Why are the rudest, most bigoted comments on this forum always made by men?

[jknott]

Purely a statistical observation.

[faulty_damper]

Because you assume everyone is a man.

[theholygideons]

But it's true, everyone here possesses "member"-ship in some way or another.

[faulty_damper]

You mean wo-man?  So you mean everyone makes rude and bigoted comments?

[cabbynum]

F d
Is a woman

[jknott]

No the men do. It's a statistical observation.

[perfect_pitch]

Purely a statistical observation.

Because we've perfected it to an art form and make it our way of life???   

[thalbergmad]

The vast majority of members hear are men, so this statistic does not surprise me. One could also claim that all the insightful and helpful posts are made by men.

Women should stick to the housework and keep away from forums, as they are too chemically imbalanced for rational behaviour.

Thal

[jknott]

Well that just proves my post title

[outin]

Women should stick to the housework and keep away from forums, as they are too chemically imbalanced for rational behaviour.

Thal

What to do if not really cabable of housework?

[thalbergmad]

A woman who is incapable of housework is of no value.

Thal

[ahinton]

The vast majority of members hear are men

That may be the case, but how can we be certain?

Women should stick to the housework

Women should do what they want to do and what best suits them. "Housework" is a non-gender specific activity, as indeed it has to be because men and women who live alone have either to do it themselves or get someone to do it for them. Who does yours?

and keep away from forums

Why? And as what? - posters or even just readers?

as they are too chemically imbalanced for rational behaviour.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. To what particular chemical imbalances do you refer here? Who is to judge them? Are you a chemist? Who is to decide what behaviour is "rational" and what is not?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A woman who is incapable of housework is of no value.

No, of course not - not as a prime minister or president of a country, or as a CEO of a multinational company, or as a lawyer or barrister, or head teacher, or doctor or nurse, or even singer or instrumentalist. How strange, then, that so many of them are or have been one or other of these things!

Best,

Alistair

[kakeithewolf]

Women should stick to the housework and keep away from forums, as they are too chemically imbalanced for rational behaviour.

Thal

And men aren't imbalanced? Virtually all irrational behaviour comes from chemicals made as a result of the formation of GnRH, particularly testosterone, which governs rage and superfluous sex drive. The only ways you can even fix a man would be either via castration, specific dietary changes, use of particular chemicals to counteract the hypothalamus, or modification to the hypothalamus.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is a public forum where everything is out in the open. Women do all their bitching in quiet, behind people's backs.

[thalbergmad]

Brilliant, well said that man.

Thal

[outin]

A woman who is incapable of housework is of no value.

Thal

Not even as cat food?

[ahinton]

use of particular chemicals to counteract the hypothalamus, or modification to the hypothalamus

Since that includes Thal, let's not go there!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This is a public forum where everything is out in the open. Women do all their bitching in quiet, behind people's backs.

And the former (if not also the latter) might well constitute irrational behaviour of the kind to which Thal refers. That said, as I mentioned before, we cannot be sure about every forum member here as to whether they are men or women.

Best,

Alistair

[emill]

The vast majority of members hear are men, so this statistic does not surprise me. One could also claim that all the insightful and helpful posts are made by men.

Women should stick to the housework and keep away from forums, as they are too chemically imbalanced for rational behaviour.

Thal 

   

Well that just proves my post title   

HHmmmnnn, I can almost sense that Thal was kidding ...

[jknott]

Oh yes a likely defence.  "I was only joking."  Thus also no doubt branding feminists as humourless. 

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[thalbergmad]

Thus also no doubt branding feminists as humourless. 

Feminists tend to be fat, ugly, spotty, smelly and sometimes lesbian. They claim they don't like men, but in reality they are desperate for a good service, but no man would go near them.

Hence, humourless tends to be a trait.

Thal

[kakeithewolf]

Feminists tend to be fat, ugly, spotty, smelly and sometimes lesbian. They claim they don't like men, but in reality they are desperate for a good service, but no man would go near them.

Hence, humourless tends to be a trait.

Thal

I'm a feminist and I'm thin, decent looking, spotless, and male. You've got me on smelly though, but that is because I despise showering.

[ahinton]

Feminists tend to be fat, ugly, spotty, smelly and sometimes lesbian. They claim they don't like men, but in reality they are desperate for a good service, but no man would go near them.

Hence, humourless tends to be a trait.

...among Gravesend-based despisers of women, it would indeed seem...

Best

Alistair

[kakeithewolf]

...among Gravesend-based despisers of women, it would indeed seem...

Best

Alistair

Gravesend-based despisers of women are sometimes lesbian?

[thalbergmad]

I'm a feminist and I'm thin, decent looking, spotless, and male. You've got me on smelly though, but that is because I despise showering.

Fascinating, I have never encountered a male feminist.

Thal

[ranniks]

And men aren't imbalanced? Virtually all irrational behaviour comes from chemicals made as a result of the formation of GnRH, particularly testosterone, which governs rage and superfluous sex drive. The only ways you can even fix a man would be either via castration, specific dietary changes, use of particular chemicals to counteract the hypothalamus, or modification to the hypothalamus.

HEY NOW!

No need to go that far.

Thal was going too far, yes, but you went even farther. What's wrong with you? Castration? That's nothing to joke about!

Without us men there wouldn't be any women or men.

And without women there wouldn't be any men or women.

Get it?

Just ignore what Thal said.

And the OP is probably a feminist. I don't hate feminists, but I dislike them.

I believe in equal rights of everybody okay.

[kakeithewolf]

Fascinating, I have never encountered a male feminist.

Thal

That's probably because they're not particularly common.

HEY NOW!

No need to go that far.

Thal was going too far, yes, but you went even farther. What's wrong with you? Castration? That's nothing to joke about!

Without us men there wouldn't be any women or men.

And without women there wouldn't be any men or women.

Get it?

Just ignore what Thal said.

And the OP is probably a feminist. I don't hate feminists, but I dislike them.

I believe in equal rights of everybody okay.

I wasn't suggesting all men get castrated. I'm saying it's one of many ways to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus.

And nice to know that you apparently dislike me.

[jknott]

When did I diss statistics?

[ahinton]

Fascinating, I have never encountered a male feminist.

There are many things that you have not encountered, I suspect.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

When did I diss statistics?

Try repeating that ten times in rapid succession after three large gin and tonics...

Best,

Alistair

[ranniks]

That's probably because they're not particularly common.

I wasn't suggesting all men get castrated. I'm saying it's one of many ways to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus.

And nice to know that you apparently dislike me.

First you say men should get castrated. Then you say not all men should get castrated. And then you say it's one of the many ways to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus. That doesn't make sense. With the hypothalamus sentence you basically are suggesting all males getting castrated, is a way to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus.

Also, it is in the nature of men to have a healthy sex dosis. That does not mean all men are going to rape women. The people who do rape are monsters and psychopaths. I don't consider rapists men at all; they are vile creatures.

Men have a weakness; becoming very aroused when an attractive woman passes by.

Ever heard of many women calling men pigs? Well, what can a man do when a woman like this walks by?



Clearly the men are pigs, right? Clearly men should just hide their eyes in their hands when a scaricily clothed women passes by.

The fact is, that many women wear such scarce clothes because they seek attention of the opposite s3x.

In today's day and age many women wear very thight clothing. That's their own choice, but if one passes by who has a very nice behind, I will not hesitate to spare a glance. If you want to cut my testosterone levels because of that, you're very much in the wrong.

[kakeithewolf]

First you say men should get castrated. Then you say not all men should get castrated. And then you say it's one of the many ways to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus. That doesn't make sense. With the hypothalamus sentence you basically are suggesting all males getting castrated, is a way to fix an imbalanced hypothalamus.

Also, it is in the nature of men to have a healthy sex dosis. That does not mean all men are going to rape women. The people who do rape are monsters and psychopaths. I don't consider rapists men at all; they are vile creatures.

Men have a weakness; becoming very aroused when an attractive woman passes by.

Ever heard of many women calling men pigs? Well, what can a man do when a woman like this walks by?

Clearly the men are pigs, right? Clearly men should just hide their eyes in their hands when a scaricily clothed women passes by.

The fact is, that many women wear such scarce clothes because they seek attention of the opposite s3x.

In today's day and age many women wear very thight clothing. That's their own choice, but if one passes by who has a very nice behind, I will not hesitate to spare a glance. If you want to cut my testosterone levels because of that, you're very much in the wrong.

First, I'd like to point out that my first post listed the possible ways to fix imbalance, not recommended courses of action. Men seem to be more than satisfied with being the slave of their hypothalamus, and trying to change them forcibly is a meaningless effort. Sure, things like castration (and the plethora of other things I listed) are ways to fix people, but most people don't want to be fixed.

Most of your post is largely pointless, all things considered. You claim it is a necessity for a man to have a sex drive, yet I (among many others) am a testament to the opposite. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of having my mind addled and given orders by an incredibly primitive and largely useless part of my brain. You claim it is healthy, I've observed absolute evidence to the opposite.

And, considering I'm very well aware that you can easily turn on and off your ability to be attracted to people, I realize that men are in fact pigs, because like an animal, they decide of their own volition not to exercise any restraint or self-control. I can't very well side with people who don't give the slightest effort to control themselves, can I?

[ranniks]

First, I'd like to point out that my first post listed the possible ways to fix imbalance, not recommended courses of action. Men seem to be more than satisfied with being the slave of their hypothalamus, and trying to change them forcibly is a meaningless effort. Sure, things like castration (and the plethora of other things I listed) are ways to fix people, but most people don't want to be fixed.

Most of your post is largely pointless, all things considered. You claim it is a necessity for a man to have a sex drive, yet I (among many others) am a testament to the opposite. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of having my mind addled and given orders by an incredibly primitive and largely useless part of my brain. You claim it is healthy, I've observed absolute evidence to the opposite.

And, considering I'm very well aware that you can easily turn on and off your ability to be attracted to people, I realize that men are in fact pigs, because like an animal, they decide of their own volition not to exercise any restraint or self-control. I can't very well side with people who don't give the slightest effort to control themselves, can I?

Thank you for giving me sufficient reason to believe that many feminists are a dislikeable breed.

Your entire post sounded very arrogant. And thinking that you can even think the possibilities of your sick, twisted, morbid and disturbing ideas/fixes (call it what you will) to be solutions at all, it's just not good for my health.

Self-control? Wow. Wow!

I refuse to debate with you. I refuse it. Your post in this regard are morbid for me, very morbid.

This is exactly why many feminists vex me.

Wow, I just can't believe what I just read in your post.

Wow.

Wow!

Einstein, Bohr, Gates, Ford and other legends all had a good s3x drive. Look at them all! Beethoven, Mozart and all other composers that you dare to call 'pigs' all had very good s3x drives.

You know what? What am I even getting worked up over? A delirious person (for what else is he/she that suggests castration to 'fix' something that isn't broken) is what I'm getting worked up over.

Enjoy your sick and twisted ideas.

Good day.

I shall not be reading anything in this thread anymore. It is morbid. I will show self-control by not entering this thread anymore.

[swagmaster420x]

From Bayes' rule, the probability that a comment is by man given that it is bigoted is equal to the conditional probability that the comment was bigoted given it was made by a man, times the probability that the commenter is a man.

Based on your posts I think you're trying to come off as a math person - in that case it would be wise to demonstrate sound mathematical understanding. I've only done high school math, so I'm not really accustomed to these "rules" with fancy labels and wordy notated definitions which in this case really just states something that obviously follows, but from your post either you've got bayes rule wrong or baye sucks at math and doesn't deserve to have something named after him.

If you assume that half of bigoted comments are made by men and the other half by women, the probability that a comment is made by a man given that it is bigoted is .5
If The probability that the commenter is a man is .5, then every single statement made by a man would have to be bigoted, because from what you posted

" equal to the conditional probability that the comment was bigoted given it was made by a man, times the probability that the commenter is a man"

There is a hole in your reasoning...

[thalbergmad]

Men have a weakness; becoming very aroused when an attractive woman passes by.

Well, not the one in the picture you posted. I have seen more meat on an Ethiopean cows arse.

I once got aroused when i passed a banjo in a music shop, but it was a Paramount.

Thal

[kakeithewolf]

I once got aroused when i passed a banjo in a music shop, but it was a Paramount.

Thal

I have the same problem with Gellinger clavichords and any type of theorbenflügel.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[ahinton]

Well, not the one in the picture you posted. I have seen more meat on an Ethiopean cows arse.

I've never seen an Ethopian cow's arse so cannot comment on that but otherwise I do take your point, since the picture does nothing for me.

I once got aroused when i passed a banjo in a music shop, but it was a Paramount.

And apparently you got aroused only once; understandable, methinks, insofar as it might go for a banjo lover, although it would not have done the same for me.

Best,

Alistair

[swagmaster420x]

Let x be that the event that "the post is bigoted" and y be the event " the post is by a man".

In your example P(y|x)=P(y)=1/2. This means you are saying that the two random variables are statistically independent. In other words, knowing that the poster is bigoted, doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the poster is a man.  

How? If there are fifty bigoted comments and twenty five are made by men, then P(y|x)=1/2
I don't see how this shows or doesn't show independence. If you're saying that because the probability is one half then it's independent, you would be wrong. 20 bigoted comments could be made by women and 5 could be made by monkeys, which would show a correlation between being male and bigoted, because 1/2 would be he highest probability in that case.

And yes, you were wrong for the reason I pointed out. I plugged in values into your formula, and they didn't come anywhere close to working , or making sense. You were multiplying a value p(x|y),which could be smaller than p(y|x), by a decimal, which would make it even smaller. It was pretty clear to me that it was missing something - I even predicted that you would have to divide by another probability because p(x|y)p(y) is much too low in most sensible hypothetical scenarios to equal p(y|x).

[thalbergmad]

although it would not have done the same for me.

I take it in order to make that comment, you have viewed many of the Paramount range and found them to be less than visually stimulating.

Thal

[swagmaster420x]

Argument still goes through.

What argument? All you said was that if you surveyed the portion of bigoted comments made by either gender the answer to this discussion would become clearer. That is like, first glance obvious. The point of you citing bayes rule was not to actually make a point. And, you got it wrong, lol.

If you wanted to apply it more meaningfully, you would have said that because
P(made by man| bigoted)=P(bigoted|made by man)*P(made by man)

As P(made by man) goes up, so does P(made by man|bigoted). In other words, if men post more comments, then the portion of bigoted comments made by men goes up. Which means it is a confounding factor. But people have already mentioned that, so it's still pretty obvious. Like, if you want to use math to get attention because it's your jam, that's fine, but at least try to make it meaningful, and if it isn't then at least get it right please. Because if you truly understood Bayes law and how the numbers worked, you would not have made that error. You probably got it wrong because your memory failed you, and having to rely on memory means you suck at math

[jknott]

and as you slag each other off on maths you simply prove my point at least on rudeness.

[ahinton]

I take it in order to make that comment, you have viewed many of the Paramount range and found them to be less than visually stimulating.

The potential visual stimulation of a banjo of any kind as compared to that which might be offered by a woman is not, in my view, a subject that has any kilometrage going for it.

Best,

Alistair

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

:

[swagmaster420x]

STOP!!!!!! THAT FORMULA IS WRONG, CHIEF. You simply DON'T understand what a conditional probability is and are looking like a doofus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
ITS
P(made by man & bigoted)=P(bigoted|made by man)*P(made by man).
NOT
P(made by man| bigoted)=P(bigoted|made by man)*P(made by man).

BAYES RULE SAYS

P(made by man| bigoted)=P(bigoted|made by man)*P(made by man)/P(bigoted).

i know that, i was just using the (wrong) formula you posted to show what you could have used it for in your argument. Because you couldn't have used the information from the right formula, as you didn't realize you had it wrong until after you made your post and "argument".

No, that's the joint probability of man and bigoted, p(y,x). To get p(y|x) you need to divide by the marginal probability of x, p(x).  

doesn't p(y|x) mean the probability of y given x? There are 50 bigoted comments. 25 are made by men. Therefore, given that the object is a bigoted comment, there is a 1/2 probability that it was made by a man.

AND YEAH, IF P(Y|X) = P(X) THEN X AND Y ARE INDEPENDENT.

P(y|x)= 1/2. P(x) = Probability of a comment being bigoted = unknown in my example - I didn't state it. Therefore you can't tell whether or not x and y are independent in my example.

P(B|A)=P(A|B)*P(A)/P(B)

it's actually
P(B|A)=P(A|B)*P(B)/P(A)

(1) P(B|A)*P(B)=P(A,B)

WHY? DEFINITION OF CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY.

nah. think about it in your head. Say that the probability of an animal being a fox is .01 = P(B). SAy that the probability of fox being orange is 0.3 P(A|B)

The probability that an animal is an orange fox is clearly 0.01 * 0.3... or
1) P(B|A)*P(A)=P(A,B)

which is not what you posted

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Because most of the people here are men.