- Apr 13, 2006
- 25,359
- 13,886
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
It addressed the terms, not the data. If I had more time, I'd investigate how "significant" this difference is. But given that you, dismissed the entirety of my post because of this difference (including info from other sources) without investigating whether the difference was significant enough to raise as a concern with the data, yeah, seems like ad hominem isn't the worst label. The only other thing you said was your "concern" with bias.I'm convinced that people just say things but don't really understand what they mean. Nothing about the post I made was "ad hominem". It directly addressed the data you presented and explained why it was nothing more than p-hacked propaganda.
If you think it's reasonable to compare an area with a population density of 11,000/mile2 to a state with 6/mile2, I really am not sure what to tell you there.If your primary purpose is to prove that Democrat-run areas fare better in crime statistics than in Republican-run areas, then it makes perfect sense to exclude DC and pretend like it doesn't exist. But if your purpose is to objectively determine whether Democrat- or Republican-run areas fare better in crime statistics, then you would absolutely include it.
Oh sure. I can understand that.You might also note that in your link that references FBI data, it states this:
The FBI cautions against using any one demographic marker to draw conclusions about the causes of crime, which they describe as manifold, complex and often “not readily measurable.”
Upvote
0