4 ms·
> Hi, instead of trying to discredit the idea that people are being murdered for defending the environment from exploitation, by pointing out the ambiguity in t
by lelanthran 3y ago
> Hi, instead of trying to discredit the idea that people are being murdered for defending the environment from exploitation, by pointing out the ambiguity in the word "killed" as used in a Yale e360 article about a report on investigations by Global Witness
That was not my intention. My intention was to discredit a study that provides statistics with no baseline.
Statistics with no baseline to compare with are almost always misleading statistics.
- tremon 3y agoYour argument is that murdering people is ok, as long as you're not killing more people this year than you did last year? I don't see why the base rate should matter in this situation.
- lelanthran 3y ago> Your argument is that murdering people is ok, as long as you're not killing more people this year than you did last year? No. The base rate is "The killing of non-activists". Have you ever actually done any sort of controlled study? Read any sort of clinical trial? "This medicine cured 10 people" is not acceptable as any indication of that medications efficacy. There's always "the non-medicated group had $X cures per person and the medicated group had $Y cures per person". IOW, the only time you see a statistic without a baseline is when the person handing you that statistic is trying to mislead you.