• [VIDEO] iDubbbz Complains - DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOTTERY, LOSER
    79 replies, posted
It's not wrong on a human scale! The only way be intellectually honest when talking about winning and your relative odds is that, in terms of how our brain can comprehend numbers and statistics IT TRULY IS IMPOSSIBLE. The actual odds are so far removed from any kind of event that can reasonably be assumed to occur within your lifetime that saying it's not impossible just because there's a non-zero chance is FUCKING ASININE.
This is not how words work, a chance being inconceivably small, doesn't make it not non-zero.
So do you just not read posts at all or do you just need a better pair of glasses?
Yea don't worry I read it properly, and no thanks I'm good, thanks for asking though!
I can explain to you what the meaning of "context" is, if you want.
Nah thanks for the offer, I have a dictionairy already. You may borrow it if need be.
is to deliberately misrepresent the odds of winning a random drawing, apparently. Look, if you want to argue that the lottery is a giant conspiracy and that every winner was predetermined, I'll concede to that hypothetical scenario being arguably impossible, in the sense that no one genuinely entering the game will ever win. But, as far as the facts are concerned, there's been an average of 12.5 jackpot winners per year since 2002, not including the people who miss some numbers and only win anywhere from $2 to $1m. If the odds were impossible, those 200 tickets wouldn't exist. Take whatever moral high ground you want over the people who participate, but don't try to play yourself off as "intellectually honest" if you're outright misrepresenting something because you don't like it.
Okay, so you know that words can be recontextualized to convey a certain idea while still remaining correct right? When I say winning the lottery is impossible on our human scale of perceptions, "impossible" is still used correctly because it's in the context of "our human scale of perceptions". Do you understand?
Maybe?
It's kinda ironic that you accuse me of being pedantic when I don't think you actually know how to use it properly. You're, again, arguing over the meaning of the word "impossible" while completely disregarding the context in which I'm using the word. Again, you're ignoring that from a psychological standpoint we as human beings are unable to comprehend such vastly infinitesimal odds. Again, you're disregarding the fact that strictly speaking it's asinine to point out that a non-zero chance means in mathematical "not-impossible" when the human brain isn't a machine and doesn't think in a mathematical way. From purely a practical, human-scale point of view yes it is actually impossible for you to win the jackpot. I say again, from purely a practical, human-scale point of view yes it is actually impossible for you to win the jackpot. Fucking NASA doesn't plan contigencies for problems that would have that low of an occurrence rate. NASA, the most risk-averse agency on the fucking planet. Those odds are so low that even THEY don't consider them an ACTUAL possibility so why would an average person think that those kinds of odds are possibly applicable on a human scale? Again, please re-read and take into account the FUCKING context in which I'm using the word.
Hey just letting you know, it's not that we don't understand where you are coming from, you don't have to pretend that we are not enlightened enough to grasp the concept. You are still using "impossiblie" inaccurately here, and clearly not everyone agrees with your rather liberal use of language being a valid way of expressing the situation.
Hey, I've just been responding to your argument. Your entire argument here has been about my use of the words "incredibly small possibility," which is, in every single way, an accurate description of winning the lottery.
Only if you ignore the context.
impossible
We're arguing over the perception of "an incredibly small possibility". Mathematically, you are correct. Practically, are not correct. Since the human brain can't comprehend such small odds, the next best definition which the brain can actually comprehend is "impossible". 1/1000 odds can be argued to be "an incredibly small possibility" 1/10000 odds can be argued to be "an incredibly small possibility" 1/100000 odds can be argued to be "an incredibly small possibility" 1/1000000 odds can be argued to be "an incredibly small possibility" 1/10000000 odds can be argued to be "an incredibly small possibility" So since all of those can be described as "an incredibly small possibility", it's actually more accurate to say that a 1/100000000 odds of winning is an "impossibility" comparatively.
not to undermine the dude's message, but my friend's childhood friend called my friend up recently saying he won a 250k$ lotto and took him out spending over the weekend. he even told him 'anytime you need money talk to me'. with the years that dude spent on lotto tickets it amounted to 7k$ cost so still mad profit made. had he taken idubbz advice none of that would have happened.
Clovis, if someone said to you that something is "effectively impossible" but the odds are non-zero would you agree with them or would you argue over the definition of "impossible" because context doesn't matter?
You know, I would be simply happy if you settled for a "near impossible" instead of trying to argue that im-/possibility is anything but a binary state. It intuitively conveys what you are attempting to say, while not being wrong.
Mezzoko, if you wanted to give useful advice to someone asking you if they had any chance of winning the lottery would it be more useful to them to say it's "impossible" for them to win or that there is an "incredibly small possibility" for them to win? Which of those two statements would make more sense to the average person and mostly likely to stop them from wasting money on the lottery (if that was your goal)?
I refuse to entertain this blatantly entrapping question with an answer, when I already suggested a decent alternative in the very post you quoted.
You can't answer a simple question?
Can't you read?
I don't understand what's so puzzling about that hypothetical.
And I don't understand what's so profuse about it.
It's basically the same point the video is making so it's definitely relevant. We're talking about how the average ticket buyers perceive terms such as "small possibility" and "impossible". If you're endgoal was to stop them from buying the lottery which of those two terms would be more effective?
And why exactly are those two supposed to be the only alternatives? You don't think I didn't notice that you consistently keep ignoring a perfectly fine set of alternative phrasings, which are neither misrepresenting reality, nor sounding particularly encouraging.
I don't understand why you keep dodging the question. If your endgoal was to stop people from gambling (like iDubbbz, the creator of the video which is the subject of this thread, is trying to do) would there be any term more effective than "impossible" to explain their effective odds of winning the jackpot? I'm all ears.
Imagine if all the money people spent on the lottery was spent on literally anything else like donating to the homeless or some other good cause without some stupid heavy tax or mismanagement of funds.
How about you look it up yourself, it's right on the last page. I can't be bothered to talk to you anymore, you clearly have interest in regurgitating your point repeatedly, not so much a discussion. Apologies for wasting your time.
Okay...?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.