The Battle Against the A.P.A. Resolution

[musicman]

And you sir should consider a career in fertilizer.

Answer this very simple question if you may. If 1% of homosexuals are pedophiles and 1% of heterosexuals are pedophiles, out of a group of 100 homosexuals and a group of 100 heterosexuals, what is the probability within each group of there being a pedophile?

What the hell difference does it make? If pride A, consisting of three lions, is killing nearly as many livestock as pride B, which consists of ninety-seven lions, doesn't this suggest something to you about pride A?

 

[MissileMan]

What the hell difference does it make? If pride A, consisting of three lions, is killing nearly as many livestock as pride B, which consists of ninety-seven lions, doesn't this suggest something to you about pride A?

First, nearly as many is an exaggeration. It is possible that the split is 60/40, but it's also possible that it's as low as 92/8 depending on whose research you look at. But yes, it suggests that the lions in pride A kill more livestock per indiviual than those in pride B. Are all 100 lions involved in the killing of the livestock?

 

[musicman]

First, nearly as many is an exaggeration. It is possible that the split is 60/40, but it's also possible that it's as low as 92/8 depending on whose research you look at.

Dr. Satinover's guess appears to be an anomaly amid a pretty impressive body of empirical scientific evidence, which puts the number at 20-40% of all molestations. In the absence of any hard, researched numbers to back the anomaly, I am inclined to view it as such.

But yes, it suggests that the lions in pride A kill more livestock per indiviual than those in pride B. Are all 100 lions involved in the killing of the livestock?

We're asking our rancher to slice his definitions pretty thin, aren't we - considering his livelihood is being snatched out from under him? Seems to me, the information that pride A is taking his animals at a rate that is wildly out of whack with its population numbers is something he ought to have. He can worry about getting all fine and psychological with it after he's saved his business - right?

 

[MissileMan]

Dr. Satinover's guess appears to be an anomaly amid a pretty impressive body of empirical scientific evidence, which puts the number at 20-40% of all molestations. In the absence of any hard, researched numbers to back the anomaly, I am inclined to view it as such.



We're asking our rancher to slice his definitions pretty thin, aren't we - considering his livelihood is being snatched out from under him? Seems to me, the information that pride A is taking his animals at a rate that is wildly out of whack with its population numbers is something he ought to have. He can worry about getting all fine and psychological with it after he's saved his business - right?

But does he have to kill all 100 lions or only the few that are killing livestock?

 

[musicman]

But does he have to kill all 100 lions or only the few that are killing livestock?

Does he have time to make that fine a distinction, though? Remember - he's bleeding out. He's got to act - quickly and effectively. "Good lion-bad lion" has to wait until the crisis has been addressed.

 

[MissileMan]

Does he have time to make that fine a distinction, though? Remember - he's bleeding out. He's got to act - quickly and effectively. "Good lion-bad lion" has to wait until the crisis has been addressed.

Before you advocate the "shotgun" solution remember that you and I are non-offending members of pride B. Simply killing the lions in pride A doesn't save his livestock either.

 

[GotZoom]

What if they were woodchucks? Let's say you had two groups of woodchucks.

One group has 17 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left New York City traveling south at 149 miles an hour.

The other group has 86 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left Miami traveling north at 52 miles an hour.

If the temperature outside stayed at a steady 60 degrees (which some people find to be absolutely perfect), how long would it take each group of woodchucks to eat 33 pedophiles?

 

[MissileMan]

What if they were woodchucks? Let's say you had two groups of woodchucks.

One group has 17 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left New York City traveling south at 149 miles an hour.

The other group has 86 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left Miami traveling north at 52 miles an hour.

If the temperature outside stayed at a steady 60 degrees (which some people find to be absolutely perfect), how long would it take each group of woodchucks to eat 33 pedophiles?

You'll have to consult Peter Piper to get a definitive answer.

 

[musicman]

Before you advocate the "shotgun" solution remember that you and I are non-offending members of pride B. Simply killing the lions in pride A doesn't save his livestock either.

But, throughout ranching history, members displaying the characteristics of pride A have been recognized as deviant and especially dangerous lions. Now, there's a movement afoot in the land (let's call it "political correctness"), whereby ranchers may not take special precautions against pride A type lions; doing so will earn them the labels "hater" and "phobic". Faced with irrefutable evidence of the heightened danger presented by pride A type lions, what is our rancher to do?

 

[musicman]

What if they were woodchucks? Let's say you had two groups of woodchucks.

One group has 17 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left New York City traveling south at 149 miles an hour.

The other group has 86 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left Miami traveling north at 52 miles an hour.

If the temperature outside stayed at a steady 60 degrees (which some people find to be absolutely perfect), how long would it take each group of woodchucks to eat 33 pedophiles?

A: Julius LaRosa

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What if they were woodchucks? Let's say you had two groups of woodchucks.

One group has 17 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left New York City traveling south at 149 miles an hour.

The other group has 86 woodchucks chucking wood on a train that left Miami traveling north at 52 miles an hour.

If the temperature outside stayed at a steady 60 degrees (which some people find to be absolutely perfect), how long would it take each group of woodchucks to eat 33 pedophiles?

African or European woodchucks?

 

[musicman]

African or European woodchucks?

AAAAHHHHHH....!

 

[Kagom]

This is a classic example of the liberal "utopia". Kag... it doesn't exist, never has, never will. This is part of what I mean when I say you need to come back to earth, and that you've been DEEPLY indoctrinated into the liberal mindset. Your reality isn't that of what is.

I know this utopia doesn't exist and cannot exist. This world isn't perfect, that's why. Pale, I'm not indoctrinated into any one political mindset. Some things I lean more to one side than the other. I'm more moderate than liberal or conservative.

 

[MissileMan]

But, throughout ranching history, members displaying the characteristics of pride A have been recognized as deviant and especially dangerous lions. Now, there's a movement afoot in the land (let's call it "political correctness"), whereby ranchers may not take special precautions against pride A type lions; doing so will earn them the labels "hater" and "phobic". Faced with irrefutable evidence of the heightened danger presented by pride A type lions, what is our rancher to do?

The vast majority of the members of pride A are non-offenders, just like pride B. The danger to the livestock is presented by a minority among both prides. As a matter of fact, more livestock is at risk from pride B than from pride A. What IS our rancher to do?

 

[musicman]

The vast majority of the members of pride A are non-offenders, just like pride B. The danger to the livestock is presented by a minority among both prides. As a matter of fact, more livestock is at risk from pride B than from pride A. What IS our rancher to do?

Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get. Part of that good information is that pride A lions - solely by virtue of the fact that they are pride A lions - are an exponentially greater threat to his livestock, relative to their population numbers. Pride A characteristics are things he should regard with suspicion and distrust, if he wishes to remain in business. If that makes him a "hater" or "phobic", he'll just have to learn to live with it.

 

[MissileMan]

Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get. Part of that good information is that pride A lions - solely by virtue of the fact that they are pride A lions - are an exponentially greater threat to his livestock, relative to their population numbers. Pride A characteristics are things he should regard with suspicion and distrust, if he wishes to remain in business. If that makes him a "hater" or "phobic", he'll just have to learn to live with it.

But not a greater threat in relation to the total number of his livestock. To save the maximum number of livestock, the obvious solution is to target the offenders in both pride A and B. Singling out pride A offenders because you "feel" that they are a greater threat when in sheer numbers the grester threat is posed by pride B is nonsensical.

 

[musicman]

But not a greater threat in relation to the total number of his livestock. To save the maximum number of livestock, the obvious solution is to target the offenders in both pride A and B.

Right. That's why I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get.

Singling out pride A offenders because you "feel" that they are a greater threat when in sheer numbers the grester threat is posed by pride B is nonsensical.

No - NOT singling out pride A members when you KNOW - not "feel" - that they are far more dangerous relative to their numbers - out of some misbegotten notion of "fairness" - is not only nonsensical - it's a good way to go out of business. Willful blindness is the path to disaster.

 

[MissileMan]

Right. That's why I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get.



No - NOT singling out pride A members when you KNOW - not "feel" - that they are far more dangerous relative to their numbers - out of some misbegotten notion of "fairness" - is not only nonsensical - it's a good way to go out of business. Willful blindness is the path to disaster.

So your it's your contention that the proper action is to single out the group that is a threat to 20% rather than the group that's a threat to 80%. If it makes sense to you, more's the pity. Talk about willful blindness.

 

[musicman]

So your it's your contention that the proper action is to single out the group that is a threat to 20% rather than the group that's a threat to 80%. If it makes sense to you, more's the pity. Talk about willful blindness.

Is that what you got out of this post:

Originally Posted by musicman
Right. That's why I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
"Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get.

No - NOT singling out pride A members when you KNOW - not "feel" - that they are far more dangerous relative to their numbers - out of some misbegotten notion of "fairness" - is not only nonsensical - it's a good way to go out of business. Willful blindness is the path to disaster."?

If so, then - quite frankly - I believe you're seeing what you want to see.

 

[MissileMan]

Is that what you got out of this post:

Originally Posted by musicman
Right. That's why I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman
"Guard his livestock vigilantly against all invaders, first and foremost - with all the energy, intelligence, and good information he can get.

No - NOT singling out pride A members when you KNOW - not "feel" - that they are far more dangerous relative to their numbers - out of some misbegotten notion of "fairness" - is not only nonsensical - it's a good way to go out of business. Willful blindness is the path to disaster."?
If so, then - quite frankly - i believe you're seeing what you want to see.

You quite plainly said it here.