3 ms·
This seems tangential to what I was trying to (perhaps unclearly) express. I personally would agree with author of the post. However, the author is saying "it'
by new299 9y ago
This seems tangential to what I was trying to (perhaps unclearly) express.
I personally would agree with author of the post. However, the author is saying "it's not dangerous to do this", as opposed to "it is a basic human right to do this". He is also asserting that the opposing view is not supported by the facts (it's "fact free").
That's all fine. But then the author presents statistics he's gathered, none of which really strongly support his case. And in fact, I would not be surprised if you could cherry pick statistics to support either case.
It would be better to either:
1. Find better statistics.
2. Not present poor statistics, and then say "look here this supports my argument", when it doesn't.
Or at least, apply caveats to the data...
- tarboreus 9y agoAgain, the burden of proof is (or should be) on the state here. And there are no stats showing that this is dangerous, because it isn't.
- new299 9y agoYou seem to be arguing with a point I'm not trying to make. But if you are suggesting that the decision should be fact based and present an argument with supporting statistics. Then those statistics should be relevant to your argument. The statistics presented in the article were not relevant. If it is not dangerous, it should be possible to show this with data... the data presented in the article is poor and doesn't support his case well.