The most current loss of my faith in humanity

[Chiki]

Good; neither of know whether or not she means it. Why are you pushing the point that she means it because she's from the South?

I'm pushing the point that she's more likely to mean it. Another strawman. Please get the words I use right before representing my argument.

You seem to not understand what a strawman is. It's simply whenever you misrepresent my argument. So when you pick posts that don't show my claim, that is a strawman because it doesn't represent my argument.

I don't think you're wrong, and I see your worries about my generalizing a region. But there's a mathematical fact that she is more likely to not regret it.

I'd still like a response on this, because at this point I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

If that's the case, then everyone in the United States is more likely to support the death penalty than not, because everywhere support for it's over 50%.This is just a methematical claim,; you can't really deny it.

So why wouldn't their opinions change just because they're in a different region? People are people everywhere.

And I agree with that claim. Why are you trying to show its absurdity?

[eclipse]

I'm pushing the point that she's more likely to mean it. Another strawman. Please get the words I use right before representing my argument.

You seem to not understand what a strawman is. It's simply whenever you misrepresent my argument. So when you pick posts that don't show my claim, that is a strawman because it doesn't represent my argument.

I don't think you're wrong, and I see your worries about my generalizing a region. But there's a mathematical fact that she is more likely to not regret it.

So why wouldn't their opinions change just because they're in a different region? People are people everywhere.

And I agree with that claim. Why are you trying to show its absurdity?

You seem to not like having your own words thrown back at you. That doesn't make it a strawman.

See?

Now, what other conclusion am I to draw from those quotes (not to mention the stats you keep pulling up)?

[Constable Reggie]

So why wouldn't their opinions change just because they're in a different region? People are people everywhere.

I never said that their opinions wouldn't change, I said that the statistical gap between regions wouldn't change. There's no indication that it would (the study was based on race, and since southern states generally have a higher black population percentage than the east, the gap would theoretically decrease, albeit extremely minorly), so how the hell am I supposed to prove that it doesn't when it never did in the first damn place?

And I agree with that claim. Why are you trying to show its absurdity?

Because you're trying to point out that the reason she's more likely to do so is specifically because she's in the south. That's what you've been arguing, and it's absurd. You started this entire damn argument by picking on specifically southerners for their views on capital punishment and their likelyhood to support capital punishment more often than not.

Also, I'm going to safely assume that you support the death penalty, and therefore have corrupt morale values. Because your posts in this thread have been iffy at best, I can't take your word against such claim.

Therefore, it's safe to assume that you support capital punishment and thus have corrupt morale values. There's a possibility that you might not, but chances are more likely that you do.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

You seem to not like having your own words thrown back at you. That doesn't make it a strawman.

See?

Now, what other conclusion am I to draw from those quotes (not to mention the stats you keep pulling up)?

Those were rhetorical claims though, I wasn't really arguing. It'd be pretty stupid to make a claim saying 100% of Southerners support it. That's far from truth when millions don't.

I don't really have to be rational in every post I say on this forum: when questioned, I will give my rational opinion. But I don't see why I have to be on guard every second when I'm not debating rationally.

I gave you my rational opinion when questioned. Those posts didn't reflect my logical opinion.

I never said that their opinions wouldn't change, I said that the statistical gap between regions wouldn't change. There's no indication that it would (the study was based on race, and since southern states generally have a higher black population percentage than the east, the gap would theoretically decrease, albeit extremely minorly), so how the hell am I supposed to prove that it doesn't when it never did in the first damn place?

Because you're trying to point out that the reason she's more likely to do so is specifically because she's in the south. That's what you've been arguing, and it's absurd. You started this entire damn argument by picking on specifically southerners for their views on capital punishment and their likelyhood to support capital punishment more often than not.

Also, I'm going to safely assume that you support the death penalty, and therefore have corrupt morale values. Because your posts in this thread have been iffy at best, I can't take your word against such claim.

Therefore, it's safe to assume that you support capital punishment and thus have corrupt morale values. There's a possibility that you might not, but chances are more likely that you do.

You misunderstand my argument. I never claimed the South would be more likely to change their opinions. On the contrary, all I claimed was that questions can change answers regardless of region. That's it.

There's nothing I can do if you don't want to agree with basic mathematics. If you picked a person in the Middle East they're more likely to be a Muslim. But you disagree with this claim. There's nothing I can do if you disagree with proven mathematics.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Constable Reggie]

If you picked a person in the Middle East they're more likely to be a Muslim.

Show a statistic for this instead of generalizing again for the 1000th fucking time. All you're doing is generalizing. What if it so happens that statistically, only 49% or less of Middle Easterns are Muslim?

On the contrary, all I claimed was that questions can change answers regardless of region. That's it.

Oh, so an assertion that does... Absolutely nothing to support your original claim. If you actually buy that an extremely broad rationalization that doesn't directly pertain to the statistics we're actually talking about in any way is plausible to justifying said poll as supporting your claim, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

In the meantime, I have to get some sleep. I'm sure some others will come by and easily tear your laughable posts apart, though.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

Show a statistic for this instead of generalizing again for the 1000th fucking time. All you're doing is generalizing. What if it so happens that statistically, only 49% or less of Middle Easterns are Muslim?

Oh, so an assertion that does... Absolutely nothing to support your original claim. If you actually buy that an extremely broad rationalization that doesn't directly pertain to the statistics we're actually talking about in any way is plausible to justifying said poll as supporting your claim, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

In the meantime, I have to get some sleep. I'm sure some others will come by and easily tear your laughable posts apart, though.

I'm pretty sure any rational person would agree that if I randomly picked a person in the Middle East they'd be more likely to be a Muslim. Let's just assume I picked a person named A who lives in Iran. Are they more likely or less likely to be a Muslim? I don't have to show data since I'm just showing you my reasoning.

Let's say 1 Christian lived in China. What's the chance I'd get that Christian if I randomly picked a person in China? It's one in over a billion.

Apply the same logic to Sherry West.

You're grasping at straws at this point. Absolutely any mathematician is going to agree with me that if we randomly picked a person in a region filled with something that they'd be more likely to be that something.

If there was a hat with 100 green beans and one red bean, if I randomly picked a bean it'd more likely be the green one.

I shouldn't be telling you this. You're rejecting the laws of probability right at my face.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Hawkeye]

I honestly can't believe I just read all that, but I displayed my ignorance in Constable Reggie's joke thread so I figured I needed to rectify that.

I just wanted to give a bit of my own opinion on the discussion that has unfolded. These are the conclusions I have drawn from reading all of this, and they will be centered on Olwen, not to target him specifically, but because he is solely representing his side while he is opposed by multiple users. (note that while that is my justification for the format of what I'm about to say, I will openly admit to there being targeted remarks here)

So the first conclusion i draw is that Olwen made a flippant remark that offended multiple people. While I'm sure it was obvious that it would be offensive, I doubt that he expected this mess to spawn from it. I'm not going to quote things here because I didn't sleep last night and I don't have the energy for it, but the flippant remark in question is the first post Olwen made on this thread. This, along with his next two posts, are what started argument 1 (of 3).

When confronted by others, President Eden being chief among them, Olwen moved away from his initial remarks and took up a more debatable stance, based off of a wide variety of polls, some of which I have read in detail, others I will admit I was too lazy to bother with. This change in stance is where we get arguments 2 and 3, which overlap a fair bit.

Argument 2 was basically the argument between President Eden and Olwen, and the main assumption I make from reading this, which has been reinforced (in my mind) throughout the discussion as a whole, is that Olwen must have taken some type of formal reasoning course recently, due to the way he has phrased most of his arguments and used terms needlessly and occasionally incorrectly. This was the argument based on opposing opinions, and is the direct continuation of argument 1, which I'll bring up again later.

Argument 3 is the argument between Constable Reggie and Olwen, and instead of focusing on the opinions of the users, it is more about research and polls and all the various links that are in this thread. This is actually generally a good discussion, with Olwen generally on the attack and Constable Reggie on the defense, and it was actually interesting to read as you tried to prove and disprove each other. Olwen did make a few very very minor factual mistakes, which had no bearing on his argument but make me think that he has maybe not been paying as much attention to the discussion as he should be if he wants to be a one man army but also argue logically so that people aren't offended too much.

Argument 1 came back up with eclipse, and this is where the root of the problem with this discussion is revealed. President Eden and eclipse were not addressing quite the same things, but Olwen was responding like they were. What eclipse was specifically asking, and what the other users were more implicitly asking, was for Olwen to address his initial comments, which were hurtful to the people included in his generalization and did seem to have something of an arrogant or ignorant tone, due largely to the fact that they were just flippant remarks.

Basically, the problem is that there are different arguments going on at the same time. When Olwen went into debate mode, he turned his back on his original comments and instead constructed a slightly different argument. The reason other users are upset is not found in this new argument, it is still the initial comments and they will continue to be the source of the hostility until Olwen either apologizes or makes some justification for them (note that the new stance Olwen is currently using is not a justification of his initial points, it is a new argument that is in the same spirit but different enough to cause these problems). These different arguments are why people are eventually just dropping it. It does not mean that Olwen has "won" the argument, but at the same time it does not mean that he has "lost" it either.

For the record, when you make your generalizations, whether they are correct or not, it is good to back them up in some way and not just take them for granted. You're backing up your points with things like black people being better at sports, and while I can see where you can get that view from, and while you clearly take it as being so obvious as to be common knowledge, it is still good to back it up, because even if your debate opponent agrees with you on that generalization, they will still contest your use of these generalizations because it is just lazy debating. For example, a quick google search showed me that most Middle East countries have a 90%+ Islamic population, with Israel being the only Middle East country to have a religion other than Islam as its main religion. So clearly your generalization is just as correct as you assumed, but it is less likely to sound either a) lazy, or b) racist if you take a few seconds to back it up, especially when the data is so clear.

So I hope that maybe some of this can clear up the confusion with how this discussion is unfolding, so that both sides can know what exactly the argument is. Olwen, I am sorry if any of my comments were too targeted, I am happy to accept any criticism of what I've said. I hope I've made my points clear enough because again, I am tired to the point of having difficulty reading as I type.

Remember kids, don't shoot babies.

[Chiki]

You think I took a formal reasoning course?

Anyway, I agree with your post. I'll just remark that I don't think it's necessary for me to back up everything I say: maybe if this was an academic context but it isn't. I think it's okay to take for granted claims like most middle easterners are Muslims. Call me lazy but whatever lol.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Khainiwest]

You think I took a formal reasoning course?

Anyway, I agree with your post. I'll just remark that I don't think it's necessary for me to back up everything I say: maybe if this was an academic context but it isn't. I think it's okay to take for granted claims like most middle easterners are Muslims. Call me lazy but whatever lol.

Your problem is that you originally stated that this "statement" or "campaign" was not based on a personal view of justice, but rather a southern point of view of justice. The death penality doesn't necessarily mean a life for a life, it's rather ambiguous with studies that show who support the death penality because there could be reasons outside of this rational you essentially made up.

For example, using your logic, I could say those studies are valid evidence that majority support the death penality in those area's because, as republicans, who wish to save money, do not want a leech in jail being paid to live with my taxes.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Khainiwest

[Chiki]

Your problem is that you originally stated that this "statement" or "campaign" was not based on a personal view of justice, but rather a southern point of view of justice. The death penality doesn't necessarily mean a life for a life, it's rather ambiguous with studies that show who support the death penality because there could be reasons outside of this rational you essentially made up.

For example, using your logic, I could say those studies are valid evidence that majority support the death penality in those area's because, as republicans, who wish to save money, do not want a leech in jail being paid to live with my taxes.

So I never said there was anything called a specifically Southern view on justice. All I did was say that Southerners are more likely to support the death penalty. If we randomly selected a woman named Sherry West, there is a 70% chance she does support it and 30% she doesn't. I think you're strawman-ing my argument because I never said that, though I guess I can understand if you take it that way.

I never said the death penalty necessarily meant a life for a life. But that kind of reasoning does lead to a support in death penalty in murder cases, undoubtedly.

[Khainiwest]

So I never said there was anything called a specifically Southern view on justice. All I did was say that Southerners are more likely to support the death penalty. If we randomly selected a woman named Sherry West, there is a 70% chance she does support it and 30% she doesn't. I think you're strawman-ing my argument because I never said that, though I guess I can understand if you take it that way.

You like deflecting to that strawman, I think the issue here is your poor ability to articulate your opinion, since this is such a common occurance (about 20 "claims" in the last 3 pages).

Unfortunately you're wrong.

Apparently the mother said "I just hope' date=' you know, that the shooter dies. I mean, I had to watch my baby die and I want him to die. A life for a life."

[b']Southerners really have corrupt moral values[/b]. She's no better than the shooter.

And just so we're clear this is exactly what you meant, as you stated it twice;

It's the same kind of reasoning all Southerners have.

You're under the assumption that this is a "southern" characteristic' date=' there is absolutely no misinterpretation, simply poor communication on your part if anything.

I never said the death penalty necessarily meant a life for a life. But that kind of reasoning does lead to a support in death penalty in murder cases, undoubtedly.

The original claim was that this was emotion speaking, not her personal morality of the situation. You argued that this is her genuine opinion, emotion or not, based on the studies of suppor of the death penality. Evidence show's;

Extreme emotional states make people say emotionally charged things

Of course she means it. Doesn't "a life for a life" sound familiar to you? It's the same kind of reasoning all Southerners have.

Granted there's a "my point still stands" segment it's hardly relevant. You provided evidence on Post #53 page 3' date=' with all your studies to support the bolded statement. Which is far to ambiguous to be used as evidence to assume that the general [b']southern morality[/b] is a life for a life.

If there's a strawman issue, you should probably clarify your opinion with some evidence, rather just assume no one is smart enough to follow your juvenile thought process.

[Chiki]

Lol. You guys really take those posts too seriously. It was an emotionally charged argument and not a rational one. How many times does it have to be said? The point I defend is that a randomly picked person in the South is more likely to support the death penalty than not. That's it.

"Juvenile thought process." Another ad hominem.

[Hawkeye]

Olwen the problem is that while that is the point you're defending, that is not what the argument is about. Nobody is arguing against the fact that in a binary decision if there is an outcome with >50% probability it is the most likely outcome, everyone can grasp that. What people are arguing about are your three initial posts, which were offensive. Now first of all, I have to completely agree that SF occasionally needs a bit more of a "lol its teh internetz" approach, the fact of the matter is that you cannot use that as a defense while still trying to argue seriously. If you're going to be of that mindset, you have to be ready to admit that what you said was wrong, or at the very least insensitive. Otherwise, you should be willing to defend it. If you're continuing the argument but using that joking approach to refuse acknowledging the fact that you said something rude, you're quite simply being a troll. I don't think you're a troll, so don't do that.

[Khainiwest]

Lol. You guys really take those posts too seriously. It was an emotionally charged argument and not a rational one.

..So you're saying your posts have no credibility?

How many times does it have to be said?

I'm sorry but where was it said once? I notice the moderator brought this point up too' date=' but all you could do is claim it's your personal opinion?

The point I defend is that a randomly picked person in the South is more likely to support the death penalty than not. That's it.

I'm pushing the point that she's more likely to mean it

It's on the same page man' date=' the same page.

[b']

"Juvenile thought process." Another ad hominem.

[/b]

Oh my apologies, this is clearly a strawman scenario as my "juvenile" comment was more on the lines of your thought process being of a young persons. Although even if I was calling you immature, pointing it out doesn't suddenly invalidate my points.

[Chiki]

My first three posts weren't me arguing seriously. They were emotionally charged statements. My probability argument is the serious one.

Secondly, why should I apologize if I've been personally attacked by four different people, one of them a mod? I haven't even personally insulted anyone once.

[Khainiwest]

My first three posts weren't me arguing seriously. They were emotionally charged statements. My probability argument is the serious one.

Secondly, why should I apologize if I've been personally attacked by four different people, one of them a mod? I haven't even personally insulted anyone once.

I'll give you a chance to correct that before I correct you.

[Hawkeye]

I understand that completely, like I said in my first post. But then if you just apologize, or at least admit that the comments were (insensitive/rude/inappropriate/discriminatory/literallyanythingnegative) then the hostility all around will drop dramatically and we can all happily go about our lives.

I do not think there have been any notable personal attacks from anyone.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Hawkeye

[Chiki]

If you want to respond to the probability argument, here it is:

Premise 1) Sherry West is a person. (Obviously true premise)

Premise 2) 70% of Southerners support the death penalty. (True rounded up premise)

Premise 3) More people support the death penalty in the South than people who don't. (True premise)

Premise 4) if we randomly selected a thing in a bag of two things, the thing which is more common is more likely to be selected. (True premise)

Premise 5) If we randomly selected a person in the South, then the quality which is more common has a higher chance of being selected. (True)

----

Conclusion: if we randomly selected Sherry West in the South, then she is more likely to be a death penalty supporter.

What does it take for a conclusion to be solid? Its premises have to be true and the conclusion has to logically follow from the premises, and I think it's almost trivially true that it does.

Think of a bag with 100000000 green beans and 1 red bean. It is more likely that we'll take a green bean.

I am not prejudiced against Southerners. I think all Americans have poor values, but Southerners more so.

[Khainiwest]

If you want to respond to the probability argument, here it is:

Premise 1) Sherry West is a person. (Obviously true premise)

Premise 2) 70% of Southerners support the death penalty. (True rounded up premise)

Premise 3) More people support the death penalty in the South than people who don't. (True premise)

Premise 4) if we randomly selected a thing in a bag of two things, the thing which is more common is more likely to be selected. (True premise)

Premise 5) If we randomly selected a person in the South, then the quality which is more common has a higher chance of being selected. (True)

----

Conclusion: if we randomly selected Sherry West in the South, then she is more likely to be a death penalty supporter.

What does it take for a conclusion to be solid? Its premises have to be true and the conclusion has to logically follow from the premises, and I think it's almost trivially true that it does.

Think of a bag with 100000000 green beans and 1 red bean. It is more likely that we'll take a green bean.

I am not prejudiced against Southerners. I think all Americans have poor values, but Southerners more so.

No one is arguing probability, the mathmatics or the facts done by statistics, they arguing how you are using that to justify your stereotype. concerning your last post trying to save face, your first 3 posts were you stating your opinion 4-6 are you defending the stereotype in fact on the same page you even clarify what you're trying to defend.

You lost.

[Jaybee]

let me shoot your mother in the face and see your response

i will be surprised as all hell if you don't tell me i deserve to die.

[Hawkeye]

I'll take a concentrated effort to move away from the inflammatory comments as being close enough to an admission of fault that I'm sure we can all be done of that now. Of course your argument is 100% correct (and contains 3 unnecessary premises) and I'm sure nobody cares to argue it. So now we are well and truly off topic and should get back to discussing the shootings.

Nope I was wrong. Also wow that definitely hinted pretty heavily of mini-modding on my part and I have nothing of value to say about the shootings themselves so I am going to back out from this conversation now. Everyone be nice to your fellow humans.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Hawkeye

[Khainiwest]

let me shoot your mother in the face and see your response

i will be surprised as all hell if you don't tell me i deserve to die.

Here's a fun moral discussion. If you killed my mother, I do not just want you to die, I want you to suffer. So is the death penality really barbaric, or a given mercy?

[Chiki]

No one is arguing probability, the mathmatics or the facts done by statistics, they arguing how you are using that to justify your stereotype. concerning your last post trying to save face, your first 3 posts were you stating your opinion 4-6 are you defending the stereotype in fact on the same page you even clarify what you're trying to defend.

You lost.

Studies show that a vast majority of Southern people do support the death penalty. I've already proven my point, so I don't get how I'm wrong? Stereotypes do exist.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen

[Khainiwest]

Studies show that a vast majority of Southern people do support the death penalty. I've already proven my point, so I don't get how I'm wrong? Stereotypes do exist.

You proved your later point, that no one actually argued, not your lie in order to save face. Where you generalized the morality of the southern based on that one individual, which is wrong.

EDIT: If you're just going to disregard your entire disrespectul, prejudice rampage as "not serious" then I suggest you just don't respond. Even though that's a lie and you were completely serious, defending the notion with ambiguous facts, as proven earlier.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Khainiwest

[Chiki]

You proved your later point, that no one actually argued, not your lie in order to save face. Where you generalized the morality of the southern based on that one individual, which is wrong.

EDIT: If you're just going to disregard your entire disrespectul, prejudice rampage as "not serious" then I suggest you just don't respond. Even though that's a lie and you were completely serious, defending the notion with ambiguous facts, as proven earlier.

I admit my emotional argument was illogical and wrong. So what? I offered my proper argument to eclipse after that, which all of you decided to ignore and instead spend pages insulting me. It's funny how I'm called a child when insulting itself is not a mature action.

Now, I'm not denying that I was serious. But how naive do you people have to be to think that I'm a perfectly rational creature who always makes rational unemotional statements? I'm not a robot, I'm a human.

Does it make me a liar to get emotional and then offer a rational argument after being notified that my argument is wrong? Of course not. All it does is show that my original statements were wrong--I established that once I gave eclipse my real argument. Yet eclipse ignored my probability argument and said I was wrong anyway.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Olwen