Civilians Death Rate in Iraq Less Than in Washington, DC

nimh wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

littlek wrote:

Amazing that I do not succumb to the trenchant logic of littlek's airtight disproof of my thesis.

Not so amazing that you choose to respond to littlek's rollingeye smiley and blueflame's Iraq story, but not to any of the posts that actually doublechecked the numbers you quote and found them false - Cyclo's, JustanObserver's, Parados's.

This bears repeating. Brandon posted an article that is based on false and misleading information. That bullsh*t argument was promptly shot down with credible information, and what's the best he can follow up with? That somehow, the mere ability to compare the information makes his argument more valid (or should I say..."less false").

He then follows it up by grasping at straws in saying that it downplays the "Liberal" perception that "bodies are flying all over the place every five minutes," and then follows that with a completely random article about four deaths in D.C., as though that somehow supports his argument.

Seriously Brandon, you make this too easy for us sometimes.

The "Liberal" (translation: realistic) perception is that Iraq is far from a safe country, long after our supposed "victory." Civilians are dying violent deaths daily. That's the point. No one ever said bodies were flying "every five minutes" (seriously, how old are you?).

I'm sure reporters would love to do pieces on another school opening in Iraq, but they can't, because it's still too damn dangerous (look at the CBS reporter in critical condition and her two assistants killed by a car bomb just the other day).

And that posting of the people killed in D.C. the other day reeked of desperation.

It's clear you know you're losing the argument when you resort to that....

I don't know if its more sad that he goes to such extreme lengths to support ANYTHING Bush does, or that he doesn't seem to realize that he's doing it. I feel bad for the guy.

You should address that criticism to the member who began taking swipes at Brandon by making snide comments about his scientific credentials. If you had been paying attention, something you apparently continue not to do, you'd know that i was not the one who started this disgusting display of puerile temper.

How someone can claim to be a scientist, and yet regurgitate tripe such as the article that started this thread, is beyond me.

"Lest of course"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

DD made a snide comment about Brandon lacking a knowledge of science, asserting that if he did, he'd not fall for such a transparently false statistical claim. I responded, without heat, simply to the effect that Brandon's scientific knowledge is undoubted, but that he suspends his faculty of disbelief when the topic is politics. DD then proceeded to a series of remarks to the effect that Brandon must have not scientific knowledge. I responded to that as the needless slander that it was.

So you decide to stick your nose in, and demonstrate that you have completely failed to understand the series of remarks which were exchanged. Who the f*ck appointed you hall monitor? Who are you to determine what is or is not appropriate to this discussion. You seem to think it is OK to slander Brandon on the basis of his relative scientific knowledge, but not OK to object to that slander. I entertain as low an opinion of your contribution to these exchanges as i do of DD's.

Who the f*ck appointed you hall monitor? Who are you to determine what is or is not appropriate to this discussion.

...it was obviously humorous hyperbole. The tendency to take everything absolutely literal is characteristic of children.

It's not even statistics really - it's simply bad math.

I can't understand why anyone would try to defend its use.

Setanta wrote:

Who the f*ck appointed you hall monitor? Who are you to determine what is or is not appropriate to this discussion.

Irony, thy name is Setanta.

ehBeth wrote:

It's not even statistics really - it's simply bad math.

I can't understand why anyone would try to defend its use.

I have at no time defended the use of a false statistical analysis. I made a point of saying that Brandon suspend's his faculty of disbelief when the topic is politics. My objection all along has been the attempt to claim that Brandon does not have valid scientific understanding because he suspends his disbelief when the topic is politics. I will continue to deplore slandering him in such a manner because he displays such a failing. DD did not simply point out that Brandon had failed to apply judicious judgment to the value of the statistical analysis presented--he continually attempted to suggest, if not outright to state, that Brandon must have no scientific credentials. I consider that an unjustified slander, and will continue to say as much.

So be it. Like I said, science has nothing to do with the political intent of this thread, and therefore you continue to change the subject. If you have a problem, then notify the moderators. Plus, it would seem as though the science is much less reliable then previously thought.

My point was not that it's valid because comparison is possible. My point was that the mere fact that the death rates are in the same neighborhood belies the typical liberal image of civilians being killed left and right.

Then you should start another thread in that regard. Otherwise, the rest of us will call him on his unyielding faith for the Bush cabal and his fuzzy math.

But I do find it interesting that you would adamently point out Brandon's expertise and then not defend the numbers in question.

Brandon is not only politically wrong, IMHO, he also appears to be statistically wrong as well.

Brandon proves once again that whatever scientific training he has is sadly lacking.

I'd say he has had good scientific training, and has shown it in these fora repeatedly. However, when the subject is politics and the Shrub, he suspends his faculties of disbelief, and sees only what he wants to see, which is only that which suggests the Shrub and his policies are right.

Brandon9000 wrote:

La la la la . . . i can't hear you ! ! !

Setanta wrote:

I'd say he has had good scientific training, and has shown it in these fora repeatedly. However, when the subject is politics and the Shrub, he suspends his faculties of disbelief, and sees only what he wants to see, which is only that which suggests the Shrub and his policies are right.

Brandon9000 wrote:

La la la la . . . i can't hear you ! ! !

The primary characteristic of a scientist is critical thinking. Brandon demonstrates again that he sadly lacks this crucial ability.

It's only slander if it's not true....