Cris offers the wager to Paul

[The Ocho]

[ 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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the problem of relativism. Equating scrabble cheating to child raping is plain ridiculous.

Here's a similar analogy: you see some kid getting his lunch money stolen by a bully and you do nothing. You are thus as bad as whoever didn't try and stop Hitler.

I hope you can see what is wrong with this line of argumentation. The "raping daughter card" should be right up there with "Hitler card" in the category of poor argument strategy.

[citanul]

Cris,

If anything else needs to be said, here goes.

In your original post about this bet, you said you would play for your entire bankroll.

In this thread, you say you will play for $110.25.

Now, in this this thread, you say that

[ QUOTE ]
The money I stand to lose means (literally) nothing to me, as it's chump change with which I'm learning a new kind of poker at mirco-stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly not your entire poker bankroll.

Thus, you did not even bother to offer the wager to Paul.

If you would offer him the wager as originally stated, perhaps he might consider playing. By now, he may even consider meeting you at a location to play live, because he probably travels enough that he'll be in Florida eventually, or something.

If you really were hustling this match, it should be worth your time to put up your whole bankroll with your odds, and fly somewhere. I'm sure that amongst us, we could even generate your airfare.

I once again concede that you had no beef with Paul for turning down your wager, but the rail was looking down on it in a stupid way.

citanul

[bogey]

[ QUOTE ]

[ 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 ]

[cut]

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?

[cut]
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.

[cut]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, Your argument here is ok if your trying to make it for EV of the two situations, but that was not the original point. The flaw is in that the point of your analogy originally was to denounce Paul's line of reasoning.

Take Paul's original reasoning:
[ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I think you'd cheat. I said I wouldn't trust you not to cheat.


[/ QUOTE ]

You responded with:
[ 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 ]

Now, the only way for this analogy to make any sense is if you meant it to mean that Paul's reasoning was flawed by providing an extreme example of what this reasoning would mean if taken to the utmost degree. To argue this way would mean the truth of the situation is that you would obviously let Paul around your daughter despite him having the ability to rape (i guess a penis is all that is required), thus it is ridiculous to not play you just because you have the ability to cheat.

This is what I thought you tried to do. But you then said:
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, Paul is not AS capable of rape as anyone is of cheating. The probability is all that matters here. Nothing else needs to be taken into account to refute the above statement.

That aside, now you seem to be arguing that it makes perfect sense not to trust anyone around your 12 year old daughter. So what was the point of making the analogy in the first place since now the argument your making supports Paul's original argument?? I think you've argued yourself around in a complete circle.

[Alex Levin]

[ QUOTE ]

It's the problem of relativism. Equating scrabble cheating to child raping is plain ridiculous.

Here's a similar analogy: you see some kid getting his lunch money stolen by a bully and you do nothing. You are thus as bad as whoever didn't try and stop Hitler.

I hope you can see what is wrong with this line of argumentation. The "raping daughter card" should be right up there with "Hitler card" in the category of poor argument strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
The difference between your analogy and Cris's, is that she is not comparing cheating and rape on a "which is worse" scale as you are. Obviously, rape is a much more heinous offense, we all agree on that. The comparison lies in the idea that neither outcome is worth the risk that Paul or Cris would be taking by either playing scrabble or leaving one's daughter with a stranger. Paul and Cris do not know each other, so they cannot be justified in trusting each other, whether that trust lies in being fair in scrabble or not committing sexual assault.

[CrisBrown]

Hi citanul,

One one point only I will disagree. That $110.25 was my entire poker bankroll, at the time of that writing. I play only at PokerStars, and that was the sum in my account. While I could deposit more into my account -- and while I can easily afford to replace that should the need arise -- I've no reason to at present, because that sum is sufficient for the poker I'm playing right now.

If your argument is that this is not my entire bankroll because I could afford to replace it if need be, then what standard would you establish for the word "bankroll?"

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi bogey,

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, Paul is not AS capable of rape as anyone is of cheating. The probability is all that matters here. Nothing else needs to be taken into account to refute the above statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this regard, capability is not a probabilistic function. It's an either/or. Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeves are not capable of rape. Even if they had the desire, they lack the capability owing to physical limitations. Paul has no such limitations. That is all I meant by "capable," and to read more into it than that is to misstate my argument.

Cris

[citanul]

The reason I assume that is not your entire bankroll is because you said this was just a way for you to learn to play another new form of poker. I assumed that meant that you were used to playing for higher stakes at another game, as I believed was implied by your statement.

Bankroll is by definition the amount of money you have available to wager. A responsible bankroll, with a player playing within it, should be talking about all the money they ever need to gamble in whatever fashion they want. This money should not be in need of replacing.

So, if normally you play 10/20 with a BR of $6k, but right now, you're playing $5 sngs with a BR of $110, your BR is actually $6k, at a minimum. BR is not the amount you have deposited at any one site at any one time. It is the total amount you are willing to play with. Responsible gamblers have this money set aside from their living expenses.

citanul

[kmvenne]

The odds that if you played scrabble online for 18 years that you would find a cheater are 100%. The odds that if you played Scrabble online for one month that you would find a cheater, 100%. Am I the only one who is willing to admit I've done it? Not all the time, but sometimes I either strongly suspect cheating or find myself hopelessly outmatched, and I will use a word finder to in the first case even the score, and in the second try to improve myself by learning new words (I'd never steal a win against a better opponent who was on the level doing this, but I guess I've already thrown my etchical credibility into the crapper, so it doesn't matter).

Cheating is rampant online at scrabble/literati games. While 20% of young girls may be sexually assulted, that is over a period of 18 years, after they encounter tens of thousands of people. And I would be the greatest predator to sexual assult is a member of the extended family. The amount of scrabble cheaters fitting the profile of Cris (or myself, or anyone here) are far greater then the amount of child molesters fitting the profile of Paul (or myself, or anyone here).

[bogey]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi bogey,

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, Paul is not AS capable of rape as anyone is of cheating. The probability is all that matters here. Nothing else needs to be taken into account to refute the above statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this regard, capability is not a probabilistic function. It's an either/or. Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeves are not capable of rape. Even if they had the desire, they lack the capability owing to physical limitations. Paul has no such limitations. That is all I meant by "capable," and to read more into it than that is to misstate my argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you also said:
[ QUOTE ]

They are equally reasonable, or equally unreasonable. I have no more basis to assess whether Paul would commit rape than he has to assess whether I would cheat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I should have quoted this statement by you too then. Reasonableness or unreasonabless clearly is different from capability and is a direct consequence of probability.

[CrisBrown]

Hi citanul,

[ QUOTE ]
Bankroll is by definition the amount of money you have available to wager. A responsible bankroll, with a player playing within it, should be talking about all the money they ever need to gamble in whatever fashion they want. This money should not be in need of replacing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so we use the term "bankroll" differently. Fair enough. My statement -- way back when and again at the start of this thread -- used "bankroll" in the sense of that money immediately available for wagering ... i.e.: the money in my online account.

Cris