You distorted my posts on that thread and you continue to do so now. You failed to mention #65, which puts lie to everything you just claimed. I bolded the times I made the point that causation does not equal correlation.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
To: CutePuppy
If you accept the premise that marijuana laws have loosened significantly since the mid-1990s, and if you accept the crime figures at the link, then there indeed has been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. However, you cannot say there is a causal relationship based on such a correlation. Agree with both statements?
To say two things are correlated is not to say that one or the other variable is causal =>
_________________________________________________________________
"Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
_________________________________________________________________
CutePuppy: How about illegal immigration and crime rate? There has been unarguably more illegal immigration while the crime rate ostensibly dropped. Conclusions?
Same as with the pot laws => 1. There's been a positive correlation between the two since the mid-1990s. 2. You cannot say there is a causal relationship. 3. Further investigation is needed to draw any conlusions.
Do you agree?
_______________________________________________________________
Now, I'll be glad to discuss other points you raised, such as causes of falling crime and what drug policy should be. But first, I want to get cleared up what should be a simple point => When I say there a correlation, I am not making the case for causation. I am making a case against the claim legalizing pot would cause crime to rise significantly. With CA's violent crime rate falling by half since 1996, it seems a highly dubious proposition.
65 posted on Tue Jul 22 2014 00:44:03 GMT-0400 (EDT) by Ken H
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
So was it an oversight, or was it a deliberate act of deceit on your part to omit it?
I presented a link to a number of posts (which include responses to and refutations of your #65 and other posts, so I didn't have to "mention" or "omit" anything) so that people who read the thread and are interested, may see your tendency to present your theories as correlations and/or implied causations (possible correlation that strongly implies and is passed as causation, without which theories and correlations are coincidental and meaningless). I didn't feel the need to continue that "conversation" on that thread or graft it into this one.
Based on your posts, I think you are sincere in your confusion and not quite understanding the importance of the differences between these concepts (rather than "not understanding" it because it's convenient "not to understand" it) but it may confuse other people (as it's often designed to do, especially in politics or finance, some examples of which I have provided) and it makes difficult to have an intelligent argument with you without getting into all kinds of tangents and having useless "endless threads" and being called, in effect, a liar, i.e., "dishonest / distort / deliberate deceit / omit" etc., which is irresponsible and is often used in debates as a "shut up" or "yo' mama" or "change the subject" tactic.
I think it's safe to say that you haven't met the burden of proof on your theory of "highway deaths" related to "fewer Americans are drinking and driving; more are using drugs" and leave it at that. tactic.