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

@fredbrooker

Its not about age, its about senility and mental function... Biden is clearly senile and does not have the mental capacity to function in ANY role, let alone a presidency. The fact that this mental decline is age related is tangental at best.

Trump is a great counter example, he too clearly doesnt have the mentality to be in charge. But his mental insufficiency is in no way related to his age. He was mentally incapable of being in charge even from an early age.

@raccoon @evan

@georgetakei Yea I cant imagine even a judge that he picked would be ok with half the shit he pulls....

Completely agree with you here on that.

What is your favorite `non causa pro causa` fallacy?

#Logic #Fallacy #Fallacies #Philosophy #Statistics #Stem

@mzan By jupiter standards even the most beautiful woman from earth is quite ugly... our tentacles are dry and rigid, adn the smell, my got we reek of carbon!

@mzan

> as motivation of gun-ban, I remember having read in some place that the differences between homicide rate in USA and Canada nearby cities were very different, and in favor of Canada.

Yup, you've gotten back to leaning into your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallace.

This observation is in no way a relevant data point to this conversation as it represents a classic logical fallacy in analysis and is invalid as a talking point.

> During this discussion I tried to compare Detroit and Toronto, but there were no big differences. Rather similar.

Since this is a known and established fallacy, explained earlier... why are you comparing them? I explained clearly any valid analysis will have to fall within a class of causality tests... you arent doing that, you are leaning into **known** fallacies in the hopes it will create a counter argument despite being invalid regardless of if you found similar values or not.

> Then I found a comparison between a big USA city and a rather smaller Canadian city, and it is not fair comparing two different type of communities.

As pointed out it is invalid regardless

> Your data is rather convincing, in the sense that now I have doubts. So one more reason for not believing the media, without double-checking.

I am glad you have doubts and im glad you are investigating and not just accepting my word, thats a good thing... But your "checking" is born out of not understanding valid statistical analysis... While you dont have to beleive my data, as a data scientist expert you should at least beleive me when i describe the way we do analysis and why (hopefully it makes sense) and then use that understanding and analyze it that way.

Here is what I suggest.. Write down 10 random countries that has banned guns at some point. Pull up both the homicide and violent rate charts for eachm be careful to make sure it is **all** homicides and violent acts and not just ones involving a gun (since the argument for guns is preventative)... now on that chart, before looking at the history, circle all the points where you see the trends ""significantly** change from a downward r flat trend to a upward trend over several years... Then go search for "<country> gun prohibition history" and find any site that gives you a timeline of major gun prohibitions in that country.... Look at the list and see if any items on the list line up with the dates you circled, and then from the context ask yourself if it was a significant gun ban in the history, usually a country only has one or two major confiscations till no guns are left...

Then when your done look at how often the patterns line up and how often they dont.. then draw your own conclusion.

@customdesigned @VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mike_k

I hate PHP too.. but if im using and not coding for it, i dont care im fine with it.. it being PHP just garuntees ill never fork it :)

@wardrup

I feel like the Miss Universe beauty pageant will be a really awkward thing to explain to the aliens when they finally visit us for the first time....

@ech @VoxDei

Exactly... if someone bothered to create a license that made to to fix the other infringments it causes indiretly, then you very well could have, in theory, a license that wont infringe... sadly no one has even attempted to do so..

To do it you'd have to

1) make sure it is one-way only.. that is, impossible for anyone to check if you have gun based on name or SS#, or to see who has or doesnt have a gun in a particular area. You'd have to create system where the **only** way to check if someone is licensed is if the licensee **volunteers** their license number at which point a cop can only **confirm** they have a license and not search for licenses

2) It would have to be illegal for a cop to stop and ask you for your license simply because you display a firearm... otherwise that would be harassment and put people at risk.. much like with a license to carry a cop should only be able to ask for your license if you are under arrest and at reasonable suspicion of having commited a crime (and no carrying a weapon is not an indication of that).

3) All licensing would have to be free and tax paid.

4) All licensing centers would have to be able to license someone **on the spot** at time of purchase immediately and same day

5) anyone who wishes to cancel their license should have the option, if they wish, to purge their data from the system

If you manage to do those issues then you have an infringement free license... without those qualities then asking for a license 100% is a n infringement based ont he clear definition of the word.

@customdesigned

There is absolutely no doubt a proper formal analysis would be better... Sadly this is one issue that has such strong biases you will find it will be very hard to do and just trust.. would require an individual who is an expert in Data Science to evaluate it as you cant expect peer review to succeed with such a strong bias on an issue at play... not to say we shouldnt do peer review, but good luck seeing sane results.

That said I have before shared the data regarding chicago in the past (it is attached here) and you do see a very similar spike... this pattern is just so obvious its hard to miss with any example.

@mzan @VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

I know you try to argue in good faith, so that is a fair mistake to make.

> Remain the fact that also in USA in the same period there were a similar increase.

Yea... guess what, thats because a huge gun ban took place at the same date in the USA (something I just chcked and remembered, i had forgot before).

That date in the USA is the day that the definition of a "machine gun" was expanded and fully automatic guns were completely banned. It also banned **all** guns that dont have a "sprorting purpose" which caused many of our guns to be banned... Some of this was later repealed thankfully...

But yea you just proved my point, you went "wow look there is a huge spike here in the united states see it cant be due to gun bans".... and you literally are pointing at exactly the moment of the biggest gun ban in american history on a national level... QED, by accident, but QED

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@ech Do you though? The point of a space elevator is to save you fuel.

avoiding the most fuel expensive part (getting out of the atmosphere where drag is significant) seems it would be a huge save, especially since now you can pump fuel to that point and not need to lift it there via rocket.

@mzan

> I noted that in Canada the rate were increasing from 1960, so prior to the ban of gun. It reached a peak on 1977.

Incorrect. See the attached chart which pulls the start date of the chart back a bit to 1960. You can clearly see the trend was wobbling with no clear up or down trend. It is only on the exact date of the bill we see the rates increasing sharply and noticeably.

In fact from 1960 to 1966 the homicide rate **decreased** slightly overall, not increased. Then in a single year after 1966 it increased by a HUGE margin.

> 1.28 homicide each 100k citizen in 1960; 1.41 in 1965; 3.0 in 1977.

We call this cherry picking, noticed the dates you picked were completely arbitrary (1960, 1965, 1977).. which has no relationship to the dates discussed.

Now take a look at the chart... you really going to tell me you dont see an abrupt rate change at 1967?

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@Darkayne

I think that is often true... but here I think he knows he was speaking in a flippant hyperbolic way... so he must know better.