(04-06-2025, 03:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 02:12 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]
That has been done by countless posters in this string many times. Your making a judgement based on one text without any supporting evidence other than "I know better than everyone" which is not a valid assumption. Bottom line without any other information than a post on X the best that can be said is that is his experience in his practice. Anything more either way is indefensible.
I don't know better than everyone.
I'm just using logic more rigorously than anyone else in this thread at this time.
I invite you to join me.
Copycat called me a liar because in one place I said 90% and in another place I said "more than 90%"
I'm trying to explain to copycat, I'm not lying. But like most things with rigorous logic, there are steps.
Start at the beginning, and this is just one possible scenario:
Quote:Suppose he has 100 patients. How many of them would have to voluntarily offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal?
WOW you just proved my post !! LOL Thank you.
(04-06-2025, 08:55 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 05:11 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]You want to discuss logic with this word salad? Admit it, you lied! Not once but twice now.
Do you think the guy had a single conservative patient?
Judging by the meme, more than 10%.
(04-06-2025, 03:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 02:12 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]
That has been done by countless posters in this string many times. Your making a judgement based on one text without any supporting evidence other than "I know better than everyone" which is not a valid assumption. Bottom line without any other information than a post on X the best that can be said is that is his experience in his practice. Anything more either way is indefensible.
I don't know better than everyone.
I'm just using logic more rigorously than anyone else in this thread at this time.
I invite you to join me.
Copycat called me a liar because in one place I said 90% and in another place I said "more than 90%"
I'm trying to explain to copycat, I'm not lying. But like most things with rigorous logic, there are steps.
Start at the beginning, and this is just one possible scenario:
Quote:Suppose he has 100 patients. How many of them would have to voluntarily offer their political opinion before he would be able to say that his patients are 90% liberal?
The meme clearly stated “nearly 90%”.
You stated a flat 90%, which was an exaggeration and with anyone else I would have ignored it for what it was, rounding up and a slight exaggeration. Since you deal in absolutes though I called you out.
Next you doubled down and stated the good doctor said more than 90% of his patients were liberals. That was an absolute lie, do you deny it?
Then there was that weird justification of he spoke to more than 90% so therefore logically you weren’t lying?
Where did I gone explainer of baby step logic?
(04-06-2025, 04:56 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 03:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know better than everyone.
I'm just using logic more rigorously than anyone else in this thread at this time.
I invite you to join me.
Copycat called me a liar because in one place I said 90% and in another place I said "more than 90%"
I'm trying to explain to copycat, I'm not lying. But like most things with rigorous logic, there are steps.
Start at the beginning, and this is just one possible scenario:
The meme clearly stated “nearly 90%”.
You stated a flat 90%, which was an exaggeration and with anyone else I would have ignored it for what it was, rounding up and a slight exaggeration. Since you deal in absolutes though I called you out.
Next you doubled down and stated the good doctor said more than 90% of his patients were liberals. That was an absolute lie, do you deny it?
Then there was that weird justification of he spoke to more than 90% so therefore logically you weren’t lying?
Where did I gone explainer of baby step logic?
Ok, "nearly 90%" is a range of possible numbers, sure.
This wont change my point, but I'll play along.
Tell me if you disagree:
84% is not "nearly 90%". If the true value was 84%, he would have said "over 80%", to avoid deception.
But 85% is "nearly 90%". So is 89%. But not 90%. A number isn't nearly itself.
So he could have meant any number between 85% and 89%. Do you disagree?
(04-06-2025, 06:19 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 05:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, "nearly 90%" is a range of possible numbers, sure.
This wont change my point, but I'll play along.
Tell me if you disagree:
84% is not "nearly 90%". If the true value was 84%, he would have said over 80%, to avoid deception.
But 85% is "nearly 90%". So is 89%. But not 90%. A number isn't nearly itself.
So he could have meant any number between 85% and 89%. Do you disagree?
Dude you lied.
I'm trying to prove to you that I did not.
Please answer my question..
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
(04-06-2025, 07:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 06:19 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Dude you lied.
I'm trying to prove to you that I did not.
Please answer my question..
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
I would call it completely irrelevant to the original argument.
(04-06-2025, 07:58 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 07:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to prove to you that I did not.
Please answer my question..
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
I would call it completely irrelevant to the original argument.
The question is not for you. It is for copycat.
(04-06-2025, 08:43 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 08:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The question is not for you. It is for copycat.
![[Image: cant-handle-the-truth.gif]](https://media1.tenor.com/m/JkuKQ6Dpsj4AAAAd/cant-handle-the-truth.gif)
You should watch the movie again.
That line got Jack Nicholson's character sent to the brig.
Stop rooting for bad guys!
Aspies can't handle approximations, it defaults their brain wires.
(04-06-2025, 09:43 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Aspies can't handle approximations, it defaults their brain wires.
We certainly can. Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
(04-06-2025, 09:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 08:43 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]
You should watch the movie again.
That line got Jack Nicholson's character sent to the brig.
Stop rooting for bad guys!
Thanks, but I don't need to watch it again. I already know you're wrong. That was NOT the line that implicated him. Would you like to try again?
(04-06-2025, 10:18 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 09:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You should watch the movie again.
That line got Jack Nicholson's character sent to the brig.
Stop rooting for bad guys!
Thanks, but I don't need to watch it again. I already know you're wrong. That was NOT the line that implicated him. Would you like to try again?
Yeah technically the line was "you're g-- d--- right I did!" at the end. And even more technically it was his actions before the movie even starts to get him sent to the brig. He starts to lose control with the line "you can't handle the truth!" though. That's where he finally lets out that he thinks he's better than those lawyers and tries to prove it. But he's not better than the rest of the Marines.
If I make you feel like you're Jack Nicholson in that witness stand, you're losing.
(04-07-2025, 07:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 10:18 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks, but I don't need to watch it again. I already know you're wrong. That was NOT the line that implicated him. Would you like to try again?
Yeah technically the line was "you're g-- d--- right I did!" at the end.
Did you just admit that you were wrong about something???? My work here is done.
![[Image: mic-drop.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/1Q_54iUeBzUAAAAC/mic-drop.gif)
She dropped a BILLION, now this comes out........
Democrats Gave Social Media Influencers MILLIONS to PUSH Kamala Harris
Remember the summer before the 2024 election, when Kamala Harris supporters were trying to push 'Brat?'
They were trying to make the failed Democrat seem hip. With it. Cool.
Obviously she was not any of those things. Donald Trump handily won the election. Many younger voters even trended toward Trump.
Yet, we now learn those efforts to make Harris seem better than she actually was came from the pockets of rich Democrats.
https://www.foramerica.org/post/democrat...ala-harris
(04-07-2025, 08:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-07-2025, 07:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah technically the line was "you're g-- d--- right I did!" at the end.
Did you just admit that you were wrong about something???? My work here is done.
You're still simping for a guy who tried to get his sailors sent to the brig in his place.
(04-06-2025, 07:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 06:19 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Dude you lied.
I'm trying to prove to you that I did not.
Please answer my question..
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
Is nearly 9 equal to 9? No.
Is more than 9 equal to 9? No.
Stating otherwise is incorrect. Knowing this and using the incorrect data in the manner that you did makes it a lie. Now you’re trying to justify the lie. Does that make you unethical as well?
(04-07-2025, 09:34 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2025, 07:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to prove to you that I did not.
Please answer my question..
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?
Is nearly 9 equal to 9? No.
Is more than 9 equal to 9? No.
Stating otherwise is incorrect. Knowing this and using the incorrect data in the manner that you did makes it a lie. Now you’re trying to justify the lie. Does that make you unethical as well?
You answered a question I didn't ask.
The original text was "nearly 90%" Right?
Would you call any percentage that is less than 85 or greater than 89 "nearly 90%"?