|
On November 08 2013 23:10 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. Wearing a sexy dress [...] raises the probability that she was "dtf" are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up. Yeah, it's pretty sad. Here's some first hand rape culture boys. By allowing it to be used as a defense, it tells people that it's more ok to rape a women as long and she is wearing sexy clothing. GG.
No, it doesn't tell people that.
On November 08 2013 23:12 Zealos wrote:
You do realise, and this may shock you, but in order to be convicted of rape, there has to be evidence /against/ you in the first place.
For now, but that is becoming less and less true.
If there is evidence that it was non consensual, for instance, the women was way too intoxicated, why does clothing or how she was acting need to be brought up?
I believe a court should typically hear all evidence. Is that a radical suggestion to make?
|
On November 08 2013 23:13 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:10 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 23:07 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 23:03 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:36 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:27 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:20 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 22:11 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 22:02 ComaDose wrote:-Was the alleged victim dressed and/or behaving in a sexually provocative manner (especially towards you)?
-Does the alleged victim have a history of consensual sexual encounters similar to the one you claim took place?
-Were the two of you in a sexual relationship at the time? please never ask a rape victim these irrelevant questions. none of them provide any evidence in your scenario. the whole second half of your scenario is highly offensive. like.. obviously promiscuous women can get raped. The problem is that the defendant usually admits sex and therefore needs to establish that the woman did, in fact, consent. Those questions don't prove anything, but they are a form of circumstantial evidence. If you have any better way to prove your innocence, so that we no longer need to ask those questions, I'd love to hear it. How are they any kind of form of evidence? They can demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night, and that she has a history of having that type of sex and/or with that person. All are factors that suggest that she sex she did have this time may in fact have been consensual. They cannot demonstrate that the victim intended to or was open to have sex that night. Acting flirty and wearing nothing is not consent. I hope no one has ever in court said well she was wearing exhibit A so obviously she was dtf. Hell she could give him a handjob in the cab and then still get raped. like. there is no connection. She could have said to her friends. "im going to fuck that guy tonight" and then still get raped by him. Having a history of having sex with other people does not make it less or more likely that you were raped that night. This is slut shaming obviously. Statistically having had sex with that person before makes it more likely that you got raped that night. And thinking this is some kind of positive enforcement for your case leads to the kind of mentality where men feel entitled to sex from their partners. All are factors that suggest nothing. except a sexist point of view. You are wildly confusing probability with certainty. Wearing a sexy dress has never meant that "obviously she was dtf". But it raises the probability that she was "dtf". Willingly giving someone a handjob raises the probability that you might agree to have sex with them later. Having a history of consensually fucking anyone who asks raises the probability that the next guy who asks will get to have consensual sex as well. There is no certain implication between any of these things, but there is a connection. It is not slut shaming (I think sluts are great!) or a sexist point of view to point out mathematical facts and tendencies in human behavior. Since you are having trouble getting it, I'll try to help you with a story. Bob likes to watch football but he doesn't have a tv. Alice tells Bob that on Friday he can come to her place and watch it on her tv. It was an enjoyThis carries on for a while, and eventually Bob stops knocking on her door before going in. Alice still greets him happily when he shows up, even if he didn't knock. She has even started letting him in when she wasn't at home. But one Saturday morning, police come to arrest Bob for trespassing on Alice's property. Bob explains that he has been welcome in Alice's every Friday for a long time now. Alice admits this, but says that this time he wasn't welcome. Imagine you are the police now. You obviously don't know what happened except that Bob was in Alice's place. Alice has a history of letting Bob in, but that doesn't prove that he was welcome this time. Nobody is saying that Alice doesn't have the right to revoke Bob's visiting privileges. But given this fact about their "visiting history", do you think it's more likely that he was in fact welcomed in? Or is it equally probable that this is a break-in as if Bob had, say, instead chosen to just walk into the home of Christie (who Bob has never to before)? If you say they are equally probable, I suggest you take a statistics course. And shut the fuck up. Wearing a sexy dress [...] raises the probability that she was "dtf" are you real? your saying this should be brought to court? shut the fuck up. Yeah, it's pretty sad. Here's some first hand rape culture boys. By allowing it to be used as a defense, it tells people that it's more ok to rape a women as long and she is wearing sexy clothing. GG. No, it doesn't tell people that.
"Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court"
"I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then"
|
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
|
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Good question : D
|
On November 08 2013 23:14 Zealos wrote:"Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then"
I never said it was a good defense. I said we often don't have anything better.
I don't understand your second quote, what must not be as bad?
On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely.
Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with.
1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man).
2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin.
3. Bayes' rule.
|
On November 08 2013 23:22 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:14 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 23:13 gedatsu wrote:
No, it doesn't tell people that. "Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then" I never said it was a good defense. I said we often don't have anything better. I don't understand your second quote, what must not be as bad? Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely. Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with. 1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man). 2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin. 3. Bayes' rule.
With regards to the clothes - it is a bit presumptuous by any man to assume his attention is the one wanted by the lady wearing said clothes.
|
On November 08 2013 23:43 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:22 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 23:14 Zealos wrote:On November 08 2013 23:13 gedatsu wrote:
No, it doesn't tell people that. "Hey, if she's wearing sexy clothes then it's a good defense in court" "I guess it must not be as bad if they're wearing those clothes then" I never said it was a good defense. I said we often don't have anything better. I don't understand your second quote, what must not be as bad? On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely. Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with. 1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man). 2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin. 3. Bayes' rule. With regards to the clothes - it is a bit presumptuous by any man to assume his attention is the one wanted by the lady wearing said clothes.
Sure, in the general case I would agree. But if she wears those clothes out on a date with a specific person, I'd say it's pretty likely that she is trying to catch the attention of that person.
Anyway, that's not what this particular argument is about.
|
On November 08 2013 23:22 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely. Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with. 1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man). 2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin. 3. Bayes' rule.
I don't think that's appropriate. What probability are you using for the women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent. I only had to take engineering statistics but i remember bayes rule implying, in this situation: knowing the probability of: wearing sexy clothing, giving consent, and wearing sexy clothing given that you have given consent. we can approximate the probability of you giving consent given that you are wearing sexy clothing.
I would argue that the probability of women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent is very small overall.
EDIT: and obviously a much more common reason for wearing sexy clothes is too look sexy with a P(~1)
|
On November 08 2013 23:55 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 23:22 gedatsu wrote:On November 08 2013 23:14 ComaDose wrote:
Can you just please explain how what your wearing makes your consent more or less likely. Sure. Let me know which part you disagree with. 1. Women who want a sexual encounter (with a man) are more likely to act in ways that get men's sexual attention, than a woman who absolutely does not want a sexual encounter (with a man). 2. One good way to get men's sexual attention is to wear clothing that exposes a lot of skin. 3. Bayes' rule. I don't think that's appropriate. What probability are you using for the women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent. I only had to take engineering statistics but i remember bayes rule implying, in this situation: knowing the probability of: wearing sexy clothing, giving consent, and wearing sexy clothing given that you have given consent. we can approximate the probability of you giving consent given that you are wearing sexy clothing. I would argue that the probability of women wearing sexy clothing given that she has given consent is very small overall.
I've only said that the probability increases. Haven't tried to estimate any realistic probability values, it might raise from 0.001% to 0.0011% for all I know.
If you don't disagree with point 1 or 2, then by Bayes' rule you have to agree that the probability increases.
|
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a)
|
sexy clothes does not equal consent. period. its not even a .000000000000000000011% increase in consent
|
On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1
What. (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a)[/QUOTE]
You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh.
However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire.
Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse.
Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
|
On November 09 2013 01:01 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 What. what?Show nested quote +(which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a) You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh. However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire. Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.'
I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about?
P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right?
Lets settle that before we go on to me disproving your other unrelated example.
EDIT actually wait: given where most sex takes place do you believe P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes)?
|
can't believe consent has been reduced to math... pretty sure there is no formula that can calculate consent
|
On November 09 2013 00:47 dogmode wrote:
sexy clothes does not equal consent. period. its not even a .000000000000000000011% increase in consent
Of course sexy clothes don't equal consent. And consent is a yes/no thing; there's very little possibility of gray area.
The issue comes when we (a third party who was not involved) are trying to determine after the fact whether a sex act was consensual or not. When both participants agree it was consensual, that's that -- it's consensual, go home. When both participants agree it was rape, well, obviously it was rape. (And if one person argues it was rape and the other argues that sex didn't happen, if you can prove that sex happened, you can reasonably conclude it was rape.)
Trouble comes in when one person claims rape and the other claims consensual sex. Unless there were witnesses (other than the accuser and the defendant, since they contradict each other), how do we determine which claim is true?
You could argue that, since we can't know, the defendant should always be acquitted. Innocent until proven guilty, right? It's the accuser/prosecutor's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (This is not a popular argument.)
|
On November 09 2013 01:07 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 01:01 Severedevil wrote:On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 What. what? Show nested quote +(which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a) You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh. However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire. Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.' I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about? P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right?
P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). This should be clear.
By your argument, if we experience a single day during which it is cloudy but it is not raining, then we have contradicted the above, and instead proven that clouds decrease the chance of rain.
|
On November 09 2013 01:07 dogmode wrote:
can't believe consent has been reduced to math... pretty sure there is no formula that can calculate consent
Comadose is trying to show that even mathematically consent and clothing is not causative.
He was initially telling them that what a woman does and wears does not automatically give consent and that trying to use the dress defense is nothing but slut shaming. His detractors commented "what other defense do we have" because he doesn't realize that a culture that supports rape also supports male/female interactions that are so similar to actual rape that most of the time the accused *has* no evidence to defend him other than attacking the accuser's person-hood. They don't realize that rape culture hurts the accused as well as the victims because the accused are told that what they're doing is okay until they realize it isn't.
So Comadose is trying to show them that even mathematically they are wrong, and not just morally and logically.
|
In court we are not just presented with a random case where sex has taken place and then asked to determine whether or not it was rape, we have an important bit of additional information. A person has accused the defendent of rape. What is relevant is only the probability that a sexy clothed person would have sex consentually AND then accuse the other party of rape. And if this probability is higher than for a non-sexy dresser then you have a (weak) case that it may be relevant.
Honestly it makes no sense to bring clothing into it. It isn't evidence of anything. Same for promiscuity, being promiscuous does not make you more likely to lie about being raped.
|
On November 09 2013 01:16 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 01:07 ComaDose wrote:On November 09 2013 01:01 Severedevil wrote:On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 What. what? (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a) You're confusing a specific case with the general case. If this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes, then the probability that this woman in particular was wearing sexy clothes is 1. Duh. However, the argument is that P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). If this is generally true, then we can apply it to a specific case, and modify our expectation of the probability that did/will consent to sex based on her choice of attire. Now, you may reject the proposed correlation between choosing to wear sexy clothes and choosing to engage in sexual intercourse. But it should be very obvious that there are detectable public behaviors that correlate strongly with the choice to engage in sexual intercourse. Due to sexism, people have a mental block, so let's switch the situation in such a way as to avoid this mental block. Suppose a man is chatting up a woman at a bar; buying drinks for her, engaging in obvious flirtation, looking for excuses to touch her in semi-intimate ways, and repeatedly suggesting the two of them return to his hotel room and "see what happens." Has this man consented to sex with this woman? No, no he has not. Is he very likely to? Yes -- based on his actions, he is almost certainly 'down to fuck.' I am talking about the case where the woman is wearing sexy clothes. is that not the case you are talking about? P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes). is not true given that the woman is wearing sexy clothes by the theorem you quoted right? P(it is raining | it is cloudy) > P(it is raining | it is not cloudy). This should be clear.
that is clear due to observation. but what does that have to do with P(a woman gives consent | she was wearing sexy clothes) > P(a woman gives consent | she was not wearing sexy clothes) is that as clear to you by observation? or where are you getting your data?
By your argument, if we experience a single day during which it is cloudy but it is not raining, then we have contradicted the above, and instead proven that clouds decrease the chance of rain.
I would like you to use my math to show this because i am not following you at all and you are barely acknowledging any of my comments and questions. and its not my argument i just applied the theorem gedatsu sited.
|
Haha, I hope that I go up against lawyers that think like Gedatsu after I finish law school. Talk about a slam dunk. Bayes rears his ugly stupid statistical head in all the wrong places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
