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

[swagmaster420x]

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).  

heh if there are 10000 comments, 50 bigoted comments and 25 bigoted comments made by a man, the joint probability that a comment is bigoted and that it is made by a man is is 25/10000. the conditional probability is 25/50, which is what i said. idk why you're even arguing with me when i'm clearly better at math... OOOOOOOOOOO

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[j_menz]

Given you both fall into the "men" category, you seem to be upping the P with each post.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[swagmaster420x]

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)

AHHJH!!!!! NO!!!! That's the probability that the animal is orange GIVEN that the animal in question is a fox. That is something different than the probability that the animal is a fox given that it is orange. DUDE, the relationship is given by Bayes' Rule. I didn't come up with it or axiomatize probability theory.

are you seriously that dumb? The probability of a fox being orange is the same thing as the probability that an animal is orange given that it is a fox

P(B) is probability of animal being fox
In P(A|B) the B comes after the A, so it is GIVEN B, or GIVEN that the animal is a fox. do you not understand notation?

[j_menz]

Someone want to hazard a guess at the likelihood an animal is a fox given that it is orange?

[swagmaster420x]

YOU ARE A STUPID IDIOT.

YES, P(man|bigoted) =0.5

BUT WHERE IN THAT *** INFORMATION DID YOU SPECIFY THE MARGINAL PROBABILITY OF THE COMMENTER BEING A MAN?

um, i'm pretty sure here you insisted that it was the joint probability: https://i.imgur.com/niMaZdh.png

you even went on to say I didn't understand conditional probability... when you clearly just mistook a conditional probability for a joint one

the marginal probability of any commenter being a man doesn't matter, because all the information you need to find the probability that a bigoted comment was by a man is
50 bigoted comments
25 of them are by men

you are obsessed with trying to fit things into formulas, which is a sign that you are a poor mathematician. You don't memorize formulas. You understand them so you can fluidly utilize the concepts they demonstrate.

By now i'm more than sure i'm better than you at math.... and ticked off that you posted fermat's theorem as if you had the authority or skill to deal with any math at that level.

[kakeithewolf]

I remember, faintly, when this thread WASN'T about math.

[joplinfreak]

Were looking at this from the wrong perspective. The reality is we don't have exact information to complete the formula (all bigoted comments are by men). If the poster doesn't choose to reveal his gender then the argument is null and void before it even starts. Men and women are human beings are they not? And as such are capable of the same acts whether good or bad. The very definition of bigoted is "having belief in the superiority of your opinion, and applying prejudices to the opinions of others." Every one is guilty of this wrong at some point in their life, and those that don't believe so truly are BIGOTED.

[swagmaster420x]

by the way, let me rehash.

you made an obvious mistake in the math you were trying to show off.

it was obvious because i read what you posted and after processing the math you notated immediately noticed that it wouldnt work.

I know it was a "typo" *cough*mistake because only capable of memorizing *cough*, but the reason why I used it in my demonstration was to assume your perspective. I was wondering what the point of posting that formula was, because all you used it for was to state the obvious, which was that if you took a survey to find out what proportion of bigoted comments were made by which gender, this discussion would be easier.

I was trying to say how you COULD have used the formula posted to contribute in a more meaningful way. I couldn't use the correct one as an example, because I was assuming your position as only having the WRONG FORMULA for reference.

[swagmaster420x]

were you any good at math in high school, by the way?

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[swagmaster420x]

All your arguments about the wrong formula are idiotc because if you take the expressioj literally, P(B)=1 then the expression is utterly useless and trivial: P(a)=P(a).  This is the only sensible interpretation of the equation with the typo, idiot.

strange typo, to exclude so many keystrokes...

[chopinfrederic]

Because most men in this world are rude. There are only a few good ones.

[birba]

.

what is it with these "comments"?!  You've posted 3 or 4 times.  One actually had a semi-colon. Am i missing out on something?

[j_menz]

Am i missing out on something?

The original posts. The "."s are edits/deletes.

[Bob]

Maybe men are just wired up to be better bigots than women.  Just throwing it out there.

[joplinfreak]

You know we are. 

[Bob]

It could societal.  Women are oppressed and don't get the chance to become good bigots.  Although with modern culture, equal rights.... Shouldn't we be seeing more female bigots?  Or an equal distribution of bigots among all backgrounds?

There's not really any historical "firsts" for being any bigot.  Any can be one and just start off being on.  Nobody claims dibs on being the first bigot in such-and-such area, the first to bigot such-and-such.  So I guess history's out.

[Bob]

*Bob wonders if this is a clue.* 




Dude... I'm not a genius but...

[joplinfreak]

Again bigotry is the act of holding your opinion in such high regard that no other opinion matters to the point of putting it down. Let's take a look at some basic principles of women:
1. Even when there wrong, there right
2. Insistent upon there way only (aren't we all)
3. Refuse to admit there wrong (correlates with No. 1)

[future_maestro]

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?

You just don't get it.

If all of us guys cut our balls off, every single women in the world (excepting gays) would be crying because no one would be able to fertilize their helpless little eggs.

It sounds funny to joke about now, but believe me, most women need certain things, and sex is one of them.


But aside from that, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE?!
Males have always been the dominant sex. Women were practically created to please them.
It's always been that way, and it always will be.

[kakeithewolf]

You just don't get it.

If all of us guys cut our balls off, every single women in the world (excepting gays) would be crying because no one would be able to fertilize their helpless little eggs.

It sounds funny to joke about now, but believe me, most women need certain things, and sex is one of them.


But aside from that, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE?!
Males have always been the dominant sex. Women were practically created to please them.
It's always been that way, and it always will be.

I will say this for probably the sixth time: I am NOT recommending it, or wanting it to happen. All I can say is that men do a piss poor job at dominance, and it is an ill-suited and backward role for the gender.

[future_maestro]

I will say this for probably the sixth time: I am NOT recommending it, or wanting it to happen. All I can say is that men do a piss poor job at dominance, and it is an ill-suited and backward role for the gender.

It wasn't always like that.

In todays messed up generation, there are a lot of stupid men who don't do their jobs. But in the good old days, men were gentlemen, and they did their job of protecting and working much better.

[j_menz]

in the good old days, men were gentlemen,

You really don't know much history, do you. 

[kakeithewolf]

It wasn't always like that.

In todays messed up generation, there are a lot of stupid men who don't do their jobs. But in the good old days, men were gentlemen, and they did their job of protecting and working much better.

No, it's just that people ended up realizing gender roles were idiotic swill of antiquity.

[future_maestro]

You really don't know much history, do you. 

How old are you? I'm talking like 1800's dude.

Of course there were still some idiots back then (like you), but not as many as today.

Do me a favor, when someone posts a reply, try to get the point of what they're saying instead of nitpicking over the fine details.

[future_maestro]

No, it's just that people ended up realizing gender roles were idiotic swill of antiquity.

Gender roles are (should be) still in place.

You can bs as much as you want, but fact is, WOMEN WILL NEVER BE MEN AND MEN WILL NEVER BE WOMEN.

Women are entitled to education and working for themselves if they want, there's nothing wrong with that. Where the problem starts is when a women has two kids and then sends them to daycare all day because she selfishly doesn't want to give up her career to fulfill her most important duty in life. Men are SUPPOSED to be the ones to keep working and provide for their families so that the women can stay with the children at least until they're old enough to go to school, but sometimes the men are jerks, and don't try to provide, forcing the women to leave the kids and work. This is where the quality of most men has deteriorated.


Objecting to this kind of logic, my friends, is idiotic.

[j_menz]

How old are you? I'm talking like 1800's dude.

Of course there were still some idiots back then (like you), but not as many as today.

Do me a favor, when someone posts a reply, try to get the point of what they're saying instead of nitpicking over the fine details.

Contrary to rumour, the 1800s predate me.

My point, which you appear too thick to have ascertained, is that you are nostalgic for a past which exists only in your febrile imagination, and which bears no relationship to the past that actually was.  If you are going to quote history a precedent for your preferred position, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that that history actually happened.  That seems a fundamental flaw, not a "nitpicking over the fine details".

[kakeithewolf]

Gender roles are (should be) still in place.

You can bs as much as you want, but fact is, WOMEN WILL NEVER BE MEN AND MEN WILL NEVER BE WOMEN.

Women are entitled to education and working for themselves if they want, there's nothing wrong with that. Where the problem starts is when a women has two kids and then sends them to daycare all day because she selfishly doesn't want to give up her career to fulfill her most important duty in life. Men are SUPPOSED to be the ones to keep working and provide for their families so that the women can stay with the children at least until they're old enough to go to school, but sometimes the men are jerks, and don't try to provide, forcing the women to leave the kids and work. This is where the quality of most men has deteriorated.


Objecting to this kind of logic, my friends, is idiotic.

I don't object to that part of gender roles. Only the parts that pretty much state men have to be narrowly defined, testosterone-soaked meatheads.

[emill]

Women are oppressed and don't get the chance to become good bigots.  Although with modern culture, equal rights.... Shouldn't we be seeing more female bigots?  Or an equal distribution of bigots among all backgrounds?  

hhmmmnnnn...... do they look like.... this?  

[joplinfreak]

Bigotry to feminism---interesting leap though not illogical.

[outin]

If all of us guys cut our balls off, every single women in the world (excepting gays) would be crying because no one would be able to fertilize their helpless little eggs.

You'd be surprised:
https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s327396.htm

Already in 2001 the scientists figured pout how to fertilize eggs without sperm. It's just a matter of time...

[outin]

You can bs as much as you want, but fact is, WOMEN WILL NEVER BE MEN AND MEN WILL NEVER BE WOMEN.

I'm sorry to disappoint you:

"The number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly on the NHS has tripled since 2000, figures show. In 2000, 54 surgeries were carried out, compared with 143 in 2009, the Daily Telegraph reports. Since 2000, a total of 853 trans women and 12 trans men had state-funded surgery to change sex."
Source: https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Bournemouth-JSNA/Reports/Community-profiles/GenderReassignment.pdf

[kakeithewolf]

I'm sorry to disappoint you:

"The number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly on the NHS has tripled since 2000, figures show. In 2000, 54 surgeries were carried out, compared with 143 in 2009, the Daily Telegraph reports. Since 2000, a total of 853 trans women and 12 trans men had state-funded surgery to change sex."
Source: https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Bournemouth-JSNA/Reports/Community-profiles/GenderReassignment.pdf

True, but you can't forget that "sex change" surgeries actually don't change sex, because you remain the same biological sex on a cellular level.

[outin]

True, but you can't forget that "sex change" surgeries actually don't change sex, because you remain the same biological sex on a cellular level.

Ever heard of hermaphrodites?
There's no such thing as fixed cellular level sex...People can have all kinds of chomosome combinations. Sex is a basicly a combination of basic biological structures and hormones at work. Gender is much more.

[kakeithewolf]

Ever heard of hermaphrodites?
There's no such thing as fixed cellular level sex...People can have all kinds of chomosome combinations. Sex is a basicly a combination of basic biological structures and hormones at work. Gender is much more.

I'm aware of what hermaphrodites are. Yes, they are both sexes, but they also have cellular representation of such. As for polysomial conditions, the biological representation of these in humanity is very small, and even then, it's hard-wired, and not a sudden onset matter. There are indeed disorders that make you a sex neither purely male or female, but these are present from birth, and no procedure can produce their cellular form.

"Gender", as it is modernly defined, is, frankly, a load of wish-fulfillment bollocks. It's the concept that someone's opinion actually means jack squat in terms of influencing veracity. It is but a desperate grab at control where none exists, so people can feel less like pathetic and helpless waifs.

[outin]

I'm aware of what hermaphrodites are. Yes, they are both sexes, but they also have cellular representation of such. As for polysomial conditions, the biological representation of these in humanity is very small, and even then, it's hard-wired, and not a sudden onset matter. There are indeed disorders that make you a sex neither purely male or female, but these are present from birth, and no procedure can produce their cellular form.

"Gender", as it is modernly defined, is, frankly, a load of wish-fulfillment bollocks. It's the concept that someone's opinion actually means jack squat in terms of influencing veracity. It is but a desperate grab at control where none exists, so people can feel less like pathetic and helpless waifs.

Whether present from birth or not shouldn't really make a difference for the original question. Also ignoring the effect of hormones in humans I can only see as ignorance. What your biology teacher taught you was a very simplified and incomplete picture of nature

[thalbergmad]

WOMEN WILL NEVER BE MEN AND MEN WILL NEVER BE WOMEN.

There was this policeman in my town who had his knob cut off or something, to become a woman.

He was lovingly known as PCACDC.

Thal

[kakeithewolf]

Whether present from birth or not shouldn't really make a difference for the original question. Also ignoring the effect of hormones in humans I can only see as ignorance. What your biology teacher taught you was a very simplified and incomplete picture of nature

Hormone have their effects, sure. But hormones don't change everything.

[outin]

Hormone have their effects, sure. But hormones don't change everything.

No,  it's a complex system. They do change a lot (ask anyone who has been through extreme hormone therapy). When it comes to sex the
 perceived charasteristics and differences are statistical and depending on definitions and classifications. They work rather well with majorities. Which makes the whole discussion rather  pointless, since it's about extreme behavior

[kakeithewolf]

No,  it's a complex system. They do change a lot (ask anyone who has been through extreme hormone therapy). When it comes to sex the
 perceived charasteristics and differences are statistical and depending on definitions and classifications. They work rather well with majorities. Which makes the whole discussion rather  pointless, since it's about extreme behavior

Yes, but as you point out, it's a matter of perspective. Look at it from one angle, and one person is correct. Look at it from another angle, and another is correct. Ultimately, it's pointless, as arguing the point of majorities is blatant argumentum ad populum. Further, my point was that not everything was changed, not that a significant amount isn't changed.

[future_maestro]

I'm sorry to disappoint you:

"The number of gender reassignment surgeries carried yearly on the NHS has tripled since 2000, figures show. In 2000, 54 surgeries were carried out, compared with 143 in 2009, the Daily Telegraph reports. Since 2000, a total of 853 trans women and 12 trans men had state-funded surgery to change sex."
Source: https://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Bournemouth-JSNA/Reports/Community-profiles/GenderReassignment.pdf

Having you external appearance modified does not make you a different sex.

Men can grow boobs and women can mutilate themselves, but THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM A DIFFERENT SEX!

Besides, that is almost exactly 0.00000010625 of the earths population.

[future_maestro]

There was this policeman in my town who had his knob cut off or something, to become a woman.

He was lovingly known as PCACDC.

Thal

That didn't make him a women. Just a mutilated guy

[future_maestro]

You'd be surprised:
https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s327396.htm

Already in 2001 the scientists figured pout how to fertilize eggs without sperm. It's just a matter of time...

So? Just because they can do that doesn't mean that it'll be released for public use.

They could clone a human too, that doesn't mean they're going to do it.

Besides, most people don't do it for children, most people just want the "romance."

[future_maestro]

Contrary to rumour, the 1800s predate me.

My point, which you appear too thick to have ascertained, is that you are nostalgic for a past which exists only in your febrile imagination, and which bears no relationship to the past that actually was.  If you are going to quote history a precedent for your preferred position, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that that history actually happened.  That seems a fundamental flaw, not a "nitpicking over the fine details".

Do you have proof that I'm wrong?

It's no secret my friend, that they're are A LOT more idiots (men idiots and women idiots) today then there were back then. You are proof of this.

By the way, I never heard any rumors about you being older than the 1800's. In fact, I've heard a lot of rumors that you're more like a 25 year old punk.

[ahinton]

Women are entitled to education and working for themselves if they want, there's nothing wrong with that. Where the problem starts is when a women has two kids and then sends them to daycare all day because she selfishly doesn't want to give up her career to fulfill her most important duty in life. Men are SUPPOSED to be the ones to keep working and provide for their families so that the women can stay with the children at least until they're old enough to go to school, but sometimes the men are jerks, and don't try to provide, forcing the women to leave the kids and work. This is where the quality of most men has deteriorated.

Objecting to this kind of logic, my friends, is idiotic.

Not really, since what you write here is notable principally for its veru absence of logic. The vast majority of opposite sex couples with children cannot manage on one person's income alone; many such couples have between them - in order to survive - two, three or more employed jobs and/or run their own businesses and, with the rise in the proportion of part-time employed positions, this is hardly surprising. To suggest that in all such couples where both partners have to work the male ones are "jerks" and "don't try to provide" is as offensive as it is nonsensical.

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

Besides, most people don't do it for children, most people just want the "romance."

That definitely does not require any male participance...at least that's what I've heard

[outin]

It's no secret my friend, that they're are A LOT more idiots (men idiots and women idiots) today then there were back then.

On the contrary, idiotism as a diagnoses was mainly used in psychiatry on the 19th century. 

By the way, I never heard any rumors about you being older than the 1800's. In fact, I've heard a lot of rumors that you're more like a 25 year old punk.

I assume you are quite young yourself, which would excuse some of your obvious lack of historical perspective. If not, then I am forced to draw another conclusion...

[littletune]

Having you external appearance modified does not make you a different sex.

Men can grow boobs and women can mutilate themselves, but THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM MEN!

I'm sorry I have to say something about this... I just can't take it!!!! I didn't read all of the posts but it seems that the last posts have been about people who are transgender? Do you "normal" people who make comments about this even know how difficult this is for people who are transgender??? Have you watched any videos? Have you got to know anyone who is trangender (I mean got to know them well). It's not something funny! And it's most certainly not something that someone would choose and enjoy!!!! It is one of the most difficult things someone can experience!!! And it is so difficult because of people who "think" they know all about it who "think" they can tell someone what they can and can not be, what they can and can not do or what they should or shouldn't do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How dare you say that someone can't be or isn't what they feel they are??? Have you ever been in a situation they are in?? Have you ever felt the way they do??? What about that thing that people like to say about "what matters is what's on the inside, not what's on the outside." Well if people really believed that than it would not matter what someone is on the outside it wouldn't matter what kind of genitals they have or don't have. What would and SHOULD matter is what they are inside!!!!!!!!!! And if they feel they are a female it doesn't matter if they look like the manliest guy on the outside, they are female! And that's that! And if you can't respect that you don't really care about what's on the inside, you only care about what's on the outside which is a very sad way of looking at others!!!!!!!!!!!!! Try to REALLY see someone for what they are on the inside try to really look into someone's heart or soul (or whatever you wanna call it) for a change. You would be really surprised how much more you could see and how much easier it would be to accept and love others for the perfect beings they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This world makes me so sad!!!!!!     How do you think you have the right to tell someone what they are and what they're not?? When all they want is to be able to be themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!       Nothing else, just to be able to show to others and share with others what they have on the inside. how is this so impossible to understand people??