4 ms·

No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. I could throw just as many statistics against you and your

No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian. And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that.

gwern 10y ago
> No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. That so? > I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian. Go right ahead. > And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that. And yet, that still doesn't make it right.
- timthelion 10y ago
  > That so? Yes, by way of tautology arguing for a regulation on the movement of people is arguing for a regulation which effects the freedom of individuals and arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian. > Go right ahead. " In 2002, 29% of convicted inmates reported they had used illegal drugs at the time of the offense, down from 35% in 1996." - https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm Vs foreign born people with a total incarceration rate of just 0.57% vs native born people with an incarceration rate of 2.23%. Obviously, from a statistical standpoint, you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime ;)
  - gwern 10y ago
    > arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian. 'literally any regulation is authoritarian' --timthelion 2017 > you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime That's not true. The population of Mexican immigrants is not the same as the population of Mexico which is not the same as the population of the USA which is not the same as the fraction of drug users. You also get the conditioning wrong: the relative risk or odds is what matters, and that requires both population prevalences of drug use, and the lifetime drug use rate in the USA is quite high - for hallucinogens alone it's easily 10%. Throw in marijuana, underage alcohol, and so on... Also, illegal immigration is a crime, so if you want to compare crime rates, you ought to be taking that into account in estimating immigrant crime rates. (Illegal immigration is OK because it's victimless? Well, so is using LSD. You can't have it both ways.) Nor can you compare the immigration incarceration rate because the populations differ drastically in demographics (gender, sex etc) and is censored (given deportation, self-deportation, or voluntarily leaving afterwards).

gwern 10y ago

> No amount of statistics change the fact that arguing against open borders is an authoritarian stance. That so? > I could throw just as many statistics against you and your drug use if I wanted, but I'm not an authoritarian. Go right ahead. > And as to lying with statistics, I don't think that the left is alone in that. And yet, that still doesn't make it right.

timthelion 10y ago
> That so? Yes, by way of tautology arguing for a regulation on the movement of people is arguing for a regulation which effects the freedom of individuals and arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian. > Go right ahead. " In 2002, 29% of convicted inmates reported they had used illegal drugs at the time of the offense, down from 35% in 1996." - https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm Vs foreign born people with a total incarceration rate of just 0.57% vs native born people with an incarceration rate of 2.23%. Obviously, from a statistical standpoint, you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime ;)
- gwern 10y ago
  > arguing to regulate the freedom of individuals is authoritarian. 'literally any regulation is authoritarian' --timthelion 2017 > you are far worse than your average mexican when it comes to crime That's not true. The population of Mexican immigrants is not the same as the population of Mexico which is not the same as the population of the USA which is not the same as the fraction of drug users. You also get the conditioning wrong: the relative risk or odds is what matters, and that requires both population prevalences of drug use, and the lifetime drug use rate in the USA is quite high - for hallucinogens alone it's easily 10%. Throw in marijuana, underage alcohol, and so on... Also, illegal immigration is a crime, so if you want to compare crime rates, you ought to be taking that into account in estimating immigrant crime rates. (Illegal immigration is OK because it's victimless? Well, so is using LSD. You can't have it both ways.) Nor can you compare the immigration incarceration rate because the populations differ drastically in demographics (gender, sex etc) and is censored (given deportation, self-deportation, or voluntarily leaving afterwards).