0:-] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:32:33 -0600, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:
0:-] wrote:
On 22 Feb 2007 16:32:17 -0800, "Greegor" wrote:
Is this a SPANKING issue?
Why was it posted ONLY to alt.parenting.spanking ???
Oh, maybe because spanking is falling into more and more disfavor,
with less of it going on.
And:
"The youngest teenagers (presumably those raised with the most modern
attitudes) show the biggest declines of all. Over the last 30 years,
rape arrest rates have fallen by 80% among Californians under age 15,
much larger than the 25% drop among residents age 40 and older."
The claim that "youth is running wild," has been around since it was
popular to claim it in ancient Rome.
The truth is the less corporal punishment the less youth crime, Greg.
Correlation does not imply causation..
Oddly you are wrong. In fact, correlation is one of the contributing
parts of findings of causation, but this is a popular comment to make,
and you made it.
The statement "correlation does not imply causation" is inarguably true.
Likewise, the statement "Correlation suggests a link to causation" is
equally true.
You stated "The truth is the less corporal punishment the less youth crime".
This is true, but you statement suggests causation, without support.
Had you stated "There is good evidence that the less corporal punishment
the less youth crime", particularly with citations of the evidence, I
would have had no reason to post.
I intentionally used a mixture of possible, arguable and ridiculous true
correllations to point out the validity of the the statement
"Correlation does not imply causation."
Correlations, statistically examined reach the point of being accepted
as cause in many instances.
"Lies, damned lies and statistics" g.
Statistical evidence can support a hypothesis, but can never prove it.
At best, it can support the statement "this may be true by the best
evidence we have avaialble at this time."
Note, please, that my disagreement is not with your position, but rather
with how you presented your position.
Anytime anyone presents anything as the absolute TRUTH, I feel the need
to put one hand on my wallet and look for the nearest exit.
Premise: there is less youth crime currently than formerly.
It is equally valid to say:
No, actually it's not. There must be some logical reasonable
connections or connection.
The less corporal punishment the less youth crime
Violent crime, and other crime, has been causaly linked to childhood
"trauma." Trauma is what cp is about, and it's intent.
The more internet porn the less youth crime
The might actually be a connection. It should be examined.
The greater the violence in video games the less youth crime
Nope. This one has not been examined. Nice try though.
This one could be argued on the structure of the studies conducted.
"Self fulfilling prophecies" are one of the major stumbling blocks in
any such study.
The higher the average planetary temperature the less youth crime
RIDICULOUS.
Almost certainly.
The higher the atmospheric concentration of CO2 the less youth crime
Equally ridiculous as the previous.
The higher the median family income the less youth crime
The greater the availability of consensual sex acts the less youth crime
All ridiculous, because there is no logical connection by correlation.
Both these last two are arguable, particularly since you were using sex
crimes as the primary focus of your post.
Logical connections are the reduction in financial and sexual needs to
prompt criminal action.
You must show a track of violence to crime.
Nonsense. Criminal behavior exists in persons who have never been the
victim of violence, and victims of the most horrific violence have
become upright, law abiding individuals.
The violence/crime connection is a factor, but not an absolute.
Spanking is a violent
act,and even the users would agree to that, but fight the use of the
language.
The point of CP is to cause PAIN. Causing pain is violent.
Causing injury MAY be violent. Pain is frequently an unfortunate side
effect of beneficial behavior.
Causing pain is not necessarily violent. Deflowering one's virgin wife
in the marriage bed can very painful, but that is not the intent.
Please examine your language use for clarity.
Emotionally laden terms tend to hamper meaningful discussions.
The trends have followed each other very closely.
It used to be, for instance, that while toddlers were spanked (they
still are) it tended to continue on into older age groups as well.
It no longer does.
Read up. Get educated. Learn the truth...or are you afraid you'll lose
all your biases?
R R R R R R RRRRRRRRRRRRR R R ....
Kane
You are to be commended. You did a great job, repeating like a parrot,
the claim of "correlation is not causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation" is not the same as "correlation
is not causation."
If you must parrot, please do so correctly. G
Problem is correlation is a very useful tool, IF it's used correctly.
Agreed.
Thanks for bringing this up.
I've said it before, though, and I will again.
Kane
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----