🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@lmrocha @mike805

Great then you should, at least in theory, be able to understand why sooften the data presented is intellectually dishonest. I myself am an expert/professional data scientist, so we shouldnt have any trouble having this conversation.

Doesnt change the fact, that as I said, most people fall for the intellectually dishonest analysis, and by the sounds of it, you might too. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

@lmrocha

Of course the constitution is intended to change... thats what amendments are for.. what its not intended to do is say one thing and people make up completely opposite things and say thats what it means.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Nope, though I do understand why people who arent experts in data science can easily get mislead by the manipulation to try to sell that narrative... Sadly you will never see the data presented with good intellectually honest analysis (using granger causality rather than simple correlation whcih we all know is invalid when you cant control confounding variables)

@mike805

@lmrocha

Well no argument that the justices will abuse their reach by misinterpriting the constitution... luckily with the right lean in the supreme court we are likely to see stronger defense of the #2A, though I'd much rather this be done by the way the constitution is designed to work rather than to be at the whims of a supreme court.

@mike805

@atomicpoet Not really... I do see a lot new users, and donations increased proportionally.. but overall seems the amount of money isnt much different relative to the costs of operation. Not enough to develop new projects from an OSS perspective.

@lmrocha

None of this argument is relevant.. yes a lot of people were oppressed, we passed amendments to protect them (and their right to own guns as an extension)... Again, this is the point, if you want to change the current state of the constitution, create an amendment.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Yea thats complete nonsense... the data is quite clear.. at best banning guns does nothing to help improve the violent, rape, and homicide rates... though at best it significantly reduces it (and the data leans towards the latter)

The number one death for children means nothing if you dont compare it to the number of children's lives saved by guns as well, or correct for kids killed in gun free zones.

Again this is like the anti-vaxxers argument "If you ban vaccines we will significantly reduce the deaths caused by vaccines"... while true its an intellectually dishonest argument.

@mike805

@lmrocha

Nah, the amendment says nothing of white men, and the foubding fathers made no hijts that is what they intended... well regulated militia is very obviously an exemplary clause not a qualifying clause

@mike805

@JonKramer very likely true for the majority of founding fathers at least.

@Blenster Makes sense, hope you enjoy your new home.

One thing just to point out, dont feel any pressure to stay... We have a unique feature specifically so people wont feel the need to move accounts or have multiple accounts... You can add their local timeline as a column here (or follow it), which lets you see and interact with their server as if you are local without having to move. Pretty sure we are the only ones with that feature...

But yea, best of luck when you move. Stay in touch.

@Blenster sorry to see you go. If you had an issues let me know.

@SpinozasHeresy Lets hope they dont do an assault wespon ban. It was a fsilure last time, it will faill again... we need real solutions...

Supreme court ethics would be nice...

@JonKramer sure they would, thry let random people of any age buy heavy artillary at the time.

@mike805 The well regulated militia is clearly an exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause

Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.

#2A

@SpinozasHeresy bring back RBG and id be happy

@admitsWrongIfProven Given the blatent ignorance to the data and a "my bias first, evidence second" I expect that response.