4 ms·
Going from "we don't use as much coke as in the 80's" to "the war on drugs worked" is a bit like going from "we have less teen pregnancy now than in the 90s" to
by peterwwillis 7y ago
Going from "we don't use as much coke as in the 80's" to "the war on drugs worked" is a bit like going from "we have less teen pregnancy now than in the 90s" to "abstinence worked". It's not only ignoring a very large number of alternate factors, but it's assuming the latter is a successful strategy, when all of the evidence points to the contrary.
- eanzenberg 7y agoInteresting you bring up abstinence because kids are having way less sex nowadays than in the past.
- kingkawn 7y agoMost definitely not because of abstinence education
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- caublestone 7y agohttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fewer-teens-having-sex-as-decline-in-risky-behaviors-continue/2018/01/04/a868bf84-f15c-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national...
- unishark 7y agoBecause proving causation is always difficult if not impossible? Or because in both cases we have a personal bias that makes us not want those programs to have worked, despite not being able to disprove causation either?
- eivarv 7y agoBecause in neither case has anyone actually even made a coherent argument for a causal effect that doesn't ignore all the other factors? Besides, when "all the evidence points to the contrary" is usually a bad sign... There are a lot of things you aren't able to disprove that are (probably) not true.