Jump to content

If you don't believe in global warming, you're standing in the


Recommended Posts

And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case.

 

Gun violence correlates more strongly with car ownership than with gun ownership.

 

So while that doesn't mean cars cause gun violence, it makes a pretty strong case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the same reason some Christians think God put dinosaur bones on Earth

 

Duh, to test the faithful

Dammit, I KNEW ice cream caused people to commit crimes!!!

100% of cancer patients drank water. 100% is a pretty strong correlation.

 

Does water cause cancer?

Gun violence correlates more strongly with car ownership than with gun ownership.

 

So while that doesn't mean cars cause gun violence, it makes a pretty strong case.

 

Are you guys really this !@#$ing stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys really this !@#$ing stupid?

 

Now I'm worried that I didn't get quoted and lumped in with those guys. Please don't say you think me smart or anything. Coming from you, that would be the ultimate insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys really this !@#$ing stupid?

 

Look it up. Gun violence correlates more strongly with car ownership than with gun ownership. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. So BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you must agree that cars cause gun violence.

 

 

This isn't us being stupid. This is us teaching you something about rational thought and the scientific method, you dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look it up. Gun violence correlates more strongly with car ownership than with gun ownership. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case. So BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you must agree that cars cause gun violence.

 

 

This isn't us being stupid. This is us teaching you something about rational thought and the scientific method, you dumbass.

 

So I guess you really are that stupid. I just received my Masters degree in Sociology. I've spent that last few years of my life running statistics. If you were to run a simple CCM you would find that there is no demonstrable causation relationship between car ownership and gun violence. So we would call your idiotic correlative statements "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" induced by mass variable grouping. So no, by my own words I do not have to admit that car ownership leads to gun violence, or that ice cream leads to murder.

 

What your idiotic drivel has to do with rational thought and the scientific method... That is something that I'm sure only "correlates" in your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess you really are that stupid. I just received my Masters degree in Sociology. I've spent that last few years of my life running statistics. If you were to run a simple CCM you would find that there is no demonstrable causation relationship between car ownership and gun violence. So we would call your idiotic correlative statements "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" induced by mass variable grouping. So no, by my own words I do not have to admit that car ownership leads to gun violence, or that ice cream leads to murder.

 

What your idiotic drivel has to do with rational thought and the scientific method... That is something that I'm sure only "correlates" in your head.

 

First, get a real degree.

 

Second...I said correlation. Correlation does not equal causation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, get a real degree.

 

Second...I said correlation. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

First, get a real degree.

 

Second...I said correlation. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

Holy !@#$ing **** Batman! Let me see if I can break it down into kindergarten terms for you. If you cannot establish a demonstrable causation between variable A and variable B your correlation is meaningless (or propter hoc as we say in the business). I really don't know what kind of idiotic point you're trying to prove.

 

There is a demonstrable causation relationship between CO2 and greenhouse effect. There is no demonstrable causation between car ownership and gun violence. See how that works?

 

:w00t:

Gratz dude. I look forward to you ringing me up at Lowes sometime

Why yes, I WOULD like fries with that, thank you for asking! :D

:lol: :lol:

 

There is actually quite a bit that can be done with a degree in sociology.

 

You drive a BMW, right?

 

Honda Civic. But I think I'm going to get a new one now that my little H fell of the front. I mean, what's the use of having a Honda if you can't show it off?

Edited by Bigfatbillsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy !@#$ing **** Batman! Let me see if I can break it down into kindergarten terms for you. If you cannot establish a demonstrable causation between variable A and variable B your correlation is meaningless (or propter hoc as we say in the business). I really don't know what kind of idiotic point you're trying to prove.

 

There is a demonstrable causation relationship between CO2 and greenhouse effect. There is no demonstrable causation between car ownership and gun violence. See how that works?

...

 

There is actually quite a bit that can be done with a degree in sociology.

Like lament having wasted the time and money to earn a useless degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy !@#$ing **** Batman! Let me see if I can break it down into kindergarten terms for you. If you cannot establish a demonstrable causation between variable A and variable B your correlation is meaningless (or propter hoc as we say in the business). I really don't know what kind of idiotic point you're trying to prove.

 

There is a demonstrable causation relationship between CO2 and greenhouse effect. There is no demonstrable causation between car ownership and gun violence. See how that works?

 

 

 

 

 

There is actually quite a bit that can be done with a degree in sociology.

 

 

 

Honda Civic. But I think I'm going to get a new one now that my little H fell of the front. I mean, what's the use of having a Honda if you can't show it off?

 

I think its a little stiff and non absorbent for my sensitive parts, but maybe it can be usefull in a paper drive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy !@#$ing **** Batman! Let me see if I can break it down into kindergarten terms for you. If you cannot establish a demonstrable causation between variable A and variable B your correlation is meaningless (or propter hoc as we say in the business). I really don't know what kind of idiotic point you're trying to prove.

 

There is a demonstrable causation relationship between CO2 and greenhouse effect. There is no demonstrable causation between car ownership and gun violence. See how that works?

As for the bolded:

 

1. That's evident and very amusing.

 

2. No one said there is. See how that works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy !@#$ing **** Batman! Let me see if I can break it down into kindergarten terms for you. If you cannot establish a demonstrable causation between variable A and variable B your correlation is meaningless (or propter hoc as we say in the business). I really don't know what kind of idiotic point you're trying to prove.

 

There is a demonstrable causation relationship between CO2 and greenhouse effect. There is no demonstrable causation between car ownership and gun violence. See how that works?

 

But I'm not the one that said:

 

Unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the point you're trying to make. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We have a warming trend that is correlating with an uptick in CO2. And yes, correlation does not always equal causation, but it makes a pretty good case.

 

At this point, I think you're just arguing with yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...