Cris offers the wager to Paul

[Alex Levin]

[ QUOTE ]


THIS is the thread that compelled you to post for the first time ever, and in support of the child rape analogist? You are a real piece of work. Now that you're posting there are some other deranged people who could use your defense. Go to town.

[/ QUOTE ]
You still haven't responded as to why that analogy is so flawed.

[ QUOTE ]

Right, we could see how amazingly far she is above using smear tactics, right about when she launched into the bit about me raping her daughter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, as a matter of fact, she said she has no reason to suspect that you would rape her daughter.
[ QUOTE ]

Here are a couple of the insults to which she has not resorted:

"a typically immature, pseudo-sophisticated young male"

and more recently, in this very thread,

"You are, quite simply, a fool."

You mind if I repurpose that last one as-is? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]I searched through the two threads and I couldn't find the first one. I'll give you the second one, so that puts it at about 50 insults of her to 1 one of you. And she has posted more than you also, so the proprotion is even higher.


Ohgeetee,
No, I did not say there there was an equal chance of those events occuring. I said that neither are worth the risk. Can you see the difference? This is why the analogy makes sense, Paul.

[CrisBrown]

Hi dave,

[ QUOTE ]
By the same regard do you trust your husband 100%, should I be trusted around my five year old daughter and seven year old stepdaughter, or with my nieces, by your reckoning I have the "capability" to rape or abuse them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a distinction between capabilities and intentions. Despite La Brujita's hopping down to the third definition in order to slay a strawman, in this regard I am referring solely to having the physical capability to perform the act.

Cris

[Avatar of Wine]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi dave,

[ QUOTE ]
By the same regard do you trust your husband 100%, should I be trusted around my five year old daughter and seven year old stepdaughter, or with my nieces, by your reckoning I have the "capability" to rape or abuse them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a distinction between capabilities and intentions. Despite La Brujita's hopping down to the third definition in order to slay a strawman, in this regard I am referring solely to having the physical capability to perform the act.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]


Women as well have the physical capability to assault your daughter.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a distinction between capabilities and intentions. Despite La Brujita's hopping down to the third definition in order to slay a strawman, in this regard I am referring solely to having the physical capability to perform the act.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

As you are such a linquist I might point out that you are completely wrong.

Under the following standard definition of capable:

" 3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence."

one could easily understand your statement to mean Paul has the inclination or disposition with respect to such an act.

You must think yourself really clever using language such as slaying a strawman. What the hell do you even mean?

n 1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man] 2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 3: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer]

Are you basically saying my using an dictionary accepted definition of the word is a weak or sham argument that is set up to be easily refuted?

In effect are you saying my argument was easily refutable but didn't refute it?

Do you ever fall so in love with the words and their meanings you don't think of the logic behind the words?

[CrisBrown]

bogey,

[ QUOTE ]
Say I came up to you and told you that I broke the law yesterday. Do you think it would be more likely I was caught speeding or that I committed a murder? Even not knowing me in the slightest you should be able to infer some probabilities there. But, according to you it seems they are equally likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the other posters have, you're so focused on poker odds that you're missing the point. There are some risks that, however remote, should be avoided because the downside is catastrophic.

Let's pick a number out of the air. Let's say that only 0.5% of men -- one-half of one percent -- would ever commit rape. Let's say my adult daughter (since people seem so much more squicked by child rape rather than adult rape) is in an office building, waiting for an elevator. The elevator door opens, and there is a lone man already in the car (he came from a lower floor and is also going up). By the 0.5% estimate, there is only a 1-in-200 chance that he would ever commit a rape. Should she take that elevator, or wait for another?

If you don't like the 0.5% figure, pick another, say 0.05%. Now there's only a 1-in-2000 chance that she would be getting into an elevator car alone with a would-be rapist. Now should she go ahead and take that risk? What if it's 1-in-20,000?

Most women that I know will not get into an elevator alone with an unknown man. Is that paranoid, or prudent? The cost of waiting for another elevator is insignificant. The downside risk of getting into the elevator with an unknown man is catastrophic. It doesn't matter that 199 times out of 200, or 1999 times out of 2000, or 1,999,999 times out of 2,000,000 ... nothing would happen. The ONE time that something does happen, it scars your life forever. Why take that risk?

Yes, operating simply by probabilities in a random population sample, the likelihood that Paul would rape my daughter is much less than the likelihood that I would cheat in online Scrabble. But the downside risks are not even comparable, and I would say that my refusal to leave my daughter alone with Paul -- or any other unknown adult male -- is much more prudent than Paul's refusal to play the game because I might cheat.

(Again, Paul had other adequate grounds for refusing to play the game -- having nothing to do with his estimation of whether he'd be more than a 3:1 favorite -- so in that respect the issue is moot.)

Cris

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Most women that I know will not get into an elevator alone with an unknown man.

[/ QUOTE ]

That surprises me. Many women I know have no problem getting into an elevator alone with an unknown man (I actually asked a few at work after reading your post).

[CrisBrown]

La Brujita,

The strawman fallacy is recasting your opponent's argument in an easily-refutable form, then refuting that new argument as if you were refuting the original argument. And that's exactly what you did. You chose a different definition for "capable" and applied it to my argument as if that were what I meant, thus changing my argument so that you could more easily refute it. (The technical term for this subset of the strawman fallacy is "argument by equivocation.")

For example:

Able: John is a great father; he loves his kids.

Baker (substituting another definition of "love"): How can you say John is a great father when he has sex with his kids?

Baker had equivocated on the word "love," and thereby created a new argument (John is a great father because he has sex with his kids), which he then refutes as if it were Able's argument.

And that is precisely what you did with my use of the word "capable."

Cris

[La Brujita]

Let me try to reason one more time with you.

The genesis of this discussion stemmed from the following:

1. Paul Phillips:

[ QUOTE ]
No thanks. My time has no particular value but I see no reason I'd want to play you, and I wouldn't trust you not to use computer assistance anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. CrisBrown:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you'd rape a 12-year-old girl. But I don't trust you not to rape a 12-year-old girl. So I would never let you anywhere near my daughter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition of trust:

1 Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2 Custody; care.
3 Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4

a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.

# Reliance on something in the future; hope.
# Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.

Do you see how the discussion relates to the character of the person in question to commit such an act or not?

You then explain your statement as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
It's no different from what Paul said. He is as capable of raping a 12-year-old girl as I am of cheating in an online Scrabble game. And I have no more reason to trust him not rape my daughter than he has to trust me not to cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now one has to try and understand in context which of the following definitions of capable allows one to move from lack of trust to capability while still maintaining the same meaning:

1. Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.
2. Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.
3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.
4. Permitting an action to be performed: an error capable of remedy; a camera capable of being used underwater.

Is it the mere capacity to have the act, or does it speak to Paul's inclination or disposition? It seems pretty clear to me.

When you said you didn't trust Paul not to rape a 12 year old you effectively stated you did not place a firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character.

[citanul]

Sorry people, this thread is over now. Just stop.

[ QUOTE ]
When did this become a contest of testicular girth? If it is, as a woman, I'm definitely gonna lose....

Seriously, I wouldn't read anything into it more than what Paul said: he can't think of a reason he'd want to play a game of Scrabble with me (which I take to mean he wouldn't enjoy the game), and he thinks I'd cheat (which I wouldn't). That he wouldn't enjoy the game is sufficient reason to decline the wager. I'm certainly not offended.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris isn't offended that Paul won't take the game. The game will not be played. Cris by now I'm sure understands that Paul has amongst his reasons that there is no way to detect her cheating, and that her cheating would be an unacceptable risk to him in this circumstance. Paul never said that he knew for sure that Cris wouldn't cheat, just that he wouldn't be able to prevent it, which would make the game not worth playing for him. We all agree that Cris thinks that leaving her 12 year old daughter alone with unknown strangers is an unacceptable risk ask well. None of us would either.

Done.

Everyone else stop being offended on Cris's part, and stop chomping at the bit from the rail.

Let's all agree to disagree (for the most part with Cris) and just let this thread die.

citanul

[MDBLakers]

GOOD LORD!!! WTF happened here?!? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I wake up and see this thread! What have I done here?!?
I should of never posted this comment on 09/24/04.
Can we just get back to talking poker? Isn't that was this forum is for. This thread should probably be moved to News, Views, Gossip or Other Other Topics section. Two places I never visit.

MDBLakers
stranger

Reged: 05/25/04
Posts: 16
Loc: San Diego, CA Re: An Interesting No Limit Question
09/24/04 12:55 PM Edit Reply Quote

"I say we settle this with an old fashion game of scrabble between Chris Brown and Paul Phillips. Reading their posts is like watching an episode of Dawson's Creek. The Vegas line is Paul Phillips at a 3 to 1 favorite."