Posted on 08/29/2014 7:10:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Some libertarians are nut job conspiracy theorists. Most I know are very rational, and usually accept “thermoeconomic” principles when these are explained to them. It’s the liberals who turn off their brains and let their gall bladder speak for them.
Being that this is from the UK, it must be one of those cases where British English vocabulary differs from US English. "Evidence" must be UK-ese for "crack-addled statist dickhead".
Congratulations, you can spot the reverse causation aspect that the author of this drivel can not.
Yeah, I always look to socialists to explain libertarianism to me. It just makes sense, scientific sense, just like scientific socialism.
I could ask for no better enemy and my thinking needs no finer opponent than the Manchester Guardian.
Science, you will not be surprised to learn, apparently consists of spending projects, controls, economic theories, and ideologies that extend State power, and enrich leftist intellectuals.
The control group were people they matched for age, race, income, sex, and being in Philly at the same time as those injured in an assault. They got these “Control participants were sampled from all of Philadelphia via random-digit dialing.” Also, “We did not pair-match case participants and control participants on location.” So, they just randomly called people to find controls, and their controls could be anywhere in Philly at the matched time of the shootings.
Also from the article:
“However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations(1,2), less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).”
A lot of these cases were not surprise assaults, but came from “arguments” - “...many of these events were 2-sided situations in which both parties were ready and mutually willing to fight on the basis of a prior argument.(29,3)”
From this, they get that people who have guns were 4.46 times as likely to get shot than those who were not armed.
This Guardian screed is very similar to a speech that Hitler made in the 1930s where he told private property owners that they would be allowed to own private property provided that that private property was used to carry out the dictates of the state.
Sig heil, you Guardian pigs.
The author is simply attempting to bolster his opinions by claiming that they are science. It is what leftists of all stripes have been doing for over a hundred years.
Science has been wildly successful at predicting physical events and at helping engineers understand how to improve technology. Science has thus become very credible in the public eye. Leftists have attempted to transfer this credibility to their ideology by claiming it is “scientific” when it is not. They just make the claim, with no evidence to back it up.
It is the same with this authors claims. He has no real evidence. All of his “studies” are hotly disputed.
But he claims “science” in order to mislead uninformed readers.
False religion and science don’t mix
That is an amazingly flawed study. It’s comparing apples and 2x4s.
I challenge anyone to offer a real world history example of when that's ever been true. Hey, I love science as much as the next geek. Thrive on it in fact. But free of pettiness and personal prejudices? When has that ever happened? Never...? Science has always been mired in politics maybe even more so than religion.
Yeah... Some times those of us with a bit of “libertarian” ideology in them feel like we get it from both sides of the spectrum.
Right... “Yer Goddless, hedonistic, anarchists with no morals!”
Other than keeping my faith to myself and the non-initiation of force/fraud/theft thing?
Left... “You are an unfeeling captialist that wants old people to starve and the environment to die.”
Property Rights, RKBA, “rising tide raises all ships” much?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.