DescentBB

.....and then, observe the facts. Gawd, doesn't reality just throw you a loop, sometimes?

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... ?cid=bitly

Small sample size. 8 killings?

The Washington Post looked into the statistics early last year, going back about a decade and looking at thousands of slain officers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ll-police/

it is a small sample size(blessedly), which FURTHER puts to the lie the assertion being made in many quarters that the recent events of the past year have fueled a black onslaught onto police, who now fear for their very lives. This small set of data show two things: first, there is no real spike in deaths, and second, it isn't coming from black people.

callmeslick wrote:This small set of data show two things

Actually, it shows zero things. Because it's not enough data, nor enough time, to draw any sort of significant conclusions.

Don't be that guy who misuses statistics when they happen to twist in favor of a position you hold.

callmeslick wrote:.....and then, observe the facts. Gawd, doesn't reality just throw you a loop, sometimes?

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... ?cid=bitly

That's almost once a week for this year. That's pretty poignant.

I read Lothar's link aswell. It gives a good historical sumamry.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:This small set of data show two things

Actually, it shows zero things. Because it's not enough data, nor enough time, to draw any sort of significant conclusions.

Don't be that guy who misuses statistics when they happen to twist in favor of a position you hold.

is there evidence of a spike in police being murdered? NO.
is there evidence of a spike in black people killing cops? NO
this isn't a matter of statistics,but reality counter to a narrative which is being foisted upon the public and politicians. That narrative
is bull★■◆●, and one doesn't need to wait for a significant time period to see that the current story is full of holes.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:This small set of data show two things

Actually, it shows zero things. Because it's not enough data, nor enough time, to draw any sort of significant conclusions.

Don't be that guy who misuses statistics when they happen to twist in favor of a position you hold.

is there evidence of a spike in police being murdered? NO.
is there evidence of a spike in black people killing cops? NO

What you can actually say is "does the evidence over the last 6 weeks show a spike in [stuff]? NO."

That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence -- it just means that your small sample isn't evidence.

reality counter to a narrative which is being foisted upon the public and politicians. That narrative is bull★■◆●, and one doesn't need to wait for a significant time period to see that the current story is full of holes.

If you wish to show that the story is "full of holes", you absolutely do need to gather adequate data. You can't try to make an argument using statistics, and then backpedal away from statistics when your statistics are shown to be inadequate. If you want to show that there is "no spike", you need to gather data from a large enough time period, and then analyze it properly.

For what it's worth, I've looked at the data, and police deaths by violence are trending down, and there's no particular shift in the racial demographics of perps -- your narrative is correct. I'm getting on you because you're doing a terrible job of arguing it. You got the right answer through the wrong process. Go get the process right so you can actually support the answer properly instead of asserting it with insufficient evidence.

(This parallels something I say with science all the time -- getting the right answer through the wrong process is worthless, because you can't actually do anything with it or build off of it. Process matters.)

fair critique, Lothar. Your rule definitely applies very well to science and mathematics, perhaps less so for intuitive knowledge.

And yet the left harps on the idea that Trump is saying things to enrage the terrorists and will cause an increase of acts in the US…is there any evidence of that?

Spidey wrote:And yet the left harps on the idea that Trump is saying things to enrage the terrorists and will cause an increase of acts in the US…is there any evidence of that?

we will have to observe over the proper time frame. In the cop violence scenario, some folks are claiming a changed pattern right at the present. No one is suggesting that Trump will have an immediate effect, but most in the know realize he is hurting us long-term every day. Oh, and it isn't so simplistic as the 'left' saying that, unless, suddenly Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Haley Barbour have been redefined as 'left'.

Oh, when it comes to Trump, I would never limit the criticism as coming from the left, that was just a simple juxtaposition.

Spidey wrote:is there any evidence of that?

Yes. Trump's speeches have already started being used for recruitment videos.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeas ... deo-trump/

Except Trump is not racist nor is he anti-muslim

woodchip wrote:Except Trump is not racist nor is he anti-muslim

if not,why is he pandering to those who are?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Except Trump is not racist nor is he anti-muslim

if not,why is he pandering to those who are?

Because Donald Trump is really Donald Pander.

Then he is definitely in the wrong party.

woodchip wrote:Except Trump is not racist nor is he anti-muslim

LOL.

too easy.