If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Globe and Mail)   One of the most egregious Second Amendment violations I've seen   (theglobeandmail.com) divider line 140
    More: Asinine, Vancouver Airport, Environment Canada, editorial cartoons, formal organization, traditional medicine, Gordon Ramsay  
•       •       •

38805 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2011 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-18 02:00:10 PM

angrycrank: Oh for fark's sake. You claimed Canada was "mostly white", then linked to a wiki that said 17% visible minorities. The comparable figure for the US is about 21%. So the US is "mostly white" too.


Canada counts Hispanics as a visible minority, so the comparable American figure is 28% for visible minorities or 34% for not-European.

The US, on a percentage basis, about twice as many minorities as Canada does.

Other than Toronto and Vancouver, though, how likely are you to see a non-white Canadian?
 
2011-08-18 02:07:44 PM

This text is now purple: angrycrank: Oh for fark's sake. You claimed Canada was "mostly white", then linked to a wiki that said 17% visible minorities. The comparable figure for the US is about 21%. So the US is "mostly white" too.

Canada counts Hispanics as a visible minority, so the comparable American figure is 28% for visible minorities or 34% for not-European.

The US, on a percentage basis, about twice as many minorities as Canada does.

Other than Toronto and Vancouver, though, how likely are you to see a non-white Canadian?


Are you counting all of the Golden Horseshoe as Toronto? Here in Hamilton, at least my area, there are plenty of non-white Canadians. Or Mississauga, Brampton, Pickering, Ajax? We are not exactly Toronto here - at least both the Torontonians and Hamiltonians prefer it that way.
 
2011-08-18 02:08:41 PM
I guess the guy with the box of one dozen starving, crazed weasels managed to sneak by while they were getting the bear claw guy.
 
2011-08-18 02:11:38 PM
Those aren't the bear paws I was looking for.

/move along
 
MrT
2011-08-18 02:17:56 PM
It is legal to hunt both black and grizzly bears in B.C., but it is illegal to sell any bear parts.

Hang on. So it's perfectly legal to kill them for fun and leave the body rotting on the floor of the forest, but it's not legal to kill them for an economic purpose and put the body to use for something.

That doesn't make sense to me.
 
2011-08-18 02:27:43 PM

Harry Freakstorm: So, you can shoot a bear but what you do with him afterwards is a crime. Unless there's a couple of pegged legged bears walking around...

The wife got mad at me when we were at her redneck friend's trailer. Her friend's husband has two deer heads on the wall and I was doing their voices.

"So how'd you get here?"
"I dunno. I was just getting a drink at a creek and POW! some a--hole shoots me in my head."(*)
"Really, what kind of pants did he have on?"
"Didn't really get a good look. Chinos?"
"You got shot by an a--hole in chinos?"
"Fine I got shot by an a--hole in chinos. Okay smart a--. How'd you get up here?"
"Thought I smelled deer p----. Next thing I know, I got an arrow in my back. What kind of a--hole wears deer p----?"
"Obviously the same kind who puts Dale Earnhart memorial mirrors in the living room of a trailer."
"Does the wife know he watches porn on the dish?"

Harry!

(*) tip o' the hat to Marisa Tomei and her amazing technicolor bodysuit.


Bravo! That is one of the funniest things I have seen here.
 
2011-08-18 02:40:40 PM

trappedspirit: MythDragon: "I don't think the dear would give a shiat about what kind of pants the son of a biatch that shot him was wearing."

spellingnazi.com

I originaly typed 'bear' then I looked back at the quoted post saw it was refering to 'deer' heads, not 'bear' heads. So I went and changed the B but forgot about the A.

Somehow I hope my explanation helps you to sleep at night again.
 
2011-08-18 02:46:08 PM
MrT: It is legal to hunt both black and grizzly bears in B.C., but it is illegal to sell any bear parts.

Hang on. So it's perfectly legal to kill them for fun and leave the body rotting on the floor of the forest, but it's not legal to kill them for an economic purpose and put the body to use for something.

That doesn't make sense to me.


If you can't profit from killing it, you're much less likely to kill it.
 
2011-08-18 02:47:27 PM

dittybopper: Both are pretty low. If one city of 100,000 people has two homicides, and it's identically sized neighbor has three in the same year, that's pretty much the same risk to an individual, is it not?

The risk is close enough that from a practical standpoint, there isn't a real difference. Another way to look at it is that the typical white non-Hispanic American has a 0.00274% chance of being a homicide victim in any given year, and the typical Canadian has a 0.0019% chance. Essentially the same odds


That's true, but if you're going to look at it from that perspective, why do all the demographic analysis in the first place? The general US rate of 5.4 per 100,000 is still only a 0.0054% chance for any given individual, and most people take risks bigger than that on a routine basis.

Also, while you make valid points from the individual perspective, the group perspective is equally valid. Expand your example from two cities of 100,000 to two countries of 30 million each. Using the rates you specified earlier, this would mean 822 homicides per year in one country vs. 570 in the other. Individuals in both countries do face very similar levels of risk, but in aggregate it means over 250 additional murders in the country with the higher rate.

dittybopper: and there are other differences between Canada and the US besides gun ownership


This is absolutely true. And there are noteworthy differences even within gun ownership, since Canada has a lot of rifles but comparatively few handguns. But even beyond all that, homicides in either country are less than half the number of traffic fatalities, and less than a tenth of the number of deaths due to heart disease alone. I'm not at all discounting what a horrific act murder is, and I do think the difference in murder rates between Canada and the US is more than negligible; but right now, it just isn't even close to the biggest problem facing either country.
 
2011-08-18 02:53:26 PM

MythDragon: trappedspirit: MythDragon: "I don't think the dear would give a shiat about what kind of pants the son of a biatch that shot him was wearing."
[spellingnazi.com image 500x333]

I originaly typed 'bear' then I looked back at the quoted post saw it was refering to 'deer' heads, not 'bear' heads. So I went and changed the B but forgot about the A.

Somehow I hope my explanation helps you to sleep at night again.


Whoa...
i141.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-18 02:55:11 PM
"Let's see what we have here.....bear paws, rhinoceros horn, cockroach cluster, anthrax ripple, crunchy frog.....I'm afraid I shall have to ask you to accompany me to the station."
 
2011-08-18 03:04:37 PM
Well played, Subby!

It's equally amusing to note the NRA's activities in Canada. Due to our next-door-neighbourliness, they frequently engage in activities to defent Canadians' gun rights as wel. Unfortunately those rights don't actually exist.

The Canadian government would be well within their legal prerogative to ban all guns. It would be political suicide, and it's never going to happen, but in theory it would be perfectly constitutional to do so. Not being a nation born out of revolution, and having a centralized government as the foundation of our confederate model, our historical needs/justifications for gun ownership are among the biggest differences between Canada and the U.S.
 
2011-08-18 03:22:46 PM

trappedspirit: angrycrank: Parts of Canada -some small towns in the North with horrible social problems- do indeed have homicide rates higher than the US average, but I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

But not true Canadians, eh, gov'ner?


Not remotely what I said. The violence and poverty in parts of Canada is shameful. The post I was responding to made the irrelevant point that some parts of Canada have a higher homicide rate than the US average. Utterly meaningless point. It would be like trying to deny that Afghanistan is more dangerous than the US by citing the homicide rate in post-Katrina New Orleans. For the comparison to be meaningful, you need to look at places with similar conditions - our average to yours, our large cities to those in the US, our remote, impoverished communities to your remote, impoverished communities.

And dittybopper, all the disproportionately high homicide rate among black Americans shows is that you have a systemic race problem as well as a violent crime problem. Unless you're trying to claim that Asians are inherently less violent than whites and blacks inherently more violent - in which case there are some Cambodians and North Koreans who would like a word.
 
2011-08-18 03:30:17 PM

angrycrank: Not remotely what I said.


It's the no true Scotsman fallacy joke. Everyone knows Canadians are blood thirsty psychopaths with bodies in their deep freezers waiting for the thaw so they can bury them.
 
2011-08-18 03:33:03 PM
One of the most egregious Second Amendment violations I've seen

www.garycole.net
 
2011-08-18 03:43:45 PM
Grady Service is not amused.

//obscure?
 
2011-08-18 03:53:47 PM

SpaceButler: dittybopper: Both are pretty low. If one city of 100,000 people has two homicides, and it's identically sized neighbor has three in the same year, that's pretty much the same risk to an individual, is it not?

The risk is close enough that from a practical standpoint, there isn't a real difference. Another way to look at it is that the typical white non-Hispanic American has a 0.00274% chance of being a homicide victim in any given year, and the typical Canadian has a 0.0019% chance. Essentially the same odds

That's true, but if you're going to look at it from that perspective, why do all the demographic analysis in the first place? The general US rate of 5.4 per 100,000 is still only a 0.0054% chance for any given individual, and most people take risks bigger than that on a routine basis.

Also, while you make valid points from the individual perspective, the group perspective is equally valid. Expand your example from two cities of 100,000 to two countries of 30 million each. Using the rates you specified earlier, this would mean 822 homicides per year in one country vs. 570 in the other. Individuals in both countries do face very similar levels of risk, but in aggregate it means over 250 additional murders in the country with the higher rate.

The other factor you are overlooking is temperature. If you exclude all homicides which occur in the United States when the temperature is over 32 deg F, the homicide rate likely will drop below Canada's.

If you are snowed into your igloos nine months out of the year, it doesn't leave much time for killin folks.

Compare e.g., Mexico.
 
2011-08-18 04:07:39 PM

angrycrank: And dittybopper, all the disproportionately high homicide rate among black Americans shows is that you have a systemic race problem as well as a violent crime problem.


I'd argue that we *USED* to have a race problem, but no longer. There aren't any significant *EXTERNAL* barriers to black success now.

Unless you're trying to claim that Asians are inherently less violent than whites and blacks inherently more violent - in which case there are some Cambodians and North Koreans who would like a word.


I'm arguing that violence is cultural. You get your values about everything, including violence, from your parents. They inherit their values from their parents, and so forth back in time, so long as that chain is unbroken. It should surprise no one that European-Canadians and European-Americans have European-like rates of violence. Violence in Asia is also pretty low. The largest country in Asia, the PRC, has a homicide rate lower than Canada (1.2 per 100,000), and when combined with Japan (0.89 per 100,000, including *ATTEMPTED* homicide). Both have very strong family and societal structures.

Even when you correct for things like poverty*, Blacks in the US have a higher homicide rate in the US than whites, and it almost exactly tracks with the difference in rates of bastardy.

*I'm not going to go through the calculations yet again. You can find an example in this thread, along with links to my sources.
 
2011-08-18 04:10:13 PM

mexican bathtub cheese: The other factor you are overlooking is temperature. If you exclude all homicides which occur in the United States when the temperature is over 32 deg F, the homicide rate likely will drop below Canada's.

If you are snowed into your igloos nine months out of the year, it doesn't leave much time for killin folks.


Then how do explain that Nunavut has a homicide rate higher than the US?
 
2011-08-18 04:13:30 PM

dittybopper: I'm arguing that violence is cultural. You get your values about everything, including violence, from your parents. They inherit their values from their parents, and so forth back in time, so long as that chain is unbroken.


I should have pointed out that for something like 67% of blacks, that chain is broken because they are born to unwed mothers, and once a boy reaches a certain age, Mama just ain't intimidating enough to keep you in line anymore.
 
2011-08-18 04:29:22 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

/sizzling
 
2011-08-18 04:45:23 PM

dittybopper: I should have pointed out that for something like 67% of blacks, that chain is broken


But will the circle be unbroken?
 
2011-08-18 04:56:34 PM

dittybopper: mexican bathtub cheese: The other factor you are overlooking is temperature. If you exclude all homicides which occur in the United States when the temperature is over 32 deg F, the homicide rate likely will drop below Canada's.

If you are snowed into your igloos nine months out of the year, it doesn't leave much time for killin folks.

Then how do explain that Nunavut has a homicide rate higher than the US?


They aren't attractive and successful in their own right?
 
2011-08-18 04:58:33 PM
cdn.randomfunnypicture.com
 
2011-08-18 05:37:04 PM
as a proud Canadian firearms owner, I am getting a kick out of...
 
2011-08-18 09:58:43 PM
Great, now Gordon Ramsey is going to spend an hour cursing and crying about bear paws.

Who am I kidding, that special made me angry as a Texan in a library.
 
2011-08-19 12:15:42 AM

NathanAllen: Who am I kidding, that special made me angry as a Texan in a library.


What a fantastic phrase!
 
2011-08-19 12:19:29 AM

NathanAllen: angry as a Texan in a library.


XD
 
2011-08-19 01:10:01 AM

dittybopper: angrycrank: And dittybopper, all the disproportionately high homicide rate among black Americans shows is that you have a systemic race problem as well as a violent crime problem.

I'd argue that we *USED* to have a race problem, but no longer. There aren't any significant *EXTERNAL* barriers to black success now.
.


If you're going to start with that demonstrably false premise, I'm not sure it's productive to engage with you. Look at income levels for even high levels of educational achievement- black men with Master's degrees earn less than white men with just a Bachelors, and black people with doctorates earn $20k less than whites with the same degree. Numerous studies have shown that resumes submitted with names likely to be read as black resulted in fewer interviews than those listing identical qualifications with names read as white, and following interviews black applicants were far less likely to get follow-up interviews and offers.

There is a correlation between the percentage of households headed by single women and poverty and crime rates, but the causal relationship is unclear - a third factor may account for all these phenomena (there are numerous international examples of disadvantaged groups that suffer various kinds of inequalities that in turn impact family structures.) Attributing problems facing the black community entirely to culture is incredibly simplistic. Many factors are at work.

Several years ago, I was part of a research team that did a study for the US government on correlates of violence and ethnic conflict in various parts of the world (I was looking at central Asia specifically.) We found that one of the most significant correlates with violence was the presence of a large cohort of unemployed males aged 16-25 (duh. your tax dollars at work), but an ethnic division of labour was an extremely important factor as well. The presence of ethnic diversity was not, in itself, a determinant, but conflict was very likely to develop where ethnic groups were concentrated in particular specialisations (obviously if powerful public sector jobs were dominated by a particular group, but also where economic change suddenly produced great income inequality - in some Central Asian countries, ethnic groups that dominated merchant jobs did a lot better in the transition than service-sector professionals like teachers and doctors, resulting in more violent societies.)

I'd argue that both of these factors affect the black community in the US. The unemployment rate for young black men is at a catastrophic all-time high, and black workers are still dramatically underrepresented among numerous professions (including in the critical field of education.) That just can't be attributed solely to factors internal to the black community.

But you brought this up because you keep trying to attribute the difference in our homicide rates to anything other than guns. You're engaging in some real stretches - comparing Nunavut, population 30 000, 85% Aboriginal (and the conditions under which native Canadians live, especially in the north, ought to be a national disgrace), where there is very high unemployment and an entire generation of adults was raised in abusive residential schools- to the entire US average, as if that were meaningful. Nunavut's homicide rate is lower than Alaska's although given that Nunavut's population is so tiny that a single incident translates into a significant rate, even if it were higher it wouldn't mean anything. Compare apples to apples and you get the real picture - even your comparison of white Americans to all Canadians showed a homicide rate 44% higher. But the differences between our large cities and yours is just staggering. Guns are not the only factor. But excluding them as a significant one is a mistake.
 
2011-08-19 01:48:08 AM
Oh - and there's a very strong correlation (new window) between rates of gun ownership and gun deaths in industrialised countries. Racial composition of societies can't account for these distinctions, as some of the most homogeneous countries (ex - Finland, Norway) have much higher rates than more diverse ones (UK, Germany). And yes, the source is anti-gun, but the statistics are from neutral sources.
 
2011-08-19 02:10:09 AM

cobaltghost: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 175x352]

linked hotter than Burt Reynolds


Shut up, Pam!
 
2011-08-19 06:48:59 AM

angrycrank: Oh - and there's a very strong correlation (new window) between rates of gun ownership and gun deaths in industrialised countries.


You know what? I also hear there is a large correlation between private car ownership and rates of accidental car deaths. Duh.

The interesting thing to know is if there is a correlation between rates of gun ownership, and homicide and suicide rates overall. I bet that you will find that, if you look at *OVERALL* homicide rates, and *OVERALL* suicide rates, you will find that there isn't a correlation.

Racial composition of societies can't account for these distinctions, as some of the most homogeneous countries (ex - Finland, Norway) have much higher rates than more diverse ones (UK, Germany).

Ummm, You do know that the demographics of the UK and the demographics of Germany aren't significantly diverse, right?

Besides which, I'm not talking about race, I'm talking about culture, and unfortunately have to use race as a proxy for it.


And yes, the source is anti-gun, but the statistics are from neutral sources.


In the case of the US, race is a proxy for a particular subculture that is most prevalent in the African-American community. It isn't the melanin content of the skin, nor is it access to guns, it is the values you learn from your parents and community, and in large blocks of the Black community, those values seem to have been lost sometime around the 1960's, when their homicide rates jumped.

As for "source is anti-gun", that explains the "gun deaths correlated to gun ownership" instead of "violent deaths overall correlated to gun ownership".

But the whole thing falls apart in the US anyway, because everyone in the US has, at least in theory, the same access to guns, and yet you can see from the CDC data that I linked to that different groups have different homicide and suicide rates, and guns don't necessarily track with your expectations.

For example, whites are more likely to own guns than blacks, in fact, by more than twice, and their homicide rates are much lower (2.74 vs. 23.00 per 100,000), and in fact the 'average' gun owner in that survey is white, has at least a high school diploma, and in fact is likely to have a college degree of some kind, and is likely to be middle class.

But having established that whites in the US are more likely to own guns than blacks, how does that effect the *GUN* homicide rates? According to the CDC data, non-Hispanic Whites (the most likely to own guns) have a firearms homicide rate of 1.52 per 100,000. So roughly 55% of white homicides involve firearms. For non-Hispanic Blacks, the gun homicide rate is 18.06 per 100,000. So whites are 2-3 times more likely to own guns than blacks, yet blacks have a firearms homicide rate that is more than 10 times higher.

You can't say "Hey, it's because blacks are in poverty and whites aren't", either, because there are twice as many whites below the poverty level than blacks. We can actually take poverty out of the picture by coming up with a "homicide per 100,000 poor people".

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

However, there were 5,325 white homicide victims in 2005, and 8,522 black homicide victims.
Source: CDC WISQARS Mortality Reports

That means that there are 52.6 white homicides per 100,000 poor whites, and 202.2 black homicides per 100,000 poor blacks.

Clearly, it isn't just poverty, or the "rates per poor person" would be roughly equivalent. It isn't, the black rates are still 4 times higher.

Go ahead, try again.
 
2011-08-19 08:37:38 AM
+1
 
2011-08-19 11:30:56 AM

dittybopper: angrycrank: Oh - and there's a very strong correlation (new window) between rates of gun ownership and gun deaths in industrialised countries.

You know what? I also hear there is a large correlation between private car ownership and rates of accidental car deaths. Duh.

The interesting thing to know is if there is a correlation between rates of gun ownership, and homicide and suicide rates overall. I bet that you will find that, if you look at *OVERALL* homicide rates, and *OVERALL* suicide rates, you will find that there isn't a correlation.


Um, there is. If you look at Canada and the US, your non-gun homicide rates are 1.3x ours, but your firearms homicide rates are 6.4x ours. In other words, homicides with firearms account for almost the entire difference between our homicide rates. You guys and your massive homicide rate are an outlier, but the relationship holds true over 26 high-income countries, where a strong correlation (new window) is found between gun availability and the overall homicide rate.

The same is true, interestingly, for Canadian provinces. You seem to think it's significant that some parts of Canada (for example, Nunavut) have higher homicide rates than the US average. Guess what! About 80% of households in Nunavut have guns, and the correlation between higher gun ownership and higher homicide rates holds across the provinces and territories. Anyway, the homicide rate in Nunavut, while problematic, is highly misleading. There are 30 000 people there, and homicides are measured per 100 000 population. One guy kills off his ex and her new boyfriend, and your homicide rate is 3 times the national average. Add in homicides like last year's - one guy killing his wife, 2 kids and himself, one idiot taking out an RCMP officer at a traffic stop, one guy getting over-enthusiastic in chasing down and shooting the 3 guys trying to rob his house (shooting is allowed. Chasing, not so much) - and you're Washington. Throw in a bar brawl gone too far, and that year, you're Baltimore.

Racial composition of societies can't account for these distinctions, as some of the most homogeneous countries (ex - Finland, Norway) have much higher rates than more diverse ones (UK, Germany).

Ummm, You do know that the demographics of the UK and the demographics of Germany aren't significantly diverse, right?


Wow. You really don't understand statistics at all, or the word RELATIVELY. The UK according to your own source is 10% non-European (and actually, the gun death stats were for England and Wales, on average more diverse than Scotland and Northern Ireland) and 10% of Germans are of "immigrant background" (origin not specified) and 8% are non-citizen foreigners of numerous backgrounds, Turkish being the largest. 30% of German children have at least one parent born outside Germany. This makes them "relatively" more diverse than Finland or Norway (and like France, both countries have had problems both with integration of minority populations and far-right racism, which is why I used them as examples to show that presence of actual or potential ethnic conflict doesn't change the overall pattern.)


In the case of the US, race is a proxy for a particular subculture that is most prevalent in the African-American community. It isn't the melanin content of the skin, nor is it access to guns, it is the values you learn from your parents and community, and in large blocks of the Black community, those values seem to have been lost sometime around the 1960's, when their homicide rates jumped.


Attributing that entirely to "culture" and not to significantly higher rates of poverty coupled with compromised access to decent education and jobs (you're right that poverty alone doesn't correlate well with violence, but internationally, limited opportunity for members of ethnic minorities, especially where young men are not employed or in education, is a major factor in urban violence.) You seem determined to attribute this to a single factor internal to the black community and entirely discount the continued existence of racism as a problem, and that's a serious mistake. There are many factors that contribute to disparate rates of violence, and while living in a single-parent home, more prevalent in the black community than among other racial groups, is a factor, it's not the most important one, and it's not clear whether it's a cause or effect of other contributing variables.


But the whole thing falls apart in the US anyway, because everyone in the US has, at least in theory, the same access to guns, and yet you can see from the CDC data that I linked to that different groups have different homicide and suicide rates, and guns don't necessarily track with your expectations.


That, and the rest of the evidence you cite, would only matter if someone were claiming that guns are the only factor in homicides, and I'm certainly not doing that. Of course numerous other factors are important. But the question to ask isn't only "does group A, which has a lot of guns, have a higher homicide rate than group B, which has fewer?" It's "does gun availability seem to make the homicide rate for group A higher than we would expect for that group.?" For that, we need to control for numerous variables that also affect homicide rates: living in rural vs urban areas (and the size of the urban area), not just your own income but the average income of the neighbourhood you live in, family structures, demographic composition (lower vs. higher average age, proportion of adolescent and young adult males), etc.

Also, the statistics you cite aren't necessarily representative of overall gun ownership patterns (they surveyed parents bringing their children for child wellness visits - this sample could be biased in numerous very important ways), but even setting that aside, it says something that has been found in Canada as well. Discussion about the relationship between guns and violence has to be more complex than just "guns." Presence of handguns seems to be especially relevant to both homicides and accidents (your study shows long gun owners seem more likely to store their guns safely.) Availability of guns is important, but the culture of gun ownership - do you own a gun for hunting or target shooting, or for self-protection, what kind of gun, how do you keep it, etc. are relevant as well.

I'm not, as it happens, anti-gun. But it would be foolish to deny the relationship between gun availability and homicide rates. Our non-homicide violent crime rates are similar, Canada's property crime rates are actually higher, or non-firearms homicide rates are similar, but add firearms deaths and your homicide rates are several times ours. But hey, go ahead and ignore the fact that gun availability correlates strongly with higher homicide rates, not just gun homicides, across high income countries, and keep going back to black culture.

And no, I'm not going to "try again." Your mind is made up, and you're simply ignoring conflicting evidence. I'm not posting this for you but in case there's anyone else still reading this thread (doubtful) who somehow thinks you make a lick of sense.
 
2011-08-19 12:31:11 PM
angrycrank you're using facts and evidence against a moron who only cares about race. Apparently the only problem in america is blacks.
 
2011-08-19 12:48:20 PM

Malcolm_Sex: angrycrank you're using facts and evidence against a moron who only cares about race. Apparently the only problem in america is blacks.


Actually, that is a very egregious mischaracterization of my position, as I have made plain with several disclaimers, and fark you very much for doing so.
 
2011-08-19 01:26:21 PM
Well I'm glad you were kind enough to give a disclaimer before spewing your fact-less racist garbage.
 
2011-08-19 06:25:29 PM
EatHam: Yes.

/submitter


Damn fine job - kudos!
 
2011-08-19 09:37:18 PM

Malcolm_Sex: Well I'm glad you were kind enough to give a disclaimer before spewing your fact-less racist garbage.


It's a shame he's not black. Then he could say the exact same thing, backed up with the exact same data and nobody would be able to ignore the facts by blubbering "bu-bub-RACIST!"

/He could be declared an "Uncle Tom" instead, and still ignored
 
2011-08-20 12:10:05 AM

Lamune_Baba: Malcolm_Sex: Well I'm glad you were kind enough to give a disclaimer before spewing your fact-less racist garbage.

It's a shame he's not black. Then he could say the exact same thing, backed up with the exact same data and nobody would be able to ignore the facts by blubbering "bu-bub-RACIST!"

/He could be declared an "Uncle Tom" instead, and still ignored


No, if he said the exact same thing, with the exact same data, stats nerds like me would still be avoiding their actual work to come here, cite more reliable evidence, and show in painstaking detail that he doesn't have a farking clue how statistics work. It's incredibly simple-minded to discount a rash of external contributing variables and seize on a single internal cause - especially one as difficult to back up empirically as "values." It's a shame you can't see his misuse of "facts" and "data" - the level at which I tried to engage. Given that his posts and mine have totally derailed the tread, he's hardly been "ignored."

He began his argument with the demonstrably false claim that the difference between homicide rates in Canada and the US is because Canada is "mostly white"(which is not true), went on to speculate that gun ownership doesn't correlate with overall homicides (it does, both internationally and among US states), and opined that "there aren't any significant *EXTERNAL* barriers to black success now" (empirical studies have shown there are.) Given this, Malcolm_Sex may be right that I was foolish to even bother with this discussion (but then, procrastination is my passion :) The argument may or may not be motivated by racism. But it certainly focuses very narrowly on race, "culture," "bastardy" (sic) and "values" and ignores basically all other variables, in spite of strong evidence of their significance. And more importantly, his argument is demonstrably, empirically wrong.
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report