Dude, respectfully, you’re barking at the moon here…..
by Marine Domer (2024-01-30 08:35:09)

In reply to: In all that you ignore the expected value of the death  posted by airborneirish

Cannot Reply Return to Political

No one is arguing that Biden will be just fine, or that his dying in office wouldn’t be a bad thing. I made the simple, and very accurate, point that it is not “likely” that either Trump or Biden will die before 2029 statistically. You then came at me with “you look silly to us math guys.”. Who’s engaged in silly dick-measuring here?

Franky, I don’t know what you mean by a “math guy” anyway.

No rational person refers to a 1/3 chance as likely, much less “very likely.”. Your own little number percentage chart showed that, and yet you continue to want to be the one to pick a fight.

whatever
by airborneirish  (2024-01-30 12:27:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

You refuse to acknowledge there are three perspectives: Legal, academic, and practical. That's all I'm saying. You keep sticking to the legal perspective but we aren't at trial and I'm saying if I have to pick which to go with I pick the practical one: one that sets thresholds for probabilities that are contextual. This admittedly bleeds the concepts of expected value back into "likelihoods or aka pure probabilities" but certainly for me, a guy having a 1/3 chance of dying in the next 4.5 years is a likely outcome... Look at the probability of HRC victory of Trump. It's a very likely outcome given the roulette board.

You want to bet the farm on a 1/3 chance of going BK? I do not.
OK, I don't want to argue any further on this....
by Marine Domer  (2024-01-30 16:18:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

We are talking past each other. My argument was not a legal one, but a mathematical one. You then basically called me a dummy and said I don't understand the math, while bringing in issues that are semantic, and not anyone's idea of math.

If I was addressing the question "Should we elect either Donald Trump or Joe Biden?" I've already answered that in the negative. IF I was addressing the question, "Is there a not insignificant chance Biden could die in office, or become disabled before 2029 to the point he was incapable of serving?" I've already answered that in the affirmative. If the question was "wouldn't that be a bad thing if it happened?" I answered that as well in the affirmative.

As to the definition of likely, I guess you have your definition, and it differs from any I've ever heard. But we won't ever agree on that.