22 ms·

He specifically says the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos. While libertarianism ethos would not be in support of child porn, it is in support of many thi

He specifically says the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos. While libertarianism ethos would not be in support of child porn, it is in support of many things that people might believe are justifiably prohibited. For instance, many of a libertarian ethos feel that all drugs should be legalized under the logic that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own bodies. This is debatable however, and an example of something that somebody might want to fight against (perhaps by telling people how to grow/refine various drugs), even if others might argue it is something that is justifiably prohibited. When you're trying to find a correlation between homicide rate and guns per capita, you think looking a listing of nations by homicide rates and guns per capita is cherry picking? If so then, at the minimum, you've got some crazy cognitive dissonance going on. Though I failed in my last link to include the sources. You can see quite clearly that if there is any correlation, it's would be an inverse - though I would not suggest causality there. As I said, the problem is not guns - it's people. And even if the countries the fewer undesirables have more guns, I expect that is probably just a spurious correlation. [1] = list of countries by intentional homicide rate [2] = list of countries by guns per capita [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...

jakelazaroff 8y ago
> He specifically says the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos. Which was explicitly described as trying to fighting against authority figures' attempt to suppress something, whether or not they were justified. I don't know how much clearer that can be. > When you're trying to find a correlation between homicide rate and guns per capita, you think looking a listing of nations by homicide rates and guns per capita is cherry picking? Choosing to ignore other evidence which refutes your claim (in this case, the wide population disparities that prevent direct comparison of the two lists, due to high variance in countries with low populations) is cherry picking.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  If I say, 'this action is reminiscent of a ruthlessly capitalistic ethos, trying to make a profit wherever one is to be made' that doesn't mean you're endorsing for instance the holocaust even though seizing the possessions of the victims there probably showed a net profit. There's a reasonable argument to be made for restricting the nations to some minimum population. The typical figure is 250k-300k which is also likely conservatively high. The reason your article wants to restrict the data to populations of 10 million is precisely to cherry pick. For instance this [1] is the murder rate for Jamaica, a country of some 2.8 million, over the past 5 years. The numbers themselves have some variance, but the rate's magnitude is relatively unchanged because of how high that scale is. It ranges from something like 600% to 900% higher than the US over those numbers. It's the same thing domestically within the US. Places like Detroit have obscenely high and consistent murder rates. The population? 672k. Guess we can just discount it as variance? You can find the sort of same head-in-the-sand attitude when discussing matters with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. For instance, Scandinavia has done some great things. But wait... What about the population? Sweden? 9.9 million. Denmark? 5.7 million. Norway? 5.2 million. Finland? 5.5 million. Iceland? 0.3 million. Well I guess we can completely discount Scandinavia for any and all statistics. Since none of the nations reach that magic 10 million mark, they must be completely irrelevant. Right? [1] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2_nhWaXUAgKKfq.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2_nhWaXUAgKKfq.jpg
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    > If I say, 'this action is reminiscent of a ruthlessly capitalistic ethos, trying to make a profit wherever one is to be made' that doesn't mean you're endorsing for instance the holocaust even though seizing the possessions of the victims there probably showed a net profit. Right, except my reaction is to the literal description of the attitude in question, not something that happens to incorporate it. The statement was "I admire X, which is a component of Y", and I'm saying "I find X, specifically, objectionable". No one is claiming 10 million is some magic statistical number for sample sizes; that is a straw man.
    - 8y ago

jakelazaroff 8y ago

> He specifically says the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos. Which was explicitly described as trying to fighting against authority figures' attempt to suppress something, whether or not they were justified. I don't know how much clearer that can be. > When you're trying to find a correlation between homicide rate and guns per capita, you think looking a listing of nations by homicide rates and guns per capita is cherry picking? Choosing to ignore other evidence which refutes your claim (in this case, the wide population disparities that prevent direct comparison of the two lists, due to high variance in countries with low populations) is cherry picking.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
If I say, 'this action is reminiscent of a ruthlessly capitalistic ethos, trying to make a profit wherever one is to be made' that doesn't mean you're endorsing for instance the holocaust even though seizing the possessions of the victims there probably showed a net profit. There's a reasonable argument to be made for restricting the nations to some minimum population. The typical figure is 250k-300k which is also likely conservatively high. The reason your article wants to restrict the data to populations of 10 million is precisely to cherry pick. For instance this [1] is the murder rate for Jamaica, a country of some 2.8 million, over the past 5 years. The numbers themselves have some variance, but the rate's magnitude is relatively unchanged because of how high that scale is. It ranges from something like 600% to 900% higher than the US over those numbers. It's the same thing domestically within the US. Places like Detroit have obscenely high and consistent murder rates. The population? 672k. Guess we can just discount it as variance? You can find the sort of same head-in-the-sand attitude when discussing matters with people on the opposite end of the spectrum. For instance, Scandinavia has done some great things. But wait... What about the population? Sweden? 9.9 million. Denmark? 5.7 million. Norway? 5.2 million. Finland? 5.5 million. Iceland? 0.3 million. Well I guess we can completely discount Scandinavia for any and all statistics. Since none of the nations reach that magic 10 million mark, they must be completely irrelevant. Right? [1] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2_nhWaXUAgKKfq.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2_nhWaXUAgKKfq.jpg
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  > If I say, 'this action is reminiscent of a ruthlessly capitalistic ethos, trying to make a profit wherever one is to be made' that doesn't mean you're endorsing for instance the holocaust even though seizing the possessions of the victims there probably showed a net profit. Right, except my reaction is to the literal description of the attitude in question, not something that happens to incorporate it. The statement was "I admire X, which is a component of Y", and I'm saying "I find X, specifically, objectionable". No one is claiming 10 million is some magic statistical number for sample sizes; that is a straw man.
  - 8y ago