"Put it in, take it out, put it in, take it out...
I am the monarch of the sea,
The ruler of the Queen's Navee,
Whose praise Great Britain loudly chants,
And we are his sisters, and his cousins, and his aunts!":-D
Some of the older proles talk about a time before the Revolution, but I mean c'mon, they're PROLES, the dregs of society. *eyes you suspiciously* Weren't you missing for the last 2 minutes of Hate meeting?
I agree. I'm sure Dunn will get it out of it, even in the courtroom, with just a fine she'll most likely laught at and a legal slap on the wrist.
I'll be shocked if they actually put her in a federal pound-me-in-the-*ss prison.
"If you would like to argue that the crime rates are independent for those under 12 versus those over 12, please support this with some a reference to a study.
That is not the point I was making. The point I was making that your reference to the DOJ doesn't take into account all children, from ages 0-18, so therefore it is inconclusive and doesn't back up your mockery of my 1984 reference.
"The age groups 12-15, 16-19, and 20-24 are all fairly correlated, and show steep drops. If you want to argue that children in the 8-11 range are completely different, it is up to YOU to supply evidence. The null hypothesis says there is no difference unless you demonstrate otherwise (Occam's razor, and all that). Children under 8 should probably not be left unsupervised, so the current level of danger in the environment shouldn't affect choices by the parent on whether to let them go unsupervised."
This is all entirely irrelavent as you failed to provide hard evidence which refutes the data I provided.
Further, using the "null hypothesis" bail-out in order to not have to PROVIDE evidence does not prove your point.
Quite simply stated, if you think the evidence I provided to refute your claim is wrong, then provide credible evidence which contradicts it.(i.e. put up or shut up)
"If you would like to claim that the streets are more dangerous, it is up to you to cite a better/bigger study (hint: this is the biggest one in the US). Go ahead and throw this study out. In the absence of proof that it is more dangerous, we default to the null hypothesis that it is the same. That still supports my argument that it is not more dangerous now than a generation ago."
The point of the post was not to prove that the streets are more dangerous in general, but rather that children are not in LESS danger now than they were a generation ago. Nice try though.
and it is a glaring testament to academic intelligence vs. social intelligence to assume that one's thought processes account for everyone else's thought processes (WE default to the null hypothesis...). Your version of reality, seemingly based on experience in a closed intellectual environment/system, seems very isolated, hence cannot be part of the broader/shared reality from which I'm drawing my conclusions.
The above statement is very much relavent to the overall point I'm making so is not an ad-hominem attack(nice try though if you were going to throw that card out).
and again, as the DOJ does not include children under the age of 12 in it's so-called "accurate" crime statistics, it fails to be a complete, and therfore accurate set of statistics.
"Actually, that study includes the methodology on the website in quite a bit of detail."
But of course, it's results still haven't been verified by an entity external to and independent of the DOJ and noted as such ON the DOJ site to prove its accuracy.
"It is true that the DOJ (or any other source) is not free from bias..."
In this, I can agree with you.
"I'd rather say that I make decisions on the information available, weighted by my estimation of the accuracy of the source. It is true that the DOJ (or any other source) is not free from bias, but in the absence of other accurate, unbiased sources (the popular press has poor methodology in general), that's what I make my decisions on."
And of course you have the right to do so for the time being.
"It is pretty clear that your arguments are not based on any evidence, because you don't provide any."
You obviously didn't follow any of MY links or you would have seen said evidence.
"Stating that a large portion of our population is under 18 doesn't provide evidence that the US is more dangerous for children than a generation ago."
26% is NOT a large portion of our population, and you say *I* don't have an understanding of statistics?
"Do you have a point, beyond the fact that you have an emotional av
- A generation ago is NOT 1994. A generation ago would have been more like 1976, so...WRONG
- According to a 2001 article published by a Doctorate in Psychology on behalf of another branch of the government you so choose to blindly believe in(Außenministerium); and I quote, "There are more than 70 million children in the United States under the age of 18, comprising 26 percent of the population. Violent crime against children was relatively high in the 1980s and early 1990s -- " AGAIN, whether you choose to use the date of the article or the date of the statistical analysis, this is NOT a generation ago, THEREFORE your claim that we(in which you included, or at least implied in the inclusion, children) are safer now than we were a GENERATION ago is...WRONG.
- Here's another fun filled quote from our completely objective and accurate "trusted" Minitrue website: "Sources: Rape (excluding sexual assault), robbery, and assault data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime."
Firstly, they DIDN'T include crimes against children UNDER the age of 12, which makes their sources questionable at best with regards to the decline of violent crime against all children.
Secondly, Ohhhhhhhhhh look at that....They interviewed a whole 134,000 people, out of the current population(according to another branch of Minitrue) of 298+ MILLION U.S. Comrades, a purported 26%, or 7,7595,496, of which they say are children. I'd hardly call it conclusive truth AT BEST.
Now let's take a look at the source of their "facts":
"BJS criminal victimization data collections National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders. Ongoing from 1973; Redesign 1992."
And who designed and owns the NCVS? The Bureau of Justice Statistics.
And what Minitrue arm is the BJS a part of...well looky here, the DOJ.
So, based on the inadvertant admissions of your Minitrue's sites, they summarize an ENTIRE NATION'S crime statistics based on interviews with less than 1% of that same population, using their own methodologies which cannot be verified by an outside independent source, and you take that at face value.
"To be very blunt, the American public [b]cannot[/b] be trusted to vote responsibly."
I could not agree more with this statement. For the longest time I strongly favored using current tech to enable popular voting online on every issue that required a vote, thereby removing the need for representation of the public interest by corrupt reps/senators.
However, it occurs to me that a simple fix for getting votes in favor of a corrupt candidate would probably only require that said candidate make a cameo appearance on Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, the O'Reilly factor, The Daily Show, et al(and yes I know this phrase is attributed to people, but I think it's as appropriate for short-listing anything), and the idiotbox addicted populace who votes on impulse instead of through logical conclusion and a bit of research would make the election a landslide victory.
Slashdot Mirror
"Put it in, take it out, put it in, take it out...
:-D
I am the monarch of the sea,
The ruler of the Queen's Navee,
Whose praise Great Britain loudly chants,
And we are his sisters, and his cousins, and his aunts!"
HMS Pinafore ---> Stewie Griffin
Yah, "your"right you know. what a shame to have to "loose" to those psychos....:)
Some of the older proles talk about a time before the Revolution, but I mean c'mon, they're PROLES, the dregs of society. *eyes you suspiciously* Weren't you missing for the last 2 minutes of Hate meeting?
I agree. I'm sure Dunn will get it out of it, even in the courtroom, with just a fine she'll most likely laught at and a legal slap on the wrist. I'll be shocked if they actually put her in a federal pound-me-in-the-*ss prison.
Careful with those 1984 references, most people with social blinders on will accuse you of being a conspiracy theory nutjob.
"If you would like to argue that the crime rates are independent for those under 12 versus those over 12, please support this with some a reference to a study.
That is not the point I was making. The point I was making that your reference to the DOJ doesn't take into account all children, from ages 0-18, so therefore it is inconclusive and doesn't back up your mockery of my 1984 reference.
"The age groups 12-15, 16-19, and 20-24 are all fairly correlated, and show steep drops. If you want to argue that children in the 8-11 range are completely different, it is up to YOU to supply evidence. The null hypothesis says there is no difference unless you demonstrate otherwise (Occam's razor, and all that). Children under 8 should probably not be left unsupervised, so the current level of danger in the environment shouldn't affect choices by the parent on whether to let them go unsupervised."
This is all entirely irrelavent as you failed to provide hard evidence which refutes the data I provided.
Further, using the "null hypothesis" bail-out in order to not have to PROVIDE evidence does not prove your point.
Quite simply stated, if you think the evidence I provided to refute your claim is wrong, then provide credible evidence which contradicts it.(i.e. put up or shut up)
"If you would like to claim that the streets are more dangerous, it is up to you to cite a better/bigger study (hint: this is the biggest one in the US). Go ahead and throw this study out. In the absence of proof that it is more dangerous, we default to the null hypothesis that it is the same. That still supports my argument that it is not more dangerous now than a generation ago."
The point of the post was not to prove that the streets are more dangerous in general, but rather that children are not in LESS danger now than they were a generation ago. Nice try though.
and it is a glaring testament to academic intelligence vs. social intelligence to assume that one's thought processes account for everyone else's thought processes (WE default to the null hypothesis...). Your version of reality, seemingly based on experience in a closed intellectual environment/system, seems very isolated, hence cannot be part of the broader/shared reality from which I'm drawing my conclusions.
The above statement is very much relavent to the overall point I'm making so is not an ad-hominem attack(nice try though if you were going to throw that card out).
and again, as the DOJ does not include children under the age of 12 in it's so-called "accurate" crime statistics, it fails to be a complete, and therfore accurate set of statistics.
"Actually, that study includes the methodology on the website in quite a bit of detail."
But of course, it's results still haven't been verified by an entity external to and independent of the DOJ and noted as such ON the DOJ site to prove its accuracy.
"It is true that the DOJ (or any other source) is not free from bias..."
In this, I can agree with you.
"I'd rather say that I make decisions on the information available, weighted by my estimation of the accuracy of the source. It is true that the DOJ (or any other source) is not free from bias, but in the absence of other accurate, unbiased sources (the popular press has poor methodology in general), that's what I make my decisions on."
And of course you have the right to do so for the time being.
"It is pretty clear that your arguments are not based on any evidence, because you don't provide any."
You obviously didn't follow any of MY links or you would have seen said evidence.
"Stating that a large portion of our population is under 18 doesn't provide evidence that the US is more dangerous for children than a generation ago."
26% is NOT a large portion of our population, and you say *I* don't have an understanding of statistics?
"Do you have a point, beyond the fact that you have an emotional av
- A generation ago is NOT 1994. A generation ago would have been more like 1976, so...WRONG
- According to a 2001 article published by a Doctorate in Psychology on behalf of another branch of the government you so choose to blindly believe in(Außenministerium); and I quote, "There are more than 70 million children in the United States under the age of 18, comprising 26 percent of the population. Violent crime against children was relatively high in the 1980s and early 1990s -- " AGAIN, whether you choose to use the date of the article or the date of the statistical analysis, this is NOT a generation ago, THEREFORE your claim that we(in which you included, or at least implied in the inclusion, children) are safer now than we were a GENERATION ago is...WRONG.
- Here's another fun filled quote from our completely objective and accurate "trusted" Minitrue website: "Sources: Rape (excluding sexual assault), robbery, and assault data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime."
Firstly, they DIDN'T include crimes against children UNDER the age of 12, which makes their sources questionable at best with regards to the decline of violent crime against all children.
Secondly, Ohhhhhhhhhh look at that....They interviewed a whole 134,000 people, out of the current population(according to another branch of Minitrue) of 298+ MILLION U.S. Comrades, a purported 26%, or 7,7595,496, of which they say are children. I'd hardly call it conclusive truth AT BEST.
Now let's take a look at the source of their "facts":
"BJS criminal victimization data collections
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.
Ongoing from 1973; Redesign 1992."
And who designed and owns the NCVS? The Bureau of Justice Statistics.
And what Minitrue arm is the BJS a part of...well looky here, the DOJ.
So, based on the inadvertant admissions of your Minitrue's sites, they summarize an ENTIRE NATION'S crime statistics based on interviews with less than 1% of that same population, using their own methodologies which cannot be verified by an outside independent source, and you take that at face value.
Way to lack critical thinking skills, comrade.
Huzzah! Carlin's rants should be a mandatory semester course in High School, College, AND in planned parenting!
The media has made you paranoid. The reality is that we are much safer than we were a generation ago:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
That's right, because the Minitrue is your one-stop source for completely objective statistics.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I am serious... ...and don't call me Shirley.
I see some really bad Blade war sequel idea a-brewing based on this freeze-dried blood concept.
You know wha' they say: See a broad to get that bodiac lay'er down an' smack 'em yack 'em! Holm NEEEEEEED some serious funny mod mofo pointin'!
"To be very blunt, the American public [b]cannot[/b] be trusted to vote responsibly."
I could not agree more with this statement. For the longest time I strongly favored using current tech to enable popular voting online on every issue that required a vote, thereby removing the need for representation of the public interest by corrupt reps/senators.
However, it occurs to me that a simple fix for getting votes in favor of a corrupt candidate would probably only require that said candidate make a cameo appearance on Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, the O'Reilly factor, The Daily Show, et al(and yes I know this phrase is attributed to people, but I think it's as appropriate for short-listing anything), and the idiotbox addicted populace who votes on impulse instead of through logical conclusion and a bit of research would make the election a landslide victory.
"The need of the many outweigh the needs of the few." *adjusts bifocals*