Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

So... Net Neutrality.
 
You won?t have to pay extra TO google but, it actually visit the pages that have relevant information, yes. I could see that. That internet has turned into more than just a toy. Treat it like a utility. My power company doesn?t charge me different rates if I use my refrigerator over a hair dryer so, why should that be the case with the internet? Just because ISP?s don?t want to increase capacity? Can you imagine with power plants did that?
 
Yet the US of A still subsidies to grow tobacco. Why?
 
[video=youtube;ELV5HV6-koI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELV5HV6-koI[/video]
 
LeVeL said:
92% of left-wing activists live with their parents and one in three is unemployed, study of Berlin protesters finds

:lmao:
Click to expand...

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Actually, these figures are not strange at all. Who is more likely to protest? Someone who is feeling satisfied with their life or someone who isn't? And who is more likely to be unsatisfied from their life, someone who has a job or someone who doesn't?

Where do you expect to find radical anti-systems, among wealthy, successful entrepreneurs?

It is only to be expected that the most radical anti-systems are people who are rejected by the system (whatever the reason).

The fallcy of the daily mail is the same as when some people say that because crime rate is higher among black people, this has to do with their black skin rather than with their poverty, educational, opportunity levels (for whatever reason). That's plain stupidity.

Plus, aven't we learnt that the daily mail is not to be trusted, yet?
 
Last edited:
SirEdward said:
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
Click to expand...
The article in the DailyMail did not suggest causation. They simply quoted statistics from another source.


SirEdward said:
The fallcy of the daily mail is the same as when some people say that because crime rate is higher among black people, this has to do with their black skin rather than with their poverty, educational, opportunity levels (for whatever reason). That's plain stupidity.
Click to expand...
I've never heard that anyone make that claim. Got a source that doesn't involve the KKK or something?
 
LeVeL said:
The article in the DailyMail did not suggest causation. They simply quoted statistics from another source.
Click to expand...

Then why is this a news worth telling, and why did you laughed and posted it here? :)

You laughed, it means you found that funny and worth citing.
Why is it worth citing and laughing if people still live with their parents?
Because you think that people who live with their parents are losers
And the fact that so many left radicals live with their families makes you laugh because now those people you already despise are, in your brain, shown to be losers.

This means that you thought that the correlation between them living with their parents and them being left radicals was actually a cause, meaning that you can't be a left radicals if you are not living with your parents, or, to say it clearer, that you can't be a left radical without being a loser.

And this is also why that piece of news was so interesting for the Daily Mail (provided, of course, that the data shown is true, since we are speaking of the Daily Mail).

Except, as I told you, it is not at all strange to find most anti-system among those people which are not successful in that system.

This assumption also has a far, far stronger connection to the data, because it is quite more simple to say that people are anti-system when they feel rejected by it (for whatever reason, even being a loser) than it is to say that they are anti-system because they are losers, and that their being losers is shown by the fact that they are not well integrated by the system.
That's a simple use of the Occam's razor. Your way of thinking is exagerately more convoluted and complicated than other explanations.


I've never heard that anyone make that claim. Got a source that doesn't involve the KKK or something?
Click to expand...

Why?, that was taken out of racist propaganda for the specific purpose to show you how the same fallacy is used by despicable people to fuel their hate. I'd say it worked a charm.
 
Last edited:
Are we talking about me or the Daily Mail? The article quoted statistics and provided absolutely no analysis and suggested nothing - these are facts, regardless of what you're imagining in your head.

We can discuss my opinion on this data but regardless if my opinion might be, the fact remains that the article itself did nothing more than provide data points - I don't know how you can be offended by data.
 
I'm not offended, I just showed you why the fact the Daily Mail presented, alone, is completely useless.

By doing so, I have shown the distance between the importance of the single data and the importance the Daily Mail gave to it, and, at the same time, the distance between the reaction you gave to that data and the importance it really has.

Why have you laughed at some random data? How is a 92% figure so funny in your head?

It is becaue of what you think it means, which is now clearly readable, but which is unfortunately not true, as correlation doesn't mean causation.

Back to the beginning. now let's not start again, because citing articles from the Daily Mail to mock people you dislike is not actually a smart move.
 
The 92% number comes from the usual LeVeL statistic-fail paired wis his blind faith in tabloid newspapers.

A little research (easier in German of course) shows that the number comes from a study that asked 873 suspects what their living situation is. Answering that question was voluntary. 65 suspects answered and of those 92% still lived with their parents.

So that means 6,85% of all suspects still live with their parents...considering the young age of some of the suspects that's not too unusual a percentage I'd say.

Here is the link to that study (in German), the data is on page 40/41.
 
Last edited:
I have expressed precisely zero opinion on the data :roflmao: By the way, I'm laughing at you two right now because I managed to get your undies twisted up by saying nothing.

Also, is the 92% figure unsurprising like SirEd suggested, or is it a statistic fail per Beni? :lol:
 
And a new low is achieved, post pointless statistic from a tabloid, get laughed out and claim it was "for lulz". Theres another thread for that, you yourself created it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top