Cities with high gun crime rates = democrat mayors, lack of police...
1. Pogo posted this question asking if I were comparing a political party to cancer
2. If you read my previous comment in that thread
I was explaining the DIFFERENCE between "causation" and "correlation"
The STRUCTURE was this:
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
I was saying the argument is whether you can prove causation
or if you can at least agree there is correlation going on even if you can't prove direct cause
3. Pogo insists it was me who "was making an analogy"
comparing a political party (Democrats) with Cancer.
4. But if you look at the structure, they are not in the same place.
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
My point was that the Democrats' attitude and belief about depending on govt
CORRELATES with poverty and crime, instead of breaking out of this cycle of oppression.
it was
1. NOT about the party itself but the POLITICAL BELIEF in depending on govt
2. My point was just because factors are CORRELATED does not mean they are CAUSE/EFFECT
3. and lastly, if you look at the structure of the "comparison"
CRIME was in the same position as CANCER
(not political beliefs or party)
So I want to clarify that, and if Pogo still argues
will someone please explain this better.
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
it's clear to me that crime/cancer were listed as the effects
being blamed on the correlated factors.
So Pogo might have been right about my comparing
cancer with CRIME which occupies the same position in that "comparison"
NOTE: My REAL comparison was contrasting a
CORRELATED relations
as opposed to a
CAUSAL relationship.
So Pogo missed my entire point anyway, by continuing to
go on and on about causality which I was contesting as my whole point!
1. Pogo posted this question asking if I were comparing a political party to cancer
2. If you read my previous comment in that thread
I was explaining the DIFFERENCE between "causation" and "correlation"
The STRUCTURE was this:
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
I was saying the argument is whether you can prove causation
or if you can at least agree there is correlation going on even if you can't prove direct cause
3. Pogo insists it was me who "was making an analogy"
comparing a political party (Democrats) with Cancer.
4. But if you look at the structure, they are not in the same place.
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
My point was that the Democrats' attitude and belief about depending on govt
CORRELATES with poverty and crime, instead of breaking out of this cycle of oppression.
it was
1. NOT about the party itself but the POLITICAL BELIEF in depending on govt
2. My point was just because factors are CORRELATED does not mean they are CAUSE/EFFECT
3. and lastly, if you look at the structure of the "comparison"
CRIME was in the same position as CANCER
(not political beliefs or party)
So I want to clarify that, and if Pogo still argues
will someone please explain this better.
Democrats:crime ::
smoking:cancer
it's clear to me that crime/cancer were listed as the effects
being blamed on the correlated factors.
So Pogo might have been right about my comparing
cancer with CRIME which occupies the same position in that "comparison"
NOTE: My REAL comparison was contrasting a
CORRELATED relations
as opposed to a
CAUSAL relationship.
So Pogo missed my entire point anyway, by continuing to
go on and on about causality which I was contesting as my whole point!
