A tricky question.

[Surlethe]

Analogy? What analogy? All I've said so far:

fetus = human being OR fetus != human being.

You've said it, and you've justified it with nothing but a flimsy hasty generalization (or analogy; you choose).

Again, the introduction of probability is completely unfounded. You did manage to catch onto my hint, though -- it's a nice cover for the circular assumption you otherwise would have invoked to pull out "better safe than sorry".

I'm sorry, I must be confused. Pray tell, what is the error in representing as a 50% chance the fact that a baseless assumption is equally as likely to be right as it is to be wrong?

Check out my previous post in the thread.

[brianeyci]

We can assume that Magus's penis will spawn a life-ending cancer or not. It's guaranteed to be one or the other, and science has yet to prove a conclusive answer whether it's one or the other so science is wrong. This is understandable, as the concept of Magus's long-thick penis is more the realm of fantasy than reality

But regardless, Magus's penis will either spawn a life-ending cancer or not, and we have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

Suppose we assume Magnus's penis will spawn a life-ending cancer :

Pros: The human race is spared the trouble of living with a dickless pervert.

Cons: We end up killing the human race (50% chance)

Suppose we assume Magus's penis does not spawn a life-ending cancer :

Pros: Magus lives (50% chance)

Cons: Humanity must live with an asshole who thinks pregnancy is an inconvenience who might make children.

What it comes down to is acceptable risk. If an individual decides that a 50-50 shot of killing the human race is an acceptable risk to take to guarantee a better life for Magus...then logically they should let Magus keep his tiny dick. If, however, the 50-50 odds are less than appealing to you, then you should operate under the assumption that Magus's penis will spawn a life-ending cancer.

The old adage, I believe, is "The less dicks the more pussy to go around."

[Magus]

Again, you prove you are a moron. Flip a coin once, there's still a fifty fifty chance of it turning up heads or turning up tails. Flip a coin a thousand times and there's still a fifty fifty chance each individual time. Your point could've been made with a single coin flip, but you chose 1000 times like a moron who doesn't understand probability. A sample size of one could easily have made your point, as stupid as it was.

I know that probability doesn't change the more you flip the coin. I knew that going into this discussion. But you can't demonstrate the probability of a coin toss with one toss. If you know nothing about coin tosses or probability and you flip a coin once, you can't examine the heads or tails that landed and extrapolate that the toss had an equal chance. Rather, you repeat the experiment, note the trend, and discover "Hey, all coins have a 50-50 chance of being heads".

No, no, you got it wrong. There's a possibility of two outcomes, cancer or no cancer. Therefore there's a 50-50 chance that Magus is going to mutate a cell in his penis.

Unfortunately, that's a blatent misrepresentation of my model. Suppose I do have cancer in my penis. Now suppose you know nothing about the statistical likelihood of that occurring. Now suppose you are asked whether I do or do not have cancer in my penis. You have a 50% chance of being right.

It would seem to me that the true object of the board's derision is my claim that a belief one way or the other is "baseless." If that is the case, then it is my presumption that you(all) should be attacking, rather than my logic that follows from it.

[Darth Wong]

It would seem to me that the true object of the board's derision is my claim that a belief one way or the other is "baseless." If that is the case, then it is my presumption that you(all) should be attacking, rather than my logic that follows from it.

What would be the point, since I've been doing exactly that, and you've been ignoring those criticisms? I pointed out in some detail WHY your claim of baselessness is totally wrong, and your only response was to literally appeal to your own opinion.

[Magus]

Bullshit. Here, let me perform a demonstration. *scratch scratch* I just scratched my ass. In doing so, I killed numerous skin cells. That is death of human tissue with just as much sentience as a post-conception clump of cells. Are you saying that this is worse than what happens to a woman in pregnancy?

Not at all. As soon as I learn of the point at which intelligent thought moves from the "completely impossible" to the "improbable," I will revise my views. This doesn't have to be set in stone - I just need to be certain that intelligent thought is an impossibility before I'm comfortable exterminating the life in question.

So, I suppose, as a question to you, Mr. Wong - At what point are you no longer certain that a zygote doesn't have intelligent thought? Why?

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. Here, let me perform a demonstration. *scratch scratch* I just scratched my ass. In doing so, I killed numerous skin cells. That is death of human tissue with just as much sentience as a post-conception clump of cells. Are you saying that this is worse than what happens to a woman in pregnancy?

Not at all. As soon as I learn of the point at which intelligent thought moves from the "completely impossible" to the "improbable," I will revise my views. This doesn't have to be set in stone - I just need to be certain that intelligent thought is an impossibility before I'm comfortable exterminating the life in question.

So, I suppose, as a question to you, Mr. Wong - At what point are you no longer certain that a zygote doesn't have intelligent thought? Why?

Have you got a reading comprehension problem, asshole? I already pointed out that an immediate post-conception zygote has zero brain tissue. Ergo, it is impossible for it to think. It is just as impossible as it is for one of my skin cells to start thinking.

I don't appreciate having to repeat myself for the benefit of some ignorant moron who can't be bothered to read an argument before answering it.

[brianeyci]

Again, you prove you are a moron. Flip a coin once, there's still a fifty fifty chance of it turning up heads or turning up tails. Flip a coin a thousand times and there's still a fifty fifty chance each individual time. Your point could've been made with a single coin flip, but you chose 1000 times like a moron who doesn't understand probability. A sample size of one could easily have made your point, as stupid as it was.

I know that probability doesn't change the more you flip the coin. I knew that going into this discussion. But you can't demonstrate the probability of a coin toss with one toss. If you know nothing about coin tosses or probability and you flip a coin once, you can't examine the heads or tails that landed and extrapolate that the toss had an equal chance. Rather, you repeat the experiment, note the trend, and discover "Hey, all coins have a 50-50 chance of being heads".

Hahaha you are a backpedaling lying shit. Remember you said this,

There is no butchery of mathematics, Surlethe. In discussing a hypothetical coin toss, one assumes an equally weighted coin, no air resistance, and that I am not a cheating bastard who will change the coin after you call heads or tails. Grow up...

Equally weighted coin, no air resistance, not a cheating bastard, all odds even... therefore, you flip a coin once, 50-50 chance. You do not need to do an experiment. And even if you did, what made you pick 1000, and not 100000, or 100000000000 or 100 or 999999999999 or 8472 or 2? It looks like you thought more coin flips would make your distribution more even, hence your claim that it would be "close" to 50% instead of exactly 50%. In other words you stupidly believed in some kind of karmatic bonus.

Unfortunately, that's a blatent misrepresentation of my model. Suppose I do have cancer in my penis. Now suppose you know nothing about the statistical likelihood of that occurring. Now suppose you are asked whether I do or do not have cancer in my penis. You have a 50% chance of being right.

It would seem to me that the true object of the board's derision is my claim that a belief one way or the other is "baseless." If that is the case, then it is my presumption that you(all) should be attacking, rather than my logic that follows from it.

Wrong. I say I don't know. I don't pull numbers out of my ass. I don't know whether I have a fifty percent chance of being right, because I am working under the assumption that I know nothing about the statistical likelihood of that occurring. You dumbshit.

[Surlethe]

Even if we accept his presumption of baselessness, Magus' argument for 50/50 is still a Hasty Generalization. By that logic, in general, for any proposition A, the probability of A is 50%, since either A or not A is true.

[Magus]

Have you got a reading comprehension problem, asshole?

Not at all.

I already pointed out that an immediate post-conception zygote has zero brain tissue. Ergo, it is impossible for it to think. It is just as impossible as it is for one of my skin cells to start thinking.

Now if only it answered the question, which was:

At what point are you no longer certain that a zygote doesn't have intelligent thought?

I asked for when the certainty no longer exists.

I don't appreciate having to repeat myself for the benefit of some ignorant moron who can't be bothered to read an argument before answering it.

Likewise.

[Magus]

Even if we accept his presumption of baselessness, Magus' argument for 50/50 is still a Hasty Generalization. By that logic, in general, for any proposition A, the probability of A is 50%, since either A or not A is true.

By my presumption of baselessness, does that not imply that, additionally, there are no forces operating on the formulation of proposition A that would shift it towards either the truth or falsehood?

[brianeyci]

I asked for when the certainty no longer exists.

Hey moron, it doesn't matter if science doesn't know exactly when a zygote becomes a fetus or a fetus develops a brain stem. We know when it does not for sure and that is enough. You never answered that point and ignored it and I'm calling you out on it... since when does science have to be perfect to be right? And by the way, responding with a little arrogant quip "Likewise" is likely to get you banned.

[Surlethe]

By my presumption of baselessness, does that not imply that, additionally, there are no forces operating on the formulation of proposition A that would shift it towards either the truth or falsehood?

Why would it?

[Magus]

We know when it does not for sure and that is enough.

You've defined a domain with no upper limit. How can one say "abortion is alright inside this domain because the fetus doesn't have a brain," if the domain isn't even complete?

You never answered that point and ignored it and I'm calling you out on it...

I would like to refer back to:

Not at all. As soon as I learn of the point at which intelligent thought moves from the "completely impossible" to the "improbable," I will revise my views. This doesn't have to be set in stone - I just need to be certain that intelligent thought is an impossibility before I'm comfortable exterminating the life in question.

I addressed the point quite plainly. There are points where intelligent life is not at all possible. I'm only looking for some upper limit. It doesn't have to be the "magic changing point" - just the highest point anyone here knows about that the zygote is completely incapable of intelligent life.

[Magus]

By my presumption of baselessness, does that not imply that, additionally, there are no forces operating on the formulation of proposition A that would shift it towards either the truth or falsehood?

Why would it?

Because such forces would be a basis for the proposition's claims, and we're assuming a baseless proposition.

[Darth Yoshi]

According to wiki, the human fetus undergoes rapid development during the 25-28th weeks of pregnancy. Granted, this is a wiki article, but that provides a very conservative estimate on when the fetus can be considered thinking, since you obviously can't think if you don't have a brain.

[Magus]

According to wiki, the human fetus undergoes rapid development during the 25-28th weeks of pregnancy. Granted, this is a wiki article, but that provides a very conservative estimate on when the fetus can be considered thinking, since you obviously can't think if you don't have a brain.

25 weeks with no functional brain? Thanks Yoshi, that's just what I needed.

[brianeyci]

We know when it does not for sure and that is enough.

You've defined a domain with no upper limit. How can one say "abortion is alright inside this domain because the fetus doesn't have a brain," if the domain isn't even complete?

There are functions with no supremum all over the place and I can define that function and talk about it. Don't talk about what you don't understand or try and insert mathematical jargon when you don't have a clue.

I addressed the point quite plainly. There are points where intelligent life is not at all possible. I'm only looking for some upper limit. It doesn't have to be the "magic changing point" - just the highest point anyone here knows about that the zygote is completely incapable of intelligent life.

Why should people here have to do your homework for you? Why don't you find out when the brain stem develops? And no doubt if someone says X weeks you will trot out an example of that happening at X - 1 weeks as if a single case refutes general medical opinion. Grow a brain.

[Surlethe]

Because such forces would be a basis for the proposition's claims, and we're assuming a baseless proposition.

Not so. A baseless proposition is one the truth of which we do not know. We don't know if we were created thirty seconds ago; does that mean we have a 50% of being created in place with all our memories thirty seconds ago? Think; it's not difficult to find counterexamples to your assertion.

[Magus]

Because such forces would be a basis for the proposition's claims, and we're assuming a baseless proposition.

We don't know if we were created thirty seconds ago; does that mean we have a 50% of being created in place with all our memories thirty seconds ago?

No...it means that if we have truly no preconceived notions about what occurred, then our distribution between believing that or not has no overall slant towards one or the other.

This doesn't apply to the reality of the situation - only the perception.

[brianeyci]

Have you ever taken a course in symbolic logic Magus? A is either true or false, but that has no connection to probability at all and if I said there was a 50% chance of it being true or it being false I'd be full of shit. This combined with your poor understanding of probability with the 1000 coin flips and you believing that I can't define a function without a supremum (and moreover that such a function has an incomplete domain, do you even know what that means) leads me to believe you are talking out of your ass. Take a hint, do some homework, and stop being so full of yourself.

[Magus]

Have you ever taken a course in symbolic logic Magus? A is either true or false, but that has no connection to probability at all and if I said there was a 50% chance of it being true or it being false I'd be full of shit. This combined with your poor understanding of probability with the 1000 coin flips and you believing that I can't define a function without a supremum (and moreover that such a function has an incomplete domain, do you even know what that means) leads me to believe you are talking out of your ass. Take a hint, do some homework, and stop being so full of yourself.

I have yet to present myself as arrogant...and once again you're misreading my posts. A is either true or false - Heck, let's just make it true. When I'm discussing 50% odds, I'm referring to someone with no bias towards concluding A or away from concluding A - and what there odds are of concluding A. Not whether A is true - whether a human without a clue will conclude A or not.

[Darth Wong]

Magus is obviously too fucking stupid to realize that the premise "there are two possibilities" only means "50% probability" if we assume that the process is completely random.

I have yet to present myself as arrogant...and once again you're misreading my posts. A is either true or false - Heck, let's just make it true. When I'm discussing 50% odds, I'm referring to someone with no bias towards concluding A or away from concluding A - and what there odds are of concluding A. Not whether A is true - whether a human without a clue will conclude A or not.

A human without a clue would still know that the process of pregnancy is not random, dumbfuck. It has mechanisms and direction. Ergo, it is totally unreasonable to claim that there is a 50/50 chance.

PS. Your insistence on talking about "bias" and "certainty" reeks of religious apologist bullshit. It's all the same kind of language they always use in order to dismiss scientific conclusions. Which, not coincidentally, is precisely what you are doing here when you unilaterally declare that science can come to no conclusion just because you personally don't find it convincing.

[Magus]

Magus is obviously too fucking stupid to realize that the premise "there are two possibilities" only means "50% probability" if we assume that the process is completely random.

What is an individual conclusion based on no data if not completely random?

[Darth Wong]

Magus is obviously too fucking stupid to realize that the premise "there are two possibilities" only means "50% probability" if we assume that the process is completely random.

What is an individual conclusion based on no data if not completely random?

You are deliberately confusing the probability of someone coming to a certain conclusion with the probability of a particular conclusion being true, you deceptive little twat.

[brianeyci]

I have yet to present myself as arrogant...and once again you're misreading my posts. A is either true or false - Heck, let's just make it true. When I'm discussing 50% odds, I'm referring to someone with no bias towards concluding A or away from concluding A - and what there odds are of concluding A. Not whether A is true - whether a human without a clue will conclude A or not.

A is true or A is false does not imply there are fifty percent odds for both possibilities dumbshit. How many times to people have to mention that to you? And even with your claim of "baseless" or "no other information available" that does not change the odds for one or the other, simply makes the odds unknown with two possible outcomes. Again, how much mathematical training do you have and why did you make such blatant, simple mistakes? Maybe you should shut up before you make more of a fool of yourself.