Clock kid sues for $15 million

[Galloism]

bring a hoax device that looks like an IED to school

Did he bring a hoax bomb to a school on another day or something? Because all I've seen is the clock in the pencil case.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

See, you could only make this claim if you were a mind reader. What says in point #2 doesn't match your assumption in #3

Again, are you a mind reader? And if you are, why are you here in NSG instead of doing something productive with that awesome superpower like catching terrorists or some shit?

You aren't saying why the student's plot is implausible. You're only character attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Drawing a conclusion from the evidence doesn't require mind reading abilities.

No no no. See, I never have made the claim that the student's plot is implausible, to begin with. Since you're the one who is claiming that the plot IS what most likely is going on all I have to ask is "do you have proof, other than mind reading capacities?" That's not character attacking people who is disagreeing with me; that's replying to stupid conjectures the way they should be replied to. If you think I'm an asshole because I think your conjecture is stupid that's not my problem.

And in this case, you very much do have to have mind reading abilities to draw a conclusion from the evidence that this was a nefarious plot, because you are talking about motivations.

So again, do you have mind reading abilities that can read the thoughts of someone in Qatar to know that your conjecture is accurate?

[Infected Mushroom]

If you can actually reasonably think that's a bomb, that says a lot about you and none of it is good.


You don't need to be knowledgeable about bombs, you need to be vaguely aware of electronics. The one teacher the student wanted to show the clock to totally recognized it for what it was.


As has already been pointed out several times, if anyone thought this was actually a bomb, they behaved incredibly stupidly by failing to take any sort of safety precautions.


Probably not.


Who cares about your sympathy? He deserves compensation for having his civil rights trampled and his family deserves compensation for having their lives disrupted by this incident.

As it has been pointed out to me by following that trail of logic, not only does he believe the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work, but he also believes the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader.

No it doesn't follow logically. You have a habit of reading X, and then conflating Sufficient with Necessary statements and then drawing flawed inferences.

You keep taking something that if assumed to be true may be sufficient to result in my position and treating as if its a necessary belief of mine.

This is classic bad logic.

''John said he was a Communist. Some Communists believe in violent revolution. Therefore, John believes in violent revolution.''

Not true. It is not NECESSARY to ''believe in violent revolution'' in order to say that you are a Communist. It may be SUFFICIENT to lead there if combined with other facts (that you can't just assume).

You're treating something that if assumed to be true would co-exist with the stated position... and treating it as if its a necessary co-existence.

Now let's look at what you concluded.

As it has been pointed out to me by following that trail of logic, not only does he believe the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work, but he also believes the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader.

While it COULD be true that SOME people who believe that a reasonable person tends to possess limited technical literacy and may have mistaken the clock for a bomb on a first impressions test also believes that ''the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work... the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader''

it is not NECESSARY for all members of the group to have that co-existing belief (indeed, it is entirely possible that in fact, all members of the group DON'T have that belief)

therefore you are making a leap in logic

[Dakini]

in movies they show small bombs all the time

In my James Bond PS2 shooter they have a weapon where you can drop a timer bomb that's approximately the size of the thing in the picture. It goes BOOM pretty decisively.

Only someone moderately knowledgeable about general bombs would know anything about semtex volume or any of the other technicalities. The average person can't be expected to have that kind of literacy. Most of us don't know how big a bomb has to be. If it looks like a bomb from the movies, then alarms could reasonably go off.

And yet a 14 year old kid built it?

Don't forget that we're also not supposed to be impressed with his achievement because he didn't invent the clock.

[Dakini]

I mostly contest that sufficient proof has been offered that you are a reasonable person for this purpose.

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.

see a LOT of posters have remarked that their first impression or that they feel a reasonable impression would be that this thing looked like some kind of bomb or potential bomb; its far more believable to say that at least one poster is ''reasonable'' (hence passing the reasonableness threshold) then to conclude that all of them are ''unreasonable''

And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

[Infected Mushroom]

And yet a 14 year old kid built it?

Don't forget that we're also not supposed to be impressed with his achievement because he didn't invent the clock.

I don't see why a 14 year old can't have built the machine (this seems a bit ageist).

I also don't see why it is necessary to be the builder of a machine you happen to have in your possession.

[Valystria]

You aren't saying why the student's plot is implausible. You're only character attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Drawing a conclusion from the evidence doesn't require mind reading abilities.

No no no. See, I never have made the claim that the student's plot is implausible, to begin with. Since you're the one who is claiming that the plot IS plausible all I have to ask is "do you have proof, other than mind reading capacities?" That's not character attacking people who is disagreeing with me; that's replying to stupid conjectures the way they should be replied to.

And in this case, you very much do have to have mind reading abilities to draw a conclusion from the evidence that this was a nefarious plot, because you are talking about motivations.

So again, do you have mind reading abilities that can read the thoughts of someone in Qatar to know that your conjecture is accurate?

As you won't say the plot is implausible... clearly you do recognize that the plot is plausible.

You can suggest the school officials are all in on a conspiracy to cover up what actually happened, or you can concede that the student intentionally made a hoax device with a nefarious goal in mind.

bring a hoax device that looks like an IED to school

Did he bring a hoax bomb to a school on another day or something? Because all I've seen is the clock in the pencil case.

That one is sufficient in itself.

[Infected Mushroom]

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.

see a LOT of posters have remarked that their first impression or that they feel a reasonable impression would be that this thing looked like some kind of bomb or potential bomb; its far more believable to say that at least one poster is ''reasonable'' (hence passing the reasonableness threshold) then to conclude that all of them are ''unreasonable''

And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

Condescendingly labelling anyone who disagrees with your own personal first impression as being ''less reasonable'' does not advance the inquiry.

[The Alma Mater]

Don't forget that we're also not supposed to be impressed with his achievement because he didn't invent the clock.

I don't see why a 14 year old can't have built the machine (this seems a bit ageist).

It was a response to the claim that one cannot expect most people (adults) to have the kind of knowledge to recognise that the device is not a bomb.
And yet a child could make it.

Saddest part however is that his work indeed was not impressive. So "most people" are simply.. well... you get the picture

[Dakini]

Don't forget that we're also not supposed to be impressed with his achievement because he didn't invent the clock.

I don't see why a 14 year old can't have built the machine (this seems a bit ageist).

I also don't see why it is necessary to be the builder of a machine you happen to have in your possession.

I was referring more to the people who can't tell what a clock looks like because no reasonable adult person should be expected to know what wires, a circuit board and a clock face look like, while complaining loudly that nobody should be impressed with what this kid did because it was clearly so simple.

[Gauthier]

Seriously, some people are so determined to believe Ahmed Mohamed is a mentally dull opportunistic scamming terrorist that that they will create blind spots where things like the dissonant reaction of school and police officials to an alleged SUITCASE hoax bomb and to-scale photographs of the clock PNECIL CASE can convieniently be ignored. And it wouldn't be a surprise if "He's a brown kid with an Arabic name" subconsciously plays a role in that fanatical determination.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it doesn't follow logically. You have a habit of reading X, and then conflating Sufficient with Necessary statements and then drawing flawed inferences.

You keep taking something that if assumed to be true may be sufficient to result in my position and treating as if its a necessary belief of mine.

This is classic bad logic.

''John said he was a Communist. Some Communists believe in violent revolution. Therefore, John believes in violent revolution.''

Not true. It is not NECESSARY to ''believe in violent revolution'' in order to say that you are a Communist.

In the same way... while a belief that an average person might not understand electronics

You're treating something that if assumed to be true would co-exist with the stated position... and treating it as if its a necessary co-existence.

Now let's look at what you concluded.

As it has been pointed out to me by following that trail of logic, not only does he believe the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work, but he also believes the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader.

While it COULD be true that a SOME people who believe that a reasonable person tends to possess limited technical literacy and may have mistaken the clock for a bomb on a first impressions test also believes that ''the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work... the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader''

it is not NECESSARY for all members of the group to have that co-existing belief (indeed, it is entirely possible that in fact, all members of the group DON'T have that belief)

therefore you are making a leap in logic

You did all that just to say "I am right, therefore you're wrong" when I take you up to task.

See, I don't believe that you wouldn't say the things you do if you don't necessarily believe these things to be true. I am not saying you believe in X because you belong in group Y. I am saying you believe in X because your statements say X in a less hyperbolic manner than I am doing it.

It might not be accurate due to my tendency of exaggerating the point, but the point still stands that the things you have said X lead me to believe that you believe in X. And it has nothing to do with association with a group, it has to do with how I perceive your conversations with me and other people in this thread.

Indeed, it is not necessary to be a communist to believe someone believes in violent revolution, but it is necessary for the speaker to profess a belief in violence and revolutionary movements to come to the conclusion that the person might believe violent revolutions are a thing they would agree with. Same here, it isn't necessarily the case that I believe you believe that an average person doesn't have any technical literacy because you are saying you think Ahmed made a bomb and that first impressions would tell you is a bomb, I believe you believe that an average person doesn't have technical literacy because of your own statements that you have failed to recognize a clock as the thing it was and then also suggesting that you didn't know what simtex is when all you need to know is an explosive. That leads me to believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, you didn't read properly and understood TED's thought experiment, or that you simply believe an average person should be determined by the reading comprehension of a first grader.

[Dakini]

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.


And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

Condescendingly labelling anyone who disagrees with your own personal first impression as being ''less reasonable'' does not advance the inquiry.

No, I'm just pointing out that the people who think this thing totally looks like a bomb are unreasonable. The people who saw it in person and thought it could be a hoax bomb are the most unreasonable, while the people who just saw a shitty, low-quality image with no scale reference are maybe not super unreasonable (just apparently totally ignorant of what electronic parts look like).

The people who, after being shown the clock to scale (repeatedly) continue to insist that it's totally reasonable to assume that it's a bomb are much closer to being as unreasonable as the people who saw it in person and thought the same thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No no no. See, I never have made the claim that the student's plot is implausible, to begin with. Since you're the one who is claiming that the plot IS plausible all I have to ask is "do you have proof, other than mind reading capacities?" That's not character attacking people who is disagreeing with me; that's replying to stupid conjectures the way they should be replied to.

And in this case, you very much do have to have mind reading abilities to draw a conclusion from the evidence that this was a nefarious plot, because you are talking about motivations.

So again, do you have mind reading abilities that can read the thoughts of someone in Qatar to know that your conjecture is accurate?

As you won't say the plot is implausible... clearly you do recognize that the plot is plausible.

You can suggest the school officials are all in on a conspiracy to cover up what actually happened, or you can concede that the student intentionally made a hoax device with a nefarious goal in mind.

The fact that I am not saying the plot is implausible doesn't lead to the conclusion that I believe it is plausible. I simply don't think of anything at this point about it being a plot or a non-plot.

You can either provide convincing proof you are a mind reader, or you can concede you have nothing to stand on as "proof" of anything.

[Valystria]

because I'm sure labelling people you don't agree with as unreasonable is a very mature debate tactic... actually, hmmm not really

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.

So? I've been persuaded in favor of it too after reading the opening post of that thread.

You bringing up an individual's position on another and entirely separate matter accomplishes nothing but an attempt to tar their reputation.

And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

You are setting your standard of reasonableness based on if someone happens to agree with you or not. That's a deeply flawed approach.

As for the scale of size, there is no reason it couldn't have been a miniature IED.

[Dakini]

I don't see why a 14 year old can't have built the machine (this seems a bit ageist).

It was a response to the claim that one cannot expect most people (adults) to have the kind of knowledge to recognise that the device is not a bomb.
And yet a child could make it.

Saddest part however is that his work indeed was not impressive. So "most people" are simply.. well... you get the picture

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

Is it impressive if an adult does it? Not so much (unless the adult is just starting to learn about electronics and all). Though apparently since a lot of people are totally incapable of even beginning to understand electronics, perhaps this should be impressive.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.

So? I've been persuaded in favor of it too after reading the opening post of that thread.

You bringing up an individual's position on another and entirely separate matter accomplishes nothing but an attempt to tar their reputation.

And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

You are setting your standard of reasonableness based on if someone happens to agree with you or not. That's a deeply flawed approach.

As for the scale of size, there is no reason it couldn't have been a miniature IED.

Kind of like what you are doing with Ahmed.

So tell me, how many people can you kill with a case made out of plastic and aluminum?

[Gauthier]

It was a response to the claim that one cannot expect most people (adults) to have the kind of knowledge to recognise that the device is not a bomb.
And yet a child could make it.

Saddest part however is that his work indeed was not impressive. So "most people" are simply.. well... you get the picture

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

And notice the Schrodinger doublethink: Ahmed Mohamed is at once not really smart even though he disassembled a digital clock and custom intalled it in a pencil case AND deviously clever enough to deliberately construct a fake micro suitcase bomb to terrorize the school and then sue them for billions of dollars when they treated him like shit.

[Infected Mushroom]

No it doesn't follow logically. You have a habit of reading X, and then conflating Sufficient with Necessary statements and then drawing flawed inferences.

You keep taking something that if assumed to be true may be sufficient to result in my position and treating as if its a necessary belief of mine.

This is classic bad logic.

''John said he was a Communist. Some Communists believe in violent revolution. Therefore, John believes in violent revolution.''

Not true. It is not NECESSARY to ''believe in violent revolution'' in order to say that you are a Communist.

In the same way... while a belief that an average person might not understand electronics

You're treating something that if assumed to be true would co-exist with the stated position... and treating it as if its a necessary co-existence.

Now let's look at what you concluded.



While it COULD be true that a SOME people who believe that a reasonable person tends to possess limited technical literacy and may have mistaken the clock for a bomb on a first impressions test also believes that ''the average person doesn't have any knowledge about how simple electronics work... the average person has the reading comprehension of a first grader''

it is not NECESSARY for all members of the group to have that co-existing belief (indeed, it is entirely possible that in fact, all members of the group DON'T have that belief)

therefore you are making a leap in logic

You did all that just to say "I am right, therefore you're wrong" when I take you up to task.

See, I don't believe that you wouldn't say the things you do if you don't necessarily believe these things to be true. I am not saying you believe in X because you belong in group Y. I am saying you believe in X because your statements say X in a less hyperbolic manner than I am doing it.

It might not be accurate due to my tendency of exaggerating the point, but the point still stands that the things you have said X lead me to believe that you believe in X. And it has nothing to do with association with a group, it has to do with how I perceive your conversations with me and other people in this thread.

Indeed, it is not necessary to be a communist to believe someone believes in violent revolution, but it is necessary for the speaker to profess a belief in violence and revolutionary movements to come to the conclusion that the person might believe violent revolutions are a thing they would agree with. Same here, it isn't necessarily the case that I believe you believe that an average person doesn't have any technical literacy because you are saying you think Ahmed made a bomb and that first impressions would tell you is a bomb, I believe you believe that an average person doesn't have technical literacy because of your own statements that you have failed to recognize a clock as the thing it was and then also suggesting that you didn't know what simtex is when all you need to know is an explosive. That leads me to believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, you didn't read properly and understood TED's thought experiment, or that you simply believe an average person should be determined by the reading comprehension of a first grader.

then it would be more responsible to say, ''I SUSPECT he might believe Y because some people who believe X possibly believe in Y'' or something to that effect

it's not so responsible to just say ''His logic leads to Y. He said X, so he said Y.''

I mean, it sounds like you know what you meant was really the first so I wonder why you insist on using such imprecise language

Why state that I believe in Y when I've only said X as opposed to stating the truth, that you suspect I also believe in X but can't be sure?

And for the record, no I don't believe that a reasonable person must have any kind of nexus of connection to technical illiteracy or the reading comprehension of a first grader; just that PLENTY of reasonable people possess less than stellar technical literacy (such that A reasonable person, not necessary all, may get a reasonable first impression that the clock was a bomb); I don't believe ALL reasonable people have certain tendencies that relate directly to technology or reading comprehension, just that SOME (at least one and certainly a sizeable group to be taken into the judicial calculus) don't have the sort of technological literacy to be able to immediately tell what is or isn't a bomb

[Dakini]

Dude, you think dogs should be illegal.

So? I've been persuaded in favor of it too after reading the opening post of that thread.

That doesn't say much about you.

You bringing up an individual's position on another and entirely separate matter accomplishes nothing but an attempt to tar their reputation.

Infected Mushroom made the claim that his opinions are reasonable. He brought his character and judgment into the argument, therefore it's relevant to question how reasonable a man he actually is. The fact that he has consistently presented unreasonable positions on NSG suggests that he is not a very reasonable person (or at least he does not behave as such here) and we should not trust his self-evaluation that he is.

And the more reasonable posters on this forum saw that the clock was a clock (especially after they were shown it to scale).

You are setting your standard of reasonableness based on if someone happens to agree with you or not. That's a deeply flawed approach.

No, it's not based on whether I agree with it or not, it's based on the fact that the fucking thing looks like a clock in a pencil case.

As for the scale of size, there is no reason it couldn't have been a miniature IED.

Yes there is. There's absolutely nothing in there that even looks like it could explode.

[The Alma Mater]

It was a response to the claim that one cannot expect most people (adults) to have the kind of knowledge to recognise that the device is not a bomb.
And yet a child could make it.

Saddest part however is that his work indeed was not impressive. So "most people" are simply.. well... you get the picture

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

Eeehm,no. "Make your own radio" kits, which are quite a bit more complex than what this kid did, are meant for ages 8+. At age 14, he should have been able to do much, much better.

But I blame schools for this lack in their education

[Dakini]

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

And notice the Schrodinger doublethink: Ahmed Mohamed is at once not really smart even though he disassembled a digital clock and custom intalled it in a pencil case AND deviously clever enough to deliberately construct a fake micro suitcase bomb to terrorize the school and then sue them for billions of dollars when they treated him like shit.

I know, right?

[The Alma Mater]

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

And notice the Schrodinger doublethink: Ahmed Mohamed is at once not really smart even though he disassembled a digital clock and custom intalled it in a pencil case AND deviously clever enough to deliberately construct a fake micro suitcase bomb to terrorize the school and then sue them for billions of dollars when they treated him like shit.

TBH, they blame his politics savvy dad for the last part

[Dakini]

tbh, I think it's impressive for a 14 year old to disassemble and reassemble some electronics such that the end result is in working order.

I mean, the kid's 14. That's pretty good, imo.

Eeehm,no. "Make your own radio" kits, which are quite a bit more complex than what this kid did, are meant for ages 8+. At age 14, he should have been able to do much, much better.

But I blame schools for this lack in their education

I assume that the radio kits also come with instructions where as Ahmed did not have such instructions.


Anyway, I'm not saying that it's some super impressive feat of engineering, but it's certainly more than most teenagers (and apparently a lot of adults) can do, so that's something.

[Infected Mushroom]

Infected Mushroom made the claim that his opinions are reasonable. He brought his character and judgment into the argument, therefore it's relevant to question how reasonable a man he actually is. The fact that he has consistently presented unreasonable positions on NSG suggests that he is not a very reasonable person (or at least he does not behave as such here) and we should not trust his self-evaluation that he is.

Even if that's somehow a valid debate tactic (I don't think so),

A sizeable number of posters, not just myself have said that their first impression is that it looks like a bomb/could be a bomb or that they can see how it's possible for others to get that impression.

Trying to discredit each and every single one isn't exactly a productive route to go down.