Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For an even longer time now, I have known that you don't debate - you simply post slabs of your 'thought', raging against a world that dare question your insights and genius.
And I know that it's never about debate for you. It's simply pig-headedness, to which my functional answer is...
word.
 
 
Suck it up, again. 
 
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slarti said:

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.

 

You're clearly just incapable of understanding the point I am making, I have tried very hard to explain it but it does seem beyond you. Let me try one more time even though it's likely futile.

You're about to roll a dice 10,000 times. I say "you are going to get a bunch of six's out of that number, fact!" no one needs you to go "well actually, by definition we don't know that is fact, despite the odds being almost zero, the odds can't possibly be completely zero because it is an event in the future based on mathematical probability so technically that isn't a factual claim" Your suggestion I don't understand what you are saying is nonsense, I have made it very clear it's the technique I am showing to be ineffective. 

That would be an example of you being pedantic and you have done the same thing millions (not literally) of times to me alone over our history on BAWA. You did the same thing regarding lockdown deaths. "Lockdown has saved lives, that is fact" "sHoW mE pRoOf It Is FaCt?!" Do you see yet the point I am making? You drive to the pedantic over the semantics of words, you do it often. 

My missus has just picked up some steaks for tonight "Steak for dinner that's my favourite, fact!" I don't need you saying "well actually there may have been something else that would be considered your favourite that you haven't tasted before or it was such a long time ago you forgot. Or maybe the steaks are just for her, you can't say it's fact you'll be eating steak which is your favourite."

If you genuinely still don't get the point I'm making I would kindly ask you to maybe ask someone to explain it to you verbally, it would be a lot better way to help you visualise my point. (note please don't come back saying "how do you know it would be better?"

To your other point, on "sufficient evidence" we've touched on this before as well. There is no need to evidence lockdown saved more than zero lives in a country of 66 million people, your claim is ridiculous that it might not be the case. Of course it's the case. I didn't win the lottery five times in a row earlier this year, do you need proof of that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sue Denim said:

Which ones then and I’ll run the graphs.

Are you seriously suggesting that Covid is not seasonal? 

Give USA states a go. 

I am not suggesting it isn't seasonal and linked to different climates, I have told you this many times. I am saying it is killing people globally over multiple different climates, the consideration based on this alone related to locking down can't be done.

Cue Slarti coming in on these points of fact lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Give USA states a go. 

I am not suggesting it isn't seasonal and linked to different climates, I have told you this many times. I am saying it is killing people globally over multiple different climates, the consideration based on this alone related to locking down can't be done.

 

I’ve never mentioned climate. It’s only you that keeps mentioning it. Some US graphs below.

Its pretty clear that deaths the world over are following seasonality. Lockdowns, social distancing, masks, any combination or none at all - makes no difference to the shape of any of the graphs.

They all follow seasonality without exception.

If lockdowns worked then why are countries in the Southern Hemisphere that went into lockdown at the same time as us now hitting a peak of deaths now?

Seasonality trumps all - and it’s barely flickered any mention in the media.

 

B59ABE40-0E7A-4DDB-8FDA-925DF7FC1766.jpeg

40F61385-057F-47F4-AA85-26D4881ADE7B.jpeg

0F8BAA57-72AF-408F-BFF5-80B102DA2D0E.jpeg

98F577AE-4550-4E38-A9AC-A3F3CB1F6798.jpeg

1B747001-E444-4818-925A-74D4AA51BF03.jpeg

5D15632D-C1F9-4898-9EFC-7B9FFF957C63.jpeg

760725FE-EDAC-451C-966C-8A1272D43AE4.jpeg

0DCAAB25-4A74-40AA-80E5-9F23A1950811.jpeg

134DA31C-CB53-49C7-9C8E-AE420864ADEC.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You're clearly just incapable of understanding the point I am making, I have tried very hard to explain it but it does seem beyond you. Let me try one more time even though it's likely futile.

You're about to roll a dice 10,000 times. I say "you are going to get a bunch of six's out of that number, fact!" no one needs you to go "well actually, by definition we don't know that is fact, despite the odds being almost zero, the odds can't possibly be completely zero because it is an event in the future based on mathematical probability so technically that isn't a factual claim" Your suggestion I don't understand what you are saying is nonsense, I have made it very clear it's the technique I am showing to be ineffective. 

That would be an example of you being pedantic and you have done the same thing millions (not literally) of times to me alone over our history on BAWA. You did the same thing regarding lockdown deaths. "Lockdown has saved lives, that is fact" "sHoW mE pRoOf It Is FaCt?!" Do you see yet the point I am making? You drive to the pedantic over the semantics of words, you do it often. 

My missus has just picked up some steaks for tonight "Steak for dinner that's my favourite, fact!" I don't need you saying "well actually there may have been something else that would be considered your favourite that you haven't tasted before or it was such a long time ago you forgot. Or maybe the steaks are just for her, you can't say it's fact you'll be eating steak which is your favourite."

If you genuinely still don't get the point I'm making I would kindly ask you to maybe ask someone to explain it to you verbally, it would be a lot better way to help you visualise my point. (note please don't come back saying "how do you know it would be better?"

To your other point, on "sufficient evidence" we've touched on this before as well. There is no need to evidence lockdown saved more than zero lives in a country of 66 million people, your claim is ridiculous that it might not be the case. Of course it's the case. I didn't win the lottery five times in a row earlier this year, do you need proof of that? 

 

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. Well, you offered, and it would be the first thing you've provided evidence for.

 

Oh, and what is this random capital letter nonsense about?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

 

 

 

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.png Well, you offered, and it would be the first thing you've provided evidence for. emoji38.png

 

Oh, and what is this random capital letter nonsense about?

 

I also like to post as though my opinion IS a fact and that I’m correct.

That’s mainly because I am always correct....

However, as people will know because I bore them to death with it, I do provide figures to show what I’ve based my opinions on and give the sources.

@bazil85 doesn’t ever give any figures to back up his opinion nor does he give any figures to try and disprove me (albeit, it’s obviously impossible to disprove me because I am always right) 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
I'm offended!
I was his original "stalker", out to get him and disagreeing purely because he said it. Well. In his tiny mind, that was the case.
I realised that responding to him is futile.
Can't believe others still do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 12:26 PM, Slarti said:

You still at it? :D

Correlation does not equal causation.

It is also completely baseless to say that it has saved lives.

Both of you are claiming things that are unproven, as I have already said.

It implys causatiion. 

https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/life-sciences/ecology-and-conservation/cause-and-correlation-biology-users-guide-path-analysis-structural-equations-and-causal-inference-r-2nd-edition?format=PB

Either 

1. It's a statistical artifact (which should not be the case if statisical tests are applied) 

2 There is a spurious relationship.  A third factor is controling both factors (should not be the case if a proper controls are included in design e,g. in a multi-variate regression model. 

3. There is a indirect relationship. Which means that a third variable sits between to the two others in the system and that variance in the control variable influences the intermediate variable which in turn influences the output varible.  (in effect this is just the same as a direct relationship)

4, A direct relationship. 

 

Good too see you recognising the limits of the scientific method 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 1:42 PM, oaksoft said:

A paper which doesn't explain the science behind the SG advice that jumpers and scarves are suitable masks.

A paper which doesn't test which of the masks being used by the public are safe and to what extent.

You are reading what you want to read.

Maybe you should stick to reception work or nursing or something because research doesn't appear to be your thing at all. 

I'm still laughing at your suggestion that you think people need to be injected with covid to get a randomised test. 🤣🤣

Still hurting from being made to look an ass.  My suggestion is stop acting like an ass. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm offended!

I was his original "stalker", out to get him and disagreeing purely because he said it. Well. In his tiny mind, that was the case.

I realised that responding to him is futile.

Can't believe others still do!

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.

 

Slartibartfast must have had vendettas against everyone on here going by his logic.

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It implys causatiion. 
https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/life-sciences/ecology-and-conservation/cause-and-correlation-biology-users-guide-path-analysis-structural-equations-and-causal-inference-r-2nd-edition?format=PB
Either 
1. It's a statistical artifact (which should not be the case if statisical tests are applied) 
2 There is a spurious relationship.  A third factor is controling both factors (should not be the case if a proper controls are included in design e,g. in a multi-variate regression model. 
3. There is a indirect relationship. Which means that a third variable sits between to the two others in the system and that variance in the control variable influences the intermediate variable which in turn influences the output varible.  (in effect this is just the same as a direct relationship)
4, A direct relationship. 
 
Good too see you recognising the limits of the scientific method 
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have concluded zero people have been saved by a lockdown, not one, there isn't a single person alive today that wouldn't have been alive if there had been absolutely no lockdown. You've held a negative view from day one on the lockdown and you admitting there "wasn't enough evidence" also means you have to accept there wasn't "enough evidence" to conclude the lockdown was the wrong call.
There would have had to be evidence in early March that was 100% conclusive a lockdown wasn't right, that's completely unfounded. You just didn't want your summer impacted. 
The evidence is not all in, the pandemic is not over and lockdown has saved lives. Expert advice is still on the side of lockdown as Aberdeen proves. You have yet again been shown that the current state points to you being wrong. 


I tend to agree that lockdown saved lives. My wee mother is in a care home that didn’t have one case. They had dedicated staff, not those that would work between 2 or 3 homes. So I’d say lives were saved.
However. I wonder how many folk have died due to not getting the hospital treatment they required, cancer patients as an example.
How many people were/are effected mentally and how many suicides can be attributed to lockdown, self isolation, job loss, financial strains etc. Maybe if the pop up hospitals had actually been used then maybe some non COVID patients would still be alive if they had their hospital treatment?

Just my tuppence worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also like to post as though my opinion IS a fact and that I’m correct.
That’s mainly because I am always correct....
However, as people will know because I bore them to death with it, I do provide figures to show what I’ve based my opinions on and give the sources.
[mention=8643]bazil85[/mention] doesn’t ever give any figures to back up his opinion nor does he give any figures to try and disprove me (albeit, it’s obviously impossible to disprove me because I am always right)
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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I tend to agree that lockdown saved lives. My wee mother is in a care home that didn’t have one case. They had dedicated staff, not those that would work between 2 or 3 homes. So I’d say lives were saved.
However. I wonder how many folk have died due to not getting the hospital treatment they required, cancer patients as an example.
How many people were/are effected mentally and how many suicides can be attributed to lockdown, self isolation, job loss, financial strains etc. Maybe if the pop up hospitals had actually been used then maybe some non COVID patients would still be alive if they had their hospital treatment?

Just my tuppence worth.
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. :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

You're clearly just incapable of understanding the point I am making, I have tried very hard to explain it but it does seem beyond you. Let me try one more time even though it's likely futile.

You're about to roll a dice 10,000 times. I say "you are going to get a bunch of six's out of that number, fact!" no one needs you to go "well actually, by definition we don't know that is fact, despite the odds being almost zero, the odds can't possibly be completely zero because it is an event in the future based on mathematical probability so technically that isn't a factual claim" Your suggestion I don't understand what you are saying is nonsense, I have made it very clear it's the technique I am showing to be ineffective. 

That would be an example of you being pedantic and you have done the same thing millions (not literally) of times to me alone over our history on BAWA. You did the same thing regarding lockdown deaths. "Lockdown has saved lives, that is fact" "sHoW mE pRoOf It Is FaCt?!" Do you see yet the point I am making? You drive to the pedantic over the semantics of words, you do it often. 

My missus has just picked up some steaks for tonight "Steak for dinner that's my favourite, fact!" I don't need you saying "well actually there may have been something else that would be considered your favourite that you haven't tasted before or it was such a long time ago you forgot. Or maybe the steaks are just for her, you can't say it's fact you'll be eating steak which is your favourite."

If you genuinely still don't get the point I'm making I would kindly ask you to maybe ask someone to explain it to you verbally, it would be a lot better way to help you visualise my point. (note please don't come back saying "how do you know it would be better?"

To your other point, on "sufficient evidence" we've touched on this before as well. There is no need to evidence lockdown saved more than zero lives in a country of 66 million people, your claim is ridiculous that it might not be the case. Of course it's the case. I didn't win the lottery five times in a row earlier this year, do you need proof of that? 

Christ you've just made a post saying he's right that it's not fact, but he should know what you mean. 😂 Only you. 

 

Highly probable and fact are not the same thing, but hey it's everybody else that's wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





Their game in Perth on Saturday won't be on then.





You may be correct now.

BBC News - Aberdeen player tests positive for coronavirus amid lockdown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53682640


Fcuk me, 8 players isolating and games still on.

BBC News - Eight Aberdeen players self-isolating amid coronavirus lockdown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53682640


It will.


Must be to help your fav govan based club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christ you've just made a post saying he's right that it's not fact, but he should know what you mean. Only you. 
 
Highly probable and fact are not the same thing, but hey it's everybody else that's wrong
Oh, ffs, do you have a vendetta against that poor wee victimised boy too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we had eight players out we'd be right in the shit.
They appear to have 35 signed players and of the 8 only McKenna and at a push Bryson appear to be guaranteed starters. I think that has influenced the decision to play plus got to get the message through to clubs that they have to be responsible for the actions of their players. They should be getting fined by the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...