It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feel the Bern-ie Sanders

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

That depends on how much evidence you are willing to accept to support my idea. I try to base my ideas on scientific evidence and trends developed from proper statistical analysis, but many on the right seem to think that those things aren't to be trusted. I just authored a thread about an idea I just pitched that would drastically alter society. Let's start there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You want stats ... I'll let my husband address those. He's the statistician. What will you do if he tells you your numbers are crap and why.

Just off the top, you can't analyze the study itself to see what their methodology is because their isn't a link to it, so you either have to accept the numbers at face value or be suspicious. I don't except media stats without seeing how they were derived, all the crunchy bits. Just for starters, they had to construct their data on unsafe abortions through estimates which means they could feel free to interpret things and will likely have skewed it to their own preconceived biases.
edit on 23-7-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So good reason to allow an abortion or not, what you are really doing at that point is depriving another human being of his or her basic, inalienable right to life guaranteed to him or her in the Founding Documents. Now, while I can't say that every instance of abortion should be outlawed, if you're going to execute someone, you ought to have a darn good reason ... much better than Oops! I didn't really want to be pregnant.


Well the way I look at it, it's not about whether or not -I- would get an abortion. Personally, I'm pretty sure that if I got a girl pregnant, that I would urge her to keep it (I say pretty sure because I can't account for all situations I may be in). It's about the girl who is pregnant decision to do so. The girl (as has been shown through collected data) is likely to get the abortion whether you or I agree with it or not. The better question should be, should we punish her for it or not. Because it's not like making it illegal prevented that baby from dying or anything.

PS: Sorry I snipped some of your paragraphs so that this post wouldn't be so long.


Ah, but that's not at all what I said. You need to read more closely. I said they can do what they liked. I only asked to have the right to be left out of it and not be forced to participate if I didn't wish to. I never said I wanted to compel then NOT to call what they have marriage, and I've also made that plain all over the place here. They can call it what they like and have their ceremony. I use those terms because I don't consider it marriage, but they can and so can others. That's liberty at work.

And in public and in person, I'm not going to say "No you're not married," same as I don't tell my sister and brother-in-law they aren't married ... because they aren't. They only have a civil union.


Well then you should have no problems then, because no one is forcing you to participate in any gay weddings or forcing you to have them. What makes you so concerned that this would even be an issue? Have you heard of ANY cases where this has happened yet and it was successfully fought in court? Because all legal AND social precedent so far shows that this shouldn't even be something you should be concerning yourself with.

Have you considered that the right has overhyped this problem up to appear more rights infringing than it really is?


Well, I've been around a few years and watched Washington work. In Washington, compromise seems to consist of one side getting pretty much all of what it wants NOW while the other side gets a pretty promise to do what it wants ... maybe ten years down the road. The dirty trick is that future congresses cannot be held to the promises of present ones, so that means one side will really get nothing. Take the border fence for an example. That was what the right was supposed to get in the last border security "compromise."

We can see how well that worked out.


You do know that there are more border patrol agents employed during Obama's Presidency than during any other Presidency so far right? I mean, it may not be EXACTLY what you wanted, but you can't say that there haven't been considerations made or anything. Obama has also apparently deported more illegals than any other President.

Though that said, why are we worried about deporting illegals anyways? Wouldn't it be more prudent to figure out why so many are compelled to hop the border illegally instead of coming in legally then address THOSE issues? Wouldn't you think that worrying about CONSTANTLY kicking the free loaders out of your house doesn't actually fix the issue of WHY they are there to begin with?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

That depends on how much evidence you are willing to accept to support my idea. I try to base my ideas on scientific evidence and trends developed from proper statistical analysis, but many on the right seem to think that those things aren't to be trusted. I just authored a thread about an idea I just pitched that would drastically alter society. Let's start there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You want stats ... I'll let my husband address those. He's the statistician. What will you do if he tells you your numbers are crap and why.


If he can make a compelling argument, I'd like to say that I'd change my opinion on the matter.


Just off the top, you can't analyze the study itself to see what their methodology is because their isn't a link to it, so you either have to accept the numbers at face value or be suspicious. I don't except media stats without seeing how they were derived, all the crunchy bits. Just for starters, they had to construct their data on unsafe abortions through estimates which means they could feel free to interpret things and will likely have skewed it to their own preconceived biases.


Well now we are back where we started, you don't want to give any leeway to me because you don't trust my sources and refuse to even consider that they may be correct. I mean I'm not going to sit here and say that all statistical analysis being done is straight forward, but if a study is claimed to show something, it pays to at LEAST consider what it is saying...
edit on 23-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It might be a good place to start, but until we try to enforce the laws we have on the books, we won't know.

How do you know why an illegal might come here? Is it because they know plenty of cities refuse to enforce immigration law? Is it because they got that brochure handed to them from our own Dept. of Ag. advising them on how to apply for SNAP once they get here? Is it because they know how easy it is to circumvent our systems because we don't adequately enforce them?

So until we get proper enforcement, it's hard to know for sure what's broken to make it fixable.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not so much that as I took a class in college about using stats in media. I want to see how the numbers were arrived at.

It's very easy as a reporter to pull numbers that make your case, but with statistics, you need to see how the numbers were put together to get the full picture. You can't get that in your source because there is no link to the study itself. I am asking for that.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you remember all those toothpaste commercials as kid? Four out of five dentists recommend ... It sounds really impressive, but they never told you how they got that number. In reality, all they had to do was find a group of five dentists, four of whom liked that toothpaste. It's not a lie because four out of those five dentists really did recommend it, but it is deceptive on the other hand.

Another example is the infamous live birth statistic. Every nation in the world counts this a little differently when they collect their statistic. In the US, any baby that's born and draws breath even once is counted as a live birth. This makes our infant mortality rather higher than a lot of other nations because some of those nations don't count a live birth until the baby has lived for a year. But WHO counts them all in the same pot, the same way in reckoning infant mortality.

So in order to see how the numbers go together, I'd like to see the original source for them.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm more worried about why they don't want to stay in their own country versus taking advantage of any immigration loopholes (real or imagined). I mean, what if Mexico was a country with an economy on par with the rest of the 1st world? Do you think that we'd be seeing the level of illegal immigration that we do now, or do you think that our border would be able to be more open like we have with Canada?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you advocating we play World Police and try to "fix" Mexico?

Not only that, but you seem to be making the assumption that the only illegals are from Mexico. They come from all over. We can hardly fix the world.

edit on 23-7-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not so much that as I took a class in college about using stats in media. I want to see how the numbers were arrived at.

It's very easy as a reporter to pull numbers that make your case, but with statistics, you need to see how the numbers were put together to get the full picture. You can't get that in your source because there is no link to the study itself. I am asking for that.


Yes, I understand this. Trust me I do. I could write a whole thread on the various propaganda techniques used by the media that I keep an eye out for when reading articles.


Let me put it to you this way: Do you remember all those toothpaste commercials as kid? Four out of five dentists recommend ... It sounds really impressive, but they never told you how they got that number. In reality, all they had to do was find a group of five dentists, four of whom liked that toothpaste. It's not a lie because four out of those five dentists really did recommend it, but it is deceptive on the other hand.


Yes, what you are referring to is the lab coat appeal to authority fallacy that advertisers abuse to no end. I'm familiar with it. I'm also familiar with improper statistical sampling like that.


Another example is the infamous live birth statistic. Every nation in the world counts this a little differently when they collect their statistic. In the US, any baby that's born and draws breath even once is counted as a live birth. This makes our infant mortality rather higher than a lot of other nations because some of those nations don't count a live birth until the baby has lived for a year. But WHO counts them all in the same pot, the same way in reckoning infant mortality.

So in order to see how the numbers go together, I'd like to see the original source for them.


I DO try post articles that post links to at LEAST the abstract of the study. Sometimes I fail in that regard, but I do understand the desire to question the data. There ARE some places that all you do is have to register at the publication and you can view the study. I found that was the case when I produced the study to show that abortions rates are higher in countries where it is illegal. And if you have to pay to read it, then I'm sorry. There is nothing I can do about it, but at least you can read the Abstract.

Though question. Which is more trustworthy to you, a source that can produce a scientific study (regardless if you can verify the contents of the study) versus a source that argues off of rhetoric and what we THINK we know about things? What if multiple studies can be produced that show this but all of them are from sources where you can only view the Abstract?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you advocating we play World Police and try to "fix" Mexico?


I'm saying that we can look at many in our OWN country that is destabilizing the country *cough*war on drugs*cough* and fix that for starters.


Not only that, but you seem to be making the assumption that the only illegals are from Mexico. They come from all over. We can hardly fix the world.


Well the majority are coming from Central or South America fueled by people running from the cartels.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You think anyone goes unscathed? Learning not to play victim is a better first step.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with just seeing the abstract is that it does not give you the full way to replicate the results if you wanted to do the work yourself. It also does not give you and insight into the researcher's rationalization for how they interpreted the numbers they got, and let's be real - in a lot of the social sciences like sociology, psychology, etc., we are relying on researchers to create data sets and read the tea leaves so to speak.

If there is a link, is it a correlation or a direct causation? Why or why not? Do the researchers explain why they rule out one over the other? You aren't going to see that in an abstract or get an idea as to why they think their data justifies that. You also aren't going to see what estimated they made and how they formed those estimates based on what in an abstract.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Excuse me for interrupting, but just last night I was referencing a graduate-level textbook I still have entitled "Research Methods in Social Work."

It is complicated and not just about reading "tea leaves." There's nothing "shady" about it.
The numbers speak for themselves - there either IS a correlation or there is NOT. It has to be systematically and with absolute neutrality significant.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Going back to the original video (and perhaps a bit of levity)… aren't we all just a little tired of the whole satirical "dumb" reporter schtick? I mean come on, it was done to death by Steven Colbert. It's no longer funny. Real news and questions please, instead of hack acting. That said, go on Bernie, it's gonna be a tough fight!



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Excuse me for interrupting, but just last night I was referencing a graduate-level textbook I still have entitled "Research Methods in Social Work."

It is complicated and not just about reading "tea leaves." There's nothing "shady" about it.
The numbers speak for themselves - there either IS a correlation or there is NOT. It has to be systematically and with absolute neutrality significant.


But just because there is a correlation does not mean there is a causative relationship between the factors.

For example:

As ice cream sales increase, so do drowning deaths. These two have a direct correlation, but that doesn't mean that ice cream is directly causing drowning. The real relationship is more complicated. Simply put, in the summer more people buy ice cream and more people go swimming. The more often people go swimming, the more likely they are to drown.

So while there is a correlative relationship between the two data points, their real relationship is far more complicated.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

yeah yeah. *yawn*

And one could say that since all murderers ate McDonald's french fries at some point in life, McD's french fries cause people to murder. It's nonsense.

That's how the media spins things. It isn't real RESEARCH.

/shrug

And what that has to do with this thread is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with just seeing the abstract is that it does not give you the full way to replicate the results if you wanted to do the work yourself. It also does not give you and insight into the researcher's rationalization for how they interpreted the numbers they got, and let's be real - in a lot of the social sciences like sociology, psychology, etc., we are relying on researchers to create data sets and read the tea leaves so to speak.

If there is a link, is it a correlation or a direct causation? Why or why not? Do the researchers explain why they rule out one over the other? You aren't going to see that in an abstract or get an idea as to why they think their data justifies that. You also aren't going to see what estimated they made and how they formed those estimates based on what in an abstract.


I mean that is certainly a FAIR point, and I certainly don't disagree with you or anything. I just see it that at least the Abstract is SOMETHING. It's more than just rhetoric is what I'm saying. It isn't perfect as a source, but its better than some news pundit opening his mouth and saying whatever he thinks is the case. It proves that at least an ATTEMPT at science has been made to prove something. The analysis may yet be flawed, so we shouldn't take the information as gospel or anything. It's just that it should at LEAST make you stop and say, "Hmmm... Maybe..."
edit on 23-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I didn't discount it. I asked if you could get the full study.

However, I would point out in your post that comparing making abortions illegal to making alcohol and drugs illegal is somewhat faulty reasoning. Alcohol and drugs are both pleasure vices, and then you add the element of the forbidden by outlawing them making them more seductive if you will.

I've never heard it said that abortions are a pleasure vice. So you can't exactly draw direct comparison there. It's not the same type of thing. Are you suggesting that if someone were to outlaw abortion tomorrow millions of women would suddenly decide they wanted to go out and have one or more abortions because they suddenly weren't able to whereas today because those same women know they could ... they just don't feel like it.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian




aren't we all just a little tired of the whole satirical "dumb" reporter schtick?


I will never get tired of satirical reporting.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




Why are we supporting any candidate that only appeals to one half of the country?


Because that is how 'democracy' aka mob rule aka tyranny of the mob works.

There can only be two.

The majority.

The minority.

Everyone loves it until they get on the short end of that stick.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I'm saying that we can look at many in our OWN country that is destabilizing the country *cough*war on drugs*cough* and fix that for starters.


Alright lets start with CLinton, and NAFTA.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

Blaming the war on drugs eh.

Since the 'success' of Nafta there was an exponential increase in illegal immigration.




top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join