Sigh.


Never done any real research, have you?

If I have to explain even the most basic concepts of social research to you, I will. But I'd rather not if I don't have to.

I doubt you even know what my assertion is when you ignore my arguments about crime rates and argue alleged causes of crime rates instead assuming I am arguing that point.

I am getting a lesson in logic from poster who once told me that a respected scholar should receive Aural sex because you disagreed with his assertions!?

My goodness I have entered the Twilight Zone folks.

I would imagine that would be painful for everyone involved.

__________________
"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

Again, this is coming from an individual who once referred to an accredited Eastern European University as a diploma mill because they gave one of his political opponents a degree after a successful dissertation defence. In addition he referred to this school as a "correspondence" college as means to prove that it was a mill even though basic research would have proven that the school offered no such distance learning courses.

And you dare to lecture me on how to conduct proper research?

You cannot even conduct proper research on a single school so I can imagine what your other research is like. I have to wonder what college trained you into believing that a proper rebuttal to a scholar who does not share your viewpoint includes calling for forcible ear sex against the scholar in question.

I did research on that school, Frank. That's how I came to the conclusions that I did.

Pity that Duke couldn't get into a good school. Not my fault, though.

Also, it's clearly off topic.

The fact is that if you want to even establish good correlation you have to control for and eliminate confounds - other variables that can explain the observed behavior. Your correlations fail to do so, and thereby are on their face insufficient to demonstrate anything other than your inability to understand basic research methodology.

Now, would you please cease the ad hominem and get back to the topic? I ask you once again: do you have any research that demonstrates a higher proclivity to unrelated criminal behavior among those who cross international borders illegally?

A Jewish academic by the name of Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein made a comment that Pramjockey did not like so when Pram could not refute it; he lost his temper and called for Dr. Finkelstein to get forcible Aural sex.

You can read it for yourself; this is the poster lecturing me on how to conduct scholarly research:

Pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia

Once again, this is off-topic ad hominem.

Can you please return to the topic?

And, it is also worth noting that my proclivity to say fuck Finkelstein in the ear has exactly squat to do with your inability to understand basic research methodology.






P.S. Fuck Finkelstein right in the ear.

You've made a case that illegal immigrants commit unrelated crimes to illegal immigration at a higher general rate than the population. I'd say you've made a valid case as well. What you haven't done is reinforced Steve's point that people who speed and drink underage are demonstrably more likely to rape young girls, citizenship or lack thereof notwithstanding. This is where you jumped in and started arguing with me, and I'm beginning to suspect you started typing prior to reading for context.

It would be, if I hadn't already addressed the argument, and without concern for or mention of your White Power views. As it is, it's just an opinion that I'm offering - it's not stated in lieu of or in support of my addressing your argument.

Shifting the burden of proof? That coupled with the uncharacteristic misplaced condescension makes me think you're getting a little emotional for some reason. Of course, I could be wrong - you might just be off your game today.

You referenced my post and said "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." In other words, you vaguely imply that there is some fallacy in my argument and provide no context for discussion. This is silly. Watch:

Frank, there's something wrong with something you've said somewhere in this thread. If you ask what, ask where, or point out that this is vague (at least it isn't innuendo like yours ), you're shifting the burden of proof. Why can't you support your arguments? Why must I do it for you?

__________________
"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

Group A posts about a child being raped.
Group A proved they think about rape of children
Group B does not post about children being raped.
Group B has not proved they think about children being raped.
Group A is more likely to rape children.

Everyone posting in this thread is more likely to rape children than the people not posting here.

__________________
"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

I'm not judgin', I'm just sayin'...

Alcohol impairs judgement. As someone who's still a child, your judgement probably isn't nearly as sound as it needs to be to begin with. Add alcohol to the mix, and that'll only exacerbate the problem.

I'm not surprised that you're taking that position.

But, you failed to answer my question: If you were investigating the rape of a child, who would you look at a bit more closely: "Joe Average", or the child who readily admits to regularly (and illegally, mind you) using alcohol?

If I'm the cop, you're the first person I'm comin' to see...

No, you're doing something else, but I'm not allowed to say.


Of course, the mere suggestion that I in any way condone the sexual abuse of children is offensive. Especially coming from someone who has read my posts here and well knows my positions on such things.

He conducted research on the school but got the name wrong when we debated the issue. In addition he thought they offered correspondence degrees which they do not and he labeled them a diploma mill even though they are accredited by the Ukraine Ministry of Education and Science.

It illustrates your complete inability to conduct even basic research let alone lecture others on how to conduct research.

Here is more double talk; I was not trying to establish the cause of the crime rates but merely the existence of the crime rate within the group. If a group creates conditions for themselves that fosters higher crime rates within the group does this negate the crime rates? Nope!


As I predicted in my own mind before I even posted the previous articles that Pram would reject anything that he did not agree with because his liberal agenda trumps all truth and reality.

I did not expect him to shift the goal posts as much as he is doing; does he want research that my claims about the increased crime rates in relation to population groups with 100% crime rates are accurate? or does Pram want me to present research explaining the cause of the phenomenon in question?

I know the answer folks; when he gets one he will merely demand the other and than shift the goal posts again if I present both...

You clearly believe that the commission of one crime does not suggest that someone could potentially commit another crime.

My opinion differs...

Folks, stay on topic please.