TFLYTSNBN wrote:If confronted with actual information and analysis that you cant refute, just spew more insulting bivine scatalogy. You have no relevant data to cite so you are not entitled to an opinion.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you at any point in that post of yours cite a source?
No?
Then forgive me for thinking that, like other posts of yours, that one too was you being either dishonest or proudly uninformed.
TFLYTSNBN wrote:The analysis has already been done by Professor John Lott in MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. People were to fixated on the gun issue to take notice of the very rigorous statistical analysis of crime verse clearance rates in various jurisdictions.
Oh.
John Lott, eh?
Tell us, is that the same John Lott who,
quite possibly, faked research results?
Or is he the guy who felt that
he needed to create a sockpuppet account to hype up his own work?
Or is he the guy who
claimed to have a study peer-reviewed, without any such review taking place?
Or the guy who claimed that
“Most people may not realize this, but the rate of mass public shootings in Europe is actually fairly similar to the rate in the United States,” he said. “There is no statistically significant difference there, either in terms of the rate or fatalities.”
Which, you know, is such a wrong statement that only someone with your inability to tell good statistical work from bad would believe. (Bonus points: Lott's own data sets disprove this statement! Feel free to laugh at TFLY and his gullibility now)
Like, if you want a good laugh (and yet another confirmation of the anti-science bias being strong in conservatives this decade), read the thinkprogress article linked above. TFLY won't believe any of it, of course; he's too far gone to accept that people who are not of his tribe may have a point. But I figure the rest of you might get a chuckle out of it.
smr wrote:It's his Method of Operation (MO), when he can not disprove the argument he attacks the person.
TFLY made a statement, one that is on its face counterintuitive. That, by itself, does not make it false, but it does require evidence, which FLY did not provide. When he did, he used a source that is, well, not clean: There are clear methodological concerns with Lott's work that mean that supporting science from less bad sources needs to be provided.
Fly, of course, did not provide any of that.
Remember his self-acknowledged political ideology (A Communist). So believing in God, Capitalism, or a Republic is totally out of his political and ideological agenda. So people that believe in God and a Republic would have to be reeducated or killed.
That you think you know how I think is funny to me.
Off the prison camp for the believers!
Don't be surprised if he turns you in for a person's post that he objects to.
I believe he has done that nasty little trick on more than one occasion.
Who would I turn people in to?
