|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 7, 2024 17:36:02 GMT -5
You know how Malus pointed out the whole "leaving a conversation and then returning later as though it never happened" thing? Here it is in action. That correlation isn't causation isn't a matter of disagreement or dispute over interpretations. It's fundamental, demonstrable, basic logic. It's the difference between being able to show that something's actually connected and something happening simultaneously by chance. Hmmm... no. I'm not interested in this "game" that you claim its based on scientific method, where you effectively appeal to authority in every argument you posit. I posted the statistic for the actual Border Patrol Agency that clearly demonstrates the massive influx of migrants during the Biden/Harris term compared to the previous administration. And it's you, who won't confront that. What authority am I appealing to, exactly? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that sodium in water reacts violently because that's how basic chemistry works? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that decapitating someone kills them due to how basic human biology works? That correlation is not causation is true independently of who says it. It is trivially demonstrable. As a simple illustration: there are more traffic deaths in Sweden during summer than in winter. There are also more ice cream cones sold during summer than during winter. The amount of deaths correlate with the amount of ice cream cones sold. Does this mean that one causes the other? Obviously no, it'd be crazy to claim that simply off the fact that they both increase and decrease at roughly the same time. They're both affected by an independent variable; traffic increases during summer and people drive more recklessly when there's not snow on the roads (in the case of traffic fatalities) and people want more ice cream when it's hotter (which summer is compared to winter). The two have nothing to do with each other apart from taking place at the same time. Usually causality obviously isn't as straightforward as this hypothetical and there's the thorny question of whether the variables that impacts something are actually independent of one another of if X and Y act both on each other and on Z at the same time (which is the mother of all headaches).
Your argument was that the influx was due to Democratic policies, not simply that it happened (and that it, in turn, increases the drug trade and contributes to overdoses which I haven't even touched as an argument). I haven't at any point pretended that there hasn't been a sharp increase in immigrants, I've explicitly mentioned several times that there's a marked increase. I haven't even argued that it's not Biden's policies that caused the increase; it very well could be. What I have done is asked how you are so certain that it's Biden's policies that caused it. You've provided zilch beyond the equivalent of "well, there's more ice cream cones being sold, so that must mean that there's a connection between that and the increases in traffic fatalities are due to the ice cream cones".
Like, this:
isn't actually an answer as to whether those changes actually did what you claim they did. You're asserting that the changes have to be because of Biden's policy changes, I'm pointing out that you don't actually have evidence of that being the case. When people point out that correlation isn't causation you can't just double down and keep pointing at the same correlation again as if that somehow makes it a more valid argument.
It's entirely plausible that Biden's policy changes could explain some or all of the increase. Reduced risks (or perceptions thereof) contributing to an increase in immigration isn't an absurd conclusion to draw and it makes sense as an argument. Going from there to claiming causation without having even attempted to control for other external factors (notably Covid also happened during the same time period) is just flat-out bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
What specific policies were those, though? Again, specifics please. You based your vote on this. Surely you actually did research to know exactly what the change was. Start with Biden's EO on his first day, that reversed every Trump border policies. The most consequential was he end the "Remain in Mexico" policy. Why do you feel this need that I have to explain the spike? Best I can gather is that these migrants hauled ass trying to get into the US before any additional Trump policies are enacted. Which many were held in suspension in court. ...and we're done. |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 17:46:12 GMT -5
Hmmm... no. I'm not interested in this "game" that you claim its based on scientific method, where you effectively appeal to authority in every argument you posit. I posted the statistic for the actual Border Patrol Agency that clearly demonstrates the massive influx of migrants during the Biden/Harris term compared to the previous administration. And it's you, who won't confront that. What authority am I appealing to, exactly? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that sodium in water reacts violently because that's how basic chemistry works? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that decapitating someone kills them due to how basic human biology works? That correlation is not causation is true independently of who says it. It is trivially demonstrable. As a simple illustration: there are more traffic deaths in Sweden during summer than in winter. There are also more ice cream cones sold during summer than during winter. The amount of deaths correlate with the amount of ice cream cones sold. Does this mean that one causes the other? Obviously no, it'd be crazy to claim that simply off the fact that they both increase and decrease at roughly the same time. They're both affected by an independent variable; traffic increases during summer and people drive more recklessly when there's not snow on the roads (in the case of traffic fatalities) and people want more ice cream when it's hotter (which summer is compared to winter). The two have nothing to do with each other apart from taking place at the same time. Usually causality obviously isn't as straightforward as this hypothetical and there's the thorny question of whether the variables that impacts something are actually independent of one another of if X and Y act both on each other and on Z at the same time (which is the mother of all headaches).
Your argument was that the influx was due to Democratic policies, not simply that it happened (and that it, in turn, increases the drug trade and contributes to overdoses which I haven't even touched as an argument). I haven't at any point pretended that there hasn't been a sharp increase in immigrants, I've explicitly mentioned several times that there's a marked increase. I haven't even argued that it's not Biden's policies that caused the increase; it very well could be. What I have done is asked how you are so certain that it's Biden's policies that caused it. You've provided zilch beyond the equivalent of "well, there's more ice cream cones being sold, so that must mean that there's a connection between that and the increases in traffic fatalities are due to the ice cream cones".
Like, this:
isn't actually an answer as to whether those changes actually did what you claim they did. You're asserting that the changes have to be because of Biden's policy changes, I'm pointing out that you don't actually have evidence of that being the case. When people point out that correlation isn't causation you can't just double down and keep pointing at the same correlation again as if that somehow makes it a more valid argument.
It's entirely plausible that Biden's policy changes could explain some or all of the increase. Reduced risks (or perceptions thereof) contributing to an increase in immigration isn't an absurd conclusion to draw and it makes sense as an argument. Going from there to claiming causation without having even attempted to control for other external factors (notably Covid also happened during the same time period) is just flat-out bad.
So, is it your position that you don't think it's fair to argue that when this current administration is advertising to the world that his border policies are liberalized, and that there are NGO's here to "help" this migrants... that it doesn't necessarily mean it would cause a spike? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Nov 7, 2024 17:47:48 GMT -5
So, is it your position that you don't think it's fair to argue that when this current administration is advertising to the world that his border policies are liberalized, and that there are NGO's here to "help" this migrants... that it doesn't necessarily mean it would cause a spike? Really? No, I don't think the current administration advertising easier criteria for legal immigration has anything to do with your claims about illegal immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 17:51:28 GMT -5
So, is it your position that you don't think it's fair to argue that when this current administration is advertising to the world that his border policies are liberalized, and that there are NGO's here to "help" this migrants... that it doesn't necessarily mean it would cause a spike? Really? No, I don't think the current administration advertising easier criteria for legal immigration has anything to do with your claims about illegal immigration. Well... if your premise is that when a batch of migrants jumps a fence from Mexico to US (breaking the law), and gives themselves up to Border Patrol to make an asylum claim, knowing that they have to return to immigration court a year plus into the future as legal immigration. We have nothing to debate because we won't be able to agree to definitions. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 17:52:54 GMT -5
Gotta love ignoring the whole part about the reason for being anti-illegal immigration is because of drugs, even though illegal immigration has almost nothing to do with the drugs coming in and Trump's focus on keeping out and hurting the brownies meant that there were less resources to actually combat the illegal drugs coming in.
Funny how when that was mentioned, it was completely ignored...It's almost like someone is lying about why they are against 'illegal' immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 17:55:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 17:55:45 GMT -5
Gotta love ignoring the whole part about the reason for being anti-illegal immigration is because of drugs, even though illegal immigration has almost nothing to do with the drugs coming in and Trump's focus on keeping out and hurting the brownies meant that there were less resources to actually combat the illegal drugs coming in. Funny how when that was mentioned, it was completely ignored...It's almost like someone is lying about why they are against 'illegal' immigration. I don't agree with that premise. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 17:58:11 GMT -5
I just want to point out again (As was ignored before he repeated the claim yet again) that this is what the Republicans do, not the Democrats.
Unless you say 'you should treat everyone with respect' as being deeply divisive identity politics.
We've seen him conflate asylum seekers with illegal immigration several times already in this thread. And it's funny how all the 'illegal' immigrants that people like him are concerned about all come from places where people have a higher melatonin content in their skin. It's almost like there is something other than just being an immigrant that is the issue...
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 17:59:07 GMT -5
Gotta love ignoring the whole part about the reason for being anti-illegal immigration is because of drugs, even though illegal immigration has almost nothing to do with the drugs coming in and Trump's focus on keeping out and hurting the brownies meant that there were less resources to actually combat the illegal drugs coming in. Funny how when that was mentioned, it was completely ignored...It's almost like someone is lying about why they are against 'illegal' immigration. I don't agree with reality. Fixed that for you. As was mentioned, this was testified to by multiple people including the border patrol. |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 18:01:23 GMT -5
I just want to point out again (As was ignored before he repeated the claim yet again) that this is what the Republicans do, not the Democrats. Unless you say 'you should treat everyone with respect' as being deeply divisive identity politics. We've seen him conflate asylum seekers with illegal immigration several times already in this thread. And it's funny how all the 'illegal' immigrants that people like him are concerned about all come from places where people have a higher melatonin content in their skin. It's almost like there is something other than just being an immigrant that is the issue... The vast majority of asylum seekers are economic migrants. It has nothing to do with the melatonin content of their skin. So, fuck off with your bigotry insinuation here... |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 18:01:52 GMT -5
I don't agree with reality. Fixed that for you. As was mentioned, this was testified to by multiple people including the border patrol. LOL... no. |
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Nov 7, 2024 18:06:22 GMT -5
Fixed that for you. As was mentioned, this was testified to by multiple people including the border patrol. LOL... no. It was. Trump's zero tolerance policy completely paralysed the law enforcement agencies and courts of the border states with a deluge of misdemeanor arrests. This was even predicted by John Kelly before the fact, which is one of the reasons why he opposed the policy when he was head of DHS. If you had done any research, you would know this. The article I shared had links within it to the reports examining the impact, as well as on the record testimonials from people involved. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/09/trump-administration-family-separation-policy-immigration/670604/ |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 7, 2024 18:11:25 GMT -5
Hordini again, is this what you want? What value does despic's posting have? All he's doing is ragebaiting other users. You have all the power, and by inaction, you're tacitly approving of his behavior. If you want people to behave a certain way, despite being behind anonymous accounts, you must have clear rules that are enforced equally for all users. Obviously, that includes myself. So go ahead and make rules then ban me according to them if you wish, anything would be better than you just insisting that we all just need to be nice to nazis like despic and grey.
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 7, 2024 18:15:08 GMT -5
What authority am I appealing to, exactly? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that sodium in water reacts violently because that's how basic chemistry works? Is it an appeal to authority to claim that decapitating someone kills them due to how basic human biology works? That correlation is not causation is true independently of who says it. It is trivially demonstrable. As a simple illustration: there are more traffic deaths in Sweden during summer than in winter. There are also more ice cream cones sold during summer than during winter. The amount of deaths correlate with the amount of ice cream cones sold. Does this mean that one causes the other? Obviously no, it'd be crazy to claim that simply off the fact that they both increase and decrease at roughly the same time. They're both affected by an independent variable; traffic increases during summer and people drive more recklessly when there's not snow on the roads (in the case of traffic fatalities) and people want more ice cream when it's hotter (which summer is compared to winter). The two have nothing to do with each other apart from taking place at the same time. Usually causality obviously isn't as straightforward as this hypothetical and there's the thorny question of whether the variables that impacts something are actually independent of one another of if X and Y act both on each other and on Z at the same time (which is the mother of all headaches).
Your argument was that the influx was due to Democratic policies, not simply that it happened (and that it, in turn, increases the drug trade and contributes to overdoses which I haven't even touched as an argument). I haven't at any point pretended that there hasn't been a sharp increase in immigrants, I've explicitly mentioned several times that there's a marked increase. I haven't even argued that it's not Biden's policies that caused the increase; it very well could be. What I have done is asked how you are so certain that it's Biden's policies that caused it. You've provided zilch beyond the equivalent of "well, there's more ice cream cones being sold, so that must mean that there's a connection between that and the increases in traffic fatalities are due to the ice cream cones".
Like, this:
isn't actually an answer as to whether those changes actually did what you claim they did. You're asserting that the changes have to be because of Biden's policy changes, I'm pointing out that you don't actually have evidence of that being the case. When people point out that correlation isn't causation you can't just double down and keep pointing at the same correlation again as if that somehow makes it a more valid argument.
It's entirely plausible that Biden's policy changes could explain some or all of the increase. Reduced risks (or perceptions thereof) contributing to an increase in immigration isn't an absurd conclusion to draw and it makes sense as an argument. Going from there to claiming causation without having even attempted to control for other external factors (notably Covid also happened during the same time period) is just flat-out bad.
So, is it your position that you don't think it's fair to argue that when this current administration is advertising to the world that his border policies are liberalized, and that there are NGO's here to "help" this migrants... that it doesn't necessarily mean it would cause a spike? Really?
No. Again, I explicitly said that it's an argument that isn't absurd, read what I'm writing. I'm saying that you haven't actually shown that it's true, you've simply assumed that because it could be true it must be, and that it explains the entire increase.
You were onto the point yourself just a post ago when you pointed out that the spike in the late Trump admin could be explained by other factors than policy. You're right, it could and kinda would have to given that Trump's policies hadn't been ended by Biden at that point. Why, then, would the same not potentially be true for the stats during the Biden administration? Proving that something happened because of something else requires eliminating alternative explanations, not just positing that it's plausible that there's a causal link between two variables. Even then such a link might well exist and simultaneously only explain a portion of the increase. Without digging deeper as a hypothetical, would it not be possible that deteriorating conditions in South America could explain the increase in 2019 and that the dip in 2020 is simply a result of Covid fucking over everything everywhere before the same worsening conditions kicked back in 2021, with Covid-related factors making it even worse? Again I'm not saying that this is necessarily instead of policy changes, I'm trying to get through to you that you haven't gone the entire line out in your argument to show how it's Biden's revocation of Trump's policies and nothing else that caused the spike in immigration.
This is also why I've brought up the contrast to Obama; during Obama's last four years the apprehension numbers were roughly the same as the start of Trump's administration. If Trump's policies were what was holding back immigration, why were the numbers holding steady at Obama levels until spiking in 2019? The given explanation from your point of view, I assume (and correct me if I'm misrepresenting here) would be that the numbers during Trump would have increased had he not implemented those policies, correct? Assuming this is a fair representation, there would then have to be some factor that was driving immigration up that was being counteracted by Trump's policies. The follow-up question then would have to be "what factors were counteracting the downward pressure of Trump's policies to keep immigration at the same level as during Obama's tenure?" followed immediately by "and how do we know that it wasn't those factors increasing further, rather than a policy change, that is to blame for the surge in numbers?".
|
|
