Justice is served?!?!!

[Golena]

How can I argue with you seriously when I have just picked two lines from your argument, no more than a page apart, that completely and utterly contradict each other?

Perhaps by making the effort to try and understand the point he's trying to make then provide a sensibe counter-argument, instead of picking sentances, taking them out of context and then using them combined with bits of irrelevant maths to try and flame him?

An important part of debate is understanding the other persons point of view, even if they arn't putting it across perfectly, then arguing against that. The reason Toht normally ends up in this position on these threads is because a large number of people on here arn't able to do this, and instead look for the one sentance they can use to turn it around for themselves.

But then, if you can't argue your point well, it is the easy way out!

 

[Bugz]

Enlighten me as to what Toht means when he says: "journey doesn't matter" and then "wait - i never said the journey doesn't matter." Bare in mind that is a simple contradiction and it was not taken out of context at all (as you seem to believe).

Even better Golena, why don't you put in an argument to support Toht's cause since you obviously understand his side of the argument better than us. As opposed to coming in, saying your 'pearls of wisdom' and not actually providing anything useful to the discussion.

 

[tierk]

Knowing she was tortured etc, would take a backseat.

STFU you argumentative little so and so. I have never seen anyone in the entirety of my life that is so full of garbage as you. I mean really that little snippet just sums up everything that i dislike about your posting style on this forum on pretty much every thread that involves any kind of emotive subject.

I mean seriously do you read what you post?

Golena before you go on about quoting one line and just picking it apart, i can go through pretty much any thread, this one included, that he has posted on and i can highlight a load of high quality bullshit lines he has dropped into threads.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Enlighten me as to what Toht means when he says: "journey doesn't matter" and then "wait - i never said the journey doesn't matter." Bare in mind that is a simple contradiction and it was not taken out of context at all (as you seem to believe).

You shouldn't bother as you can't seem to go apst one quoted line.

I answered you on the post above your last, but you seem to have a blind eye for anything like that;

If you read that line you quoted with sucha fine comb, ofcourse it reads as "journey isn't valid", but since we were talking about the end result being a murder and how that murder happened, the journey doesn't matter.

Do you get it? Me saying "Way a person is murdered doesn't matter to me" does not equal to a blanket statement of "The way things happen doesn't matter at all.

I'll ask again, do you get it?

STFU you argumentative little so and so. I have never seen anyone in the entirety of my life that is so full of garbage as you. I mean really that little snippet just sums up everything that i dislike about your posting style on this forum on pretty much every thread that involves any kind of emotive subject.

I mean seriously do you read what you post?

Golena before you go on about quoting one line and just picking it apart, i can go through pretty much any thread, this one included, that he has posted on and i can highlight a load of high quality bullshit lines he has dropped into threads.

Yes, you can pick out single lines from anyones postings.

Now you tell me to STFU and get angry at me saying my opinion or how i would look at MY mother being killed. It WAS NOT how i expect everyone to act.

It seems there's a problem with people taking personal opinions as such, personal, and take them as "You should all think like this!"

Ofcourse telling you to take a look at your own actions is like screaming at a brick wall, but hey, why not try.

 

[Calaen]

No mate, but if someone told me my mother had been shot I would be devastated and want the killer brought to justice. If someone told me my mother had been tortured, and beaten to death I would feel obliged to seek out and destroy everyone in their family tree.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

This thread is just stupid now. Unsubbing from it.

 

[Thorwyn]

An important part of debate is understanding the other persons point of view, even if they arn't putting it across perfectly, then arguing against that. The reason Toht normally ends up in this position on these threads is because a large number of people on here arn't able to do this, and instead look for the one sentance they can use to turn it around for themselves.

OT:
I think - and I mean this completely constructive and in a non-confrontial way - that the problem with good old Toht´s way of discussing is, that he spends far too many words on describing the essence of his point of view without explaining the consequences or pointing out the neccessary and relevant links to the actual question/topic. This leads to confusion because other people are spending time with interpretations that require clarifications.
Dunno if this is any helpful... but whatever. Take it or leave it. All of you/us.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No mate, but if someone told me my mother had been shot I would be devastated and want the killer brought to justice. If someone told me my mother had been tortured, and beaten to death I would feel obliged to seek out and destroy everyone in their family tree.

Yeah, you would. Does me not wanting to do that, or answering you that "i would probably act way x" validate it being a "so and so" or telling me to STFU?

Don't think so.

OT:
I think - and I mean this completely constructive and in a non-confrontial way - that the problem with good old Toht´s way of discussing is, that he spends far too many words on describing the essence of his point of view without explaining the consequences or pointing out the neccessary and relevant links to the actual question/topic. This leads to confusion because other people are spending time with interpretations that require clarifications.
Dunno if this is any helpful... but whatever. Take it or leave it. All of you/us.

If people would spend one second, or even asked for clarifications, things wouldn't get out of hand with wild accusations. Marc, Bugz...just two on this thread that simply take things as they want to see them and carry on from that with fingers in ze ears.

Previously i was blamed for not explaining and one lining, now it seems i'm over explaining. Kind of contradictive i think.

Also it doesn't help that it's 100% my fault in these peoples minds

 

[Bugz]

But to give you another chance(again); the probability of someone murdering does not change with amount, all that matters there is the cabability for murder.

So Mr X who has murdered 500 people and Mr Y who has murdered one person both have the same probability of murdering again?

Care to explain your logic behind that?

 

[old.Tohtori]

So Mr X who has murdered 500 people and Mr Y who has murdered one person both have the same probability of murdering again?

Care to explain your logic behind that?

Did it again. Focus on one line, ignore rest.

Very well, let's play again;

Yes, they have the same probability to murder again. Both have murdered(if the murder is on same level, say "stab a hooker"), so the cabability for it is there.

Mr X with 500 murders just has to get up a lot earlier during the day then Mr Y.

Mr Y is at same stage as Mr X was after his first murder, this does not remove or add to the possibility of the next murder happening, for either case.

For Mr X, murdering may come more "naturally", but for Mr Y it's an equal chance to repeat.

Comaprison(as per your style);

Person X eats a twinky.
Person Y has eaten 500 twinkies.

In both cases, it's unclear if/when/why they would eat another twinky. We know that both can eat a twinky, we know both seem to hold no grudge against eating a twinky, but if they will eat another, is unclear.

 

[Bugz]

My. Fuckin. God.

Can anyone else validate that they too felt the last post by Toht was nothing but total fuckin stupidity?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, clearly i'm the problem in these discussions.

 

[Bugz]

"So Mr X who has murdered 500 people and Mr Y who has murdered one person both have the same probability of murdering again?"
"Yes, they have the same probability to murder again."

So based on this - you are actually saying past experiences do not influence the probability of an event happening. You believe the probability to murder again does not change depending on how many people you have previously murderer then we should actually get, over time, a uniform distribution from x = 1 to x = infinity (or 250 say). But we don't. So your theory is borked

PLEASE tell me you are not this stupid.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not getting into another math=life thing with you.

You claim repeating an action makes probability of it happening again a fact, i'm saying that repeating an action does not equal probability.

Someone cabable of murder, who has murdered, with same level of murder, is equally cabable of it as person who has +1 murder on him.

That's my opinion on it and that's NS on that.

FYI; where's your proof, logic and other such items that tell us that amount equals probability? You seem to ask every else that.

 

[Bugz]

Ahh I see.

You are mixing up capability & probability.

Probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You shouldn't try to be so patronizing ("let's play again") to someone when you don't understand the basic terminology of what your arguing.

No doubt you will twist this in some way and make me out to be the wrong one. But an important thing to remember is probability is a fuckin big part of my course and so I am going to guess I am a lot more educated on it than you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No i'm not mixing anything, no need to be patronizing and showing me what word you think i'm missing.

I wasn't patronizing by saying "let's play again", i meant your style of picking one line to start something(evident on this thread). <--ignore that as you surely will.

You may hold all your fancy degrees, answer what i asked on previous post; proof. Why is repetition equal to probability?

So far yur repertuar of "educated" answers have been;

You f*cking stupid!
I f*cking educated man!
*silence*
*wait*
Oh another line i can throw math at!

Clearly an educated individual.

 

[Bugz]

Toht If I have a bag of 6 balls -> 3 red, 2 blue and 1 green.

I have a capability of pulling out a red, blue or a green.

I have different probabilities of pulling them out.

Capability does not equal probaiblity.

Capability to murder (let's not get into 'what makes you capable to murder' as that's an entirely different discussion) is not the same as the probability of murdering.

Person 1 can be capable of murdering but will have a probability rate of 0.01.

Person 2 can be capable of murdering and has murdered 5 people and will have a probability rate of 0.19.

The proof you ask for: If eveyrone had the same probability to murder assuming one previous murder, we'd have the same situation as when we throw a fair dice. That is, as n tends to infinity, we should see that the probaiblity of one side occuring becomes highly correlated to the amount of times it lands on that side. I.e. if n = 1000, a four sided dice, we should expect 4 250 times. So we have a uniform distribution where 1, 2, 3 and 4 all have 0.25 each of occuring.

If we apply this to murders. We should expect then 1 murder to 500 murders to have exactly near the same amount of occurrences as n tends to infinity (or a large number).

However, we know this isn't the case. The number of mass murderers of say 100-110 is a lot lot less than the number of people who have murdered between 1-10. Thus, your theory cannot hold.

Now please stop fuckin' arguing with me for the sake of upholding your pride. The simple fact you cannot see the intuition behind this and I have had to explain it using stats says alot about you as an individual.

 

[Bugz]

^^^^ That proof is a very sloppy/subjective way of representing it (i.e. I have assumed that we are working with n persons with 1 murder and saying that the range of x from 2 to 500 are all as equally likely) before any mathematicians go up on my arse about it (I'm not very good at maths so fuck you all ) but the intuition is there.

 

[Bugz]

In fact that proof is very very sloppy and I'm an idiot for suggesting it (since creating it has tailored my point to dispelling yours, as opposed to actually dispelling yours). I'm not quite sure how to show it to you statistically - let me get back to you on that.

But I do remain on my previous point that capability and probability are not the same.

 

[old.Tohtori]

*snip*Now please stop fuckin' arguing with me for the sake of upholding your pride. The simple fact you cannot see the intuition behind this and I have had to explain it using stats says alot about you as an individual.

And how pray do tell does that in any way relate to what you quoted on me saying at the start? I believe you were arguing me saying "only the end result matters in way of murder". Go figure.

Then, you ask for proof, for reasoning, but when i ask for it you turn it into an insult(bold part). You didn't even answer "How does repetition = probability?" So you ignore questions and then insult when i ask the same thing you do, proof/reasoning.

At this point i went along with this completely unrelated discussion and i said that murderer 1 and murderer 2 had same probabilities to repeat offend, not that cabability = probability, which you turned into a "you don't get probabilities, i'm educamatated in that!".

Who might be the one arguing something that isn't the subject and WHO might be the one picking single lines out to start an argument?

But I do remain on my previous point that capability and probability are not the same.

Did i say they are the same? I said that cabability is what matters and that the probability is something that can't be measured.

 

[Bugz]

See I don't even fuckin know what I'm arguing anymore.

I said that cabability is what matters and that the probability is something that can't be measured.

Yes, they have the same probability to murder again. Both have murdered(if the murder is on same level, say "stab a hooker"), so the cabability for it is there.

See in your first quote your saying you can't measure probability but in your second quote you are saying they do have the same probability.

You say capability matters but capability is just the criteria to be fulfilled to start talking about probabilities.

If I have a bag of red and blue and green bills. I have no capability of choosing a yellow ball because it doesn't exist and therefore I have no probability. I have a capability of choosing a red or a blue ball but the probabilities will differ.

I'm going to be honest - I don't know how to show you your wrong statistically - I know probability can't be the same for people who have committed one murder as opposed to 5000 (due to things such as numbing of the effects over time, rational expectations of being convicted and serving a long jail time, murder one likely to destroy a lot of people emotionally - more so than those that continue to kill etc).

I can't believe we're arguing over this at 1:37am in the fuckin' morning. Not to mention I look like a twat for not being able to proof something I said was quite simple. I'm going to stop the flame baiting here and leave the thread completely (honestly this time). You may see it as 'your win,' but there's so many flaws in your posts it's crazy. Your whole etiquette of approaching topics seeks to do nothing more than to confuse everyone involved in it. But whereas I am willing to hold my head high and call myself an idiot for posting something I later came to see was tripe, you appear to continue to remain in that bubble of yours.

 

[tierk]

Yes, clearly i'm the problem in these discussions.

Certainly the common denominator.

 

[Thorwyn]

The motif has an effect on the probability too. If someone knows that someone else is planning to kill his family and he kills him to prevent this from happening, he has a lower probability of murdering again than a mass murderer who enjoys killing people.

 

[old.Tohtori]

See I don't even fuckin know what I'm arguing anymore.

Would help if you did in the first place.

See in your first quote your saying you can't measure probability but in your second quote you are saying they do have the same probability.

You say capability matters but capability is just the criteria to be fulfilled to start talking about probabilities.

See your taking things into some complex caverns of your mind and making it seem that i say something i don't. That's your problem, not mine.

You also seem to think that every statement i make applies from killing hookers to picking out colored balls, which it doesn't. Again, your problem, not mine.

In the first quote it's clear that the probabiliity between the two murdering again can't be measured, yet you claim i'm saying probability can't be measured at all.

You took a simple statement and turned it into *waves finger at few pages* this. But you can't see the problem with yourself, so you blame me.

I'm going to be honest - I don't know how to show you your wrong statistically - I know probability can't be the same for people who have committed one murder as opposed to 5000 (due to things such as numbing of the effects over time, rational expectations of being convicted and serving a long jail time, murder one likely to destroy a lot of people emotionally - more so than those that continue to kill etc).

I can't believe we're arguing over this at 1:37am in the fuckin' morning. Not to mention I look like a twat for not being able to proof something I said was quite simple. I'm going to stop the flame baiting here and leave the thread completely (honestly this time).

Can't show how or validate own opinion, fine. Then don't ask others to do so AND insult them when they do. What you have there is an opinion on it, same as me, so we're on equal ground on theories of how the probability is.

And fyi;

You may see it as 'your win,' but there's so many flaws in your posts it's crazy. Your whole etiquette of approaching topics seeks to do nothing more than to confuse everyone involved in it. But whereas I am willing to hold my head high and call myself an idiot for posting something I later came to see was tripe, you appear to continue to remain in that bubble of yours.

Interesting to notice a lovely copout there; "I'm saying i posted trife, because it's clear i did, but you are stupid and live in bubble!".

You're not holding your head high, you're insulting me as you run out the door.

Only thing i hold as a victory on this thread, is showing that plenty of the people calling me a troll/argumentative/problem are acting in the same exact way they're claiming i do.

Oh and Bugz; why don't you leave the quotes as they are so people don't have to go hunting what you quoted.

The motif has an effect on the probability too. If someone knows that someone else is planning to kill his family and he kills him to prevent this from happening, he has a lower probability of murdering again than a mass murderer who enjoys killing people.

Motif never was in question though. I simply asked Bugz to show how multiple killings increase probability, where i claimed that cabability matters.

Whole thing is silly as Bugz dragged the whole thing out of the blue anyway, just to start this fight.

I'm just DYING to know how this whole thing is at all related to me saying "I look at the end result in murder".

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh and just a little tidbit of advice for all you want-be flamebaiters;

If you want to prove me wrong, chose something different then...ahem...PERSONAL OPINION.

"You like chicken?! No! I shall prove you wrong with a clever analogy involving red and green balls!"

See the problem?

How i would react to my mothers death, how i would react to a kids death, how i look at murders, how i don't care about thee way.

These are not some things you can prove different.

 

[Thorwyn]

See the problem?

How i would react to my mothers death, how i would react to a kids death, how i look at murders, how i don't care about thee way.

These are not some things you can prove different.

To be honest... no, I don´t see the problem.
The entire point of a discussion is to find logical, moral, ethical or other flaws in other people´s opinions. Because an opinion is the summary of an evaluation of a perception and since it´s a personal process, it might be wrong (or questionable.. or dodgy..or weird).

Of course, you can state your opinion and consider your opinion invulnerable because it´s your opinion and you won´t change it anyways. But then, we might all just say what we think and close the thread without replying to the statements of other people. And consequently people wouldn´t even give a damn about other people´s opinion, because why should I care what you think of children if I´m not allowed to compare your POV with mine and - even more importantly - compare the results of our different stances in the bigger picture?

Or to make it clearer:
You said that in case of murder, you consider the result more important than the process that lead to it. Fine, that´s your opinion. It deviates from my opinion, because it´s ignoring lot of factors that are important for my evaluation (and apparently important for our legal system as well, because it doesn´t seem to share your POV). Now what? Isn´t it ok to point out the differences and the consequences by saying that your opinion is ethically flawed?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Or to make it clearer:
You said that in case of murder, you consider the result more important than the process that lead to it. Fine, that´s your opinion. It deviates from my opinion, because it´s ignoring lot of factors that are important for my evaluation (and apparently important for our legal system as well, because it doesn´t seem to share your POV). Now what? Isn´t it ok to point out the differences and the consequences by saying that your opinion is ethically flawed?

In simple terms; yes, it's fine and dandy to argue the point, it's fine to tell your stance, it's even ok to say things like "I don't understand that POV at all".

What isn't fine, is the way another persons opinion is treated too often;

People get angry, insults start flying, people start telling you're somehow damaged, that something is bullsh*t, that your opinion is somehow made up just to start something etc.

That is not discussing your POV, that's saying people who like chicken are retarded, which i think yoiu'll agree is not a way to go.

Which do you find cause problems in this thread? The discussion and evaluation of other peoples POV, or the "Can't believe you're this stupid STFU!" posts towards my own personal opinions?

And while we agree here, i still hold a firm belief that you can't prove wrong how someone feels.(example; told to STFU because of how i'd feel of own mother being killed)

 

[soze]

Motif never was in question though. I simply asked Bugz to show how multiple killings increase probability, where i claimed that cabability matters.

So do you think a Serial Killer who killed 10 people has the same chance to re offend as someone who killed one person Drink Driving or as an Act of Passion? Of do you mean a Cold blooded killer of 1 has the same chance as a cold blooded killer of 10?

 

[old.Tohtori]

So do you think a Serial Killer who killed 10 people has the same chance to re offend as someone who killed one person Drink Driving or as an Act of Passion? Of do you mean a Cold blooded killer of 1 has the same chance as a cold blooded killer of 10?

I addressed this before, saying that if the murders are indeed similar murders, not a cold blooded kill vs drink-driving or crime of passion.

So the second; cold blood killer of 10 vs cold blooded killer of 1.

Although, now that i think about it, if someone is cabable of a crime of passion and is placed in the same situation(such as a cold blooded killer would be), i think the probability would be same.

Drink driving and act of passion are afterall situational, where as we can assume that a cold blooded killer is a cold blooded killer until changed, so it's always situational.

 

[soze]

I will have to agree with you then if you are capable of planning and executing 1 cold blooded murder you are capable of committing 10 and are just as likely to do it again when you get out.