Another shooting in the USA. Remind me about the reason for having guns again.

LarryG on 8/9/2012 at 19:48

So, you are arguing for relativistic morality and against absolute morality? I ask just for clarity. Your point is that all morality comes from a societal / cultural basis and that different societies / cultures can view the same actions differently, one seeing the action as just and another seeing the same action as as unjust, and that each is "right" from their own perspective, that there is no universal perspective of right and wrong? Again I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing here, just trying to understand your point.

Papy on 8/9/2012 at 20:26

I'm only arguing that the society we live in do influence our personal moral values and our personal moral behavior. Nothing more.

As for the debate about relativistic vs absolute morality, I think it is too loaded to be worth anything.

SubJeff on 8/9/2012 at 23:28

Yes yes. That is your larger point, I get that and I largely (or at least to some degree) agree with you.

But the bit I quote meant exactly what I thought it meant, and I was only referring to that bit, which is why I quoted it. My reply even aligns with the rest of your point.

Vasquez on 9/9/2012 at 04:02

Quote Posted by Papy

Now, do you understand why you are completely out of context?

If you didn't put it this way, I admit it would be easier to say ok, I just interpreted it as I read it. But your reply has the flavor of a frustrated "OMFG don't you GET IT, bimbo??"

And if you read my first comment to your post, you'd see I did get the general point of it.

Papy on 9/9/2012 at 04:52

Frustrated? No, but I'm not a nice guy. ;)

(BTW, again to put things in context, Subjective Effect is on my ignore list.)

Vasquez on 9/9/2012 at 06:05

Quote Posted by Papy

No, but I'm not a nice guy. ;)

How cool, good for you!

SubJeff on 9/9/2012 at 08:41

Oh no! Butthurt because someone explained something to me!

What a preposterous ninny.

june gloom on 9/9/2012 at 09:14

time, ladies, PLEASE

zombe on 9/9/2012 at 16:28

Quote Posted by LarryG

So lack of correlation means there cannot be causation.

No.

Lack of correlation means there was no correlation found in the specific dataset where correlation was tested - nothing more. Correlation does not really tell anything about causation (besides a dubious probability for refining future research - which can help but does not necessarily have to).

causation -> correlation, NOT the other way around.

// end of bickering about logic

faetal on 9/9/2012 at 16:40

Yo - stats people (I am one too, just don't have any time at the moment :/) - can someone do a quick homocide rate vs. Gini coefficient?

Also, Gini coefficient vs. Gun ownership vs. total Homocide 2 way ANOVA just to see if there's an interaction between income inequality and gun ownership?

The US has the worst income inequality in the industrialised world and the highest gun ownership and the highest crime. I'd be interested to see if they are related. I think that the dynamic range of individual worth is likely linked to all manner of social ills. May be worth chucking in literacy to see how that correlates too.

I'm just thinking out loud in between lots of writing :/