Re: want to help haiti but got no money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DevonsDaddy
There's a difference between being skeptical and being a prick. Even after the guy provided proof of him donating (even though he neither had to donate, nor provide proof), you still tried to find a way to show he was "lying". That's just outright being a prick, not being skeptical.
It's being a prick? No, it's following through with skepticism. If you just accept any provided "proof" as absolutely true and infallible, you're an idiot.
Science is founded on coming up with a postulate then TRYING AS HARD AS YOU FUCKING CAN to prove it is wrong. If you can't, you formulate a theory and you believe it's true. Then you present that theory to colleagues and other scientists, claiming you believe it's true. Their job in science is to be skeptical and try, try, and try again to prove it's false. If nobody can, it's then progressed as a self-proven and worthy scientific theory. Then as long as science calls itself science, if anyone believes they can, they TRY TO PROVE IT WRONG. It never ends. When you present proof, it's constantly under an onslaught of people trying to prove it's false, or something about it. To you, they'd all be pricks, but in fact, they're just being cautious and skeptical, as is their duty.
Mathematics is the same way. When someone takes a postulate and creates a "proof" for it, they provide that proof to the community and it's either shot down or it stands resilient under pressure. Others might find a better way to prove it's true, or some people might realize your proof is specialized or incomplete, and offer a completed proof or a disproof of the generic. In any case, it again, is their duty, to think anything someone claims is true is in fact false, until they're completely convinced it's true or impossible to disprove. Look at Fermat's Last Theorem. A famous example, Fermat was noted for scribbling in his notebook that he had a "truly marvelous proof" that a^n + b^n = c^n has no solutions for integers a,b, and c for any natural number n > 2. This proof was never found, but it was left as a postulate that hounded mathematicians for CENTURIES. People constantly tried to prove it and while quite a few attempts were made that held water, most of the proofs in the general case were shown to be false. Some specific cases were proven to be true, but it wasn't until Andrew Wiles finally provided a proof of the general case in 1993. Soon after, he was notified that it contained a critical error that took him nearly a year to correct. In 1994 he finally presented a revised and correct proof. That proof is 100 pages of mathematics far, far, far beyond Ph.D. level that with almost a 100% confidence that nobody here will ever possibly comprehend, including myself even though I'd love to. In solving this problem, we've been given many wonderful results in many fields of mathematics that otherwise may not be known today. If everyone thought like you do, these guys would all be TOTAL pricks and we'd believe Fermat really did have a proof and we're just all too stupid to comprehend how he could've done it. (Btw, the math Wiles used was far more advanced than anything that existed in Fermat's time).
By your definition, all members of law enforcement who have for any reason, no matter how significant, based in anything, including only skepticism, not taken a person on their word of innocence are pricks. And if we all thought like you, we'd have a lot of criminals walking free and a much higher crime rate. By the same token, if any jury members had ever just taken the police on their word that "he's guilty, we're sure" instead of deciding for themselves based on the evidence presented, that is, BEING SKEPTICAL even when someone who's working for you claims a result, we'd have a lot of innocent people in jail. Boy am I glad we don't all think like you. Those jury members sure are pricks for doing their jobs.
By your definition, the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff are COMPLETE PRICKS for being skeptical that he wasn't doing everything he told them with their money. If we all thought like you, he'd have gotten away with the biggest scam in the history of Wall Street (that we know of).
This can keep going on and on. Skepticism has its role at all times, it's never being a "prick" to be skeptical until you're sure within a reasonable level of assurance that what's being said is true or at least not untrue. Anything but leads to lots of problems with our history and our way of life. This guy had a LOT of opportunity to make a quick buck for a 3 minute video. If you could make $400 or more for recording you talking for 3 minutes then uploading it and THAT IS IT, you wouldn't call that "nothing." I sure as hell don't make $400/3min which equates to $8000/hr. That's just easy money. Right away, claiming he's going to turn around and invest that easy-money into something in an altruistic manner should be taken with a grain of salt; skepticism is EXPECTED which is why he presented the "proof" following the event. It turns out I was mistaken, but I never came out and said it was a scam and he pwned all of you, I just said I was skeptical. And when it was pointed out I was incorrect, I accepted that and did not continue to claim that "well just because that URL is valid doesn't mean he didn't fake it all." I could've very well re-made that video by hosting services and screwing with my hosts file here, by concealing my URL bar I don't need to secure my fake pages with SSL, and thus I could make it appear as though I donated money to that same charity with those same steps, it would look IDENTICAL. I didn't, THAT would've been being a prick. It is possible, but I highly doubt he went to that much trouble to make a few hundred bucks. That's just a real pain in the ass and a lot of work to set up.
Grow up a bit.
Re: want to help haiti but got no money?
You have serious issues. I actually feel kinda bad for ripping into you earlier because wow, you must have autism or asperger's or something.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being a sceptic. I'm a sceptic. But there are boundaries. There was never any substantial reason to doubt this guy's intentions. Altruism in the face of massive disaster isn't exactly unheard of. People donate hundreds of billions of dollars to charities every single year, so why single this guy out and accuse him of scamming? Basically, you can't approach every situation as though it were a mathematical problem, because humans are not perfectly logical beings. In fact, I'd argue that they are fundamentally irrational. Learn that, and maybe you'll be more fun at parties.
Re: want to help haiti but got no money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
troublemaker1111
You have serious issues. I actually feel kinda bad for ripping into you earlier because wow, you must have autism or asperger's or something.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being a sceptic. I'm a sceptic. But there are boundaries. There was never any substantial reason to doubt this guy's intentions. Altruism in the face of massive disaster isn't exactly unheard of. People donate hundreds of billions of dollars to charities every single year, so why single this guy out and accuse him of scamming? Basically, you can't approach every situation as though it were a mathematical problem, because humans are not perfectly logical beings. In fact, I'd argue that they are fundamentally irrational. Learn that, and maybe you'll be more fun at parties.
I AM the party :o.
And at the end of that video he couldn't even think of anything to say. That's generally a huge sign of insincerity.
Re: want to help haiti but got no money?
Now you guys are just arguing to argue.
When it's all said and done the guy paid, and is no longer doing this. So the thread doesn't need to stay open if all you are to do is fight.
The End.
