Killing people is the best solution.

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates

And here's a discussion of recent deterrance studies.

Can you show a causal link? Without that, your graphs are meaningless.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The pirate graph is to show the idiocy of blindly believing graphs, and to illustrate that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

My further point is that while your data may be true for national numbers, the state-by-state numbers do not support your hypothesis.

Why do your graphs require less proof of cause and effect than his?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The pirate graph is to show the idiocy of blindly believing graphs, and to illustrate that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

My further point is that while your data may be true for national numbers, the state-by-state numbers do not support your hypothesis.

In other words; the FACT that an apples to apples (same sample group) comparison does support my hypothesis is "meaningless" in your mind, but you find an apples to oranges (different sample groups) comparison compelling. Really? That is indicative of pretty poor reasoning skills, Drewdad, and is no doubt the product of your predisposition.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Every person is born with an absolute right to protect themselves from murderers using whatever means necessary. By extension, society has this same right.

Necessary - Aye, and there's the rub.

If an individual kills to protect himself when it IS NOT neccessary, then that can be viewed as murder. By extension, society has this same responsibility.

Many countries around the world agree that dragging a criminal out of a prison cell and shooting him dead years after the fact is not only unnecessary, but barbaric.

The position of other countries and states shows that CP is all about revenge and not about prevention.

Belief that the act of taking another's life is always wrong is perfectly reasonable. I just happen to disagree. You don't begin to err until you assume that revenge is the only factor motivating those with dissenting opinions.

We obviously disagree about what is and isn't necessary; but I would agree that waiting years between crime and punishment is wrong.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Er...

You've got it backwards, there.

Putting all murders in one column, whether they occur in a death penalty state or not, gives a meaningless answer. You've munged together a bunch of discrete samples, and now you're trying to say they are from the "same sample group."

Ain't gonna fly.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Can you show a causal link? Without that, your graphs are meaningless.

Had I been trying to show a causal link, you would be correct. How's that shoe leather taste, dumbass?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why do your graphs require less proof of cause and effect than his?

He was trying to show a correlation. Correlation is not causation. Surely you are aware of this mantra?

Conversely, when it can be shown that no correlation exists....

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Er...

You've got it backwards, there.

Putting all murders in one column, whether they occur in a death penalty state or not, gives a meaningless answer. You've munged together a bunch of discrete samples, and now you're trying to say they are from the "same sample group."

Ain't gonna fly.

Speaking from ignorance mostly just demonstrates ignorance. The graph I showed was built using the Bureau of Justice Statistics (not perfect, but the most comprehensive data available)... nothing discreet or munged together about them. They are from the identical sample group... as opposed to comparing completely different sample groups like you attempted to do. Rational people will recognize this simple fact, whether they support the death penalty or not.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Can you show a causal link? Without that, your graphs are meaningless.

Had I been trying to show a causal link, you would be correct. How's that shoe leather taste, dumbass?

Why don't you tell me how it tastes, because I attempted no such thing, either, dumbass.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Why do your graphs require less proof of cause and effect than his?

He was trying to show a correlation. Correlation is not causation. Surely you are aware of this mantra?

An absence of proof of causation hardly proves an absence of correlation. Perhaps you should learn the language you're parroting before making a fool of yourself further.

DrewDad wrote:

Conversely, when it can be shown that no correlation exists....

Here you’d have something if you could do it, but you can’t. Disagree? Then please prove to us no correlation exists. Laughing

(Hint: Your ridiculous Pirate example did NOTHING to do so.)

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

No, you were attempting to show a correlation. As I stated above.

Brandon, on the other hand, was attempting to be snarky, but ended up just sounding foolish. You seem to have decided to join him.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

An absence of proof of causation hardly proves an absence of correlation. Perhaps you should learn the language you're parroting before making a fool of yourself further.

The pirate chart is a clear, if humorous, demonstration that one can still find correlations where no resonable causation can be found. That was the point.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Then please prove to us no correlation exists.
(Hint: Your ridiculous Pirate example did NOTHING to do so.)

Hint: Re-read the charts where it shows that murder rates in death penalty states are higher than in states that don't have the death penalty.

Hint #2: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

That is no answer at all. You ignore that the criminal in question either acts from passion, and is therefore giving no thought to consequences; or acts with criminal intent, and believes that he or she will not be apprehended.

You write:

Quote:

It seems logical that people are less likely to commit an act when they stand a good chance of being punished than when they do not, and that the more severe and probably the punishment, the more of a deterrent it is.

I am pointing out that logic does not govern crimes of passion. Further, i am pointing out that those who willfully act with criminal intent do not believe they will be apprehended--it would illogical to commit a criminal act in the belief that one will surely be apprehended.

If there is a lack of logic here, it is yours in not thinking this through sufficiently.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

No, you were attempting to show a correlation. As I stated above.

I didn't attempt to show a correlation, moron: I did show a correlation. I did not claim to have evidence of causation. Learn the words you're using before making a bigger fool of yourself.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon, on the other hand, was attempting to be snarky, but ended up just sounding foolish. You seem to have decided to join him.

Brandon's point was spot on, and you are the one who sounds foolish. Even after it's been explained to you; you appear too dense to understand it.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
An absence of proof of causation hardly proves an absence of correlation. Perhaps you should learn the language you're parroting before making a fool of yourself further.

The pirate chart is a clear, if humorous, demonstration that one can still find correlations where no resonable causation can be found. That was the point.

And water is wet and bricks are hard. That is not a point. Try again.

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Then please prove to us no correlation exists.
(Hint: Your ridiculous Pirate example did NOTHING to do so.)

Hint: Re-read the charts where it shows that murder rates in death penalty states are higher than in states that don't have the death penalty.

You must be retarded. You can show no more causation there than in my example. That was Brandon's point and it is spot on.

Further; you are using different sample groups altogether and assuming the Death Penalty is the only variable. That is even less reliable than using the ban on the Death Penalty in THE EXACT SAME sample group. You can’t really be this stupid.

DrewDad wrote:

Hint #2: When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Good advice. Take it.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I didn't attempt to show a correlation, moron: I did show a correlation.

You attempted to show correlation, but your methodology was flawed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I did not claim to have evidence of causation. Learn the words you're using before making a bigger fool of yourself.

You stated, "Some will guess this is coincidence. I tend to doubt it." This implies causation.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You can show no more causation there than in my example.

That's the point. There is no correlation between murder rate and having the death penalty. In other words, having a death penalty does not deter people from committing murder. Am I going too fast for you?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Further; you are using different sample groups altogether and assuming the Death Penalty is the only variable. That is even less reliable than using the ban on the Death Penalty in THE EXACT SAME sample group. You can’t really be this stupid.

Bill, you posted data that showed murder rate and executions as the only data lines, and now you're complaining that there may be other variables? You are impeaching your own argument. And you're calling me stupid?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

just wait for the rapture and the new world order

when the governments exterminate excess useless eaters.

lots of people die then, it good thing, good ting indeed!

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I didn't attempt to show a correlation, moron: I did show a correlation.

You attempted to show correlation, but your methodology was flawed.

The correlation is obvious simply by looking at the graph, or you wouldn't be aware of it. What I didn't claim is proof of causation. Get a dictionary before making a bigger fool of yourself. Also: Please point out the methodology flaw in my presentation of the absolutely factual correlation I presented (good luck; I've checked and there isn't one.)

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I did not claim to have evidence of causation. Learn the words you're using before making a bigger fool of yourself.

You stated, "Some will guess this is coincidence. I tend to doubt it." This implies causation.

Because the correlation implies causation, you dolt. This implication doesn't constitute proof, and I haven’t claimed it does. It is reasonable to believe this correlation is coincidence and it is reasonable to doubt that it is coincidence as well. What isn't reasonable is your idiotic insistence that absence of proof constitutes proof of absence. Pretending that the presentation of a factual correlation is the same as claiming causation constitutes a textbook Strawman argument... and mostly serves to make you look like an idiot; because honest people capable of critical thinking will recognize this fact whether they agree with my position or not.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You can show no more causation there than in my example.

That's the point. There is no correlation between murder rate and having the death penalty. In other words, having a death penalty does not deter people from committing murder. Am I going too fast for you?

No, you're going to fast for you... and making a fool of yourself. The correlation couldn't be more obvious, or you wouldn't have even thought to object to the graph in the first place. Laughing

Stating "2+2 does not equal 5" has no bearing on the FACTS clearly illustrated on the graph… Neither does your equally ridiculous example of idiotic correlation. Inferring causation in the correlation I provided is quite reasonable. Not so yours, which makes it a useless, idiotic thing to introduce to the discussion.

Further; you have provided not one shred of evidence to back your claim. NOTHING. You've denied a correlation that a child could spot, then attacked the veracity of a proof of causation claim that no one has made, but haven't even provided an alternative theory, let alone proven it false. Who do you think you're impressing with naked assertions of denial, based on NOTHING more than your say so? I simply provided facts for people to consume and make their own judgment. If you want to argue the correlation illustrated in the graph is as meaningless as the idiotic example you provided; it is on you to prove it. I won’t be holding my breath.

DrewDad wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Further; you are using different sample groups altogether and assuming the Death Penalty is the only variable. That is even less reliable than using the ban on the Death Penalty in THE EXACT SAME sample group. You can’t really be this stupid.

Bill, you posted data that showed murder rate and executions as the only data lines, and now you're complaining that there may be other variables? You are impeaching your own argument. And you're calling me stupid?

No; I'm impeaching the idiotic argument you falsely attributed to me. While I haven't claimed the obvious correlation illustrated in the graph constitutes proof of causation; YOU have steadfastly insisted it is meaningless. Your options are PROVE IT, retract it, or continue making a fool of yourself.

2 Replies

Killing people is the best solution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know