tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post1134467178146663775..comments2024-03-25T15:17:04.488-07:00Comments on Captain Capitalism: Imagine a World Without "NAWALT"Captain Capitalismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05620212946121617985noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-68470163071610724502015-01-03T09:47:27.343-08:002015-01-03T09:47:27.343-08:00Except by definition generalizations have to apply...Except by definition generalizations have to apply for all not the majority and if that's the case then it's just becomes a stereotype... And even then...but the fact of the matter is AWALT so we can put the NAWALT fallacy to rest.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-12513278009213170772013-10-24T22:09:58.977-07:002013-10-24T22:09:58.977-07:00How about "Shut up, Meg"?How about "Shut up, Meg"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-976297838935295482013-10-24T19:41:24.337-07:002013-10-24T19:41:24.337-07:00Imagine a world without acronyms! The newspaper w...Imagine a world without acronyms! The newspaper would be a horrible place.Damianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16741826091208427519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-23220154257714376612013-10-24T18:15:54.348-07:002013-10-24T18:15:54.348-07:00My mother's way of saying this was "Don&#...My mother's way of saying this was "Don't generalize". WTF? Without generalizing, one cannot discern rules, patterns, and relationships in any subject. A million real-life examples lead to no conclusion.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-41678373207740534172013-10-24T13:37:34.797-07:002013-10-24T13:37:34.797-07:00We debate the outliers, not the important stuff. ...We debate the outliers, not the important stuff. As you say, that's a waste of time. Everyone can come up with an individual case that doesn't "fit" - but who the hell cares - that's not an argument that invalidates the premise - it's must a statistical outlier.<br /><br />It's like the teacher having to continually stop class and tell ONE student...We already covered that (while thinking, now sit down and shut the fuck up).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-73108633008091744562013-10-24T13:30:45.145-07:002013-10-24T13:30:45.145-07:00I couldn't agree more. We waste lots of time ...I couldn't agree more. We waste lots of time justifying outliers, rather than understanding that in almost all cases - unless we are speaking about a specific person/situation - we are speaking "in general".<br /><br />How about "We Covered That Already, Now Shut The Fuck Up" -- WCTANSTFUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-680270155685887612013-10-24T13:25:07.488-07:002013-10-24T13:25:07.488-07:00OK, here is more:
TWAC - This Was Already Covered...OK, here is more:<br /><br />TWAC - This Was Already Covered<br />TWAEC - This Was Already Extensively Covered<br />TICK - This Is Common Knowledge<br />KYAETY - Keep Your Anecdotal Evidence To Yourselframramnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-8295256230599619892013-10-24T13:13:57.829-07:002013-10-24T13:13:57.829-07:00SUbject COvered (or SUfficiently COvered)- SUCO ha...SUbject COvered (or SUfficiently COvered)- SUCO has a nice twist to it <br />("Hey, you SUCO")ramramnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-43374850738489824002013-10-24T11:40:39.030-07:002013-10-24T11:40:39.030-07:00Most people who use NAWALT on me are using it as a...Most people who use NAWALT on me are using it as a logical fallacy in an attempt to dismiss my entire position. They're essentially saying "Since I know this ONE GIRL OUT OF THREE BILLION WHO DOESN'T FIT THE PATTERN, then none of them do."<br /><br />It's just like how leftists will find that single person who might actually come out on top in ObamessiahCare, to dismiss all of our criticisms of it.Eric S. Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11378001500010545127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-72093428457451980822013-10-24T10:57:30.732-07:002013-10-24T10:57:30.732-07:00"Imagine the speed and clarity debates and co..."Imagine the speed and clarity debates and conversation would have."<br /><br />I imagine many, and possibly most, NAWALT comments are made precisely to prevent that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-10790291942666327932013-10-24T09:35:35.190-07:002013-10-24T09:35:35.190-07:00"ODDP".
Outliers Don't Disprove Pat..."ODDP".<br /><br />Outliers Don't Disprove Patterns.daniel_reamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02403549053471947069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-51507153288044490602013-10-24T08:22:39.732-07:002013-10-24T08:22:39.732-07:00MWALT usually gets the job done.MWALT usually gets the job done.Cadmiumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-23053715628982626462013-10-24T07:47:22.607-07:002013-10-24T07:47:22.607-07:00"the exception that proves the rule". th..."the exception that proves the rule". this is a concept that people who use NAWALT all the time, will have no chance of grasping. so, sometimes i just say "not all rattlesnakes are like that". though, i know that many women aren't "like that", NAWALT is a retarded deflection. NAFALT is even worse.TheKangarooBoxerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04482990103520213739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-82226647199485090752013-10-24T07:45:13.711-07:002013-10-24T07:45:13.711-07:00"the exceptions prove the rule" sometime..."the exceptions prove the rule" sometimes applies to NAWALT rebuttal. sometimes i say "not all rattlesnakes are like that". though i truly know lots of women that aren't "like that", NAWALT is always, ALWAYS, used as a deflection to a point.TheKangarooBoxerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04482990103520213739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-36689690731993589732013-10-24T06:53:53.971-07:002013-10-24T06:53:53.971-07:00"if the Roman empire didn't collapse, we&..."if the Roman empire didn't collapse, we'd have made it to the moon by 1617."<br /><br />No. I have spent many hours Playing Civ 1, 3, and 5. Even as the Romans. I have never made it to the moon before 1980. <br /><br />--HaleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-31212296674238458042013-10-24T06:37:37.238-07:002013-10-24T06:37:37.238-07:00FOR THE THIRD BLEEPING TIME WOMAN!!! NO!!!!"...<b>FOR THE THIRD BLEEPING TIME WOMAN!!! NO!!!!"</b><br /><br />Honestly, sometimes we just want to hear you say "WOMAN!". ;)<br /><br /><b>I'm merely asking (both men and women) to acknowledge and incorporate previous knowledge and information so that we may advance the freaking conversation instead of having to constantly revisit and reaffirm things we already know to be true.</b><br /><br />Well . . . . Feelings. Stingrayhttp://www.verusconditio.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-12323910609549329962013-10-24T06:14:30.921-07:002013-10-24T06:14:30.921-07:00Something like, EOL "Excepting outliers"...Something like, EOL "Excepting outliers". Mostly just programmers (like me) will see EOL and thing "end of line" first. =)<br /><br />If EOL is too short maybe add to it, AEOL. "Always excepting outliers". Maybe not good but maybe it'll inspire better ideas.<br /><br />My other idea was, "Exceptions don't break the rule" which is EDBTR.ChrisPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-74314044270940934752013-10-24T05:50:55.304-07:002013-10-24T05:50:55.304-07:00Been covered already: RTFMBeen covered already: RTFMshamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04499304491124267090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-89708823236259263192013-10-24T03:40:24.615-07:002013-10-24T03:40:24.615-07:00How about, "Your anecdotal evidence does not ...How about, "Your anecdotal evidence does not refute the trend." - YAEDNRT - A bit catchier, perhaps.<br /><br />This is basically the argument they are making when they say NAWALT. They're cherry picking certain instances where the trend doesn't hold. Gregnoreply@blogger.com