think that YWTF is too emotionally wrapped up in what the outcome might be to be open to opposing positions. I point you to my cite. I do think he has engaged fairly honorably, as have, I think, most that have participated, DMC, who I rarely agree with and don’t here, included.

When I question if a person has debated honestly I ask: have they engaged? Have they attempted to answer questions asked of them, provide cites when appropriate, allowed the opposition to walk them down a different path for a time? Have they fairly characterized the other’s position?

This thread, and I’ll restrict my comments to that part of the debate which I participated in and am most familiar with, I think all did those things fairly well. I think all of us could have done a better job with our analogies, both in constructiing them and not re-constructing them on each post as to avioid answering the question. But such is the problem with analogies.

Did things get testy? Sure. But the particpants seemed to be able to keep it to a minimum. I know I’ve seen threads (and I have been both witness to and guilty of this more than once) where the vitriol simply derails the debate. That didn’t happen here.

As far as Psychloan opening another thread, I commend him for it. He opened it in GQ (it was later moved) to confirm whether his thoughts on BI were sound. I commend him for going through the trouble to check. I actually wish this was done more. GQ can be a rteat resource, aas there are many knowledgable people who participate there but not in GD or The Pit.

I don’t know who is right in this case. From what has been offered and my thinking, I side with Bricker, Brandon, Psychloan, and others. But there are aspects, logically that I find troubling. More so on the other side, but such is the nature of this type of debate.

As to whether Psychloan has enough mastery of BR to take the tone that he did, first, I think the ugly tone came only at the very end, after everyone should have wlaked away agreeing to disagree. Prior to that, I see his behavior as being frustrated, just as YWTF was. He knows more about BI than I do, so it’s hard for me to judge how much license to grant him there. I must say, that when I came and decided to participate, I was surprised that they could go on as long as they did without the train crashing. I was also surprised after I left and came back from (the gym or Siera Leone?) and saw that things hot gotten uglier.

I’d be curious as to both your takes on the **EE’**s action, which prompted my comment. I find that type of behavior of the lowest order. The equivalent of the weak kid in a gang jumping into the fight after it is over and kicking the advesary, at no risk to himself, chanting “Yeah, take that. That’ll teach you to mess with us.”

[magellan01]

@you with the face

How is EE’s behavior any more punkish than psychloan’s? I could just as easily accuse you of becoming unhinged for appointing yourself Lord and Protector of someone who frankly doesn’t deserve it, but that would be unseemly ad hominem to use against someone who I respected enough (you) to debate on civil grounds, despite never reaching agreement.

It felt no compunction to protect Psychloan, but to give **EE **the bitch-slapping he deserves. I serioulsy cannot see how you, who were in the fray and know how much time and effort went into it, would side with that punk. You two were in the fray. You both held your own very well, in my estimation. And then you allow EE to come in after the fact and spit on what was a worthy adversary. I see no honor in that. Quite the opposite actually.

@you with the face

And magellan, I stand by my “despicable” characterization 100%. I should hope if this was a predominately black message board and people were suggesting that the lacrosse players’ race had anything to do with their credibility–either directly or indirectly–someone would be brave enough to call that position despicable, too. Yeah, I’m a crazy heifer for believing that. But I happen to love crazy heifers. Crazy heifers make the world go round.

No, you continue to miss the same point, but make mine. I honestly think this gets in your way here. The debate we were engaged in was not about black women and white women, they were merely tags used in a discussion about probability. We changed the tags quite often, in fact. You included. And to better effect, I’d say.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

No, you continue to miss the same point, but make mine.

This is also a dishonorable debate tactic; I don’t believe you’re in a position to say this, and saying, “You’re making my point for me” neither furthers discussion nor keeps tempers calm.

Daniel

[Ensign_Edison]

magellan, this “discussion” has spilled over several threads. If you want to pretend it exists in a vacuum in this thread, that’s your time to waste, but the fact is, I’ve been part of it from the beginning, and have directly engaged Bricker about it repeatedly. Are you done making an ass of yourself on that particular point yet?

[holmes]

magellan01 What’s the point in opening a thread asking for verification and then ignoring the results? The first part was the ask whether or not his math was correct, which it was…he requested that the thread be moved to Great Debates to question whether or not, the conclusions were correct…when the tide began and finally turned against his methods and conclusions he disappeared…that is not to be commended.

As far as Ensign Edison goes, his first comment was towards Bricker who was being pitted and let’s not forget despite the debate that arose, Bricker is still fair game and IMO has a habit of leaving a thread that doesn’t go his way…but that’s my take. His second was a jab towards Psychloan who also turned tail and ran when his thread went in a direction he didn’t expect and while yes it was good to get fresh eyes in Questions, I think he needed to acknowledge what those who didn’t agree with what he said and he didn’t.

I have no problem with one shots if they’re related to the theme, and they were.

I’ll ask you again since you side with Brandon

Using common sense I could say, white men are not around black women as often due to the varying concentration of races and where they tend to live. Additionally, there are some white men who prefer white women, and rapists are not known for being fair in their actions to begin with. Furthermore, there are fewer numbers of black women available in comparison to number of white women. Common sense would lead us to conclude that white on white rapes will happen far more frequently than white on black rapes. Ergo, a claim of white on white rape will be more credible than a claim of white on black rape

This was Bradon’s rational why white on white rape is more credible.

In the specific case that spawned this, the black woman fullfilled this criteria. The only difference is the color of her skin. So I’ll ask again, in this case why would a black woman be less credible than a white one?

[QUOTE]
The debate we were engaged in was not about black women and white women, they were merely tags used in a discussion about probability. We changed the tags quite often, in fact. You included. And to better effect, I’d say.**

If you believe that, you’re the only one. This thread and the others that spawned it are littered with references to the one constant question: All things being equal, is a white on black rape victim less credible than a white on white one.

Whether it’s Zombie Abe Lincolns or Bald Eagles as proxy, the ultimate goal is to answer that question.

[Brandon]

@you with the face

How is EE’s behavior any more punkish than psychloan’s? I could just as easily accuse you of becoming unhinged for appointing yourself Lord and Protector of someone who frankly doesn’t deserve it, but that would be unseemly ad hominem to use against someone who I respected enough (you) to debate on civil grounds, despite never reaching agreement.

This thread has certainly taken a turn for the worse, rather unfortunate as this was one of the most stimulating Pit threads I had read in a while. However this is the Pit and it was a matter of time, especially with Ensign Edison doing nothing but stirring up a fight in this thread. I have taken a tone at times I shouldn’t have and for that I appologize, but thanks for the discussion even though we got no where. I believe psycholoan could have done a better job at times of presenting his arguement, however that could be said for all of us. I appreciate that you remained rather civil throughout this, despite this being an obviously very personal subject to you.

I have a feeling you guys don’t get out a lot, if you think I’m what an unhinged and irrational person looks like. Seriously, what the fuck is this? “I can’t win the debate so now it’s name calling time?” I almost feel bad for you. Almost.

I agree that’s not the proper way to handle a debate that two parties can’t come to terms with, but being in this forum with such a sensitive subject for some at hand, and with some people trying to provoke a hostile enviroment (Ensign Edison and a couple more though not to the same extent), I’m suprised we lasted as long as we did. I think you are coming off somewhat irrational and there are elements of you becoming unhinged towards certain posters. That being said, I think looking at this from your point of view (despite it being wrong in this case) you held it together rather well. If I too believed this was a case of outright racism, and that a certain side was saying black women have a propensity to lie, and I were a black woman I would be absolutely livid. No one is saying any such thing, and there are no underlying currents of racism affecting our point of view on the topic. Still I can understand the anger you have since it is apparent that you wholeheartedly believe what your saying (though I can’t understand why you believe that).

And magellan, I stand by my “despicable” characterization 100%. I should hope if this was a predominately black message board and people were suggesting that the lacrosse players’ race had anything to do with their credibility–either directly or indirectly–someone would be brave enough to call that position despicable, too. Yeah, I’m a crazy heifer for believing that. But I happen to love crazy heifers. Crazy heifers make the world go round.

Well that is again a statement that you are percieving this whole thing wrong, it has nothing to do with the relation of race to credibility. I would hope that on a predominately black message board, were the same exact hypothetical to be presented with the same restrictions in place with the exception that races were reversed, that the majority of the posters’ beliefs would coincide with my own. I do not want a world where debates and thinking excercises such as this are not allowed due to oversensitivity of percieved racism (even if the perception is correct). I would not want black posters to say that such discussion is unfair to white people (which it really isn’t) but rather look past the surface and into the actual logic behind it.

Thanks again for the debate (even though it was a hijack).

[you_with_the_face]

@magellan01

I’d be curious as to both your takes on the **EE’**s action, which prompted my comment. I find that type of behavior of the lowest order. The equivalent of the weak kid in a gang jumping into the fight after it is over and kicking the advesary, at no risk to himself, chanting “Yeah, take that. That’ll teach you to mess with us.”

EE was reading my thoughts when he wrote his post, so no, I will not take him to task for contributing to this thread like he has. He hasn’t done anything you haven’t done, actually. He called the guy a punk, you called me unhinged and irrational. In the Pit, no less. So let it drop.

You seem not to realize that psychloan, when faced with a strong chorus of disagreement, went after my throat as if I was the only one taking an issue with his logic. Coincidentally, I’m the only one who asked him to defend a particular statement he made in the LW thread, and I did so rather respectfully, as befitting GD. Clearly, this request has made him awfully uncomfortable–unhinged, you might say–or else he wouldn’t have done what amounts to calling me a poopy head and refusing to answer my question.

But I don’t see what is so hard about my question. If the answer is so obvious, then why can’t the guy explain the math he used to reach his determination? I was actually impressed by how well he articulated the one thing that folks were trying to convince me was a figment of my imagination back in the LW thread. The great thing about it was that he did it without blinking an eye, with no disclaimers to hide behind, stating only his honest belief about the case being discussed.

But now, when I directly seek understanding from him he refuses to share his knowledge. I just get called incompetent. So I stand behind my defense of EE. He reminded us what this thread is all about. It’s not about probability (which is a point you seem to miss). It’s about intellectual cowards.

[Bricker]

@you with the face

Sure, I’ll do that. You tend to have good ideas, so I’ll take your advice. But he’s not going to oblige me so what’s the point?

Can you show me why you think I said that, Bricker? ::batting eyelashes::

Yes, I’d be happy to.

in this post, I said:

@Bricker

Statistics that show that the sort of crime under discussion happens in our scoiety vanishingly rarely are therefore relevant to determining the likelihood discussed in point #2, above.

Your response:

And the fact that this conclusion is reached by latching on to race as opposed to the fact that she was paid and invited into a sexually-charged enviroment makes sense to you?

But that response completely and utterly ignores the fact that I had consistently ruled out those other factors. I said things like, “In the absence of other data…” and “All other things being equal…” I said them over and over. But to refute what I was saying, you used this.