I'd be interested to see this defended rather than assumed and passed off as fact. The fact of the matter is that just about everyone has broken the law at some time or another, so it would probably be nearly impossible to support this questionable assertion of yours in any experimental sense, the logical fallacy assuming it notwithstanding. And, even so, the breaking of one law having a dependent relationship on breaking another unrelated law is like saying that not being a vegetarian means that you're more likely to murder people and eat their livers (I mean hey - one meat is the same as another, right?). It's sophistry at best.

Out of curiosity, Steve, do you concede that you're more likely to rape a child because you've received a traffic ticket or crossed the street outside of the crosswalk in your life than someone who hasn't received a traffic ticket or crossed outside of the crosswalk? Or would you care to revise the fallacy that you're offering rather than look silly trying to tell us you aren't a little more likely to rape children than people who don't jay-walk?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that one who disrespects the laws of a nation are more likely to break the law than those that do not. All one has to do is view the statistics in my previously posted Sierra Times article to see that a population group with a 100% crime rate is overrepresented in arrests in America; at least 27% of the criminal arrests had nothing to do with the original offences committed. It is not unreasonable to argue that one who has contempt for the law is more likely to break the law than people who tend to honour the law.

In regard to revising fallacies? Maybe you should cut the false analogies and red herrings before jumping on others for such things.

And come to think of it, one could find plenty of cases where someone who breaks one law is much less likely to break another law than the average person. For instance, someone who drives around with lots of drugs in his car is probably less likely to speed in traffic so as to avoid police questioning. A man who embezzles money from retirement funds is probably less likely to commit a car-jacking than the average person (demographically, someone in a position to do the embezzling is probably wealthy enough that they would never resort to sticking someone up in his car)

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

And that is usually the typical socialist response when a lefty is losing a debate; this means: "You are right, I cannot refute you so I will try to obfuscate the issue with non-sensical entry-level college ramblings I picked up from my Marxist college professor."

There is a difference between stating that a person willing to break the law is willing to break laws in general and stating that breaking law X means an increased likelihood of breaking law Y. One is a simple deduction and the other is a fallacy.

Edit: Actually, one is a tautology, come to think of it.

I think that your zeal for this particular subject is clouding your generally good evaluation of arguments.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

For a poster who likes to point out the fallacies in the arguments of others you think you would have learned the importance of substantiating your own arguments.

Incidentally, I've spent three years in college, and all of my professors have been either relatively ignorant of Marx, or quietly derisive of Marxism.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

How many of your "studies" control for poverty? 1-parent households? Education level?

That's the problem, Frank. Your "research" doesn't hold up when actually held to the standards of, you know, research.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

Are you so unsure of your ability to point them out that you'll resort to innuendo in lieu of substance and hope for the best?

Edit: Or, if you're feeling frisky, why not treat us to a logical demonstration that someone who speeds while driving is more likely, specifically, to rape children, as Steve was arguing. And, if you're feeling even friskier, why don't you point out why shifting this to jay-walking is a "false analogy".

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Oh, God. So true.

I'm attending a business school, FFS. My conservative professors would be raising the exact same point: correlation is not causation.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

Not when it is substantiated:

-Frank claims Group A has an established 100% crime rate
-Frank argues that Group A is more likely to offend than those with lesser criminal representation as they have a general contempt for the law.
-Frank presents evidence illustrating Group A overrepresentation in criminal arrest rates including a large percentage for unrelated offences to the above cited 100% crime rate.

I believe that i have made a valid case in regard to Group A...

This is merely an ad hominem: circumstantial or at best poisoning the well. My personal beliefs do not invalidate my arguments or criticism of an argument.

You know the fallacy about "shifting the burden of proof;" the burden of proven an assertion lies on the person making the assertion not the one challenging said assertion.

Remember "fallacy" is what we are trying to avoid correct?

A person that posts stories about raping children is more likely to rape children than a person that never posts about it. Period. It proves that the person has thought about a child being raped and is therefore more likely to commit a crime than a person who has never thought about it.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Well, you've failed to prove your assertion. Sorry.

Your logical leap is not reasonable. You're trying to assign causation where it has not been demonstrated.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

This is has nothing to do with the issue at hand; the issue is the commission of crimes and applicable rates of crime not the alleged causes; you are arguing an entirely different issue.

However, I welcome all liberals like yourself to empty your own bank accounts, sign over your homes and give all of your worldly goods to these illegals and let me know in five years if their crime rates have decreased.

Or more accurately my research does not live up to your excuses.