Liberal Forum

In his most recent PG thread, while his title holds his narcissistic dumb *** in high esteem, he posted a graph showing a low percentage of criminal convictions among illegal immigrants. Then he declares victory all through the thread. However, @Cannonpointer  just obliterated him. 

He just displayed a prime example of survivorship Bias...hopefully, you all will all figure out why he can't answer my question. He still can't figure it out.


This graph proudly shows people without criminal convictions but conveniently forgets one tiny detail: a huge number of cases are still awaiting trial.

In other words, he is treating “not yet convicted” as “innocent forever.” That’s like counting every student who hasn’t taken the final exam yet as having already passed the class. Let's congratulate this idiot for discovering the newest statistical technique: The Survivorship Fallacy of Pending Cases.

Step 1: Look only at the people whose cases are finished.
Step 2: Ignore everyone still in the pipeline.
Step 3: Declare victory.

By this logic, hospitals should also conclude that nobody dies, because many patients haven’t finished their treatment yet.


@Blackvegetable  you have just proven that you know nothing about survivorship bias. Now go kill yourself. 

     
 

Vegas » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

In his most recent PG thread, while his title holds his narcissistic dumb *** in high esteem, he posted a graph showing a low percentage of criminal convictions among illegal immigrants. Then he declares victory all through the thread. However, @Cannonpointer  just obliterated him. 

He just displayed a prime example of survivorship Bias...hopefully, you all will all figure out why he can't answer my question. He still can't figure it out.

This graph proudly shows people without criminal convictions but conveniently forgets one tiny detail: a huge number of cases are still awaiting trial.

In other words, he is treating “not yet convicted” as “innocent forever.” That’s like counting every student who hasn’t taken the final exam yet as having already passed the class. Let's congratulate this idiot for discovering the newest statistical technique: The Survivorship Fallacy of Pending Cases.

Step 1: Look only at the people whose cases are finished.
Step 2: Ignore everyone still in the pipeline.
Step 3: Declare victory.

By this logic, hospitals should also conclude that nobody dies, because many patients haven’t finished their treatment yet.

@Blackvegetable  you have just proven that you know nothing about survivorship bias. Now go kill yourself. 

   

Three words: Brown University.
 

Cannonpointer » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Three words: Brown University.

I love him titling his thread about him being better, then he falls flat on his face. Proving his inferior to everybody.

Vegas » 50 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

50 minutes ago

In his most recent PG thread, while his title holds his narcissistic dumb *** in high esteem, he posted a graph showing a low percentage of criminal convictions among illegal immigrants. Then he declares victory all through the thread. However, @Cannonpointer  just obliterated him. 

He just displayed a prime example of survivorship Bias...hopefully, you all will all figure out why he can't answer my question. He still can't figure it out.

This graph proudly shows people without criminal convictions but conveniently forgets one tiny detail: a huge number of cases are still awaiting trial.

In other words, he is treating “not yet convicted” as “innocent forever.” That’s like counting every student who hasn’t taken the final exam yet as having already passed the class. Let's congratulate this idiot for discovering the newest statistical technique: The Survivorship Fallacy of Pending Cases.

Step 1: Look only at the people whose cases are finished.
Step 2: Ignore everyone still in the pipeline.
Step 3: Declare victory.

By this logic, hospitals should also conclude that nobody dies, because many patients haven’t finished their treatment yet.

@Blackvegetable  you have just proven that you know nothing about survivorship bias. Now go kill yourself. 

   

If BV wasn't here for me to totally unload on I would have to find another hobby...... like stealing candy from retarded children....   
 

*GHETTOBLASTER » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

If BV wasn't here for me to totally unload on I would have to find another hobby...... like stealing candy from retarded children....  

As he would say "so God damn **** stupid." The irony.     

Vegas » Today, 1:14 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:14 pm

In his most recent PG thread, while his title holds his narcissistic dumb *** in high esteem, he posted a graph showing a low percentage of criminal convictions among illegal immigrants. Then he declares victory all through the thread. However, @Cannonpointer  just obliterated him. 

He just displayed a prime example of survivorship Bias...hopefully, you all will all figure out why he can't answer my question. He still can't figure it out.

This graph proudly shows people without criminal convictions but conveniently forgets one tiny detail: a huge number of cases are still awaiting trial.

In other words, he is treating “not yet convicted” as “innocent forever.” That’s like counting every student who hasn’t taken the final exam yet as having already passed the class. Let's congratulate this idiot for discovering the newest statistical technique: The Survivorship Fallacy of Pending Cases.

Step 1: Look only at the people whose cases are finished.
Step 2: Ignore everyone still in the pipeline.
Step 3: Declare victory.

By this logic, hospitals should also conclude that nobody dies, because many patients haven’t finished their treatment yet.

@Blackvegetable  you have just proven that you know nothing about survivorship bias. Now go kill yourself. 

   

These people are so **** stupid, it beggars the imagination. 

Blackvegetable » 44 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

44 minutes ago

These people are so **** stupid, it beggars the imagination.

Project much? LOL. 

I will never let you live this one down.         

Vegas » 35 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

35 minutes ago

Project much? LOL. 

I will never let you live this one down.       

Identify the population in this example. 

Blackvegetable » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Identify the population in this example.

Identify it yourself. 

**** your demands/questions. If you have a stand, then take one for once.

Cannonpointer » Today, 1:42 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:42 pm

Three words: Brown University.

Event Horizon on the Black Vegetable Hole.

Blackvegetable » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

Identify the population in this example.

You could have stopped at "I"..

The  @Vegas   yeast infection inquistion is getting old.

JohnnyYou » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

You could have stopped at "I"..

The  @Vegas   yeast infection inquistion is getting old.

He absolutely humiliated himself. I mean, even worse than usual.

@Blackvegetable  It is fitting to post both of our threads on my usual survivorship bias question. I will be adding on this:

Veghead pretending to be superior followed by him getting his *** handed to him:

BlackVegtable justifies my repeated survivorship bias question. Does his stupidity know any bounds? - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room



BlackVegtable justifies my repeated survivorship bias question. Does his stupidity know any bounds? - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room
 
 
 

Vegas » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

Identify it yourself. 

**** your demands/questions. If you have a stand, then take one for once.

Didn't take long.

 

Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Didn't take long.

Still waiting for you to make a case...I won't wait long. 

Utter humiliation.     

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Still waiting for you to make a case...I won't wait long. 

Utter humiliation.   

I just did.

You can't identify the population.

You can't know if it satisfies the conditions necessary to produce possible Survivorship bias. 
 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

I just did.

You can't identify the population.

You can't know if it satisfies the conditions necessary to produce possible Survivorship bias.

You demanded that I do your job, because you can't identify it. 

Do you own work.
 

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

You demanded that I do your job, because you can't identify it. 

Do you own work.

No...

You are asserting that this involves Survivorship bias.

It doesn't 


 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

I just did.

You can't identify the population.

You can't know if it satisfies the conditions necessary to produce possible Survivorship bias.

Look. We both know that your incessant hiding isn't going to work.

So don't bother. Take your loss like a man.
 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

No...

Yes...