Slarti

I wouldn't think that he's overly worried about his soul, being an atheist.

Naw, I'm too much of a gentleman to stoop to that level. Ya cnut. [emoji38]

Aye, awright, ya pedant. [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]

He'll probably tell you it did.

Aye, but this way involves less work ... for me. [emoji38]

Don't talk pish, it's in Cork.

[emoji38] I (obviously) don't have a curser on my phone, what does it say?

[emoji38] Nail, head.

No, we aren't in agreement. You say it's a fact, I say it's probable, IMO, that specific people have been saved but possibly at the cost of others dying. If the odds it didn't can't be calculated, how have you managed to work out the odds that it did? It is a dichotomy, it either has or it hasn't, if you don't know the odds for one, you can't know the odds for the other. If you know the odds for one, then you know the odds for the other. Exactly how did you determine the odds can't be calculated anyway? Another unsubstantiated claim? You can disregard what you want, it won't make you any less wrong. Dice! [emoji38] Of course it boils down to that because you made the claim that it was a fact. All I want to know is how you determined it was a fact. Because you say so? No, it's your opinion. Again, no, it's only your opinion. Maybe you should wait for the validation study before you claim anything as fact. Even if a validation study did prove you were right, it does not mean that it is a fact just now. How do you not understand that. If we go to your dice ( [emoji38] ), if you said "it will be a six, fact" and it came up a six, that does not mean that your claim was a fact, it just means you guessed correctly. It's not pedantic, it's reality. You are now admitting that you are claiming this is true without an assessment being done. Thanks for admitting it's only your opinion.

Like me, you're wasting your time. He's already been told all this by several people. He, no matter what he claims, is not interested in debate, I'd be surprised if he even knew how to properly debate a point. I haven't even tried to debate him, just asked him for the evidence that he drew his conclusions from. Everyone knows that there isn't enough evidence yet to draw conclusions, even he admits it, yet he continues to call everything he posts a "fact". Admittedly, he did post something above as his opinion, so maybe he's learning. [emoji38] I suspect that he counts people getting fed up with his pettiness and childishness and no longer engaging with him as a victory. That's all that seems to matter to him. He appears to have no interest in learning anything. Personally, I would want to know if I'm wrong on something, I suspect most people are the same, but he seems to be one of the exceptions. As for his dice example ... [emoji38]

Asking questions about the specifics of your claims isn't effective??? What the f**k does that even mean? Unless it means that you avoid answering.

I've got two border collies. One of them is obsessed with anything that creates a line above it - washing lines, telephone wires, electricity cables and, believe it or not, planes that leave vapour trails. He tries to jump up and grab the "line" and has been known to chase vapour trails for over 1/4 of a mile. He also hates wee dugs, you'd get on well. [emoji38]

Good on you, you've already freed them. [emoji38] Edit: Or ate them.

!!! FREE THE FISHES !!!

Oh, ffs, do you have a vendetta against that poor wee victimised boy too? [emoji38]

No point using last season since it was cut short.

My opinion is that certain, specific lives have been saved by lockdown. Whether those certain, specific lives balance out the other certain, specific lives that have been lost due to lockdown is another matter. That's just "playing the numbers game", obviously. Also, my intuition is not proof of anything, so I won't claim that the above is factual, it's just my opinion.

Naw. You talk pish. You know you talk pish. Everyone else knows you know you talk pish. You know that everyone else knows you know you talk pish. Everyone else knows that you know that everyone else knows you know you talk pish. You know ... [emoji38]

I have no argument with any of that. However, that's not what he was saying, and he doesn't seem to understand the difference.

I, eh, I mean, Slartibartfast, had him on ignore for months. On joining and being a, eh, "new" user (cough, cough), I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - my mistake. Slartibartfast's first "interaction" with him was to point out a typo that he had made which meant that what he had posted was the opposite to what his argument was, evidenced by all his previous posts on that particular thread, and that was why people were laughing at his post. Needless to say, he claimed Slartibartfast was wrong even when his post in question claimed something WAS the case when his whole argument was that it WASN'T the case. He had only missed typing the word "not", but he couldn't even admit that. After that, Slartibartfast was just accused of disagreeing with him because it was him. Now Slartibartfast, eh, I mean, I apparently have a vendetta against him. [emoji38] Slartibartfast must have had vendettas against everyone on here going by his logic. [emoji38] He's so far up his own arse he can't even contemplate the possibility that he is wrong/has badly phrased something/has made a typo/whatever.

I understand the point you are TRYING to make but your point and example are flawed. As I have said, all you need to do is phrase things as your opinion (or somebody else's) and the problem goes away. If you said "government figures show", "government advisors claim" or "scientists say" a specific thing, then that is totally different to the way you post things (and not just on this topic). You post that a specific thing IS, when you don't have enough evidence to draw a valid conclusion - no caveats, nothing, just IS, because, well, just because you say it IS. Even saying "the evidence at this moment points to" would better than what you do. What you are having for dinner, or whether it is your favourite, is of no interest to me. I am willing to accept that at face value as it won't affect me, or anyone outside your immediate circle, in the slightest. Making claims that a specific action can save lives, can affect people outside of your immediate circle. The point that you use this flawed example, shows that you have no idea why some things require evidence, while some don't. If you said you had a pet dog I would take that at face value (I know dogs exist and people keep them as pets), if you said you had a pet extra terrestrial, I would want evidence as that could change lots of things for lots of people. Since you offered, yes, give me evidence of you not winning the lottery 5 times in a row. [emoji38] Well, you offered, and it would be the first thing you've provided evidence for. [emoji38] Oh, and what is this random capital letter nonsense about?

That's the main issue. He comes across as someone who thinks that because THEY have come to a conclusion about something, that their conclusion must be THE conclusion. He also seems to think that asking for evidence to support his conclusion means that the questioner holds the opposite view (and also must be wrong because, well, you know - conclusion). I'm getting bored with him again, might put him on ignore for a month or two. The fact that he thinks that you, Oaky and I have vendettas against him, have said that his opinions are wrong and have "shitty" debating styles, I think says a lot about his self importance, his reading skills and his own "debating" style. Not to mention his grasp of basic mathematics.

Examples are only worthwhile if they accurately reflect the situation they are an example for. Your extremely poor grasp of basic probability has led you to believe that your example was a good one, it wasn't, especially as you claim that throwing at least one 6 in 10,000 throws is a fact, it isn't a fact. You could stop all this by just admitting that YOU THINK that these things are the most likely scenario, rather than claiming that they are fact/evidence/conclusion. People can still disagree with you but it would just be opinion against opinion, not opinion against baseless conclusions. Bogged down in semantics regarding mathematics? Now you're being ridiculous. Mathematics is all about accuracy, there is no such thing as semantics in mathematics. More evidence that you haven't got a clue. You've posted recently that there isn't enough evidence for a conclusion to be drawn by someone else, yet you think there is enough for you to state your opinion as fact. Even if you turn out to be 100% correct, you are still wrong to claim these things as fact with the evidence available just now. Now, can you provide sufficient evidence to back up ANY of your "facts"? I won't hold my breath as you will no doubt deflect as usual - and claim that you're not deflecting - and claim that everyone else is - and ... All I have done is point out that you do not have enough evidence to claim your points as "fact". All you have to do to counter my point is supply sufficient evidence. FYI, I haven't spent days of my life on this before as your flawed logic "jumps right out of the screen" and takes very little thought to counter. You've obviously spent days, or at least you claim to have done. It's not important to the discussion, so I'll take your word for it. You really should find a more productive hobby, though.

Neither of those things are "fact", they are assumptions based on a logical fallacy, the Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a situation where a particular something won't happen, does not mean that that particular something won't happen. In your example, I assume that you would agree that there is a chance that all 10,000 throws will result in getting a 6. If you agree to that then you have to agree that it is possible that no 6s will result as every throw will have only one chance in six of being a 6, five chances in six of not being a 6. Every throw, it would be over 83% in favour of it not being a 6. Every throw is an independent event. If you throw 10 ones in a row, the odds of throwing a 1 on the next throw is still 1 in 6, it is not conditional on the previous throws. All you are doing is showing that you don't understand probability, or even what probability demonstrates. Go on, argue with me.

Well, the pie will be there, he's to report with you.