Killing people is the best solution.

@OCCOM BILL,

DrewDad wrote:

A. You do realize that the word "correlation" (co-relation) means that there is an actual, computable mathematical relationship between the two numbers, right? That using statistical methods, one can determine exactly how much the two data sets are related to each other?

thefreedictionary.com wrote:

cor•re•la•tion (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.
2. Statistics The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.

Any child of average intelligence could see the correlation in that graph.

DrewDad wrote:

B. OK, you got me. Your numbers are correct. Your method is flawed, because you include murders from non-death-penalty-states. The fact that this skews your numbers is entirely beside the point.

Well, better late then never. Problem is: I still never claimed the method was comprehensive or that it constituted proof. That argument is between you and your shadow.

(Sorry about the messy quotes in the first posting)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your response completely ignores the point i made to the effect that people who willfully commit criminal acts do not do so in the belief that they will inevitably be apprehended. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that they do so in the belief that they will not be apprehended.

You have, unlike the graph folks, attempted to base your argument on logic. I consider that reasonable, given, as DD's ongoing argument demonstrates, the unreliability of the alleged statistical evidence for the case. Therefore, i have responded with a logical argument. My point of logic is that people in crimes of passion aren't thinking at all about the consequences of their actions (which is why they are described as crimes of passion); and further that those who commit crimes in "cold blood" do not do so in the belief that they will be apprehended, but rather believing that they will not be apprehended.

I suggest to you that you have not adequately addressed this position.

Then let me address it a little more. I think that to say that murderers never think realistically about the likelihood of punishment is too simplistic. It's more likely that there is a wide spectrum of psychologies, and that some think about it a lot, some a little, and some not at all. The law is primarily aimed at the subset of murderers who are not completely oblivious to consequences.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The law is primarily aimed at the subset of murderers who are not completely oblivious to consequences.

Those potential murders that consider consequences: are they really deterred that much more by the threat of capital punishment than they are by life in prison without parole?

1 Reply

I'll add that the way the law is applied in Texas, sentencing guidelines promote leniency to criminals who cooperate with the authorities.

As a result, people who claim innocence are precisely those who are likely to get the harshest penalties.

DNA evidence has cleared quite a few folks who were convicted before these tests were available, and who had protested their innocence throughout their conviction and sentence.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Still running your mouth without conceding your misunderstanding of the word correlation, eh? You display an utter lack of integrity.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Bill, your intelligence may compare unfavorably to that of a satchel of hand-held striking tools, but at least you have an unpleasant personality.

You're still wrong, and will continue to be wrong; your continued defense of that silly graph would be painfully embarrassing, if it weren't so funny.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Bill, your intelligence may compare unfavorably to that of a satchel of hand-held striking tools, but at least you have an unpleasant personality.

You're still wrong, and will continue to be wrong; your continued defense of that silly graph would be painfully embarrassing, if it weren't so funny.

Gee, that's clever. I have little doubt my performance on any intelligence test would far exceed yours, DrewDad, but that isn't the issue. Your failure to understand English, even when a definition is provided for you, IS the issue. The graph is made of factual numbers. Said numbers demonstrate a significant correlati0n between the murder rates and the use of the death penalty. While not being comprehensive enough in scope to prove causation; the correlation is nonetheless undeniable to anyone with the brains to understand the definition of the word and the integrity to admit it. You lack those brains, that integrity, or both. No quantity of ad hominem will cover up this obvious shortcoming. Only a concession or evidence to the contrary could do that, and no such evidence exists.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Bill, you provided a pretty graph, which is meaningless by itself.

You have failed to show the actual degree of correlation between the two numbers.

You have failed to show that your methodology is correct.

You have failed to address the numerous other studies which refute your argument.

Your entire argument boils down to "a child could see it." Do you have kids, Bill? Kids will believe the most outrageous crap; this is a trait you seem to share with them.

You started the name calling between us. You continue the personal attacks by attempting to label my critique of your single piece of "evidence" as "intellectual dishonesty." What is left except attempting to derive some humor from the situation?

Have a good day.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Bill, you provided a pretty graph, which is meaningless by itself.

It is not meaningless. It accurately reflects the murder rate and the number of executions for 70 years, and shows a correlation between the two sets of data. Any honest search for causation would have to include such a significant correlation; even though it doesn't, by itself, prove causation. It is hardly meaningless. (<-That bare naked assertion is vested 100% in DrewDad "Sez me" logic… and you’ve made NO attempt to provide an alternative explanation. That’s funny too; because I could.)

DrewDad wrote:

You have failed to show the actual degree of correlation between the two numbers.

Well, gee, I'll sum that up for you right now: Some. Murder rates increased by approximately 50% during the Execution moratorium, and declined by a like amount coinciding with the resumption State Executions. Again: you wouldn't even have an objection to the graph if it didn't demonstrate a correlation. It is reasonable to believe this correlation is coincidence (as pointed out when I posted it), more reasonable if you can provide an alternative theory (though you haven’t); but it is flat out idiotic to pretend the correlation doesn't exist.

DrewDad wrote:

You have failed to show that your methodology is correct.

I told you the numbers were harvested from the DOJ website, the most comprehensive listing of such statistics I'm aware of, and they are spot on. You could easily verify this for yourself (I have), if you thought they were skewed in any way. They are not.

DrewDad wrote:

You have failed to address the numerous other studies which refute your argument.

You have provided not one shred of evidence that suggests the numbers reflected in that graph are incorrect in any way. Nor have you provided an alternative theory beyond "DrewDad thinks it's crap."

What has been revealed here; is that you lack the critical thinking skill to understand the correlations represented in your graphs suffer the exact same shortcomings in terms of proving causation or lack thereof. The fact that you would hype one while attacking the other is laughable to anyone with any critical thinking skill at all.

Further, you have provided less comprehensive numbers, some that don't even compare the same sample group. Comparing Apples to Oranges instead of Apples to Apples is preposterous.

DrewDad wrote:

Your entire argument boils down to "a child could see it." Do you have kids, Bill? Kids will believe the most outrageous crap; this is a trait you seem to share with them.

A child, or any other being with the ability to reason (including you) can see the obvious correlation represented in the graph. Your refusal or lack of ability to understand the term Correlation doesn't change this simple FACT. Webster says the definition is 4 centuries old, which I find considerably more compelling than the special DrewDad-definition. How long will you continue to make a fool of yourself with that absurd denial?

DrewDad wrote:

You started the name calling between us. You continue the personal attacks by attempting to label my critique of your single piece of "evidence" as "intellectual dishonesty." What is left except attempting to derive some humor from the situation?

I don't object to your use of ad hominem. I find it fun myself. I object to your consistent ducking of the obvious definition of a word that renders half of your idiotic babbling useless. Feel free to hurl insults while you face the facts, but don’t expect to hide behind them while you steadfastly avoid the facts.

DrewDad wrote:

Have a good day.

Back atcha.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Drewdad wrote:
You have failed to show the actual degree of correlation between the two numbers.
Well, gee, I'll sum that up for you right now: Some.

The standard of accuracy to which you hold yourself is simply stunning.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
You have failed to address the numerous other studies which refute your argument.
You have provided not one shred of evidence that suggests the numbers reflected in that graph are incorrect in any way. Nor have you provided an alternative theory beyond "DrewDad thinks it's crap."

You are the one ducking the issue. You have provided but one graph. You refuse to address the other studies, you refuse to acknowledge the skewed numbers in your graph, basically you refuse to accept reality.

There is no basis to continue a conversation with you.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

You refuse to acknowledge the skewed numbers in your graph, basically you refuse to accept reality.

Are you graduating from being incapable of admitting the truth of dictionary definitions to telling bald faced lies now? Or do you have some evidence the numbers in my graph are skewed (or anything but spot on)? Now you know better than Merriam-Webster about defining the English language, and the United States Department of Justice on crime and punishment statistics?

Do you have any idea how idiotic that is? Or how foolish you look for pretending your word trumps dictionaries and the most comprehensive database of crime and punishment statistics available? (Laughingly shakes head in disbelief)

DrewDad wrote:

There is no basis to continue a conversation with you.

If you're not man enough to admit your errors (and now bald faced lies); running and hiding is probably the next best thing to avoid further making a fool of yourself.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Your arrogance is off the chart. Bull-headedness on your part has ended the debate, but don't imagine that it has won the debate.

Have a nice night.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

When O. Bill runs out of cogent arguments, he generally resorts to threats, name-calling and inviting you over to his neck of the woods to have it out mano-a-mano. I agree, Drew. The argument is essentially over. The thread has been hijacked.

1 Reply

Perhaps this will help get it back on track...

The evidence does not seem to support CP is an effective deterent.

But even if it was, I still wouldn't support it. The end does not justify the means.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

When O. Bill runs out of cogent arguments, he generally resorts to threats, name-calling and inviting you over to his neck of the woods to have it out mano-a-mano. I agree, Drew. The argument is essentially over. The thread has been hijacked.

What utter nonsense. Are you saying that you too believe DrewDad's naked assertion that the numbers are bad is more compelling than the United States Department of Justice? Are you saying that you too can't understand the dictionary definition of the word correlation?

I never would have guessed you'd defend such an absurdity, just because you share DrewDad's opinion on the greater issue. The intellectual dishonesty is spreading. And how in the hell is debating the consequences of the death penalty, hijacking a topic on the death penalty? Your statements are purposely offensive, founded in mutual purpose rather than intellectual honesty, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself. The truth is the truth, whether you like the speaker or not.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Your arrogance is off the chart. Bull-headedness on your part has ended the debate, but don't imagine that it has won the debate.

Have a nice night.

Yeah. I bull-headedly insist that the US Department of Justice has better knowledge of crime and punishment than your ass. And yeah, I insist on using Dictionary definitions rather than those you pull out of your ass. How very arrogant of me to believe my commonly accepted sources of facts are providing facts.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Like the fact you mistakenly believe that correlation implies causation?

Like the fact you are unable to recognize a heterogeneous sample?

Like the fact you refuse to address evidence that contradicts your belief?

Like the fact you believe scorn can be substituted for reason?

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Goodnight, Wilbur.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Like the fact you mistakenly believe that correlation implies causation?

Correlation frequently implies causation. What it usually can't do is prove it. This is what happens when you take a phrase at face value that you don't really understand. The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is an appropriate response if someone claims correlation proves causation. No one here did that. Even then; the statement itself is fatally flawed because the word "imply" means "suggest", not "mandate."

Watch: Smoking causes lung cancer. This is true, right? How do we know? We know because we've observed mountains of data that implies those who smoke have a greater chance of being stricken with lung cancer. This has never been directly observed. There has never been a perfectly controlled environment to observe it. We also know that some non-smokers get lung cancer and many smokers never do. However, the correlation implies causation so strongly that it has become widely accepted as fact. How would you explain this with your text-book repetition of the unfortunate phrase?

Interestingly, it is you who has regularly used the word correlation when you apparently meant causation... not I. You then proceeded to provide numerous examples that not only suffered the same scientific shortcoming; but were consistently less representative of the available data, and frequently not even addressing the same sample group.

DrewDad wrote:

Like the fact you are unable to recognize a heterogeneous sample?

That's a big word for someone who can't understand the definition of correlation, with two dictionary references, no less. The DOJ doesn't provide State by State numbers. The graph I provided used the best information available, as near as I could find, when I went through this with Joe years ago. Insofar as the deterrent argument is concerned; the inclusion of non death penalty states isn't terribly consequential anyway for three reasons.
1. The cause and effect relationship, was never going to be direct anyway.
2. The correlation can be observed regardless.
3. The sheer volume of immeasurable factors is sufficient to prevent the correlation from ever being concrete proof of causation anyway. (Lucky for you, IMO.)
Now if you can find reliable stats on only states that have capital punishment; I would love to see them. From my opening post; I've conceded that the correlation could be coincidence; I just tend to doubt it.

DrewDad wrote:

Like the fact you refuse to address evidence that contradicts your belief?

I've refused to address nothing. You have provided nothing that contradicts the graph I presented beyond naked assertions.

On the greater argument; I find your evidence less compelling, and frankly, I only consider whatever deterrent value may exist to be a bonus to the undeniable reduction of recidivism that the Death Penalty provides. Deterrent value is not the motivating factor of my belief.

DrewDad wrote:

Like the fact you believe scorn can be substituted for reason?

I have offered no more scorn than you have, regardless of what you mutual admiration club wants to pretend. I have steadfastly tried to get you to admit the obvious error in your interpretation of correlation, and your childish refusal to accept the factual definition provided is well worthy of scorn.

DrewDad wrote:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Goodnight, Wilbur.

I can't even teach a reasonably intelligent adult to consult a dictionary... which probably makes you the most willfully ignorant person I've ever discussed this with. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

You are entitled to your delusions, just don't insist that others believe in them, too.

I may have to start referring to you as GungaBill or OccomRed.

I will try to educate you about correlation one more time:

Correlation (when it is proven) shows a link between two sets of data. (They are interrelated.) The link may be known. The link may be obscure. The link may be causal. The link may not be causal.

Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation demonstrates a link.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Disclaimer: I still do not agree that you have managed to demonstrate a link between executions and the murder rate.

(I will also state that I'm certain one exists. There would be no executions if there were no murders. This fails to support your hypothesis, though, as it points causality in the opposite direction.)

Here's another study that debunks your deterrant hypothesis:

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas

Quote:

This study tested the deterrence hypothesis in Texas, the most active execution jurisdiction during the modern era. Using monthly observations during 1984 through 1997, both the general relationship between executions and murder rates and the specific relationship between executions and felony murder rates were examined. An initial bivariate relationship between executions and murder rates proved to be spurious when appropriate control variables were included in regression models. Within a context so ideally suited for finding any potential deterrent effects, this study confirmed the results of previous ones that failed to find any evidence of deterrence resulting from capital punishment.

(While you're boning up on statistics, you may want to research the term "control variable.")

1 Reply

Killing people is the best solution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know