No I don’t.
The proof being already presented in my previous post.
And you are dodging my point, which is :
If I were to consider the posts expressing a different opinion as deserving a flag, I would have to flag all of your posts where you disagree with me. Some of them being not flagged right now (maybe that will come later) and yet expressly disagreeing with me, it means your guess is wrong.
You exactly did imply that I affirmed “answering or replying is the same as refuting or arguing against(…)” it in that sentence :
Yup, it looks like baloney (unlike @Anderson_Geten) understands the nuanced meaning of the word “necessarily”, which is necessarily a correct part of the phrase “correlation does not necessarily imply causation”. Another way to read that is, “correlation usually implies causation”.
The existence of correlation alone is generally sufficient to deduce or at least imply causation, unless you can find evidence to support a counter-argument. The burden of proof thus begins to shift from the person making the hypothesis to the person who disagrees with it.
Only pseudoscientists conclude that correlation is not “evidence”, and I sent Anderson several articles discussing this very issue, but of course she refused to read them, and yet at the same time insisted that the articles disproved what I was saying. It’s weird how she could know that when she didn’t even read them… but that’s intellectual dishonesty.
It is not.
“correlation does not imply causation” means exactly : “it’s possible to have a correlation without a causation”, just in fewer words. The term “necessary” is redundant, because it is contained in the meaning of implication.
Except that no, it’s exactly never sufficient, and that’s exactly what the saying “correlation does not imply causation” means. You are shifting the burden of proof, which is another fallacy.
BTW all the articles that you linked actually agree that correlation does not imply causation.
We only have your word for that, it’s not provable either way for reasons I have already outlined.
If I were to consider the posts expressing a different opinion as deserving a flag, I would have to flag all of your posts where you disagree with me. Some of them being not flagged right now (maybe that will come later) and yet expressly disagreeing with me,
I’m not saying it happens to every post that disagrees with you but a large number of the posts that do disagree with you seem to mysteriously get flagged, despite not breaking any rules.
As such there appears to be a correlation between posts that disagree with you and those posts getting flagged, while I’m aware that correlation is not necessarily causation the fact the correlation exists is enough to suggest that there is a relationship between posts getting flagged and their contents poking holes in your opinion.
it means your guess is wrong.
I don’t have sufficient information to be sure of being correct; that’s what a guess is.
Indeed, and that relation is the correlation.
Now it does not means there is a causation, for the reason I gave on the previous post.
Which mean, your interpretation of the data IS wrong.
And I have the sufficient information to prove you that your guess is wrong, which I did.
As you notice yourself, there seems to be “something else” than merely disagreeing with me.
Also some of my own posts were flagged (and restored), and I think posts of people who actually agreed with me were flagged (can’t be sure, if they were restored I have no track of it)
Then, posts that do neither agree nor disagree with me were flagged.
Of course this is not a proof either, because the absence of correlation does not imply the absence of causation. Just a mere reminder that the data you base your guess on seems to be… at least incomplete ?
I never stated that there was, I said that the correlation between posts getting flagged and them disagreeing with you suggests a relationship, it’s quite a high correlation too.
Which mean, your interpretation of the data IS wrong.
There is an obvious relationship between the two, how that relationship is interpreted is subjective because there is no objective data available to establish causation.
And I have the sufficient information to prove you that your guess is wrong, which I did.
Once again, we only have your word for that, and TBH given how often you misrepresent stuff on the forums your word is worth diddly squat.
Just a mere reminder that the data you base your guess on seems to be… at least incomplete ?
I never claimed that it was complete, I was merely opining my thoughts on the data available to me.
And therefore any claim of causation, like the one you did here
or
is wrong.
The previous quote is not so subtle :
“you appear to think that anybody that dares to disagree with you is launching a personal attack”. I greased the important part.
As I wrote before, if it was the case, all your posts disagreeing would also be considered as personal attack, and therefore flagged.
There are some of your posts that AFAIK are not flagged (yet) therefore this opinion of yours is wrong. Or maybe all were flagged and restored ?
Great, this thread has run its course, and here’s some rules to follow for next time!
1.Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Trolling
Flaming
Ranting
Personal Attacks
Harassment
Doxxing
Racism & Discrimination
Hate Speech
Sexism
Spamming
Bumping
Off-Topic Posting
Pyramid Quoting
Rumor Mongering
New Player Bashing
Impersonation
Advertising
2.Specifically restricted content.
EVE Online holds ESRB Teen and PEGI 12 ratings. All content posted to the EVE Online forums must be teen rated.
In addition to this, the EVE Online forums are not for discussion of real life current affairs, news, politics or religion. Discussion should revolve around EVE Online and its community.
For these reasons, specific content is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Pornography
Profanity
Real Money Trading (RMT)
Discussion of Warnings & Bans
Discussion of Moderation
Private communications with CCP
In-Game Bugs & Exploits
Real World Religion
Real World Politics
Content that distorts the forum layout
3. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online if it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
4. Abuse of the forum tools is prohibited.
The EVE Online forums provide several additional plugins and tools, including the ability to embed videos and images, along with additional emojis and polling software. Use of these tools to troll, flame, post inappropriate content or otherwise break the forum rules is prohibited.
Never really had to use 4 rules before. That’s not a compliment.