EPTIf it is best way to go is a question, but to say that it is not possible to use social programs is nonsense.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
If it is best way to go is a question, but to say that it is not possible to use social programs is nonsense. | ||
micronesia
United States24615 Posts
On January 21 2014 06:32 mcc wrote: Zaqwe, how do you deal with the empirical fact No hedge? You are declaring that you will introduce an empirical fact now? I expect it will be conveyed carefully and supported sufficiently be evidence for such a strong claim. Crime rates (especially for violent crime) in countries with much less guns and much less "freedom" are better than in places with your utopian setup. Your "empirical fact" used terms such as countries with "much less guns" and "much less 'freedom'" which are so vague that you shouldn't even begin to declare it as some type of actual fact. There are many other things wrong with your 'empirical fact' that require correction before you could be making any type of a legitimate point that could serve useful, if backed up by at least reasonable evidence. I just read through the rest of the post and do not see any.Reality seems to suggest that you can achieve low crime rates without guns and by using social engineering. I personally agree that there are many things you can do to reduce gun crime rates in a country besides make/change gun control related laws, however, you are once again making a very strong claim that is very difficult to support.See, I try to keep people on both sides of this issue in check... not just one! | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 06:32 mcc wrote: Zaqwe, how do you deal with the empirical fact that screams to your face : Crime rates (especially for violent crime) in countries with much less guns and much less "freedom" are better than in places with your utopian setup. Reality seems to suggest that you can achieve low crime rates without guns and by using social engineering. Unless your point is that intelligence of US population is lower than that of other countries. If it is best way to go is a question, but to say that it is not possible to use social programs is nonsense. What you are claiming is a bare assertion with no evidence to back it up. Indeed, it is contradicted by the evidence you can view by browsing back a few pages. I provided evidence to support every claim I made. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24615 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:03 Zaqwe wrote: What you are claiming is a bare assertion with no evidence to back it up. Indeed, it is contradicted by the evidence you can view by browsing back a few pages. I provided evidence to support every claim I made. To be fair you completely ignored criticism of it. Earlier, for the most part I wasn't trying to say whether you were right or wrong (I see this is a tricky/complex issue where most sides have some legitimacy) but simply that you aren't actually backing your points up sufficiently... so you really shouldn't be calling others out (besides, I did!) for insufficient evidence. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:03 Zaqwe wrote: What you are claiming is a bare assertion with no evidence to back it up. Indeed, it is contradicted by the evidence you can view by browsing back a few pages. I provided evidence to support every claim I made. I see absolutely no evidence to support the notion that a) gun control increases crime rates (the only resource you provided I could find argued correlation at best) b) that the only/best way to lower crime rates is to allow free gun ownership b) was target of my post. b) is also clearly false when confronted with reality. Just pick any of the low crime rate countries with strict gun control. There are plenty of them and they clearly demonstrate that you can have strict gun control and lower crime rates than US, thus showing that your prescription is definitely not the only way. Note that I am not claiming gun control actually helps. I am claiming that you can have low crime rates and gun control at the same time. And since such countries exist it is a fact. Your claims on the other hand hinge on poorly supported correlations. As for your evidence , for example the linked Harvard study. Including Russia into the group as main example, really ? Maybe we should also include Somalia. Do they also know that Luxembourg is micro-state and comparing it with other countries is like comparing ghetto in the city in NY with rural area in IL and concluding that IL has thus lower crime rates. For all their preaching they show extreme lack of sound reasoning. They also completely ignore UK's recent decline in violent crime, how convenient  . And that is just after reading few pages.But that is beside the point, my point does not depend on any correlations. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:06 micronesia wrote: To be fair you completely ignored criticism of it. Earlier, for the most part I wasn't trying to say whether you were right or wrong (I see this is a tricky/complex issue where most sides have some legitimacy) but simply that you aren't actually backing your points up sufficiently... so you really shouldn't be calling others out (besides, I did!) for insufficient evidence. Sorry, I just don't like to get into conversations where we dissect posts in small quotes because it gets way too tedious very quickly. My personal opinion is based on the best evidence available to me. I showed what I base my views on, and am always willing to adjust my views when I come across new evidence. If you are unconvinced that is perfectly fair. Personally, I am not going to change my views without seeing new evidence. I found what I posted compelling enough to come to the conclusions I stated. I also didn't want to delve too deeply in off topic conversations. And I wasn't sure what sort of tangents would be considered acceptable. For example I have read a blog that is replete with a large amount of citations to scientific papers on genetics. It seems to suggest that the racial crime gap is genetic and can't be eliminated with social programs. It also logically follows that comparisons between countries need to take demographics into account. You'll have to excuse me if I give little weight to "social equality", as nobody has ever explained to me how it is even possible to make people with different genetic tendencies have equal behaviour and outcomes. You can only treat people equally. You can't make them literally equal. I feel like these sorts of arguments are coming from people who don't believe in genetics or human evolution at all. Epistemology & Endocrinology Beginning with the 2004 Wust et al study on the effects of glucocorticoid receptor alleles on cortisol levels, progress in understanding cortisol heritability at the molecular level is slowly coming to fruition.Now, a new study by Way and Taylor has found that the short allele of 5-HTTLPR causes increased cortisol responses to a perceived social threat provided by the Trier Social Stress Test.As I previously mentioned, about 70-80% of East Asians, 40-50% of Europeans, and just 10-30% of Africans and African Americans possess this short allele.Also, a new study by Armbruster et al found that the 7R allele of DRD4 causes lower cortisol responses and that this allele interacted with the long allele of 5-HTTLPR to lower cortisol response to social stress.Beaver et al determined that African-Americans have significantly more 7R alleles than whites.The possibility that low cortisol levels in African Americans could be partly genetic has important implications for research on the genetics of violence.As I previously pointed out, the violence gene MAOA has a glucocorticoid and androgen response element, through which cortisol can up-regulate and testosterone can down-regulate MAOA enzyme levels.Sjoberg et al proved that higher testosterone levels increased aggressive tendencies in males with the 3R allele that is the most common MAOA allele in black people but did not increase aggression in males with the 4R allele that is the most common MAOA allele in whites. To summarize, African Americans have fewer CAG repeats in the androgen receptor gene, which somehow increases testosterone spikes.Higher testosterone decreases MAOA enzyme levels in those with the 3-repeat allele.Plus, androgen receptor alleles with fewer CAG repeats beget more androgen receptor activity.These receptors translocate to the cell nucleus and down-regulate the MAOA gene.African Americans likely have a significant genetic component to their lower baseline cortisol levels and lower cortisol spikes in response to threats.This further allows higher testosterone levels and decreases MAOA levels directly.Lower MAOA enzyme levels increase aggressive behavior, as my previous blog posts explain.These racial hormonal differences help to answer the black-Asian MAOA paradox: somehow Asians are much less inclined towards delinquent violence despite possessing about the same proportion of the 3R allele of MAOA.Greater prevalence of the 2R allele in black people cannot entirely explain the difference. The puzzle pieces are fitting together.One might predict based on this synthesis that fewer CAG repeats would correlate with aggression.Indeed, in 2008 Rajender et al determined that male control subjects average 21.19 repeats, rapists average 18.44 repeats, murderers average 17.59 repeats, and men who murder after they finish raping average 17.31 repeats.The shortest repeat lengths are associated with a higher degree of violence, earlier criminal records, verbal aggression, assertive personalities, extraversion, neuroticism, and self-transcendence (mystical tendencies), according to Cheng et al, Jonsson et al, and Westberg et al.Fewer GGC repeats are associated with aggression, impulsivity, promiscuity, and early menarche, according to Comings et al.A new study by Manuck et al localized the neural effects of shorter CAG repeat polymorphisms to the ventral amygdala, and previous research by Buckholtz et al found that the 3-repeat allele of MAOA is associated with increased amygdala activation. http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.ca/2010/01/epistemology-endocrinology.html Of course, I want to avoid these arguments because fundamentally the thread is about gun control. Does gun ownership increase or reduce crime? All the evidence I have seen shows gun ownership reduces crime. Claims to the contrary rely on flawed comparisons which don't account for other factors like demographics, or blatantly deceptive statistics like "gun deaths" which includes suicides and lawful self-defense, instead of crime rates or murder rates. I just jumped into this thread to post an article I enjoyed which was written by the great Thomas Sowell. I'm happy to defend his article, but people began leading the thread down other avenues immediately after I posted it. So I think I will have to abstain from any more conversation about "social equality" or the fundamental causes of crime. Whether someone is likely or unlikely to commit crime--whether that is due to life circumstances or genetic tendencies--what matters is that when their potential victims are armed they are less likely to commit crime. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:44 mcc wrote: I see absolutely no evidence to support the notion that a) gun control increases crime rates (the only resource you provided I could find argued correlation at best) b) that the only/best way to lower crime rates is to allow free gun ownership b) was target of my post. b) is also clearly false when confronted with reality. Just pick any of the low crime rate countries with strict gun control. There are plenty of them and they clearly demonstrate that you can have strict gun control and lower crime rates than US, thus showing that your prescription is definitely not the only way. Note that I am not claiming gun control actually helps. I am claiming that you can have low crime rates and gun control at the same time. And since such countries exist it is a fact. Your claims on the other hand hinge on poorly supported correlations. As for your evidence , for example the linked Harvard study. Including Russia into the group as main example, really ? Maybe we should also include Somalia. Do they also know that Luxembourg is micro-state and comparing it with other countries is like comparing ghetto in the city in NY with rural area in IL and concluding that IL has thus lower crime rates. For all their preaching they show extreme lack of sound reasoning. They also completely ignore UK's recent decline in violent crime, how convenient . And that is just after reading few pages.But that is beside the point, my point does not depend on any correlations. What purpose is there in disarming a population? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10628 Posts
| ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 08:27 Velr wrote: decreasing the amount of people getting shot. At the cost of more people being robbed, raped, and murdered in general? Doesn't seem like a good trade off. I'd prefer lower murder rates and lower crime rates overall, than to simply have murderers using other weapons. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 21 2014 08:00 Zaqwe wrote: Sorry, I just don't like to get into conversations where we dissect posts in small quotes because it gets way too tedious very quickly. My personal opinion is based on the best evidence available to me. I showed what I base my views on, and am always willing to adjust my views when I come across new evidence. If you are unconvinced that is perfectly fair. Personally, I am not going to change my views without seeing new evidence. I found what I posted compelling enough to come to the conclusions I stated. You've showed multiple times in this thread that you don't know how to read scientific articles or just articles in general. You completely misunderstood the conclusion of a paper. When I pointed out that fact, you continued to believe your broken interpretation of the article's conclusion and you didn't address what I said. You've made multiple fallacious deductions regarding causal links. You've dismissed my OECD numbers showing that social inequality correlates heavily with crime as well as a large variety of other social issues. You've dismissed my video showing that, despite the fact that all of those things are made evident by the OECD, one of the most reputable source of statistics and information about the western world as well as a few more countries. For example I have read a blog that is replete with a large amount of citations to scientific papers on genetics. It seems to suggest that the racial crime gap is genetic and can't be eliminated with social programs. It also logically follows that comparisons between countries need to take demographics into account. A few questions: 1- Why do you read blogs instead of reading scientific papers? The problem with blogs (and you) is that if you take two papers and draw your own conclusions as a blogger, sometimes what you've done is you've taken imperfect information and you've processed it wrong again. That's why many journalists are not very good at dealing with science. You can't fuck around with it if you don't know how. 2- Given that earlier you confused a glorified review of literature for a peer reviewed scientific article, why would we believe that your blog cited proper peer reviewed articles Nobody peer reviewed that that article. Nobody peer reviewed his Frankenstein conclusion that he drew off of cheaply patching together other articles. Also, look at the sample size. One hundred. Even the writers of the original articles know that these figures are not set in stone. A sample size of one hundred borders on worthless. You'll have to excuse me if I give little weight to "social equality", as nobody has ever explained to me how it is even possible to make people with different genetic tendencies have equal behaviour and outcomes. You can only treat people equally. You can't make them literally equal. I feel like these sorts of arguments are coming from people who don't believe in genetics or human evolution at all. Statistics don't work like that, you don't necessarily need to know why - you just know how it works. There is empirical evidence that countries with more social equality have less crime. Meanwhile, there is no equality that there is such a thing as "genetic tendencies" in different "races" of people, which is what you've been sugarcoating over multiple pages of this thread because you literally are at the very least dipping into the idea of scientific racism, racial superiority. You ask for evidence that social equality would have an effect on races of people with different genetic tendencies, thus assuming that there is such a thing as genetic tendencies. See, there's no research about that BECAUSE nobody in the scientific world agrees that there are such genetically inferior races of people. That's why the studies and extensive logs of international statistics which show that social inequality increases crime make no mention of racial inferiority. They study the society at large, which includes those people whom you consider to be inferior but you won't mention who they are because you want to continue to sugarcoat the fact that you view most likely african americans as lesser humans due to their higher crime rate. And I'm reasonably certain that I'm not the only one who sees this obvious, thinly veiled nazi glow from your BS. Early on, I noticed that your posting had elements of eugenics in it. I must have said that word 10 times by now and it got clearer and clearer the more you posted. But I think this last post of yours shows even more than that. Your initial argument was that some races of people are dumber, now they're genetically more aggressive, and you know off the top of your head that genetic differences are therefore more important than social inequality. This is a rollercoaster with so many flaws in your research methodology that you'd fail an undergrad paper in the most spectacular of ways. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 09:49 Djzapz wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 21 2014 08:00 Zaqwe wrote: Sorry, I just don't like to get into conversations where we dissect posts in small quotes because it gets way too tedious very quickly. My personal opinion is based on the best evidence available to me. I showed what I base my views on, and am always willing to adjust my views when I come across new evidence. If you are unconvinced that is perfectly fair. Personally, I am not going to change my views without seeing new evidence. I found what I posted compelling enough to come to the conclusions I stated. You've showed multiple times in this thread that you don't know how to read scientific articles or just articles in general. You completely misunderstood the conclusion of a paper. When I pointed out that fact, you continued to believe your broken interpretation of the article's conclusion and you didn't address what I said. You've made multiple fallacious deductions regarding causal links. You've dismissed my OECD numbers showing that social inequality correlates heavily with crime as well as a large variety of other social issues. You've dismissed my video showing that, despite the fact that all of those things are made evident by the OECD, one of the most reputable source of statistics and information about the western world as well as a few more countries. You'll have to excuse me if I give little weight to "social equality", as nobody has ever explained to me how it is even possible to make people with different genetic tendencies have equal behaviour and outcomes. You can only treat people equally. You can't make them literally equal. I feel like these sorts of arguments are coming from people who don't believe in genetics or human evolution at all. Statistics don't work like that, you don't necessarily need to know why - you just know how it works. There is empirical evidence that countries with more social equality have less crime. Meanwhile, there is no equality that there is such a thing as "genetic tendencies" in different "races" of people, which is what you've been sugarcoating over multiple pages of this thread because you literally are at the very least dipping into the idea of scientific racism, racial superiority. You ask for evidence that social equality would have an effect on races of people with different genetic tendencies, thus assuming that there is such a thing as genetic tendencies. See, there's no research about that BECAUSE nobody in the scientific world agrees that there are such genetically inferior races of people. That's why the studies and extensive logs of international statistics which show that social inequality increases crime make no mention of racial inferiority. They study the society at large, which includes those people whom you consider to be inferior but you won't mention who they are because you want to continue to sugarcoat the fact that you view most likely african americans as lesser humans due to their higher crime rate. And I'm reasonably certain that I'm not the only one who sees this obvious, thinly veiled nazi glow from your BS. Early on, I noticed that your posting had elements of eugenics in it. I must have said that word 10 times by now and it got clearer and clearer the more you posted. But I think this last post of yours shows even more than that. I never misunderstood the conclusions of any paper. The data is in the body, not the conclusion. The blog I mentioned is excerpted in the post you were replying to. I guess expecting you to read that is like expecting you to read more than the title and conclusion of a paper. The blogger who wrote it has caught errors in "peer reviewed" papers which were being cited by supposedly reputable people. Exactly the type of error you yourself would never catch because you don't read anything but titles and conclusions and place blind faith in "peer reviewed" papers. As for social equality apparently my comments flew over your head there. It's like finding that taller people are better basketball players and then saying: "let's make everyone the same height". How? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:11 Zaqwe wrote: I never misunderstood the conclusions of any paper. The data is in the body, not the conclusion. The blog I mentioned is excerpted in the post you were replying to. I guess expecting you to read that is like expecting you to read more than the title and conclusion of a paper. The blogger who wrote it has caught errors in "peer reviewed" papers which were being cited by supposedly reputable people. Exactly the type of error you yourself would never catch because you don't read anything but titles and conclusions and place blind faith in "peer reviewed" papers. I've modified my post seeing the second half of your thread which I assumed to be your response to somebody else. As for the idea that I give blind faith to peer reviews, that's absolutely hilarious. The fact that I criticize you for having blind faith in articles that are not peer reviewed somehow means that I put my blind faith in articles which ARE? Even if that were true, it'd still be worse of you to outright believe every blog which carries your views about eugenics and the genetic racial inferiority of black people. And if your blogger buddy caught errors in peer reviewed papers, I don't know how he lives with himself drawing drastic conclusions off of articles which were carried with a sample size of 100. As for social equality apparently my comments flew over your head there. It's like finding that taller people are better basketball players and then saying: "let's make everyone the same height". How? It's like finding that more educated people have better jobs and then saying: "let's give everybody a shot to the best of our ability" and suddenly little poor farmer's kid goes to school and has a better chance of success. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 21 2014 07:03 Zaqwe wrote: What you are claiming is a bare assertion with no evidence to back it up. Indeed, it is contradicted by the evidence you can view by browsing back a few pages. I provided evidence to support every claim I made. Pot meet kettle Lmao User was warned for this post | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:14 Djzapz wrote: I've modified my post seeing the second half of your thread which I assumed to be your response to somebody else. As for the idea that I give blind faith to peer reviews, that's absolutely hilarious. The fact that I criticize you for having blind faith in articles that are not peer reviewed somehow means that I put my blind faith in articles which ARE? Even if that were true, it'd still be worse of you to outright believe every blog which carries your views about eugenics and the genetic racial inferiority of black people. And if your blogger buddy caught errors in peer reviewed papers, I don't know how he lives with himself drawing drastic conclusions off of articles which were carried with a sample size of 100. It's like finding that more educated people have better jobs and then saying: "let's give everybody a shot to the best of our ability" and suddenly little poor farmer's kid goes to school and has a better chance of success. I don't put blind faith in articles. I actually read them instead of skipping to the conclusions. Giving people equal access to schooling doesn't mean they can actually do all the schoolwork given to them. Just like giving people equal access to basketball training camp won't make everyone an NBA player. If you can actually find any evidence that contradicts theunsilencedscience blog I'm willing to read whatever you have and give it my full consideration. As a layman the Epistemology & Endocrinology article seems very sound and backs up all its statements with data. I have read many of his other articles too. The writer obviously knows what he is talking about very well. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:20 Zaqwe wrote: I don't put blind faith in articles. I actually read them instead of skipping to the conclusions. Given that I'm not very well versed in genetics, I can't really easily read a blog about genetics and expect to get good information. Genetics are a lot more complicated than my field. If I want to understand something, I have to rely on experts. Not, maybe you know more than I do, which I doubt. I think you just searched for something that tried to show that black people are inferior to white people and you found out that scientific papers don't (shocker) and bloggers do it better while doing a patchwork between scientific articles. Given that we've established earlier that you don't know how to read simple conclusions (which is strange, given that you say you read entire articles about genetics), then I'm not sure that I can believe your personal assessment of a blog's patchwork of scientific findings that are based on a small sample size of 100 in at least one of the papers. You see what I have to wrestle with? You've showed that you can't read conclusions and interpret them properly, and yet you say you can read entire blog posts about genetics with a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo. You ignore most of my posts. You ignore what I bring up. What am I to do. You've got a response for everything because you're rocking the tightest case of confirmation bias I've ever seen in my life. Giving people equal access to schooling doesn't mean they can actually do all the schoolwork given to them. Just like giving people equal access to basketball training camp won't make everyone an NBA player. It still reduces the inequality. In any case, props to you. You've managed to argue in favor of eugenics and nazism for longer than anyone on any reputable forum I know, simply by not saying explicitly what you believe. If you can actually find any evidence that contradicts theunsilencedscience blog I'm willing to read whatever you have and give it my full consideration. As a layman the Epistemology & Endocrinology article seems very sound and backs up all its statements with data. I have read many of his other articles too. The writer obviously knows what he is talking about very well. I'm not a geneticist so I can't verify the veracity of a blog or some guy's opinion on TL. You're not a geneticist so if you were reasonable, you'd have that modesty. Unfortunately, it works for you, so you believe it. For me to believe something I don't understand, I'd need more than a blog that cites a few articles from 1992. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
I already pointed out I am arguing in favour of the founding fathers of America and the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. You keep calling me a Nazi because you don't have any leg to stand on. Did you know the NRA armed Black people back when the KKK was active? Nowadays they don't have to worry about the KKK, but rather gangbanging criminal youth. Yet firearm ownership is still very effective for self-defense. The blog is written in a way easily understantable by laymen. I don't see why you would on the one hand claim it's absurd that human behaviour is affected by genetics and then on the other hand claim the blog flies too far over your head for you to try and refute it. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:39 Zaqwe wrote: I don't get why you keep claiming I can't read conclusions. The conclusion of the paper you are talking about didn't contradict me. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf This is the paper you claim to have understood. You used it to claim that gun control INCREASES GUN VIOLENCE, which is a causality link. The paper's conclusion, AKA what the harvard researchers believe that you can derive from the scattered pieces of data that they've put together. It starts off: Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences (I wouldn't use this as a source in any of my papers because they INSIST that it's not solid) Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra The available data doesn't allow us to determine that gun control has any positive effect. Further research is necessary. Pro gun control proponents need to prove that gun control is effective. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. In order to show that gun control does reduce (or increase) criminal violence or suicide, one would need multiple data points across many countries at different times, before and after the legislation and the implementation of said legislation. So none of this shows, like you said it did, that gun control increases violence. It just says that we don't know that it decreases it. Knowing that you misread this paper so badly, why would I believe that you can read a paper about genetics. I'm not even in favor of gun control but I know that you've misunderstood this article very badly. I agree with the article and you're twisting it to say something it doesn't. I already pointed out I am arguing in favour of the founding fathers of America and the right of everyone to keep and bear arms. You keep calling me a Nazi because you don't have any leg to stand on. I call you a nazi because you're literally arguing in favor of eugenics... Your arguments are essentially right next to nazism, objectively, as per the definition of nazism. You're literally suggesting that black people are intellectually inferior to white people and more innately more aggressive and dangerous. You've literally made the point that free abortions would be the only good social policy because it would reduce the number of criminals (implying black people, which I thought when you said it, but in hindsight it's obvious that you think abortions should be free because it'd weed out black babies). The blog is written in a way easily understantable by laymen. I don't see why you would on the one hand claim it's absurd that human behaviour is affected by genetics and then on the other hand claim the blog flies too far over your head for you to try and refute it. I can read the words, I don't know if they're true. I guess you do know though. Cause it's a blog and it looks legit, so it is. | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
If the words in the blog aren't true feel free to show me evidence they aren't. As far as I can see it's all copiously sourced from scientific papers. And by the way, Thomas Sowell who I cited when I entered this thread is Black. And the segment of the American population who would benefit the most from the policies I advocate is the Black community. Your smear attempt is just silly. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 21 2014 11:00 Zaqwe wrote: The paper concluded there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Their data showed it increases crime. There's no contradiction there. If the words in the blog aren't true feel free to show me evidence they aren't. As far as I can see it's all copiously sourced from scientific papers. The data didn't show it increases crime. The data showed that countries with more gun control have more crime. It doesn't tell us about the effect of instituting gun control on a country that doesn't have it. It makes no statement about that. Have you ever heard the saying "all other things being equal" or "ceteris paribus"? It's one of the reasons why you can't necessarily compare apples and oranges. The study finds that countries with gun control have more crime on average. It can mean a few things. One, it's random. This is unlikely. Two, it's because gun control leads to violence. Or three, countries which already have a lot of violence institute gun control and it's largely ineffective. Can we extrapolate from that, that gun control increases crime? Fuck no. Because you fucked up and made a wild assumption of a causal link. And earlier, you even had the guts to compare this to the chicken and the egg. You've fucked up with the first god damn rule of science, correlation does not imply causation. And even when it's displayed to you in clear terms, you STILL don't get it. Do I need to give you further examples for why you can't decide that a correlation does not imply a causal link? Do you know what correlation and causal link mean? And by the way, Thomas Sowell who I cited when I entered this thread is Black. And the segment of the American population who would benefit the most from the policies I advocate is the Black community. Your smear attempt is just silly. And I'm a Chinese aviator so I know my shit. There was nothing factually wrong in your citation from Thomas Sowell by the way. Edit: I just now realized that you were doing the internet of equivalent of "I'm not racist I have black friends". | ||
|
Zaqwe
591 Posts
In the absence of any compelling information otherwise I feel I am on solid ground with my statements. I am very willing to see new information though. | ||
| ||
