cogzoid
Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005
|
| Quote | | Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response. |
You don't want to revist the debate, but apparently you want to bring it up anyway. You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately. I often get bored by your condescending drivel. But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.
| Quote | | 1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God). |
You're correct, I decided to throw out the rape, assaults, car thefts, etc. data, as I feel that those things are too subjective, or inaccurately gathered. I'm allowed to refine my argument as we argue, am I not? Was I not clear when I said "I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter. I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate."
| Quote | | 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion. |
Pardon me, I thought you were just being condescending. And I generally don't reply to rudeness. I thought that I had explained my reasoning for comparing heterogeneous populations: "I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills. I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others. And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities." You gave no comment to this, perhaps you passed over it? Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.
| Quote | | 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this. |
I'm sorry, is this a question? My apathy and surgery pain prevent me from replying to this one.
| Quote | | I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........ |
Sure, higher dimensional objects don't have to be renderable in lower dimensions. What 7 dimensional object is our star pattern then, such that it doesn't have 3D volume. Perhaps you'd care to Euclidate. I just don't want you to get a free ride on the Theory of Everything. Why did you pick 7? Or is it because that is a Godly number?
All I can stomach at the moment,
Dan
|
