In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 311
Online now 591 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
Hehe I saw this on reddit the day it happened, but still funny as hell.
Have you watched the show at all?
Oh yeah. Classic.
Ya very much so, I get why he left. Had some of the best times watching it with my friends.
Just to be sure - we all know the fox news caption isn't real, right?
Cry Havoc; and let slip the dogs of war!
That is way too funny!
The whole thing is piece mealed. Why would Fox have a tag that it is "Americas Election HQ" in February 2013. It is still funny. It is like an Onion piece, because it is close enough to reality that it is believable. It is close enough to being possible that you were apparently concerned that people thought it was real.
It's not a reflection of my view of Fox news so much as a reflection of my view of the intelligence of the average welfare/elitist democrat.
This post was edited by phear_SC 14 months ago
Then why post your question in this thread? Are you aware of any welfare recipients on this board?
I'm aware of some elitists ... and are YOU aware of everyone's income? Why ask such a stupid question? How would I know everyone's financial status? What I do know is the law of large numbers suggests there are most certainly welfare recipients on this board - and you should know that too (you were, after all, a big man at an investment bank, right?) - so why post something useless?
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by phear_SC 14 months ago
I strongly doubt that there are welfare recipients on the OT board. What does investment banking have to do with knowing the number of welfare recipients on this board? That is very conservative logic. I do find it very ironic that you accuse others of being elitist.
It means you should be good with numbers and the law of large numbers (i.e. statistics) should be readily apparent to you. I guess I can see why all the IB's crashed now given your response. Further, just because I have had professional and academic success does not mean I am elitist. Conservatism is, by its very nature, antithetical to elitism. We ... I ... believe people can solve their own problems and govern themselves. Libs are the ones who believe a powerful few should control people's wealth and mandate outcomes as they see fit. I can't imagine anything more elitist outside of a full blown monarchy.
There is so much bullshit in your post, a shovel is not enough to get through it. I need a bulldozer.
I never claimed to be a analyst. I do not necessarily need to be fluent in statistics. As it so happens, I am. You just showed your ignorance of the law of large numbers. The rule merely states that with a large sample tested, the results should be close to the expected value. However, what is the expected value of welfare recipients on a USC OT board? You were obviously using society's expected value. That is obviously flawed.
You believe conservatives cannot be elitist? You've just proven that they can be delusional. Several conservatives on this board have argued that only those that pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Limiting votes to a certain class of people is elitist. Liberals do not believe a powerful few should control people's wealth. That is additional evidence that conservatives can be delusional. That is about as ignorant as saying that conservatives hate women because they don't want them to allow them to choose abortions.
The individual opinions of people who identify with conservatism is not the same thing as the ideals of being a conservative. Once again your logic is terrible as you're conflating the fallacy of subjectivism with a defined and definitional ideology.
As for the law of large numbers it is entirely reasonable to expect the board to reflect an amalgamation of society given the N. When it comes to stats you aren't qualified to hold my jock strap bro - and you know it. Reading the first 4 sentences on the wikipedia entry doesn't disqualify my statement - it supports it. Unless you can prove sample bias that's relevant to my point then the N is enough to create a statistically significant sample, which means it will reflect economic classes of society. Sure, football demographics will cut slightly differently than the total population, but it's absolutely absurd to suggest there is a meaningful difference with this many people on the board outside of gender. The bottom line is it's common sense that there are people on this board that collect/have collected/will collect welfare. That you don't understand basic numbers is why you're a liberal and why I don't respect investment bankers (i.e. glorified brokers). That you continually argue in this intellectually dishonest fashion is why you're a complete and total asshat.
You know it's sentences like this that give some people the impression that you are an elitist.
So if a doctor said, "You aren't qualified to hold my jock strap when it comes to diagnosing patients" would he be an elitist? This guy is a total doufus and my awareness of the difference between his quant skills and mine dosn't make me an elitist. It just makes me a realist. I'm sorry - but I'm pretty confident after the MIT degree and the USC engineering degree.
Ahhhh. YOU decide what conservatism is, not the majority of people that consider themself conservative. Your arrogance has not subsided at all. Conservatis is hardly subjective. Many conservatives define it differently.
If you are so good at stats, please explain why your screwed up in this case. This board is not a representative sample of society. I cannot believe you are really so stupid as to believe it is. You are trying to argue it is, because you are embarrassed by your mistake and you are the type to never admit that you made a mistake. Now instead of arguing facts, you try to take the Phear (aka: obnoxiously arrogant) approach. The burden is not for me to show that there is sample bias. The burden is on the person doing the test to show that the sample is representative
In any event, I can demonstrate the bias pretty easily. This board has a much higher than average amount of college graduates. College graduates are less likely to be on welfare. This board costs money. People on welfare are far less likely to pay for this type of entertainment. You argue that people on welfare are liberal. This board has a higher percentage of conservatives than society. The people on this board tend to be more literate than the average welfare recipient.
I find it amusing that you are claiming to be so good at statistics and are making such an obviously flawed argument. I also find it amusing that you call me an investment banker even though I have told you several times what I do and I am not and have never been an investment banker. Listening and learning is not your strong suit.
You try to come across as intelligent. However, given some of your arguments (e.g. that this board is a representative sample of society for purposes of determining the number of welfare recipients) makes me realize that you just try to bully some people with arrogance and are light on knowledge.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 14 months ago
He is wrong both on the facts and the logic.
(1) He does not even realize that the truth of the statement is not relevant to him being an elitist (his logic is wrong).
(2) He is wrong about this being a representative sample. If he believes that it is, he does not understand stats nearly as well as he claims (his facts are wrong).
I'll tell you those welfare checks come in mighty handy when paying that 24/7 VIP fee!
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
At no time have I suggested that I deserve favored treatment as a result of any of my accomplishments/abilities. You do know what elitist means, right? It's not the same thing as a perception of arrogance.
This is why I say you are intellectually dishonest. When did I ever say that I am the sole definer of conservatism? In fact - my entire point was that a single person or group of people do not ascribe meaning to a concept. 2+2 = 4 no matter what you or anything else thinks. Yet, as you frequently do on these boards, you have once again engaged in the fruitless activity building a straw man. NEVERMIND MY ENTIRE POINT WAS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU DREW! As I already said, "conservatism" has a definitional meaning and your inability to grasp the notion that concepts/facts exist independent of perception is yet another example of your use of the fallacy of subjectivism and the type of "reasoning" that has likely led to you being a democrat. Just for future reference - here is the definition to which I was referring earlier:
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Second - the sample bias you are noting is only a skew away from the total population. If were attempting to draw inferences about all of society then it would be important to solve the sample bias in the data set. But that's not the argument. The argument is - is there even ONE person on these boards that is on welfare? Just ONE. Therefor the the only variable that matters is income as a proxy for welfare. We're not running a regression - this isn't even really a statistics problem. You're just too ignorant to understand that it isn't because you obviously don't know what statistics really does at the core level. My reference to the law of large numbers was allegorical - given the number of people on these boards it is almost a certainty (strong form) that someone is on welfare. Neither of us have the facts to make the argument - but the odds favor the single occurrence much more than it does the lack therefor given the population of welfare users in this country. In fact, all we have to do is cull the total board population into the variables that strongly correlate with being on welfare: "Ethnicity, Location, Education Level" and I bet we can get a large enough sample size out of that simple subset such that it would be nearly a statistical certainty that someone from that subset is on welfare. But the point is - even without that - the only sample bias that matters is INCOME. You'd need to prove something like, "anyone on this board has an income over X which disqualifies them from welfare". A sample bias in loosely correlated factors is easily undone by the N. Do I need to do the math for you or can you grasp that obvious concept?
I find it almost disturbingly ironic that you say, "You try to come across as intelligent. However, given some of your arguments (e.g. that this board is a representative sample of society for purposes of determining the number of welfare recipients) makes me realize that you just try to bully some people with arrogance and are light on knowledge" when I couldn't think of a better description of your behavior here since you arrived. I know a lot of people here who think I am arrogant, but no one has ever accused me of being "light on knowledge".
I am intellectually dishonest? Really? Your posts never fail to contain irony. Math is far more exact that language. With all your self described brilliance, didn't you know that?
You defined conservatism to exclude anyone that is elitist. There are a couple of problems with that. First, that is YOUR definition, as I pointed out. It may not have been the point you were TRYING to make, but it is one that you DID make. Your analogy of a definition to a mathematical formula is nonsense. With all of your self proclaimed brilliance, didn't you realize that language is not as exact as math? You gave a definition (actually two). Another dictionary has five definitions (three numbers and two have subparts), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism. Notice that the definition that you gave is different than the one from the dictionary that I cite. As I stated, there is more than one definition for conservative. There is not one subjective answer to "what is the definition of conservatism?" unlike there being one answer to 2+2. If we look at more dictionaries, I am sure that we can find even more definitions.
First, I doubt there is one welfare recipient on the board. However, that is not the relevant question despite you trying to frame it that way. You Phearly (aka: obnoxiously) wrote: "It's not a reflection of my view of Fox news so much as a reflection of my view of the intelligence of the average welfare/elitist democrat." You were referring to ALL (not one) of the people that had posted in this thread. Simply having one welfare recipient on this board does not justify your inference that ALL of the people that had posted in this thread. In fact, one welfare recipient on this board does not even lead to the conclusion that one of the people responding is a welfare recipient. Believing that you need only one welfare recipient on this board to justify that obnoxious conclusion is inconsistent with the self proclaimed intelligence you claim that you have.
Something that you have apparently not learned in life is that obnoxiousnous does not equate to intelligence. In your case, you are not as intelligent as you believe and your obnoxiousnous undermines what intelligence you do have. Regarding no one challenging you on intelligence, bullies frequently don't get challenged. You rely on that to a large extent. I suspect that you are intelligent. However, you will argue things that an intelligent person would not just to try to seem even more intelligent. You have deep insecurity and it comes across as obnoxiousness. You are your own worst enemy. Sometimes, it is a good thing to read/listen to other and not try to assert your self proclaimed brilliance.
It's kind of ironic when discussing conservatism that the Republicans are not even very conservative. Edmund Burke would probably be a Democrat.
And what is the point of working out whether someone on the OT is on welfare again? And how does the law of large numbers apply to the OT when there are like 15 active posters? Any quantitative journal would laugh you out of town with such a small n!
Garbage - there are several thousand people on the OT board. There is a thread on the front page of this forum with 75,000+ views.
The N is fine.
And the argument doesn't matter in the slightest to the point I was making - but that's more of morethanafan's intellectual dishonesty.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports