Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Concealed carry predictions way off target (No blood in the streets) [View all]Straw Man
(6,633 posts)23. One hardly knows where to begin ...
You 'post' 2 figures - the murder rate in 1964 & 2013 - to demonstrate the 'inherent weakness of equating correlation with causation'?
That's laughable in itself; explain how you demonstrated this correlative 'inherent weakness' by simply taking the start & end points & ignoring everything in between.
That's laughable in itself; explain how you demonstrated this correlative 'inherent weakness' by simply taking the start & end points & ignoring everything in between.
I did it to show you that in the absence of any credible evidence of causation (or any evidence at all, really), posting two simultaneously occurring trends is meaningless. Murder rates rose and fell rather precipitously, while the number of guns in circulation rose steadily and kept on rising. This suggests that any causal explanation that involves the availability of weapons is highly suspect, to say the least.
straw man: If there is no causation, then your post is pointless. We have more computers than we did in 1964. Shall we also broadcast the correlation of "more computers, more crime"?
It's logically unsound, unrealistic & a stretch, to link more computers with more violent crime - there isn't a plausible link.
It's logically unsound, unrealistic & a stretch, to link more computers with more violent crime - there isn't a plausible link.
Really? How about a generation raised on a steady diet of graphically violent computer games? Of course, I can't prove it. Nor can you disprove it. It's just speculation, Jimmy, like yours about guns and violent crime.
Your example is a good one to cite the post hoc ergo propter hoc axiom.
Exactly. And I raised it to demonstrate what you are doing. Did you really not get that?
To argue against this simply by continuously citing 'correlation does not prove causation', as if that in itself disproves a causative effect, demonstrates a sophomoric understanding of the axiom itself.
I don't have to disprove a causative effect, Jimmy. You have to prove one. Merely stating the correlation does nothing toward that end, yet that's all you're doing. Apparently this continuous repetition is necessary because you just don't seem to be able to understand that.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Their fears never really pan out, they sell fear to folks that are ignorant of the facts
ileus
Apr 2015
#1
I can't imagine what it is to live in fear like that every minute of the day.
Nuclear Unicorn
Apr 2015
#5