3 ms·

No, it's a cynical question, which derails the conversation into an arbitrary technical debate. It implies/hints at/suggests there is methological issue. Murder

No, it's a cynical question, which derails the conversation into an arbitrary technical debate. It implies/hints at/suggests there is methological issue. Murder is not some statistical event you have to expect, account for. Language/communication doesn't work the way you argue here. There is context. OP's question would be valid and common for science on e.g. the connection of total brain cancers and smartphone usage.

rendall 5y ago
> No, it's a cynical question No. The cynicism is the insistence that it doesn't matter. > ...which derails the conversation If the answer were "There has been a decrease in the total number of activists, therefore the record is worse that the absolute numbers imply" would you make this accusation? No. No you would not. You would insist, correctly, that it was very relevant. You would rightly look with suspicion upon people who insist that the question "derails the conversation" The "derails the conversation" accusation is itself a cynical attempt to control the conversation
- markenqualitaet 5y ago
  No I would not make the argument in reverse as you suggested. Not in this context. This is atypical murder. The proliferation of murder is the only metric that matters. This is not your average crime context. It's more or less legitimate businesses/corporations stepping out of legitimate methods. Any murder in this context is noteworthy, an increase points at a catastrophic development of uncontained corporate power. A junkie killig someone in a robbery does not damage the foundations of our current society, where coca cola killing a union worker does. No amount of murder is to be expected, or assumed here, regardless of the activism extend. It's categorically different to "common murder". Likewise you wouldn't discuss a rise in Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in relation to US population growth, or cartel excutions in relation to Mexico's birth rate. What you are interested in is the number of organized, state-like, violent offenders only, not the pool of their victims. I hope my point gets across. Not a native speaker.
  - rendall 5y ago
    Maybe. But I guess I don't think "But it's murder and murder is always awful!" is a good answer to the question "Is this newspaper article accurate?" even if the article is about murder and skullduggery. And I especially don't appreciate some of the histrionics of the "Don't question the accuracy!!" side. Headline: "There is a 50% increase in the child-crushing rate!" Me: "There's nothing in the article that tells us how many children are being crushed, exactly. Is this a big problem? Small problem?" You: "You monster! Children are being crushed! Stop quibbling about how many! Even One. Single. Child. is too many!!"

rendall 5y ago

> No, it's a cynical question No. The cynicism is the insistence that it doesn't matter. > ...which derails the conversation If the answer were "There has been a decrease in the total number of activists, therefore the record is worse that the absolute numbers imply" would you make this accusation? No. No you would not. You would insist, correctly, that it was very relevant. You would rightly look with suspicion upon people who insist that the question "derails the conversation" The "derails the conversation" accusation is itself a cynical attempt to control the conversation

markenqualitaet 5y ago
No I would not make the argument in reverse as you suggested. Not in this context. This is atypical murder. The proliferation of murder is the only metric that matters. This is not your average crime context. It's more or less legitimate businesses/corporations stepping out of legitimate methods. Any murder in this context is noteworthy, an increase points at a catastrophic development of uncontained corporate power. A junkie killig someone in a robbery does not damage the foundations of our current society, where coca cola killing a union worker does. No amount of murder is to be expected, or assumed here, regardless of the activism extend. It's categorically different to "common murder". Likewise you wouldn't discuss a rise in Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in relation to US population growth, or cartel excutions in relation to Mexico's birth rate. What you are interested in is the number of organized, state-like, violent offenders only, not the pool of their victims. I hope my point gets across. Not a native speaker.
- rendall 5y ago
  Maybe. But I guess I don't think "But it's murder and murder is always awful!" is a good answer to the question "Is this newspaper article accurate?" even if the article is about murder and skullduggery. And I especially don't appreciate some of the histrionics of the "Don't question the accuracy!!" side. Headline: "There is a 50% increase in the child-crushing rate!" Me: "There's nothing in the article that tells us how many children are being crushed, exactly. Is this a big problem? Small problem?" You: "You monster! Children are being crushed! Stop quibbling about how many! Even One. Single. Child. is too many!!"