XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: swayser@optonline.net   
      
   No stupid. I said that. Not only that it's first year logic, not   
   philosophy which you may find out if you ever get to college when you're   
   old enough, in about nine or ten years. Both Chris and I began this by   
   believing we were dealing with an adult mentality. You have clearly   
   demonstrated that mistake. Now, I'm still willing to give you a break.   
   It could be you have known someone who has been executed which you cared   
   very much about, like a mother, father, sister or brother. In those   
   cirumstances your resistance to yield to any logic is understandable. Or   
   perhaps one of the aforementioned is on death row awaiting execution.   
   That is regretable but does not alter the logic of what we have been   
   trying to explain. It doesn't make Marie a liar because she has   
   principals. But I don't think that's the case, but tell us if it is and   
   I'm sure everyone will understand.   
      
   David V. wrote:   
   > Don Swayser wrote:   
   >   
   >> David V. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Chris wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "David V."  wrote   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Then you believe that the rise and fall of the murder   
   >>>>>> rate which coincides with the abolition and   
   >>>>>> reinstatement of the death penalty is a coincidence?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yes. There is nothing to prove they are connected.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Probably....   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I see you have nothing to prove they're connected. Just   
   >>> because to pieces of data exist does not mean they are   
   >>> connected.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Maybe when you grow up ...   
   >   
   >   
   > I see all you have is ad hominem. Do try better. Chris claims that two   
   > stats are connected yet cannot back that up in any rational way. Maybe   
   > when you guys grow up, you'll understand. We're dealing with simple,   
   > first year, philosophy. Simply, your conclusion that the two stats are   
   > related is called; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc   
   >   
   > This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to   
   > assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally   
   > related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the   
   > cause(s) of the events.   
   >   
   >     "Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of   
   > television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning."   
   >   
   > This fallacy is a special case of the more general non causa pro causa.   
      
      
   --   
   If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an   
   equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.   
   Carl Schurz (1829-1906)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)