Oh wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Printable View
Oh wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I was talking about all three of your "points", although that one the least. You'll notice how I didn't give a specific argument for that one, since that's the one of the three that I agree is a good measure. I could nitpick and talk about quality of life and things of that nature, but the other two were entirely more egregious, so I'm focusing on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This is just silly. I'm all for locking up violent criminals, but we lock people up for non-violent offenses more than anyone. Incarceration has become big business in the land of the free.Quote:
The more criminals we have incarcerated, the less can menace law-abiding citizens. Duhhh. We still don't catch 100% of criminals, but we're closer than we were pre-video, pre-DNA, pre-post-racial.
You know exactly what I mean. Taking an average (GDP) and using it as evidence of an absolute (pursuing happiness). You're completely ignoring the higher percentage of unhappy.Quote:
I don't know what you mean by evidence of an "absolute". I assume you mean that all data I cite is wrong, to which I can easily link dozens of posts where I cite accurate data... but if I cited it it must be wrong... drat! You win this round.
Because I want more. A lot don't. This really shouldn't be an alien concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I just want to be comfortable and not have a job. I should go on welfare. How many kids do I need for a medium priced SUV?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'm glad you're only nitpicking on two of the three, that's something. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
An ounce of prevention, baby. And are you sure our non-violent % is higher than anyone? I can't find any source comparing cross-country.Quote:
This is just silly. I'm all for locking up violent criminals, but we lock people up for non-violent offenses more than anyone. Incarceration has become big business in the land of the free.
I didn't claim that the average represented literally every case, and it's absurd to infer that I did. If I say Ted Williams is a good hitter because he hit .400, it would be absurd for you to point at a strikeout and say "some scientists you are, buddy! I didn't know scientists completely ignored strikeouts!"Quote:
You know exactly what I mean. Taking an average (GDP) and using it as evidence of an absolute (pursuing happiness). You're completely ignoring the higher percentage of unhappy.
As stated, I'm specifically not nitpicking. My arguments against the latter two are far from nitpicking. You made grand statements based on a sliver of data...just admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
My source on this is personally working as an administrator for the Florida Prison System for several years. My data is internal, and I'm not sure you could find it anywhere. Florida is only one state, but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume you could take a rough average country-wide and be within a reasonable +/-. One thing you could look up is the number of prisons that have a maximum security classification compared to those that don't...I'll give you a clue, it's a minority.Quote:
:)An ounce of prevention, baby. And are you sure our non-violent % is higher than anyone? I can't find any source comparing cross-country.
It's not absurd at all. You made an absolute assertion and used a terrible measure to justify it. You're not worming out of this one.Quote:
I didn't claim that the average represented literally every case, and it's absurd to infer that I did. If I say Ted Williams is a good hitter because he hit .400, it would be absurd for you to point at a strikeout and say "some scientists you are, buddy! I didn't know scientists completely ignored strikeouts!"
Kids cost money too, although they cost a lot less if you're a terrible parent. An SUV is a luxury not covered by welfare, but that's also something that you want, not something your average deadbeat with free food in their fridge, cheaper rent than any working-class person will ever see, reduced utilities, and free phones may want. Or, more specifically, care enough that they don't have to do something to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We certainly have a majority of our prisoners in the non-violent category, but what you claimed was "we lock people up for non-violent offenses more than anyone." That's what I'm struggling to find data on. Maybe everyone else incarcerates a majority of violent offenders, or maybe our majority of non-violent offenders is smaller than everyone else's. It's certainly conceivable that Russia or China incarcerate an enormous number of people for non-violent crimes that we don't prosecute at all, such as criticizing the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Worming implies that I believe I am wrong and am trying to cover myself, but I believe I am right and am trying to convince you of this fact.Quote:
It's not absurd at all. You made an absolute assertion and used a terrible measure to justify it. You're not worming out of this one.
Hits per at-bat is not a perfect metric, but when a player excels at it we can reasonably conclude he is a great hitter. This is true even though individual at-bats are totally devoid of hits.
GDP per capita is not a perfect metric, but when a time period excels at it we can reasonably conclude it is a great time. This is true even though individual capita are totally devoid of GDP.
Do you see? This is pretty good. Pretend someone else wrote it if you have to.
Could the ACA number be 18 million?
Quote:
In an issue brief released Thursday afternoon, health officials confirmed that 8 million people selected private (“marketplace”) health plans through the state and federal insurance exchanges during the enrollment period that ran from October 1 through April 19. An additional 4.8 million enrolled in Medicaid during that period, and an estimated 5 million bought individual policies outside the exchanges. Together, the figures push the six-month total to nearly 18 million.
From MSNBC and HHS
It can be any number they want to claim, since they are the ones with all the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Doesn't mean that 18 million people who didn't previously have insurance now do.. which was the goal of the ACA.
Do we even know how many people have paid their premiums yet? I can't believe for a 1 billion dollar computer system, we still get the "We don't have those numbers yet" all the time.