Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

[MrBogosity]

Apparently, he IS one to use sexual violence imagery...

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]8VG72nIR3E8[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

[yt]8VG72nIR3E8[/yt]

And then there's her comment: "I look forward to a calm and intelligent conversation in the comments ha ha j/k not reading them."

[AnCap Dave]

And then there's her comment: "I look forward to a calm and intelligent conversation in the comments ha ha j/k not reading them."

At this point, I'm not entirely sure why the internet atheist community even deals with her. She's a proven instigator and troublemaker.

[MrBogosity]

At this point, I'm not entirely sure why the internet atheist community even deals with her. She's a proven instigator and troublemaker.

Because Atheism+.

[AnCap Dave]

So apparently PAX is now run by puritans.


What the fuck is an "aggressive display of cleavage?"

[AnCap Dave]

The fail isn't so much from the people posting, but from the effect that social justice warriors are starting to have on gaming.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

[yt]5kvzamjQW9M[/yt]

[AdeptusHereticus]

[yt]8VG72nIR3E8[/yt]

I'm not sure I understand her well ... Is she saying that probability is evidence for each single sample unit ?

[AdeptusHereticus]

So apparently PAX is now run by puritans.


What the fuck is an "aggressive display of cleavage?"

Isn't that when booth babes shove your head in their cleavage to force you to look ? I hate when that happen ...

[AnCap Dave]

[ArtemisVale]

[yt]JVlqiimCX1M[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

I'm not sure I understand her well ... Is she saying that probability is evidence for each single sample unit ?

The idea is that since most accusations of rape are true, then the probability should swing towards the accuser. Others in the comments support this, saying it's just Bayesian reasoning.

It isn't.

Remember that the Likelihood Ratio is the probability of seeing the observed effect if the hypothesis were true, divided by the probability of seeing the same effect if the hypothesis were false.

Hypothesis: This guy raped the accuser.

Observation: The accuser says he raped her.

Numerator: Every time a guilty rapist is brought into court, the accuser says he's guilty. Therefore, p(D|H)=1.

Denominator: Every time an innocent person falsely accused of rape is brought into court, the accuser says he's guilty. Therefore, p(D|H')=1.

So the Likelihood Ratio is p(D|H)/p(D|H') = 1/1 = 1.

WHICH TELLS YOU FUCKING NOTHING!!!

EVERY person brought into court accused of rape has someone accusing him of committing the rape--if there weren't, HE WOULDN'T BE IN COURT!!!

Now while it may seem intuitive that the low percentage of false rape accusations is relevant, IT ISN'T. And that's the great thing about Bayesian reasoning: it helps avoid these fallacies.

[Travis Retriever]

The idea is that since most accusations of rape are true, then the probability should swing towards the accuser. Others in the comments support this, saying it's just Bayesian reasoning.

It isn't.

Remember that the Likelihood Ratio is the probability of seeing the observed effect if the hypothesis were true, divided by the probability of seeing the same effect if the hypothesis were false.

Hypothesis: This guy raped the accuser.

Observation: The accuser says he raped her.

Numerator: Every time a guilty rapist is brought into court, the accuser says he's guilty. Therefore, p(D|H)=1.

Denominator: Every time an innocent person falsely accused of rape is brought into court, the accuser says he's guilty. Therefore, p(D|H')=1.

So the Likelihood Ratio is p(D|H)/p(D|H') = 1/1 = 1.

WHICH TELLS YOU FUCKING NOTHING!!!

EVERY person brought into court accused of rape has someone accusing him of committing the rape--if there weren't, HE WOULDN'T BE IN COURT!!!

Now while it may seem intuitive that the low percentage of false rape accusations is relevant, IT ISN'T. And that's the great thing about Bayesian reasoning: it helps avoid these fallacies.

Stay classy commentors.  It's why I facepalm whenever they say "rape culture!" You know?