Out of Repect I ask Remainers to Refrain from posting in this thread

[Notch7]

The fact that most of a subset of a population has a particular feature does not mean that an individual from the entire population who has that feature is a likely to be a member of that subset.

Even if more young people voted to remain than young people voted to leave, even if the ratio of remain:leave was higher than in any other age group, but in the rest of the population, the not-young, a higher absolute number of people voted remain than the absolute number of young voted remain, then how can a remainer be likely to be young?

You have made an assertion which is not borne out by any data.

If you believe that it is then please go away and come back with truthful, verifiable answers to these questions:

1. How many young people voted to remain?
2. How many not-young people voted to remain?

Not percentages, not ratios, actual absolute numbers

Oh dear BAS, Im sorry, I thought your had a more precise understanding of the English language.
What I said was simple:
I said remainers are likely to be young people.

That is a true statement.
It is therefore a truthful statement.

It is true because I did not qualify the term 'likely' -the term is therefore subjective.
Nor did I qualify the term 'young'.

What is key here, is that there is subjectivity involved. That means you cannot attribute a percentage range for 'likely', or 'young' which you have done to arrive at the conclusion the statement is incorrect.

Since my statement is subjective, discussing numbers is irrelevant.

Unfortunately you and whateverheisnowcalled, have made the classic error of forming a pre conceived judgement on the subjective elements and ascribed your own values. You have both then gone to make a judgement not based on the original sentence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh dear BAS, Im sorry, I thought your had a more precise understanding of the English language.

Can you guess what is now going to happen?

To save you the bother, I'll tell you. What is now going to happen is a demonstration that it is you who doesn't understand English well enough.

What I said was simple:
I said remainers are likely to be young people.

That you did.

And in that sentence 'likely' is an adverb.

So what you said was

remainers are probably young people
remainers are in all probability young people
remainers are doubtlessly young people

That is a true statement.
It is therefore a truthful statement.

It is neither, and nor are you.

It is true because I did not qualify the term 'likely' -the term is therefore subjective.

"Probably" means almost certainly, as far as one knows or can tell.
"Doubtlessly" means certainly, without doubt, very probably.

I wonder how successful you think you would be in claiming that saying "remainers are almost certainly young people", "remainers are without doubt young people", and so on as being true because "almost certainly" and "without doubt" are so subjective that they can legitimately be applied when the demonstrable probability of a randomly chosen leave voter being young is not high enough to merit them.

Nor did I qualify the term 'young'.

That is true, you did not. And it is undeniably a term which is relative - a 20-year old will have a different notion of "young" and "old" to a 40-year old, a 70-year old etc.

So - pick an age which means that a randomly chosen leave voter is almost certainly, in all probability, without doubt, below it.

When you do so please bear in mind that your "18 to whatever" range will be compared to the one(s) used by major polling organisations and to the results of polls about that very topic, i.e. what the general public tend to think "young" means.

What is key here, is that there is subjectivity involved. That means you cannot attribute a percentage range for 'likely', or 'young' which you have done to arrive at the conclusion the statement is incorrect.

It seems that you can, at least well enough to illustrate the fallacy of your claim.

Since my statement is subjective, discussing numbers is irrelevant.

You are never going to get away with that.

You might keep trying, a la Theresa May. You might decide that your best option right now is to give up.

But being regarded as correct? Not a chance.

Unfortunately you and whateverheisnowcalled, have made the classic error of forming a pre conceived judgement on the subjective elements and ascribed your own values. You have both then gone to make a judgement not based on the original sentence.

Unfortunately you have made the classic error of thinking that you can get away with your rubbish if you just repeat it often enough.

 

[Notch7]

Can you guess what is now going to happen?

Indeed I can.

I predict BAS will be digging a hole for himself

o save you the bother, I'll tell you. What is now going to happen is a demonstration that it is you who doesn't understand English well enough

Oh dear BAS is digging with a big shovel

That you did.

And in that sentence 'likely' is an adverb

Yes indeed 'likely' is an adverb. Did it take you long to google it.

I said remainers are likely to be remainers.

Can you point out to me where I expressly quantified 'likely'

It would be most helpful if you could pinpoint exactly where I stated explicity the level of 'likeliness'.

Perhaps I stated a percentage or maybe a ratio, or comparison to a control group.

So what you said was

remainers are probably young people
remainers are in all probability young people
remainers are doubtlessly young people

See above -please quote where I quantified.

That is true, you did not. And it is undeniably a term which is relative - a 20-year old will have a different notion of "young" and "old" to a 40-year old, a 70-year old etc.

So - pick an age which means that a randomly chosen leave voter is almost certainly, in all probability, without doubt, below it.

When you do so please bear in mind that your "18 to whatever" range will be compared to the one(s) used by major polling organisations and to the results of polls about that very topic, i.e. what the general public tend to think "young" means

All irrelevant.

t seems that you can, at least well enough to illustrate the fallacy of your claim

Since what I wrote was subjective, you cant claim it a fallacy, end of.

You are never going to get away with that

I am not getting away with it. I am stating an irrefutable fact

Unfortunately you have made the classic error of thinking that you can get away with your rubbish if you just repeat it often enough

I have 100% disproven every point you have made, so right back at ya, Old Bean.

Tell you what, go and have a nice glass of red wine and mull over all your errors.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed I can.

I predict BAS will be digging a hole for himself

Looks like you're as bad at predicting as any other form of thinking.

Yes indeed 'likely' is an adverb. Did it take you long to google it.

Why would I need to do that when I knew it?

I said remainers are likely to be remainers.

No you didn't.

Can you point out to me where I expressly quantified 'likely'

It would be most helpful if you could pinpoint exactly where I stated explicity the level of 'likeliness'.

Perhaps I stated a percentage or maybe a ratio, or comparison to a control group.

Really?

You actually expect people to believe that, given all you have been shown, that if you don't "quantify" likely it doesn't any longer mean "doubtlessly"?

See above -please quote where I quantified.

The word you used means those things. It really does.

All irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

As part of your ludicrous defence you said that you hadn't quantified "young".

So I ask you to quantify it, and you say it's irrelevant.

Do you really have no idea of what a pathetic, ignorant fool you are making yourself appear?

Since what I wrote was subjective, you cant claim it a fallacy, end of.

Earth to Notch: What are you - Humpty Dumpty? Accepted meanings of words are not subjective.

I am not getting away with it.

The first correct thing you've written for some time.

I have 100% disproven every point you have made

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you were asked to pick 10 people out of the 600 (or indeed any number of people) with the object of getting as many remainers as possible, then you would pick the ten youngest because remainers are likely to be young people.

 

[Mfatic]

View attachment 164628

If you were asked to pick 10 people out of the 600 (or indeed any number of people) with the object of getting as many remainers as possible, then you would pick the ten youngest because remainers are likely to be young people.

You are in danger of presenting a reverse argument of, "Young people are likely to be Remainers", and applying it to "Remainers are likely to be young people" which does not apply.
So your comment could be a fair comment, except that, if you picked the ten youngest, you would still find more Leavers and Don't knows than you would find Remainers. It is not true that "young people are more likely to be Remainers" because they are more likely to be not Remainers, either being Leavers or Don't Knows. The data, evidence and subsequent arithmetic proves that (by a margin of about 2:1).

Sure if you were looking for 10 people out of 600, and you chose the youngest 600, you would find more Remainers (probably about 4) than if you picked 10 of the 600 oldest (probably about 2). But just picking 10 out of 600 of the youngest, you would still find more non-Remainers than Remainers.
Whichever way you present it, turn it, prod it, poke it or tap-dance around it, "Remainers are not likely to be young people".

But neither are Leavers likely to be young people. Any of the reverse statements just do not apply. (young people are likely to be Remain : Remain are likely to be young people, Old people are likely to be Leave : Leave are likely to be old people, Kangaroos are likely to be wild animals : Wild animals are likely to be kangaroos, etc )

 

[Notch7]

You actually expect people to believe that, given all you have been shown, that if you don't "quantify" likely it doesn't any longer mean "doubtlessly"?

I note that your comprehension defecit is still set to max on the dial.

Here you have highlighted the fundamental fkaw in your argument.

It cant mean doubtlessly, because I didnt say it. You said it. Therefore you have applied your own interpretation that suits your argument.

Tip for you: If you want to argue semtantics, take more notice of the starting post.

 

[Mfatic]

Let us take another example.
Suppose, in morning assembly, you asked all those that traveled to school by bus that morning to stand up. About ¼ the assembly stood up
You then asked all those that ate breakfast that morning to also stand up. About ¼ of the assembly also stood up.
You then asked that all those that did not brush their teeth that morning to also stand up. About ¼ also stood up.

You can honestly, reliably and truthfully say that all those that ate breakfast (or traveled to school by bus, or did not brush their teeth) are standing up.
But you cannot claim that all those standing are likely to have eaten breakfast nor that they all traveled to school by bus, nor that they did not brush their teeth. It is simply not reliably true or deducible.
It may be coincidentally true, but there is no way that it is reliably true, or deducible from the fact that all those that ate breakfast (or traveled to school by bus, or did not brush their teeth) are standing up.

Is it so hard to comprehend?
Is there really only a subset of the members that can comprehend it?

 

[ellal]

Let us take another example.
Suppose, in morning assembly, you asked all those that traveled to school by bus that morning to stand up. About ¼half the assembly stood up
You then asked all those that ate breakfast that morning to also stand up. About ¼ of the assembly also stood up.

You can honestly, reliably and truthfully say that all those that ate breakfast (or traveled to school by bus) are standing up.
But you cannot claim that all those standing are likely to have eaten breakfast (or traveled to school by bus). It is simply not true!
It may be coincidentally true, but there is no way that it is reliably true, or deducible from the argument that all those that ate breakfast (or traveled to school by bus) are standing up.

In certain areas of the UK you could truthfully say that a large percentage couldn't afford either!

 

[Mfatic]

Sorry ellal, I added a third subset to improve the example so that it better resembles the referendum (Remain, Leave, Don't Know) after your response, but it doesn't affect your comment.

 

[ellal]

Sorry ellal, I added a third subset to improve the example so that it better resembles the referendum (Remain, Leave, Don't Know) after your response, but it doesn't affect your comment.

Best to include 'Edit:' when altering a replied to post

 

[Mfatic]

... the fundamental fkaw in your argument...

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you have provided not a jot of evidence, data or subsequent calculations to support your claim.
Probably because no evidence or data exists, on which you could apply any subsequent calculations, to support your claim.

 

[Mfatic]

View attachment 164628

If you were asked to pick 10 people out of the 600 (or indeed any number of people) with the object of getting as many remainers as possible, then you would pick the ten youngest because remainers are likely to be young people.

Sorry, EFLI, I did not give you a full and proper response.
That graph shows only two of the possible three subsets.
Additionally, it does not indicate absolute numbers, in each group.
As has been said previously, and Notch has acknowledged, the older groups have more absolute numbers than the younger groups.

All three explanations, the one already provided earlier today, the one about the three subsets, and the one about absolute members of each group, dismisses, disproves and refutes Notch's statement.

 

[Notch7]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you have provided not a jot of evidence, data or subsequent calculations to support your claim.
Probably because no evidence or data exists, on which you could apply any subsequent calculations, to support your claim.

Oh dear, you do struggle with comprehension, dont you.

The adverb used in my post was 'likely' - I didnt say how likely, there are no data or calculations which can be relevant, for the simple reason you cannot alter a subjective statement into a quantifiable number, no matter how hard you try.

And that old bean is the utterly fundamental flaw in your hurdle.

 

[Notch7]

dismisses, disproves and refutes Notch's statement

No it does not.

The only way you can disprove my statement is by making a judgement about how 'likely' you believe I have decided remainers are likely to be young people.

Since I didnt state either explicitly or implicitly you arent at liberty to judge.

All youve done is changed the argument on a 'facts not in evidence' to support your fallacious argument.