scamming amazon

Originally Posted by Paladin

It's ok, you're wrong. It's hard to deal with, but you'll get through it.

Not even reading these anymore, but it's funny to see you try so hard.

you say i'm wrong with no further argument and lack of evidence proving your case. i proved you wrong. deal with it kid.

me proving you wrong right here

the probability of a negative outcome
the negative outcome still has to do with the risk itself, just because the probability is the same doesn't mean the risk is the same. so hypothetically speaking, you're trying to tell me if the probability of being caught stealing a candy bar and the probability of being caught robbing a bank is the same then the risk is the same. wrong wrong wrong. the negative outcome still factors into the risk, and when you're talking about crimes, usually the consequence of being caught outweighs the probability of being caught, any criminal that's even been caught can tell you that. that's risk. thanks for trying though.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

you say i'm wrong with no further argument and lack of evidence proving your case. i proved you wrong. deal with it kid.

me proving you wrong right here

You've just been telling me this entire time what you think risk means, when it clearly doesn't mean what you think it does.

Me proving you wrong 6 pages ago:

Originally Posted by Paladin

"the likelihood of being caught is low, but the risk involved with doing it is high."

If the likelihood of being caught is low, the risk is low. And vice-versa. You said the opposite.

Likelihood of getting caught = probability of getting caught = risk of getting caught

zzz

Originally Posted by Paladin

You've just been telling me this entire time what you think risk means, when it clearly doesn't mean what you think it does.

Me proving you wrong 6 pages ago:

Likelihood of getting caught = probability of getting caught = risk of getting caught

zzz

you are too arrogant to realize it also has to do with what getting caught entails. what you're saying is not wrong but it also isn't completely right. you trying to tell me i'm wrong is just stupid because i'm right in both ways, basically you're only half right. and you can't admit it because i was more right to begin with then you have been the whole time. I've proven this and now you can only go back to quote the beginning statement because you literally can not argue my points anymore because they are completely correct.

so hypothetically speaking, you're trying to tell me IF the probability of being caught stealing a candy bar and the probability of being caught robbing a bank is the same then the risk is the same.

this would mean that the hypothetical risk between stealing a candy bar and the risk between robbing a bank is the same if the probability of getting caught is the same. you refuse to see that consequence has anything to do with risk.
that's all i have to say to prove your entire argument wrong on the grounds that risk isn't just probability alone.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

you are too arrogant to realize it also has to do with what getting caught entails. what you're saying is obviously wrong.

that's all i have to say to prove your entire argument wrong...

That's OK, comparing the probability of getting caught for two crimes is not relevant. You said the risk of getting caught was different than the probability of getting caught for one crime. They are the same fucking thing.

Originally Posted by Paladin

That's OK, comparing the probability of getting caught for two crimes is not relevant. You said the risk of getting caught was different than the probability of getting caught for one crime. They are the same fucking thing.

you still don't understand. there's more to it than probability. let me try to put it in simple words. if you had the same chance of getting caught in a bank robbery as getting caught stealing a candy bar, would that mean the risk of those two separate crimes were the same? No, but that is what you are saying. That risk is just probability. The reason the risk isn't the same is because if you get caught stealing a candy bar you get a misdemeanor for shoplifting, if you get caught robbing a bank the consequence is much higher therefore the risk is higher even if the probability of getting caught is the same. This means that yes, probability is part of risk, but the negative outcome itself is an even bigger part of risk than probability itself. For example, if there was no negative outcome, there would be no risk in the first place. You have been completely proven wrong a number of times now using this argument, if you still don't understand then reread this paragraph until you do.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

you still don't understand. there's more to it than probability. let me try to put it in simple words. if you had the same chance of getting caught in a bank robbery as getting caught stealing a candy bar, would that mean the risk of those two separate crimes were the same? No, but that is what you are saying. That risk is just probability. The reason the risk isn't the same is because if you get caught stealing a candy bar you get a misdemeanor for shoplifting, if you get caught robbing a bank the consequence is much higher therefore the risk is higher even if the probability of getting caught is the same. This means that yes, probability is part of risk, but the negative outcome itself is an even bigger part of risk than probability itself. For example, if there was no negative outcome, there would be no risk in the first place. You have been completely proven wrong a number of times now using this argument, if you still don't understand then reread this paragraph until you do.

If the chance to be caught is the same, they have the same risk.

Originally Posted by Aborted

If the chance to be caught is the same, they have the same risk.

So you're telling me if the chance to be caught shoplifting was the same as the murder the risk would be the same? Even though in some states you may be given the death sentence for murder and in all states shoplifting is a slap on the wrist they give you a $50 fine and you're free to go. You honestly think the risk between them would be the same? That risk has nothing to do with the negative outcome it is solely based on probability?

Originally Posted by Snowkip

you still don't understand. there's more to it than probability. let me try to put it in simple words. if you had the same chance of getting caught in a bank robbery as getting caught stealing a candy bar, would that mean the risk of those two separate crimes were the same? No, but that is what you are saying. That risk is just probability. The reason the risk isn't the same is because if you get caught stealing a candy bar you get a misdemeanor for shoplifting, if you get caught robbing a bank the consequence is much higher therefore the risk is higher even if the probability of getting caught is the same. This means that yes, probability is part of risk, but the negative outcome itself is an even bigger part of risk than probability itself. For example, if there was no negative outcome, there would be no risk in the first place. You have been completely proven wrong a number of times now using this argument, if you still don't understand then reread this paragraph until you do.

Let me put it this way.

The risk of getting caught = The probability of getting caught
What you risk by getting caught != The probability of getting caught
The risk of getting caught != What you risk by getting caught

I don't give a flying fuck about what you risk for getting caught, because you only said that there was a higher risk than there was likelihood. You never implied anything else in your usage of "risk". The way you use a word matters, and consequence was never implied in the way you used it.

This argument isn't getting anywhere, but you'll respond anyway. I'm off to my postban.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

So you're telling me if the chance to be caught shoplifting was the same as the murder the risk would be the same? Even though in some states you may be given the death sentence for murder and in all states shoplifting is a slap on the wrist they give you a $50 fine and you're free to go. You honestly think the risk between them would be the same? That risk has nothing to do with the negative outcome it is solely based on probability?

Why don't you just chill down, It's not your life on stake here so what's the point of warning him any way if he get caught some of the people in MPGH will write some threads about that shit then LIFE GOES ON.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

So you're telling me if the chance to be caught shoplifting was the same as the murder the risk would be the same? Even though in some states you may be given the death sentence for murder and in all states shoplifting is a slap on the wrist they give you a $50 fine and you're free to go. You honestly think the risk between them would be the same? That risk has nothing to do with the negative outcome it is solely based on probability?

Go look up the definition of risk for the way you used it, it is solely based upon the probability of a negative outcome. It isn't weight based upon the gravity of that outcome.

Originally Posted by Snowkip

So you're telling me if the chance to be caught shoplifting was the same as the murder the risk would be the same? Even though in some states you may be given the death sentence for murder and in all states shoplifting is a slap on the wrist they give you a $50 fine and you're free to go. You honestly think the risk between them would be the same? That risk has nothing to do with the negative outcome it is solely based on probability?

Risk is the involvement of danger, the potential chance of said danger. The risk is the same before being caught as the chance of getting caught is the same, the risk is the same. The risk of the severity of the charges is a separate story.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Let me put it this way.

The risk of getting caught = The probability of getting caught
What you risk by getting caught != The probability of getting caught
The risk of getting caught != What you risk by getting caught

I don't give a flying fuck about what you risk for getting caught, because you only said that there was a higher risk than there was likelihood. You never implied anything else in your usage of "risk". The way you use a word matters, and consequence was never implied in the way you used it.

This argument isn't getting anywhere, but you'll respond anyway. I'm off to my postban.

You think that risk is solely based on probability, and I think that risk is based on the combination of probability and negative outcome. I would ask you to agree to disagree, but you obviously are incapable of agreeing to anything I say, like most of the other arrogant butt hurts around here.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Risk is the involvement of danger, the potential chance of said danger. The risk is the same before being caught as the chance of getting caught is the same, the risk is the same. The risk of the severity of the charges is a separate story.

Originally Posted by Aborted

Go look up the definition of risk for the way you used it, it is solely based upon the probability of a negative outcome. It isn't weight based upon the gravity of that outcome.

http://crimematters.files.word press...crime-risk.pdf
page 3
In particular:
 Risk: is the combination of the probability of an event and its consequence
 Consequence: is the outcome of an event
 Probability is the extent to which an event is likely to occur
 Event is the occurrence of a particular set of circumstances

Similar Threads

Tags for this Thread