4 ms·
> As discussed throughout, the above results provide no evidence that greater police budgets lead to increases in homicide clearance rates (or equivalently, low
by comrh 3y ago
> As discussed throughout, the above results provide no evidence that greater police budgets lead to increases in homicide clearance rates (or equivalently, lower police budgets decrease homicide clearance rates).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jels.12325 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jels.12325
- willcipriano 3y agoLet's set it to zero then, save billions.
- Eisenstein 3y agoDo you operate using anything besides fallacies?
- willcipriano 3y ago> no evidence that greater police budgets lead to increases in homicide clearance rates (or equivalently, lower police budgets decrease homicide clearance rates). No evidence. The experts are clear, police funding doesn't have anything to do with murder clearance rates. I mean that's super counter intuitive, I'd think the more interviews you do, the more forensics you have done, the more likely you are to solve the case but apparently not. I guess all that stuff was just a waste of time, or the experts are wrong once again.
- tehwebguy 3y agoYeah, if we defund the police and I get burgled who am I supposed to call when I want someone to show up eight hours later, shoot my dog, and tell me there’s nothing they can do to help? (Apologies for not just linking to the evergreen tweet, couldn’t find it)
- willcipriano 3y agoLet me guess, they live in a major city led mostly by people who love NPR?
- Eisenstein 3y agoI'd love to see you try and use valid rhetoric to make a point.
- willcipriano 3y agoI'll let one of you go first.
- Eisenstein 3y agoYou have used logical fallacies such as an 'all or nothing' (if adding more money doesn't make it better, then removing all the money can't make it worse -- as if there is there is nothing in the middle) which sound persuasive but crumble when pointed out. What you used just previous to my above post, about cities with people run by people who like NPR, is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which basically means 'because something exists with something else they must cause each other'. In other words 'because a city is run by a political party, that is the reason that cities have the problem X'. There may be a causation, but you haven't produced any persuasive elements to have anyone make that conclusion. Insinuation is not an argument. When using fallacies as your rhetorical devices people will call you on it, and the response is not 'no you first', because you are being tasked with actually making the point you were trying to make but without using invalid strategies. Unless of course you are not able to, in which case 'no you first' is simply a concession.
- Eisenstein 3y agoCan you actually make an argument? Being dismissive and insinuating things might be substantive to you, but I prefer if you actually say what you mean and back it with evidence.