TwoHeartsBeatOne
Posts: 479
Joined: 10/30/2012
Status: offline
|
@NotSweet & @cordeliasub
In reference to newbies or others who have difficult questions and seek answers here, or at least, more factors to consider as they find their own answers, I want to add these thoughts...
Ethical fallacies describe faulty arguments. In this case, I think that your "retort" is actually an example of the Straw Man fallacy. For those unfamiliar, that is when you argue against a smaller part of a position as if it were the actual position itself.
First of all, the OP questions are not a "position." They are a set of factors which were presented for feedback. In other words, the question is not the conclusion.
In terms of statistics, it is understood that even beginning with a known, faulty hypothesis, conclusions may possibly be reached by testing it. At the very least, more factors to consider may be revealed.
It was in that spirit, that I went forward with posting the questions. If I'd thought I was right and believed I was right, then perhaps I may have posted declarative sentences simply to stroke my own ego or to garner support for my stance. But, that is not what I did, nor what I sought.
I understand why you both connected this with both ethical and statistical methods of problem-solving. I just don't agree that either perception fits.
Still, I do appreciate that your critique was of my methodology and not a personal attack. :) I'm glad for anyone who reads this that they can see that disagreement needn't be personal.
Thank you for adding to the environment of safe exchange. :)
quote:
ORIGINAL: TwoHeartsBeatOne
My focus was meant to be on the statistical outliers in the realm of DD relationships. I lacked the terminology to clarify that in the beginning, so... my bad.
No regrets, though, as I've learned so very much. I'm not the only one benefiting from the exchanges. If nothing else was learned by others, I'd say this thread is an excellent example of the best that the CM forum can offer. That means that a newbie (at least to the threads) may feel encouraged and safe in asking about something delicate, difficult or embarrassing.
I'm seeing good things here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Notsweet
quote:
ORIGINAL: cordeliasub
This seems like a weird twist on "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Like: the murderer only killed when wearing a pink shirt, therefore pink shirts cause people to murder. Just because there may be weirdo outliers who use Daddy Dom as a front to be pedos does not then mean that daddy Don = Pedo.
We can 'but what if" all day long. There are 6 billion people in this world, if you look hard enough you can find SOMEONE to fit pretty much any premise. That does NOT mean you can generalize from that situation.
Love it! Statistics!
In a city, the more churches there are, the higher the crime rate. It's a fact. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE CHURCHES IN A HIGH DENSITY POPULATION, AND THERE ARE MORE CRIMES IN A HIGH DENSITY POPULATION!
the first thing I learned in Stats--CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSALITY!
_____________________________
"Anything I can not transform into something marvelous, I let go. Reality doesn't impress me. I only believe in intoxication, in ecstasy, and when ordinary life shackles me, I escape, one way or another. No more walls.”
― Anaïs Nin
|
RE: Daddy Dom? Pedophile? The difference is....? - 
Profile
I'd hate to see your idea of longwinded. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread