Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Playball40]

It's Asheville for crying out loud! Why is he shocked?

 

[Bomb#20]

The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.

No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.

This is technically a true statement, however, it is still absolute nonsense.

It implies a sense of parity between sides when in reality, if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.

Why is it that you apply that principle to a thought from a dead guy that nobody at IIDB projected as true, but you won't apply that principle to thoughts that were projected and asserted to be true in this thread by a member? Are thoughts supposed to be exempt from critical examination if you agree with them?

Just because X can't be statistically disproven doesn't mean a reasonable conjecture can't be concluded based on a decent amount of observable evidence.

Quite so.. Don didn't supply a decent amount of observable evidence. He supplied two blatantly flawed studies and claimed they made his reasonable conjecture "certainly" true. That's why we're here.

The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.

Finally something we can agree on.

You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.

"gaslighting". What do you mean by that word? It looks like you mean "If you won't uncritically accept every anti-Charlie-Kirk claim leftists make regardless of quality of evidence then you're secretly a Charlie Kirk fanboy.". If that's not what you mean by it, feel free to explain yourself.

 

[Elixir]

Charlie Kirk is dead.
Things should be more peaceful now.
But they’re not. How come?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.

No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.

This is technically a true statement, however, it is still absolute nonsense.

It implies a sense of parity between sides when in reality, if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.

Why is it that you apply that principle to a thought from a dead guy that nobody at IIDB projected as true, but you won't apply that principle to thoughts that were projected and asserted to be true in this thread by a member? Are thoughts supposed to be exempt from critical examination if you agree with them?

Just because X can't be statistically disproven doesn't mean a reasonable conjecture can't be concluded based on a decent amount of observable evidence.

Quite so.. Don didn't supply a decent amount of observable evidence. He supplied two blatantly flawed studies and claimed they made his reasonable conjecture "certainly" true. That's why we're here.

The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.

Finally something we can agree on.

You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.

"gaslighting". What do you mean by that word? It looks like you mean "If you won't uncritically accept every anti-Charlie-Kirk claim leftists make regardless of quality of evidence then you're secretly a Charlie Kirk fanboy.". If that's not what you mean by it, feel free to explain yourself.

It means you aren't fooling anyone.