This advert for condoms cracked me up
- Thread starter Asbo
- Start date
There was a sudden decrease of crime in the 1990s http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ DUM DUM DUM We are actually going through another downturn in crime 2002-2006, George Bush reduced violent crime!
No one bothered to point out they've only kept records since 1969. It is possible that it falls within normal distribution given population size over some unknown period of time. That a massive population explosion was nearing it's 18-25 y/o mark (baby boomers) at that time. The only thing it proves is that, ignoring all other factors, 18 years after abortion was legalized crime went down in the 20th century.
Nixon first visited China and established trading with them in 1973. 18 years later the crime rate went down. Obviously the effect of trading with china was a decrease in crime.
YOU SEE WHAT I DID THAR?
I think what Asbo is saying is that he's a far right nuttie who hates abortion, and reads Ayn Rand like Neil Boortz uses toilet paper.
The Corpus Juris Civilis has more contemporary meaning than Trotskyism. *yawn*
Edit: On secod thought why compare yourself to a Russian communist. I mean there must be british left wingers. Though I mean, adolescent culture in the UK and blah. Tiny islands.
Edit: On secod thought why compare yourself to a Russian communist. I mean there must be british left wingers. Though I mean, adolescent culture in the UK and blah. Tiny islands.
Last edited:
Syrup Beaver
pants log
sounds right to me.
there's a statistic for just about everything, and there's a statistic for the rest of the stuff that hasn't been statisticed yet. stats are useless IMO because you can take one sentence with two sides and find a supporting stat for each. bleh.
Meh. Inferential statistics work when you have a COMPLETE model of the system they are being used for. Video games would be a good example, statistic analysis is essential for most strategy games, EVE Online is called "spreadsheets in space."
There is no complete model of reality though. Statistics make good supporting evidence because they are descriptive, but inferring truth from data in a system that is for all rational intents 'random' is faulty reasoning.
It is interesting. Entertaining even. I liked that book. Using to arrive at truths... eh. It was written by an economist. There is an expression: when all you have is a hammer all your problems look like nails.
There is no complete model of reality though. Statistics make good supporting evidence because they are descriptive, but inferring truth from data in a system that is for all rational intents 'random' is faulty reasoning.
It is interesting. Entertaining even. I liked that book. Using to arrive at truths... eh. It was written by an economist. There is an expression: when all you have is a hammer all your problems look like nails.
that's exactly the importance of freakonomics. economists have a plethora of tools that have seldom been applied to anything other than core economic subjects. freakonomics, and the growing field of applied economics in general, takes those tools and applies them elsewhere. Levitt readily admits he couldn't even begin to write monetary policy, but he does understand the application of economic principles to actual testable situations. check out the bit on catching cheating teachers. it's brilliant.
I did actually. I was assuming no one else except you did though 
I was replying to april's senseness theory. Actually the post right above yours is a better version. I like to rewrite, takes out the possibility of being wrong.
Either way, the paper is solid. It establishes it as at least ONE LIKELY factor in the downturn of crime in the US. (They dont examine why crime fell in the late 70s before rising again in the early 80s).
There are a few broad unanswered questions, nature vs nurture (paper assumes nurture), illegal abortions were being performed before legalization, and that the english speaking world -in general- is experiencing a downturn in crime despite the relative different timings of abortion legalities. For example, the UK has always had significantly lower amount of violent crime than the US (dating back to at least the 1600s, I dont remember the paper) except for very recently.
I was assuming no one else except you did though I was replying to april's senseness theory. Actually the post right above yours is a better version. I like to rewrite, takes out the possibility of being wrong.Either way, the paper is solid. It establishes it as at least ONE LIKELY factor in the downturn of crime in the US. (They dont examine why crime fell in the late 70s before rising again in the early 80s).
There are a few broad unanswered questions, nature vs nurture (paper assumes nurture), illegal abortions were being performed before legalization, and that the english speaking world -in general- is experiencing a downturn in crime despite the relative different timings of abortion legalities. For example, the UK has always had significantly lower amount of violent crime than the US (dating back to at least the 1600s, I dont remember the paper) except for very recently.
Ah my more interesting contribution gets answered. ^.^
It's definitely interesting, the book was entertaining, I like the part on crack dealers (also probably the most reliable account in the book). There wasnt anything about teachers? I have the first edition though so it doesnt even have footnotes like the ones I see in the store.
I used the hammer nail thing because it is solid. People are enraptured with novel methodology when the proper method is better. Eugenics was a novel method of solving all ills at one time and everyone knows how that turned out...
Not to say that it is bad for anything specifically; it is good to try everything, it's a failure to accept one thing over another because the approach is new though. Less of a problem in ivory towers admittedly, in journalism and government, misapplication of things to achieve desired results is the NORM.This makes me wonder. I know they've introduced engineering ethics, are there statistic ethics
Is statistics it's own ethic? Is this statement funny because it's self referencing and ironic?I'm probably in the minority on this one, but I have to say, it's easy to advocate abortion when you're not the one getting aborted.
i used to be hardcore pro-life. now i don't know what i am, and i haven't been able to figure it out for years. i see how where abortion makes "sense," but i still can't jump on board with it, either.
i used to be hardcore pro-life. now i don't know what i am, and i haven't been able to figure it out for years. i see how where abortion makes "sense," but i still can't jump on board with it, either.
To me... abortion should NOT be something done in the third or probably even second trimester.
...and it isn't a form of birth control.
The bitch better make her decision early in the first trimester. While it is still a bundle of unidentifiable cells and mucus.