There will be a lot more of this shit when more of the Iraq War Nutcases return

[sirs]

 

[Amianthus]

Probably not asking the right questions.  I think the civilian side is weighted by a large component of permanent underclass who if there were a draft would be 4-F but in any event are incapable of military service, did not serve and could not serve. 

So, you're saying that OVER HALF the males in the US would be 4-F in a draft situation? Seriously?

[BT]

That's an impressive report but it's counter-intuitive.

Probably not asking the right questions.

That's probably it.

BTW do you embarrass yourself when you wonder down these special logic paths of yours?

[sirs]

That's an impressive report but it's counter-intuitive.  Probably not asking the right questions.

That's probably it.

BTW do you embarrass yourself when you wonder down these special logic paths of yours?

I sure got a chuckle out of it.  It's indeed quite the contorting rationalization effort.  Takes years of practice......and hyperbolic hatred at any and everthing Bush & the U.S. military.  Must fit template....must fit template

[Plane]

That's an impressive report but it's counter-intuitive.

Probably not asking the right questions.  I think the civilian side is weighted by a large component of permanent underclass who if there were a draft would be 4-F but in any event are incapable of military service, did not serve and could not serve. 

If they were pulled out of the equation, the criminals who are capable of meeting minimal army standards, whether they served or not, would be the only individuals participating in the survey.  Then you would see, among men or more or less equal mental and physical capacity, but dividing between vets and non-vets, which group commits the greater number of violent crimes per capita.  Conducted as it was, the survey tells us nothing about the likelihood of Iraq vets coming back and unleashing a new wave of violent crime.

Your intuition and mine do not match. They indicate practicly  opposite often.

So lets not rely on either one.

What numbers are availible about violence rates in comprable populations?

Same age group and such , but diffrent military experience.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, you're saying that OVER HALF the males in the US would be 4-F in a draft situation? Seriously?>>

Nope, I'm saying half the criminals.  And it doesn't have to be half, either.  For every 4F taken out of the equation, you decrease the overall frequency of crime per capita in the general public contribution and increase the vet's contributions accordingly.

[Michael Tee]

<<BTW do you embarrass yourself when you wonder down these special logic paths of yours?>>

No, I'm never embarrassed to try out a possible explanation.  I don't have to be right all the time.  If it's wrong, somebody will point out where, I'll thank him for the favour and then try to find another explanation till I get it right.  That's what an exchange of ideas is all about isn't it? 

Why did YOU think it would be embarrassing?  Are you embarrassed when you are caught in a logical error?

[Michael Tee]

<<I sure got a chuckle out of it.>>

I'm genuinely glad that you did, sirs.  I knew that you'd get absolutely nothing out of the logic or the exchange of ideas, but laughter is good, and I'm pleased that I could at least reach you at that level.

[Michael Tee]

<<Same age group and such , but diffrent military experience.>>

The stats were pretty comprehensive in breaking it down as to types of military experience (combat vs non, various branches of the service) but the major flaw in the survey (at least from the POV of anyone who wants to check out the Crazed Returning Vet theory) is that the civilian side of the equation is unfairly weighted down by those who would have been 4F in a draft.  These are, as you know, physically, mentally or morally unfit for duty.  Ami's error in critiquing my approach was the assumption that I was weeding these guys out of the general population , when I was really proposing weeding them out of the general prison population.  And in any event, I'm not sure myself that the proportion of 4Fs in the general civilian population isn't really getting close to 50% anyway.

[Amianthus]

Nope, I'm saying half the criminals.  And it doesn't have to be half, either.  For every 4F taken out of the equation, you decrease the overall frequency of crime per capita in the general public contribution and increase the vet's contributions accordingly.

I don't think you understand the "per capita" numbers.

[Michael Tee]

Oh, I understand per capita alright, maybe you don't understand "random sampling."

Anyway, I'll take another look at the whole issue later on just to be on the safe side.  I was kinda rushed last night and if I made a logical error, I'll be the first to admit to it.

[Amianthus]

Oh, I understand per capita alright, maybe you don't understand "random sampling."

Then perhaps you can explain it.

If the number of vets in prison is 600/100k of the general population and the number of civilians in prison is 1300/100k of the general population, and you remove, say, 100/100k of civilians from that number, how does the number of vets at 600/100k go up?

[Michael Tee]

<<If the number of vets in prison is 600/100k of the general population . . . >>

Don't you mean 600/100K of all vets?

I'm gonna have to look at this in detail later on, I've got a very busy weekend coming up, but right at the outset I wondered if you were not starting off on the wrong foot with that stat.

[Amianthus]

Don't you mean 600/100K of all vets?

Yes, it's 600/100K of vets, and the other number is 1300/100k of non-vets.

So, you'll still have to explain how taking part of the second batch out increases the number in the first batch...

(Actually, that's what I meant to write, and that's what the study says... The way I wrote it in the post would increase the first number automatically as a result of decreasing the second number...)

[BT]

Why did YOU think it would be embarrassing?  Are you embarrassed when you are caught in a logical error?

Yep