Claus and moles

Thanz · 21st August 2003, 02:31 PM

Claus -

Why do you think that a mole at a ticketing agency is "probable"?

I have told you why it is not. Please explain why you think it is.

CFLarsen · 21st August 2003, 02:52 PM

Thanz,

It is probable because fraud exists. Whether you want to point to rules that forbid employees to commit fraud or not, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat.

On all levels. A nobody in a ticket store or a big CEO.

If you say that it is improbable that such a "ticket-mole" doesn't exist because there are rules that forbid such an event to happen, then you are too gullible for your own good.

You are also making a very lousy case.

arcticpenguin · 21st August 2003, 03:13 PM

Is it "probable" that an employee of a credit card company would use his/her position to obtain credit card numbers and personal info on customers and use it to ring up fraudulent charges? There are certainly rules - and laws - against it. And yet it happens.

Also, what is the meaning of "probable" in this context? Is anyone willing to throw out a number?

Thanz · 22nd August 2003, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Also, what is the meaning of "probable" in this context? Is anyone willing to throw out a number?

As I stated in the thread where this argument started, "probable" means "more likely than not". So, if you want a number, 51%.

Lurker · 22nd August 2003, 04:51 AM

I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists.

Lurker

Darat · 22nd August 2003, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker
I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists.

Lurker

Now Lurker - don't try and be reasonable about this!

One mistaken use of one word is enough to condem you to a whole thread of debate these days.

Thanz · 22nd August 2003, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

It is probable because fraud exists. Whether you want to point to rules that forbid employees to commit fraud or not, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat.

On all levels. A nobody in a ticket store or a big CEO.

This is it? This is the best you can do? I have no doubt that fraud exists - I have never denied that. And if I were arguing that it were not possible that there was a mole, then your arguments may make some sense.

As it is, we are arguing about whether it is probable. Is it more likely that there is a ticket agency mole feeding JE information or that there is not a ticket agency mole handing JE information? That is a very specific accusation. You leap to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a mole, simply because "fraud exists". That is a very general piece of information.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting the specific allegation that there is a ticket agency mole. We know that there are policies in place, as well as laws, preventing this very behaviour. You are asking us to assume, on the basis of no evidence, that it is more likely than not that someone from a ticket agency is committing a crime on behalf of JE.

How you can say this with a straight face and still claim to be a skeptic who demands evidence is mindboggling.

Quote:

If you say that it is improbable that such a "ticket-mole" doesn't exist because there are rules that forbid such an event to happen, then you are too gullible for your own good.

At least I am basing it on something. You are basing your specific allegation of fraud on absolutely nothing besides the fact that "fraud exists". Well, so does murder. People murder people everyday. But if I want to accuse someone of murder, I had better have more evidence than just the fact that "murder exists".

Just because something could happen does not make it probable.

Quote:

You are also making a very lousy case.

You are making NO CASE whatsoever. Not even one shred of evidence backing up your claim.

Thanz · 22nd August 2003, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lurker
I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists.

Lurker

I thought so too on the other thread - which is why I brought up the definition of "probable". He then jumped on me for bringing up the definition. I asked if we were talking past each other, and he jumped on me again. He still hasn't disputed my definition.

If what he means is possible, then we have no disagreement. Of course it is possible - I have never said otherwise.

neofight · 22nd August 2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz

As it is, we are arguing about whether it is probable. Is it more likely that there is a ticket agency mole feeding JE information or that there is not a ticket agency mole handing JE information? That is a very specific accusation. You leap to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a mole, simply because "fraud exists"......

Well, that's what he's saying, Thanz. But in reality, what his whole reasoning process is, whether he realizes it or not, is that it is more likely that there is a mole........because he's working backwards from the starting point that that no-good fake SOB, JE, has to be getting that information from somewhere after all, since he's for damn sure not a real medium!!! lol It's confirmation bias, pure and simple. As Michael Shermer says.........

Quote:

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons."

When you believe something, you tend to prefer facts that confirm your belief, but ignore or rationalize anything that contradicts it. The smarter you are, the better you are at rationalizing whatever you want to believe. As we know, this goes for skeptics as well as believers, although Claus may not want to admit that it applies here......neo

Jeff Corey · 22nd August 2003, 05:40 AM

You apparently ignored the part where Shermer said that the beliefs were arrived at for nonsmart reasons.
I don't think that's the case with C F Larsen.

Thanz · 25th August 2003, 08:08 AM

Bump for Mr. Larsen, who appears to be steadfastly ignoring this thread as he knows he cannot make a coherent argument. I'd like to see him attempt to explain himself, however.

c0rbin · 25th August 2003, 08:32 AM

This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death?

Thanz · 25th August 2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin
This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death?

Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that.

Reaver · 25th August 2003, 08:56 AM

Do you that "It's probable someone COULD.." or "probable someone IS.."?

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin
This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death?

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that.

In other words there is none, thanks for clearing that up.

CFLarsen · 25th August 2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Bump for Mr. Larsen, who appears to be steadfastly ignoring this thread as he knows he cannot make a coherent argument. I'd like to see him attempt to explain himself, however.

I am not "ignoring" this thread. I gave my answer, 21 minutes after you opened this thread. How can that be "ignoring" it?

You have a habit of not liking my answers, then you go on claiming that I didn't answer them. Leroy has taken up on that, too. It's very transparent, but I really don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

Have a nice thread.

Thanz · 25th August 2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Reaver
Do you that "It's probable someone COULD.." or "probable someone IS.."?

"Probable someone IS".

Saying "probable someone could" is no different from saying that it is "possible that someone is".

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that.

In other words there is none, thanks for clearing that up.

As far as I know, there isn't any. But it is my experience that whenever someone says that there is no evidence for consciuosness surviving death, Interesting Ian has a lot to say on that point. He clearly thinks that there is some - which is why I drect you to him.

Thanz · 25th August 2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not "ignoring" this thread. I gave my answer, 21 minutes after you opened this thread. How can that be "ignoring" it?

You have a habit of not liking my answers, then you go on claiming that I didn't answer them. Leroy has taken up on that, too. It's very transparent, but I really don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

Have a nice thread.

I replied to you post. I expected at least a half hearted attempt to justify your ludicrous position. I see that you are not able to.

So, if you want to believe that it is more likely than not that there is a mole in a ticket agency, based on nothing more than the fact that "fraud exists", that's fine.

Thanks for dmonstrating just how deficient your critical thinking skills are.

c0rbin · 25th August 2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

As far as I know, there isn't any.

I and others should and will hold you to this.

Thanz · 25th August 2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin

I and others should and will hold you to this.

Feel free. I don't think that I have ever argued to the contrary.

I have, however, admitted that I believe in life after death. I have also admitted that this belief is based on my religious faith, and not on an analysis of the evidence.

c0rbin · 25th August 2003, 12:29 PM

Sorry, thought you might have been a JE apologist.

21st August 2003, 02:31 PM	#1
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Claus and moles Claus - Why do you think that a mole at a ticketing agency is "probable"? I have told you why it is not. Please explain why you think it is.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

21st August 2003, 02:52 PM	#2
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Re: Claus and moles Thanz, It is probable because fraud exists. Whether you want to point to rules that forbid employees to commit fraud or not, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat. On all levels. A nobody in a ticket store or a big CEO. If you say that it is improbable that such a "ticket-mole" doesn't exist because there are rules that forbid such an event to happen, then you are too gullible for your own good. You are also making a very lousy case.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

21st August 2003, 03:13 PM	#3
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Is it "probable" that an employee of a credit card company would use his/her position to obtain credit card numbers and personal info on customers and use it to ring up fraudulent charges? There are certainly rules - and laws - against it. And yet it happens. Also, what is the meaning of "probable" in this context? Is anyone willing to throw out a number?
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

22nd August 2003, 04:47 AM	#4
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin Also, what is the meaning of "probable" in this context? Is anyone willing to throw out a number? As I stated in the thread where this argument started, "probable" means "more likely than not". So, if you want a number, 51%.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

22nd August 2003, 04:51 AM	#5
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187	I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists. Lurker
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187

22nd August 2003, 04:56 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Quote: Originally posted by Lurker I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists. Lurker Now Lurker - don't try and be reasonable about this! One mistaken use of one word is enough to condem you to a whole thread of debate these days.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

22nd August 2003, 04:59 AM	#7
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Re: Re: Claus and moles Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen Thanz, It is probable because fraud exists. Whether you want to point to rules that forbid employees to commit fraud or not, it doesn't change the fact that people cheat. On all levels. A nobody in a ticket store or a big CEO. This is it? This is the best you can do? I have no doubt that fraud exists - I have never denied that. And if I were arguing that it were not possible that there was a mole, then your arguments may make some sense. As it is, we are arguing about whether it is probable. Is it more likely that there is a ticket agency mole feeding JE information or that there is not a ticket agency mole handing JE information? That is a very specific accusation. You leap to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a mole, simply because "fraud exists". That is a very general piece of information. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the specific allegation that there is a ticket agency mole. We know that there are policies in place, as well as laws, preventing this very behaviour. You are asking us to assume, on the basis of no evidence, that it is more likely than not that someone from a ticket agency is committing a crime on behalf of JE. How you can say this with a straight face and still claim to be a skeptic who demands evidence is mindboggling. Quote: If you say that it is improbable that such a "ticket-mole" doesn't exist because there are rules that forbid such an event to happen, then you are too gullible for your own good. At least I am basing it on something. You are basing your specific allegation of fraud on absolutely nothing besides the fact that "fraud exists". Well, so does murder. People murder people everyday. But if I want to accuse someone of murder, I had better have more evidence than just the fact that "murder exists". Just because something could happen does not make it probable. Quote: You are also making a very lousy case. You are making NO CASE whatsoever. Not even one shred of evidence backing up your claim.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

22nd August 2003, 05:03 AM	#8
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by Lurker I would venture a guess that Cantata probably said "possible" and if not, that is what he meant. As you said, Thanz, "probable" has a different definition and should be relegated to situations where some evidence to support the claim exists. Lurker I thought so too on the other thread - which is why I brought up the definition of "probable". He then jumped on me for bringing up the definition. I asked if we were talking past each other, and he jumped on me again. He still hasn't disputed my definition. If what he means is possible, then we have no disagreement. Of course it is possible - I have never said otherwise.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

22nd August 2003, 05:34 AM	#9
neofight Muse Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: central bucks co., pa Posts: 572	Re: Re: Re: Claus and moles Quote: Originally posted by Thanz As it is, we are arguing about whether it is probable. Is it more likely that there is a ticket agency mole feeding JE information or that there is not a ticket agency mole handing JE information? That is a very specific accusation. You leap to the conclusion that it is more likely that there is a mole, simply because "fraud exists"...... Well, that's what he's saying, Thanz. But in reality, what his whole reasoning process is, whether he realizes it or not, is that it is more likely that there is a mole........because he's working backwards from the starting point that that no-good fake SOB, JE, has to be getting that information from somewhere after all, since he's for damn sure not a real medium!!! lol It's confirmation bias, pure and simple. As Michael Shermer says......... Quote: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons." When you believe something, you tend to prefer facts that confirm your belief, but ignore or rationalize anything that contradicts it. The smarter you are, the better you are at rationalizing whatever you want to believe. As we know, this goes for skeptics as well as believers, although Claus may not want to admit that it applies here......neo

22nd August 2003, 05:40 AM	#10
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,795	You apparently ignored the part where Shermer said that the beliefs were arrived at for nonsmart reasons. I don't think that's the case with C F Larsen.

25th August 2003, 08:08 AM	#11
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Bump for Mr. Larsen, who appears to be steadfastly ignoring this thread as he knows he cannot make a coherent argument. I'd like to see him attempt to explain himself, however.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

25th August 2003, 08:32 AM	#12
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death?
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

25th August 2003, 08:35 AM	#13
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by c0rbin This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death? Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

25th August 2003, 08:56 AM	#14
Reaver Thinker Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 145	Do you that "It's probable someone COULD.." or "probable someone IS.."? Quote: Quote: Originally posted by c0rbin This is all really neato, but where is the evidence that conciousness survives death? Originally posted by Thanz Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that. In other words there is none, thanks for clearing that up.

25th August 2003, 09:02 AM	#15
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: Originally posted by Thanz Bump for Mr. Larsen, who appears to be steadfastly ignoring this thread as he knows he cannot make a coherent argument. I'd like to see him attempt to explain himself, however. I am not "ignoring" this thread. I gave my answer, 21 minutes after you opened this thread. How can that be "ignoring" it? You have a habit of not liking my answers, then you go on claiming that I didn't answer them. Leroy has taken up on that, too. It's very transparent, but I really don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Have a nice thread.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

25th August 2003, 09:03 AM	#16
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by Reaver Do you that "It's probable someone COULD.." or "probable someone IS.."? "Probable someone IS". Saying "probable someone could" is no different from saying that it is "possible that someone is". Quote: Originally posted by Thanz Well, I think you have to ask Interesting Ian for that. In other words there is none, thanks for clearing that up. As far as I know, there isn't any. But it is my experience that whenever someone says that there is no evidence for consciuosness surviving death, Interesting Ian has a lot to say on that point. He clearly thinks that there is some - which is why I drect you to him.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

25th August 2003, 09:07 AM	#17
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen I am not "ignoring" this thread. I gave my answer, 21 minutes after you opened this thread. How can that be "ignoring" it? You have a habit of not liking my answers, then you go on claiming that I didn't answer them. Leroy has taken up on that, too. It's very transparent, but I really don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Have a nice thread. I replied to you post. I expected at least a half hearted attempt to justify your ludicrous position. I see that you are not able to. So, if you want to believe that it is more likely than not that there is a mole in a ticket agency, based on nothing more than the fact that "fraud exists", that's fine. Thanks for dmonstrating just how deficient your critical thinking skills are.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

25th August 2003, 12:01 PM	#18
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Quote: As far as I know, there isn't any. I and others should and will hold you to this.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

25th August 2003, 12:15 PM	#19
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by c0rbin I and others should and will hold you to this. Feel free. I don't think that I have ever argued to the contrary. I have, however, admitted that I believe in life after death. I have also admitted that this belief is based on my religious faith, and not on an analysis of the evidence.
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

25th August 2003, 12:29 PM	#20
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Sorry, thought you might have been a JE apologist.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)