Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 In other words...you didn't look up the census data for foreign-born population of those cities, you just assumed a correlation. I'm in the middle of doing the calculation myself...along with correlating it with state, population size, population density, and the first letter of the city name. Anyone want to place bets on which has the strongest correlation? Hell, just doing CA was enough to show HA is full of sh--...again. Still. Given your past track record, I simply don't believe the math you claim to be "doing" will ever result in actual numbers for the rest of us to see.
pdh1 Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 we have HA, molson goldfish, and pdh in here...who called the X-morons to unite? Oh, I didn't mean to steer (no pun intended) a debate about the cost/benefits of illegal immigration in discussion of which state has the worst drivers. The point it, we currently cater to the illegals by not enforcing the laws that are on the books. When they do stuff like drink and drive, they are much more likely to do it again after being caught, because they are simply let go, told to show up at court, and of course then they don't show up. They can just go back to working under the table, with new name and fake id. Legal citizens have more problems doing that because they could loose their job, their car and license. Even when the accidents aren't fatal, we still end up paying more for our auto insurance to cover their expenses. I had a co-worker rear-ended last week by, you guessed it, a non-english speaking fellow with no insurance. Great, more money out of OUR pockets. Same thing applies to hospitals and how we are charged more and more for our health insurance. If we showed up at the ER and had some work done, you can be damn sure they would find and ruin your credit if you didn't pay. No such problems for those with no legal id or social security numbers. How is that Ram-anus?
Taro T Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 In other words...you didn't look up the census data for foreign-born population of those cities, you just assumed a correlation. I'm in the middle of doing the calculation myself...along with correlating it with state, population size, population density, and the first letter of the city name. Anyone want to place bets on which has the strongest correlation? Hell, just doing CA was enough to show HA is full of sh--...again. Still. Tom, That'd be an interesting calc. One thing I don't quite understand though is, when exactly did HA make this into an immigrant issue instead of an illegal immigrant issue? (He has been discussing immigrants, not illegal immigrants, I just don't understand how that occurred.) The reason I ask is, I thought most people were discussing illegal immigration, and I didn't see any stats on the Census bureau's site that covers illegals (not surprisingly). I still think it would be interesting, although I expect, as you seem to, that there will be little to no correlation between immigrant populations and overall accident rates.
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 How is that Ram-anus? spend all night thinking that one up? "X-morons, UNITE! we need an all night session (i wouldnt call it BRAINstorming, since you guys seem to lack the proper equipment)to come up with an attempted insult!"
Chef Jim Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Given that you got so very much wrong in your last post, I can't exactly blame you for using still more accusations to detract attention from your own egregious errors. But once again you're off the mark. Had I written that "every single last safe city was in the Midwest," your Bakersfield example would have been a good rebuttal. But I merely noted a tendency for the safer cities to be in the Midwest; and a tendency for cities with high immigrant populations to be in the lower, less-safe part of the list. Your statement that I "don't even know what a correlation is" is just stupid. But you've yet to contribute anything intelligent to this thread, so why start now? Did you ever stop to think that the correlation (did I really use that word) of accidents to big cities is the traffic caused by too many people of all colors. Drive through Iowa and the chance of running into anything is pretty damn tough. Drive the 405 at 5:00pm on Friday and it's a miracle you don't hit something every four feet. One more time, where is your proof that illegal immigrants contribute ANYTHING to those numbers.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Tom, That'd be an interesting calc. One thing I don't quite understand though is, when exactly did HA make this into an immigrant issue instead of an illegal immigrant issue? (He has been discussing immigrants, not illegal immigrants, I just don't understand how that occurred.) The reason I ask is, I thought most people were discussing illegal immigration, and I didn't see any stats on the Census bureau's site that covers illegals (not surprisingly). I still think it would be interesting, although I expect, as you seem to, that there will be little to no correlation between immigrant populations and overall accident rates. He didn't, as far as I know...but like you said, there's no census data on illegals, so I have to go with the assumption that the percent of legal foreign-born residents somehow correlates with the illegal immigrant population. It's certainly not a bad assumption, particularly where driving habits are concerned (why the hell should legal immigrants be better drivers than illegals? If metropolitan accident rates correlate with illegal immigrant populations, they should correlate with legal immigrant populations to roughly the same degree). But I can't think of a way to truly validate it. So far, the numbers for CA alone correlate only weakly with both population density and immigrant population. Haven't done the correlation with the first letter of the city name yet.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Did you ever stop to think that the correlation (did I really use that word) of accidents to big cities is the traffic caused by too many people of all colors. Drive through Iowa and the chance of running into anything is pretty damn tough. Drive the 405 at 5:00pm on Friday and it's a miracle you don't hit something every four feet. One more time, where is your proof that illegal immigrants contribute ANYTHING to those numbers. Don't forget, too, that immigrant population is likely to correlate with the size of the city. Illegal immigrants aren't going to move to Bum!@#$, Iowa, population 800 when they can hide in the crowds in LA. Which is why CORRELATION doesn't equal CAUSATION, HA. Two measures may correlate just because their root cause is the same, but they're otherwise completely unrelated.
Chef Jim Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Don't forget, too, that immigrant population is likely to correlate with the size of the city. Illegal immigrants aren't going to move to Bum!@#$, Iowa, population 800 when they can hide in the crowds in LA. Which is why CORRELATION doesn't equal CAUSATION, HA. Two measures may correlate just because their root cause is the same, but they're otherwise completely unrelated. And there's the funny part. Illegals are being found in small towns.....ummm, that's where the farms are. WNY is a good example.
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Which is why CORRELATION doesn't equal CAUSATION, HA. Two measures may correlate just because their root cause is the same, but they're otherwise completely unrelated. I addressed that issue earlier in this thread, but you're acting like the above concept is something new to me. Here's what I wrote earlier, before you graced us with your "wisdom." The reason correlation doesn't prove causation is that there are generally several possible explanations for why any given correlation exists. Sometimes X might cause both Y and Z, so you'd see a correlation between Y and Z. Or the correlation between Y and Z might be a coincidence. Or Y might be causing Z, or Z might be causing Y. Statistics generally can't tell us which of these competing explanations is correct.
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Did you ever stop to think that the correlation (did I really use that word) of accidents to big cities is the traffic caused by too many people of all colors. Drive through Iowa and the chance of running into anything is pretty damn tough. Drive the 405 at 5:00pm on Friday and it's a miracle you don't hit something every four feet. One more time, where is your proof that illegal immigrants contribute ANYTHING to those numbers. I didn't say I had proof; merely life experience. And based on what I've seen with my own two eyes, the quality of driving is worse in places with higher concentrations of immigrants. I'm not just talking about people colliding with each other because there are too many cars in too little space. I'm talking about turn signal use (or lack thereof), taking stupid, avoidable risks, or actions which demonstrate a general obliviousness or lack of safety awareness.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I addressed that issue earlier in this thread, but you're acting like the above concept is something new to me. Here's what I wrote earlier, before you graced us with your "wisdom." And then you go on to act like correlation is causation.
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 And then you go on to act like correlation is causation. Causation is one possible explanation for correlation. I'm willing to entertain other reasonable explanations. (Hint: coming up with "reasonable" explanations for anything isn't exactly your strong suit.)
Chef Jim Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I didn't say I had proof; merely life experience. And based on what I've seen with my own two eyes, the quality of driving is worse in places with higher concentrations of immigrants. I'm not just talking about people colliding with each other because there are too many cars in too little space. I'm talking about turn signal use (or lack thereof), taking stupid, avoidable risks, or actions which demonstrate a general obliviousness or lack of safety awareness. Ok, here we go again. Big cities=more illegal immigrants and Big cities=more accidents does not correlate to more accidents=caused by illegal immigrants which is your arguement. I live in orange county CA which parts are loaded with illegals and parts are whiter than Michael Jackson. And the white parts have a chit load of accidents caused by people making lots of money who are to fuggin' full of themselves to pay attention to other people on the road. So according to you lack of turn signals, taking stupid avoidable risks is done more by illegals? Pal, they're illegal and fear deportation. If anything they're being more careful.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Causation is one possible explanation for correlation. I'm willing to entertain other reasonable explanations. (Hint: coming up with "reasonable" explanations for anything isn't exactly your strong suit.) Conversing with you is a very surreal experience.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 I didn't say I had proof; merely life experience. And based on what I've seen with my own two eyes, the quality of driving is worse in places with higher concentrations of immigrants. I'm not just talking about people colliding with each other because there are too many cars in too little space. I'm talking about turn signal use (or lack thereof), taking stupid, avoidable risks, or actions which demonstrate a general obliviousness or lack of safety awareness. Illegal immigrants cause me to not signal when I change lanes and not wear my seat belt...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 No, he didn't. Not everyone's as slow as you. So you're the official X-moron spokesperson. got it.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 So you're the official X-moron spokesperson. got it. Where Kurt Goebbels, btw? I've got a Wonder Twins joke waiting for the two of them..."Wonder Twin Morons, activate!!! Shape of...a drooling idiot! Form of...Reinhardt Heydrich!..."
GG Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 So according to you lack of turn signals, taking stupid avoidable risks is done more by illegals? Pal, they're illegal and fear deportation. If anything they're being more careful. Well, there is the study done in UK that showed that pot smokers are more careful drivers...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Well, there is the study done in UK that showed that pot smokers are more careful drivers... well, based on this, and HA lahjik, one can assume that illegals dont smoke pot.
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 No can do pal. That theme song/slogan/whatever rightfully belongs to you and your wife Ramius. Kurt and I aren't going to steal it from the two of you. You're as bad at this whole "trading barbed insults" thing as you are at everything else.
Recommended Posts