I'm sure you all remember our good friend Jack's shenanigans a while back where he left
his email out where anybody who wanted to do so could send all the hatemail the wanted
straight to him, as opposed to just posting it in forums and blogs. Well, he soon found out
that this was a remarkably bad idea. After the incident had passed, I wondered whether
all he recieved was a slew of death threats without any attempts to reason with him.
After a while, I got the equally remarkably bad idea to try just that, so after fishing his
email out of the series of tubes, I tried to explain that his argument was flawed. Great idea,
huh? Well, he responded with:
"Thanks for writing, Stephen. The 2005 American Psychological Association report
establishes the link between violent game play and increased aggression. So do brain scan
studies at Harvard, Indiana, and Michigan State Universities.
Your personal enthusiasm for violent games and your own history of not killing someone
are not statistically significant events. Note the following news story, and consider that
there are others out there who are affected by this wasteful past time. The games contain
no warnings about such behaviors. They must:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/news/regionalnews/video_villains_come_to_life_1
17336.htm"
And then went on to make leave some clever-sounding "words of wisdom" which, like all
words of their nature, don't really mean anything worth a damn.
So I pretty much just went on with my business figuring that he had no idea what he was
talking about.
But you know the funny thing about thinking that someone doesn't understand what they're
saying, is that you are sometimes dead-on! Notice that he says that my "enthusiasm for
violent games" (I actually just said I play games and that they are occasionally violent, but
that's beside the point) combined with the fact that I haven't killed anybody does not have
a "statistically significant" relationship.
Think about that for a moment; the fact that I, just like 63% of the American population,
play video games, and the fact that I have not killed anybody, is not a statistically
significant event. Now my statistics is a bit rusty, but that would mean that I would have to
be a part of the 5% of these people that have not committed murder after playing video
games, and that the other 95% are bloodthirsty killers in order for my situation to not be
statistically significant at the acceptable 5% significance level, and if that's true, then I
really should stay inside more.
Well, There you have it, mathematical proof that Jack Thompson doesn't know what he's
talking about. If you would like to tell me how boring, retarded, presumptuous, and or just
plain wrong my article was and how I am a waste of space, please leave it in the
comments. Also, if anyone notices that my math is wrong, or at least stated improperly,
please tell me and I can edit my post accordingly. Oh, and I'm so incompetent that I can't
make my pictures work in the actual blog, so...... laugh at me. Ha ha ha.
Attached photos:
 
|
Stephen57's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
You never needed proof, the proof was when Jacko posted gay porn in publicly accessible legal records.
Also, 1st.
Who needed math to prove Jackie Boy is insane and legally inept?
Lame blog is lame.
Trying to tell Jacko that he is wrong using logic is like trying to tell a drunk person that they should stop bad mouthing their ex-girlfriend: whatever you tell them, they are still going to talk your ear off. And with that metaphor, I think I just proved that Jack Thompson is drunk all the time.
Yeah. Unfortunately reason doesn't work on Jack. The reason it doesn't work is a bit weird actually. He holds other people up to very rigourous standards of logic, which is in its own a way a good thing. This is how he is able to hold his own at ALL in an argument. He will point out flawed arguments when he sees them, and has enough of a debater's mind to do so successfully. He's often (but not always) wrong, but he at least attempts reason.
However, he doesn't hold himself to the same standards, in fact seems to think himself immune to such things. And so when you try to criticise his own arguments using logic and substance, all you get back is white noise.
This is why, at least until he became so ridiculous as to lose any credibility, he was an effective attack machine.
Hey dephect, that was kinda personal and highly unprofessional......BWAHAHAHAHA, sorry, I had to put in an eternity's child joke somewhere.
Yeah, it is kinda lame but i dunno, the pictures just wouldn't work!
Hooray for me being inept!
you do have a pretty cool banner though