7 ms·

We're dangerously getting into "no true Scotsman" territory here. Even being as charitable as I can, it just seems that you don't like the data because it doesn

by dvt 5y ago

We're dangerously getting into "no true Scotsman" territory here. Even being as charitable as I can, it just seems that you don't like the data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> you don’t like the data because it doesn’t fit your narrative In counter argument, you don’t like the laws of logic and probability because they don’t fit your narrative. Edit: Furthermore, do we not agree, in the United States, under the rule of law, that it is a failure of civil responsibility, punishable by death in some jurisdictions, to murder even 1 person, let alone 44? How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility?
- dvt 5y ago
  > How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility? Apart from the insults (accusing me of not liking logic, etc.), this is a straw-man and, just to be clear, is absolutely not what I'm arguing.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Let’s be extra clear: what exactly is your argument?
    - FabHK 5y ago
      Not GP, but from my understanding GP was rebutting (convincingly) this specific proposition: > the very small community that we are talking about is disproportionately being subjected to murder
      - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        The law of averages is not a convincing argument. I believe this paper ought to suffice as the entry point for the non-scientific community to pursue the academic research that supports my original assertion: Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 170-179 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178909000202 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13591...
        dvt 5y ago
        That paper (full text in [1]) does not support your argument at all. In fact, murder rates are only mentioned in §3.2: > The report related stories of 51 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals under the age of 30 who were murdered in the United States between 1995 and 2005. Quite frankly, this number is even lower than the FBI's statistics. [1] https://transgender.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Violence-Against-Transgende-People.pdf https://transgender.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Violenc...
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        Also from the referenced article: > What is beginning to emerge from these multiple sources of data are the increased risks of variety of types of violence, though in particular sexual violence, faced by transgender people Their conclusion directly states that there is an increased risk of violence for transgender people. Secondarily, their conclusion also hints at there being empirical evidence that one cannot extrapolate from murder rates to cover all forms of victim-having crime. That would imply that your argument is indeed suffering from the law of averages.
        dvt 5y ago
        > ...hints at there being empirical evidence that one cannot extrapolate from murder rates to cover all forms of victim-having crime... I hope you see how weak your argument is when your own cited paper merely "hints" at your purported conclusion.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > this is a straw-man You seem to be succumbing to a psychological phenomenon called projection. In fact, you have set up a straw man argument, contrary to HN site guidelines of using the most charitable reading of my original comment, and then inverted your mental model such that you believe I am the one setting up the straw man.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > Apart from the insults I was implicitly referring to this exchange: > > This is provably untrue. > Both of you are correct, you're just looking at probabilities conditioned in the opposite way. Which you neglected to incorporate into your mental model of this topic.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> Even being as charitable as I can, it just seems that you don't like the data because it doesn't fit your narrative. And you seem to like the data because it does. You are right, I don't trust reported numbers of trans people hate crimes, because I'm not aware of any unified reporting standards around trans hate crimes (in general I don't trust reported numbers on newly reported hate crimes, especially when advocacy groups are doing most of the reporting; it means the issue is poorly understood (so badly reported) and highly politicized). I have a pretty large prior here that I believe trans hate crimes are underreported, much like I have a prior that sexual violence is underreported, due to the nature of these instances. Moreover, numbers this low have large uncertainty bands, just using basic frequentist or Bayesian probability methods, enough that I doubt we can even come to much of a conclusion over our topic of discussion. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and please stop downvoting me. I felt like our discussion was productive.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > I felt like our discussion was productive. Possibly violating HN site guidelines here, but I wanted to add a civilly-toned comment to thank you for illuminating one area where our mental models had diverged on this topic.
- dvt 5y ago
  > And you seem to like the data because it does. I don't have a narrative. I look at the data and draw conclusions. You start with conclusions and try to morph the data to fit them. I'll even grant you that sexual crimes go underreported (heck, have 43% to bring up that number up), but even so, it wouldn't account for a "disproportionate" number of crime against trans people. It would barely equal the rate of the general population. You're seriously trying to argue that trans crimes are underreported by multiple factors? That's quite the claim. > I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and please stop downvoting me. FYI, you can't downvote direct children on HN.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > It would barely equal the rate of the general population. You are generalizing from the specific, here. The data that you appear to be referencing is only looking at murder rates. You’ve then set up a straw-man argument. The straw is in the data that you’ve not incorporated into your mental model: the rates of crimes other than murder.

by dvt 5y ago

We're dangerously getting into "no true Scotsman" territory here. Even being as charitable as I can, it just seems that you don't like the data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

> you don’t like the data because it doesn’t fit your narrative In counter argument, you don’t like the laws of logic and probability because they don’t fit your narrative. Edit: Furthermore, do we not agree, in the United States, under the rule of law, that it is a failure of civil responsibility, punishable by death in some jurisdictions, to murder even 1 person, let alone 44? How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility?

dvt 5y ago
> How is your argument anything other than we must do everything within our rights and capacity, as a country, to prevent each and every failure of civic responsibility? Apart from the insults (accusing me of not liking logic, etc.), this is a straw-man and, just to be clear, is absolutely not what I'm arguing.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Let’s be extra clear: what exactly is your argument?
  - FabHK 5y ago
    Not GP, but from my understanding GP was rebutting (convincingly) this specific proposition: > the very small community that we are talking about is disproportionately being subjected to murder
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      The law of averages is not a convincing argument. I believe this paper ought to suffice as the entry point for the non-scientific community to pursue the academic research that supports my original assertion: Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 170-179 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178909000202 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13591...
      - dvt 5y ago
        That paper (full text in [1]) does not support your argument at all. In fact, murder rates are only mentioned in §3.2: > The report related stories of 51 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals under the age of 30 who were murdered in the United States between 1995 and 2005. Quite frankly, this number is even lower than the FBI's statistics. [1] https://transgender.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Violence-Against-Transgende-People.pdf https://transgender.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Violenc...
        9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
        Also from the referenced article: > What is beginning to emerge from these multiple sources of data are the increased risks of variety of types of violence, though in particular sexual violence, faced by transgender people Their conclusion directly states that there is an increased risk of violence for transgender people. Secondarily, their conclusion also hints at there being empirical evidence that one cannot extrapolate from murder rates to cover all forms of victim-having crime. That would imply that your argument is indeed suffering from the law of averages.
        dvt 5y ago
        > ...hints at there being empirical evidence that one cannot extrapolate from murder rates to cover all forms of victim-having crime... I hope you see how weak your argument is when your own cited paper merely "hints" at your purported conclusion.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > this is a straw-man You seem to be succumbing to a psychological phenomenon called projection. In fact, you have set up a straw man argument, contrary to HN site guidelines of using the most charitable reading of my original comment, and then inverted your mental model such that you believe I am the one setting up the straw man.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > Apart from the insults I was implicitly referring to this exchange: > > This is provably untrue. > Both of you are correct, you're just looking at probabilities conditioned in the opposite way. Which you neglected to incorporate into your mental model of this topic.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> Even being as charitable as I can, it just seems that you don't like the data because it doesn't fit your narrative. And you seem to like the data because it does. You are right, I don't trust reported numbers of trans people hate crimes, because I'm not aware of any unified reporting standards around trans hate crimes (in general I don't trust reported numbers on newly reported hate crimes, especially when advocacy groups are doing most of the reporting; it means the issue is poorly understood (so badly reported) and highly politicized). I have a pretty large prior here that I believe trans hate crimes are underreported, much like I have a prior that sexual violence is underreported, due to the nature of these instances. Moreover, numbers this low have large uncertainty bands, just using basic frequentist or Bayesian probability methods, enough that I doubt we can even come to much of a conclusion over our topic of discussion. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and please stop downvoting me. I felt like our discussion was productive.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> I felt like our discussion was productive. Possibly violating HN site guidelines here, but I wanted to add a civilly-toned comment to thank you for illuminating one area where our mental models had diverged on this topic.
dvt 5y ago
> And you seem to like the data because it does. I don't have a narrative. I look at the data and draw conclusions. You start with conclusions and try to morph the data to fit them. I'll even grant you that sexual crimes go underreported (heck, have 43% to bring up that number up), but even so, it wouldn't account for a "disproportionate" number of crime against trans people. It would barely equal the rate of the general population. You're seriously trying to argue that trans crimes are underreported by multiple factors? That's quite the claim. > I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and please stop downvoting me. FYI, you can't downvote direct children on HN.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > It would barely equal the rate of the general population. You are generalizing from the specific, here. The data that you appear to be referencing is only looking at murder rates. You’ve then set up a straw-man argument. The straw is in the data that you’ve not incorporated into your mental model: the rates of crimes other than murder.