Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Eureka! I've found the glitch in the system, I think. statcan includes ALL types of assault in its calculation of violent crime. The majority of the violent crimes on the statcan tally are assault--probably mostly minor assaults. The US statistics only include AGGRAVATED assault, which is the most serious kind. If all assaults were included the US rate would likely be higher. Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Wait a second... Did John Kerry serve in Vietnam? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Eureka! I've found the glitch in the system, I think. statcan includes ALL types of assault in its calculation of violent crime. The majority of the violent crimes on the statcan tally are assault--probably mostly minor assaults. The US statistics only include AGGRAVATED assault, which is the most serious kind. If all assaults were included the US rate would likely be higher. Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes. Yes, they clearly are. You lost the bet. Don't inspire me to change your sig, avatar, et al. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 All apologies Powerplay--I certainly should have included you. I just thought the CE people would care more. Why appologize? Frankly, I've been a bit combative as of late, so I do think I need to tone it down. And point taken. I think you've been appropriately combative, considering the arguments that you've been debating. You don't just swear at and insult the people who you are arguing with--you try to pick apart their arguments with evidence and logic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 22, 2004 All apologies Powerplay--I certainly should have included you. I just thought the CE people would care more. Why appologize? Frankly, I've been a bit combative as of late, so I do think I need to tone it down. And point taken. I think you've been appropriately combative, considering the arguments that you've been debating. You don't just swear at and insult the people who you are arguing with--you try to pick apart their arguments with evidence and logic. Which seems a lost cause, as your attempt at an argument with me here is demonstrating. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Eureka! I've found the glitch in the system, I think. statcan includes ALL types of assault in its calculation of violent crime. The majority of the violent crimes on the statcan tally are assault--probably mostly minor assaults. The US statistics only include AGGRAVATED assault, which is the most serious kind. If all assaults were included the US rate would likely be higher. Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes. Yes, they clearly are. You lost the bet. Don't inspire me to change your sig, avatar, et al. -=Mike But a major portion of the crimes in the Canada stat come from types of crime that aren't even included in the US stat. Plus, you had to have 3 sources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Let the judges decide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Ten minutes from now... Judges: Smitty has a point. AMikeSC: GODDAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Eureka! I've found the glitch in the system, I think. statcan includes ALL types of assault in its calculation of violent crime. The majority of the violent crimes on the statcan tally are assault--probably mostly minor assaults. The US statistics only include AGGRAVATED assault, which is the most serious kind. If all assaults were included the US rate would likely be higher. Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes. Yes, they clearly are. You lost the bet. Don't inspire me to change your sig, avatar, et al. -=Mike But a major portion of the crimes in the Canada stat come from types of crime that aren't even included in the US stat. Plus, you had to have 3 sources. I don't care what you wanted. I gave you Canadian and FBI statistics. In any sense of the word, the argument was over long ago. I said, and I quote, "violent crime". You can nitpick all day long --- I'm going with the OFFICIAL NUMBERS of the US and CANADIAN governments. You, on the other hand, have nothing to stand on. Just as you didn't when I first mentioned this. Why you made a seperate thread to CONTINUE providing nothing to refute anything I've said is beyond me. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 22, 2004 These two rates can not compare. Check out This table then of the UCR Appendix II. The Violent Crime rate in the American UCR does not include "Other Sexual Offenses" or "discharging firearms with intent, abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers and other assaults." which fall under "Other Crimes of Violence" in the Canadian report and the whole thing about assault is kind of muddled (it's not too clear on what the Canadian report considers Assault and what the American report declares as Aggrivated Assault). I'm assuming that the American report does not include what the Canadian report considers Assault 2 & Assault 3 since the rate for Assault in Canada is greater than America's entire violent crime rate. So I can't judge based on the information given. I suggest each of you change one aspect of each other's avatar/sig/whatever as a compromise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 22, 2004 My exact words were "violent crime". How a country wishes to define it is utterly irrelevant. Canada has more overall crime, property crime, and violent crime. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 BTW, Ebert had the numbers wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 22, 2004 My exact words were "violent crime". How a country wishes to define it is utterly irrelevant. Canada has more overall crime, property crime, and violent crime. -=Mike That's because that Canada uses more comprehensive statistics than the American UCR (probably because its easier to do that with a far smaller volume of data). The violent crime rate CAN NOT compare with the data given for several reasons. 1. Canada uses a different definition for Assault. 2. Canada includes categories that aren't included in the UCR 3. One can't say, based soley on the information provided in the Canadian statistic link and the UCR, that Canada has more crime because the UCR does not include a lot of crimes that the Canadian statistic page shows. By the way, the definition IS relevant if you want to compare the data. If they don't use, at the very least, similar definitions for different categories they're not reporting the same thing, therefore, they can not be compared. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Judging of source credibility and of the outcome of the bet will be done by a bi-partisan commission consisting of: 1. Cerebus 2. Loss 3. Czech Republic and 4. Rob E Dangerously Wait.. I think that i'm the only person on that panel who voted for Kerry. So yeah.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Throw on Tyler, that'll make it even. BTW, what say ye Rob? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 I think Powerplay in on the tribunal, as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Judging of source credibility and of the outcome of the bet will be done by a bi-partisan commission consisting of: 1. Cerebus 2. Loss 3. Czech Republic and 4. Rob E Dangerously Wait.. I think that i'm the only person on that panel who voted for Kerry. So yeah.. Who did Loss vote for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 22, 2004 My exact words were "violent crime". How a country wishes to define it is utterly irrelevant. Canada has more overall crime, property crime, and violent crime. -=Mike That's because that Canada uses more comprehensive statistics than the American UCR (probably because its easier to do that with a far smaller volume of data). The violent crime rate CAN NOT compare with the data given for several reasons. 1. Canada uses a different definition for Assault. 2. Canada includes categories that aren't included in the UCR 3. One can't say, based soley on the information provided in the Canadian statistic link and the UCR, that Canada has more crime because the UCR does not include a lot of crimes that the Canadian statistic page shows. By the way, the definition IS relevant if you want to compare the data. If they don't use, at the very least, similar definitions for different categories they're not reporting the same thing, therefore, they can not be compared. Unless you can definitively prove that removing whatever you wish to remove completely changes the data (simply put, you cannot), then you don't have a leg to stand on. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Judging of source credibility and of the outcome of the bet will be done by a bi-partisan commission consisting of: 1. Cerebus 2. Loss 3. Czech Republic and 4. Rob E Dangerously Wait.. I think that i'm the only person on that panel who voted for Kerry. So yeah.. Who did Loss vote for? Loss could come on here soon to bitchslap me for this, but I'm suspecting he voted third party or Bush. Then again.. it is a secret ballot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Do any members of this commission actually know they're involved in this? what the fuck is "Current Events" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 That seems conclusive to me. I said 3 sources but that's alright with me. The panel will rule and Mike shall punish me as he see fits. Or not, if he doesn't want to. I've already said I'm not going to punish you. -=Mike Woah, that sounds kinda gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that. And I'm fair and balanced, too, bitch. I think you needed a bipartisan group to rule on whether or not your selection group was bipartisan. Of course, you'll need a bipartisan group to evaluate the bipartisan group, and so on, but I digress... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Hey, what about world opinion? I think you should have some international observers for these procedings.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 There's INXS, he's from across the pond... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 But, like many across the Pond, he's not respected 'round these parts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 I think that this just proves that anyone trying to have a real debate w/ Mike is a loon. The two numbers are based upon different things. Why that means people can compare them because they can't prove that they numbers differ enough to change the outcome baffles me. You all find numbers based upon the same criteria and get back to us. This is all silly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 But, like many across the Pond, he's not respected 'round these parts. Don't say that INXS is in any way "like many across the Pond." That's an insult to the fine United Kingdom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Who did Loss vote for? I voted for Kerry. I made a joke post about being pro-Bush and pro-war (even going so far as to call the war a "humanitarian effort") that "earned the respect" of all the Bush lapdogs on this board (even getting PMs of congrats from some of them and links to mentally healthy sites like Log Cabin Republicans), so that's probably why he thinks that. I'm not typically one to join a cult, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Who did Loss vote for? I voted for Kerry. I made a joke post about being pro-Bush and pro-war (even going so far as to call the war a "humanitarian effort") that "earned the respect" of all the Bush lapdogs on this board (even getting PMs of congrats from some of them and links to mentally healthy sites like Log Cabin Republicans), so that's probably why he thinks that. I'm not typically one to join a cult, though. see.. this is why I can't get girls.. bad guessing powers. Or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Unless you can definitively prove that removing whatever you wish to remove completely changes the data (simply put, you cannot), then you don't have a leg to stand on. C'mon mike. THE DATA IS SHOWING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Of course you need to completely change the data because they're different to begin with. Naturally the Canadian rate is higher because it includes MORE types of crimes. I think you're just too fucking stubborn to EVER admit you're wrong. By the way Mike, maybe you should look at this site to learn how removing data will change the outcome! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted November 22, 2004 Unless you can definitively prove that removing whatever you wish to remove completely changes the data (simply put, you cannot), then you don't have a leg to stand on. C'mon mike. THE DATA IS SHOWING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Of course you need to completely change the data because they're different to begin with. Naturally the Canadian rate is higher because it includes MORE types of crimes. I think you're just too fucking stubborn to EVER admit you're wrong. Impossible. Mike admitted he had no proof for stating that George Soros was responsible for funding various left-wing blogs, including Kos. I mean, he HAD to have finally admitted that. Right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
