The Liberal Zombie Manifesto

46 thoughts on “The Liberal Zombie Manifesto”

1. Don’t call them Leftists, call them what they are. Communist Agitators… As bad if not worst the the SA on Kristallnacht just with a communist leaning media its never reported that way.

   1. The voices “on the street” that President Bush didn’t listen to, from a liberal protest:

      

2. Seems I have noticed all of the above just by living a long life. I never bothered to write it all down but I am thankful that some one did. I would add an index and a search box.

   1. “Control F”. Then, input a keyword.

3. My head hurts after reading that.

   1. You too?

4. Only two sexes? You misogynist closed-minded tool?

   1. Good point, I’m going to add that in future editions of the above post. And speaking of the “sexual”, I saw a new term… “Ammosexual”. Apparently, ammosexual describes the supporters of the Second Amendment.

      1. Yep, that’s us, besig. We have no argument, according to the liberal know-it-alls. We fetishize guns and ammo. It’s the tactic of those who can’t make a cogent argument.

      2. Then that makes me an Ammosexual.

         I CANNOT HELP IT, I was born that way!!!

5. I love this, I will print this out and have it framed and hung on my office wall!

6. This would be funny if it were not true.

7. Its the regressive agenda.

   1. I also use “regressive”, as there is nothing “progressive” about the movement towards socialism.

      1. I Myself prefer “proglodyte”.

         1. With the way they are behaving, that could very well become the most common term to describe them.

8. “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”

   Actually that is baloney where it counts. The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts.

   So far as other acts of violence there is some evidence to say that women are often the aggressors, although not most often. This overlooks the severity of injury however. Injuries tend to be more severe when men are the aggressors, hence the murder rates. Not my numbers or a shelter check UCR.

   1. The Old Maj: Actually that is baloney where it counts.

      Wrong! Your definition of “where it counts” misses the mark behind the statement that your addressing. The comment was that domestic violence was equally, or near equally perpetrated, by both genders. Whether that results in a death or not is irrelevant to the statement:

      “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”

      The Old Maj: The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

      First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, likely to be caused by both genders.

      Second, raw data, that hasn’t been subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, point to half or 55%, of the cases that fit your argument. That doesn’t constitute a “vast” majority, as you point out above. Guess where a big chunk of that comes from? One of the groups that contributed to this large number also contributed to the number of deaths of other members of this group.

      The need for ANOVA and other forms of statistical tests is needed before you could run off with the “vast majority” baloney, or even point to this as a simple “man versus woman” issue to use against the overall statement regarding domestic violence. Guns were used in committing a good number of those murders as well.

      In order to separate the gun from the perpetrator from this instance, you have to bring this back to the original statement that you assumed was “baloney”.

      The Old Maj: So far as other acts of violence there is some evidence to say that women are often the aggressors, although not most often.

      A reason to why I used “equally” is that the data and polling that I’ve found, that were done using the scientific method, slightly indicated one or the other… Averaging out to either gender being equally likely to perpetrate domestic violence. And, get this. Women initiate approximately 75% of the domestic violence that occurs… when you look at what constitutes domestic violence rather than at what people think it is.

      The Old Maj: This overlooks the severity of injury however. Injuries tend to be more severe when men are the aggressors, hence the murder rates. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

      We, as a society, are not going to be able to effectively address domestic violence if we’re going to look at this in terms of “intensity” as opposed to “actual commission of domestic violence”. Regardless of the intensity, and pain, the fact of the matter is that domestic violence is a tool of control, one that follows an ongoing cycle in the absence of intervention and in the absence of people’s willingness to come to terms with their role in domestic violence.

      Ignoring the less intense acts of violence, or what people think isn’t domestic violence, allows those that perpetrate it to get away with their act… Thus not be forced to address the anger, control, etc., issues that motivated them to commit domestic violence.

      Also, you’re forgetting the fact that women are going to equalize their lack of strength advantage when it comes to domestic violence… Just as they would equalize this with a gun against an intruder or intended rapist. Many may make up for their lack of punch by hitting with something harder.

      Again, the intensity of the act is irrelevant in the argument on who is likely to commit domestic violence or not, or if this is something specific to a single gender or not.

      The Old Maj: Not my numbers or a shelter check UCR.

      I’m familiar with the argument that you advanced, as I’ve argued against others who advanced the same argument. I wouldn’t have made the statement above had it not been for the fact that I’ve looked at the reporting on the studies and statistics related to domestic violence.

      Your argument indicates that you’re basing your argument on flawed data. A check on the methodology, and data, exposed holes in the sources that these individuals used to support their arguments against me in the past.

      I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.

      These other people that I’ve argued this issue against, and you, can thank Hillary Clinton and others in the FEMNAZI movement for the load of baloney that you just spewed.

      1. In all fairness to those of us who may have dealt with this sort of thing for literally many decades, we aren’t necessarily operating from a bias. We may simply have not kept up with more current data. I admit to getting a bit lazy in my old age – after relearning the same things multiple times I just don’t care as much as I used to care.

         Be that as it may, I still want to see real numbers, but reserve the right to question it. My perspective may be wrong, or it may only be outdated rather than illogical/without basis. Give us old timers a bit to get our heads around the new info.

         Accuracy is good. But so is acknowledging that things have changed radically in our lifetimes.

9. Yep, pretty much a proglodyte’s bible.

10. “The Old Maj: Actually that is baloney where it counts.

    Wrong! Your definition of “where it counts” misses the mark behind the statement that your addressing. The comment was that domestic violence was equally, or near equally perpetrated, by both genders. Whether that results in a death or not is irrelevant to the statement:

    “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.””

    It is only irrelevant because you think it is meaningless and you have created a False Equivalency in your statements. It is a false equivalency that a woman making some vague threat to a man or running a key on his Camaro (both also domestic violence in most places) is the same as a man beating a woman to death. Lumping a wide variety of crimes in to single catch all phrase of crimes that range from mere violations to capital felonies ignores the real issue of actual violence.

    “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.”

    What da fuq dude? If it doesn’t come from an organization or a person where it does it come from? I’ll pray on it but I don’t think God will deliver on that one, but you never know.

    “Your argument indicates that you’re basing your argument on flawed data. A check on the methodology, and data, exposed holes in the sources that these individuals used to support their arguments against me in the past.”

    Uniform Crime Reporting data by it’s very definition is raw data. If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia. If it is flawed in some way please show it. You will make the Black Lives Matter people thrilled.

    “We, as a society, are not going to be able to effectively address domestic violence if we’re going to look at this in terms of “intensity” as opposed to “actual commission of domestic violence”. Regardless of the intensity, and pain, the fact of the matter is that domestic violence is a tool of control, one that follows an ongoing cycle in the absence of intervention and in the absence of people’s willingness to come to terms with their role in domestic violence.”

    Ok, I’m with you to a point.

    “Ignoring the less intense acts of violence, or what people think isn’t domestic violence, allows those that perpetrate it to get away with their act… Thus not be forced to address the anger, control, etc., issues that motivated them to commit domestic violence.”

    To a point. Your arguments would actually make sense if women murdered male domestic partners at equal or higher rates. They don’t so this is a logical fallacy.

    “Also, you’re forgetting the fact that women are going to equalize their lack of strength advantage when it comes to domestic violence… Just as they would equalize this with a gun against an intruder or intended rapist. Many may make up for their lack of punch by hitting with something harder.”

    Do tell. And when I say tell show me some raw data on this without referring to a person or organization…. nah you can refer to a person or organization I’m not THAT crazy. Since you are bringing up actual physical assault show some actual data on assault proving that point.

    “Again, the intensity of the act is irrelevant in the argument on who is likely to commit domestic violence or not, or if this is something specific to a single gender or not.”

    Again, only because you think it is so. In real life however it matters quite a lot. More false equivalency.

    “The Old Maj: So far as other acts of violence there is some evidence to say that women are often the aggressors, although not most often.

    A reason to why I used “equally” is that the data and polling that I’ve found, that were done using the scientific method, slightly indicated one or the other… Averaging out to either gender being equally likely to perpetrate domestic violence. And, get this. Women initiate approximately 75% of the domestic violence that occurs… when you look at what constitutes domestic violence rather than at what people think it is.”

    Ok, Then Show Me, oh keeper of the raw data. Not with some opinion based poll or some organization’s analysis of whatever but with raw data, say from settled court cases or UCR data or some equally definitive source. If is a poll of any type, forget it. I give polls about as much credence as the Trump vs Clinton Polls.

    1. You were doing pretty good advancing your argument, Old Maj, right up to the point where you typed this, “If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia”. “Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation”. Anyone with posting privileges can edit anything on Wiki. As Wikipedia says on their website, “Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this. Anyone who has edited is known as a “Wikipedian” and, no matter how trivial the edit may seem, can be proud that they have helped make Wikipedia what it is”.
       Emphasis and italics added.

       1. Yeah, but if it is right, it is still right.

          1. Actually, the ability to edit for anyone who wants destroys the credibility of anything on Wiki.

             1. Oh goodness. Here:

                https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/abouttheucr.cfm

       2. Originally posted by UpNorth:

          You were doing pretty good advancing your argument, Old Maj, right up to the point where you typed this,

          The Old Maj did not do a good job advancing an argument, and didn’t advance a good argument at any point in this debate. The Old Maj failed to advance a valid argument; instead, OM failed to understand my argument, choosing to advance a strawman argument instead.

    2. The Old Maj: It is only irrelevant because you think it is meaningless and you have created a False Equivalency in your statements. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

       FALSE! It’s irrelevant, because I was arguing about domestic violence as defined by various state law, as well as defined in the dictionary. Nowhere was I arguing about murders as the sole form of domestic violence. In fact, I separated the two to help emphasize the fact that I was talking about a whole range of violent activities.

       The Old Maj: It is a false equivalency that a woman making some vague threat to a man or running a key on his Camaro (both also domestic violence in most places) is the same as a man beating a woman to death. Lumping a wide variety of crimes in to single catch all phrase of crimes that range from mere violations to capital felonies ignores the real issue of actual violence. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

       What I said:

       “1. If a man hits his woman, it’s domestic violence. If a man didn’t hit his woman, but she claimed that he did, it’s still domestic violence.

       “2. If a woman hits her man, it’s domestic disturbance. Don’t worry, her hitting her man is her man’s fault. Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney. Numbers based on battered women’s shelters should be taken as gospel.

       “Cherry picked ‘evidence’ is better than data obtained via the scientific method.” — thebesig

       Where, in any of those statements, do I argue that one beat the other to death? You advanced that part to make a strawman argument.

       Wrong on the “false equivalency”, when I said this:

       “First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, perpetrated by both genders.” — thebesig

       I was talking about this:

       Definition of Domestic Violence, from DOJ:

       Physical abuse can include hitting, biting, slapping, battering, shoving, punching, pulling hair, burning, cutting, pinching, etc. (any type of violent behavior inflicted on the victim). Physical abuse also includes denying someone medical treatment and forcing drug/alcohol use on someone.

       Sexual abuse occurs when the abuser coerces or attempts to coerce the victim into having sexual contact or sexual behavior without the victims consent. This often takes the form of marital rape, attacking sexual body parts, physical violence that is followed by forcing sex, sexually demeaning the victim, or even telling sexual jokes at the victims expense.

       Emotional abuse involves invalidating or deflating the victims sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem. Emotional abuse often takes the form of constant criticism, name-calling, injuring the victims relationship with his/her children, or interfering with the victims abilities.

       Economic abuse takes place when the abuser makes or tries to make the victim financially reliant. Economic abusers often seek to maintain total control over financial resources, withhold the victims access to funds, or prohibit the victim from going to school or work.

       Psychological abuse involves the abuser invoking fear through intimidation; threatening to physically hurt himself/herself, the victim, children, the victims family or friends, or the pets; destruction of property; injuring the pets; isolating the victim from loved ones; and prohibiting the victim from going to school or work.

       Threats to hit, injure, or use a weapon are a form of psychological abuse.

       Stalking can include following the victim, spying, watching, harassing, showing up at the victims home or work, sending gifts, collecting information, making phone calls, leaving written messages, or appearing at a person’s home or workplace. These acts individually are typically legal, but any of these behaviors done continuously results in stalking a crime.

       Cyberstalking refers to online action or repeated emailing that inflicts substantial emotional distress in the recipient.

       What you disagreed with:

       “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”

       There’s no “false equivalency” about this. I was making a statement of fact regarding what constituted domestic violence, which had a wide range of acts that included murder. Which leads me to this question:

       1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

       2. The quoted statement, Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

       Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

       Your failure to answer these two questions in your next reply, per the parameters that I set, will result in my asking them again.

       Not a “false equivalency” but a factual statement.

       What you’re doing is advancing a strawman argument. Here’s how it works:

       * Thebesig advances Argument X.
       * The old maj advances Argument Y, a distorted interpretation of Argument X
       * The old maj argues against Argument Y
       * The old maj concludes that Argument Y is “wrong”.
       * Since “Y” is wrong, X is “wrong”.

       Nowhere in my argument did I zero in on spousal murders. Your argument is irrelevant, and invalid. You brought that in to make a strawman argument.

       The Old Maj: What da fuq dude? If it doesn’t come from an organization or a person where it does it come from? I’ll pray on it but I don’t think God will deliver on that one, but you never know.

       What I said:

       “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

       Would it hurt you to read what I said with the intention of understanding what I’m saying?

       As you can see, there are two sentences in that quote. The first one informs you on what I wanted to see. What I wanted to see was “first tiered data”, the raw data, the method used to gather and analyze the data, the statistical testing validating things like data relationship, etc.

       Now, tell me “Brain”, how is that report going to be generated?

       Nowhere, in my statement, did I hint that the report was not going to be generated by someone. Hence, the following part of the statement:

       “Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

       What part of “rehash” did you not understand? What I didn’t want was someone else’s interpretation and opinion. Obviously, someone gathered the data and analyzed it.

       1. Still waiting on the sourced data that shows women are the instigators 75% of the time in domestic violence situations.

          Bring it or go home. Raw sourced data not some weirded out data manipulation. Until then your assertions are still unsupported.

          I know it is tough but try to keep it under a thousand words, I’ll be headed to bed soon. Oh hell, make it a thousand words it should knock me right out.

          By the way, dialogue includes conversations that are fluid and wide ranging. Except in this case where the topic is pretty narrow. I didn’t make a straw man argument. I merely pointed out that when domestic violence is most severe the man is nearly always the aggressor. “Where it counts”.

          This is a different topic.

          Tough to figure it out but I thought you were smarter than that, my bad. I thought I made it clear up front but failed. Somehow you got all butt hurt and conflated in to something it isn’t.

          Next time I bring up a different topic I will put in there NEW TOPIC in all caps so you will be in the know.

          Lastly that 55% number you bring up is simply not true because you did not read what I wrote. What I wrote was:

          “The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts.”

          90% of all killers are men. So yes, the vast majority of killers of women are also men.

          The killer is most often in a relationship: Also true.

          You then turned that in to something it wasn’t.

          You must be really upset. I see you posted some more. Here:

          “False. What you’re seeing, when you access their reports, is the result of someone else’s analysis of the raw data. It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data that you get depends on the search parameters that you put in. Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.”

          Nope. The data is overwhelmingly presented electronically through police reports directly by ORI/OCA. Mistakes happen, ok but mistakes happen with all data that has human input. Arguing that something is less valid due to human input you would have something without human error.

          Love to see it. Until then it is what we have unless you have something better (but I already know you don’t or you would have posted it).

          “Most men, that experience domestic violence, don’t report the incident. If these men don’t report the incident to the police, or to any other law enforcement, how is their data going to end up in the database? It isn’t.”

          I can pull stuff out of my ass too. Most women don’t report domestic violence either. Their data does not end up in the database either. How do you validate this? You can’t “for reals” validate it.

          “You do realize that I’ve taken a doctoral level research class across two academic quarters, do you? A doctoral research class teaches you how to utilize the scientific method to gather data related to a research question, and how to analyze that data”

          Great, awesome, yea! Go you. Now put up some sourced numbers instead of an empty appeal to authority. It is not your education that is in question here it is your actual numbers that don’t seem to exist. 75% and go:

          “The emotional drive that I see in your arguments, your argument’s lack of logic, your lack of direction, etc., makes you more consistent with Black Lives Matter.”

          blah, blah, blah, numbers please.

          “Ignoring the other types of domestic violence, and only focusing on murders, ignores the undercurrents/causes that lead to domestic violence. Focusing only on the murders not only ignores what actually constitutes domestic violence, it ignores what leads to domestic violence.”

          Help me out here. Your circular argument is that domestic violence leads to domestic violence? My argument is that the in the most egregious form of domestic violence (murder) men are overwhelmingly the aggressor/ instigator. Unless you are making the classic “She was asking for it argument”. If that is the case we can quit now.

          “Since you failed to provide me with the data that I requested, you don’t have a leg to stand on demanding that I present anything to you.”

          I have UCR. You have absolutely nothing credible.

          “The sources that you support are inferior to a peer reviewed study done based on the scientific method.

          With a peer reviewed study, I’ll have access to the literature that lead to the research question, the research questions, the methodology used to gather and analyze the information, the raw data, the statistical testing, etc. If the raw data isn’t available on the peer reviewed study, I have the option of obtaining the raw data from the people that did the study.”

          UCR not peer reviewed? Seriously? You are actually claiming to be an expert in the field? Hell, the website lists just a small number of peer reviews of the system.

          “It is only has as much credence as a Trump vs Clinton poll because you think it is meaningless and you have created a false equivalency in your statements. It is a false equivalency that a poll conducted, to obtain a population sample representative of the overall population via the scientific method is the same as liberally biased poll organization’s predicting that Hillary had the election. Lumping a wide variety of polls in to single catch all phrase of polls that range from scientific to, lying with numbers, ignores the real issue of scientific method obtain realities, and fudging the numbers to get the results that you want.”

          Nope, just want the same exact standard you are asking for. Polls are notoriously unreliable on practically every issue you can think of.

          1. I’m helping with the storm recovery efforts. I’ll be back to respond to this.

          2. Don’t you wish that was my only response? BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA! 😈 😀

             My next series of replies should give you a hint of how I’ll respond to your way or responding to me. I noticed that you demanded that I meet a specific word count. The way you reply guarantees that you’re going to be seeing longer than normal replies. You’ll find information on how YOU can cause my post lengths to decrease. Hint: You have to do something regarding your responses.

             In the meantime, you forgot to address these:

             you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado:

             “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

             And:

             1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

             2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

             Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

             We both know that the correct answer to both these questions destroys your argument; hence, your refusal to answer them.

             I knew that you would ignore these questions, as the opposition has consistently refused to answer yes/no questions like these, per the parameters that I set, across the 14 years I’ve asked questions like these.

             Your refusal to answer these questions speaks volumes about the lack of confidence that you have in your own argument. It also speaks volumes to the fact that you’re driven by stress, anger, and the need for control when engaging in argument.

             Your ignoring these questions is your attempt to “control” this argument’s progress and outcome. I have news for you. Others attempted the same thing, it didn’t work for them, it won’t work for you. I’m going to keep holding your feet to the fire. 😈

             Down to business. I don’t provide you with Jack S(BEEP) until you answer the yes/no questions that I asked you per the parameters that I set, as well as my request for a statistically validated data source.

             Before you get the urge to ignore that, demanding that I provide you with something instead, remember… Shut the F(BEEP) up and do what I tell you to do first.

          3. The Old Maj: Still waiting on the sourced data that shows women are the instigators 75% of the time in domestic violence situations.

             First, until you provide me with the data that I requested in my initial rebuttal to you, and the following questions, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with data. Also, I noticed that you failed to answer the questions that I asked you per the parameters that I set. In fact, nowhere in any of your replies did you address them.

             I initially asked you to provide me with sourced data. You failed to do so. None of the information that you provided me, and none of your sources, meet the standard of valid data where this argument is concerned.

             Until you address my demands first, and until you answer my questions per the parameters that I set, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with anything.

             The Old Maj: Bring it or go home.

             You first, I requested that you provide me with sourced data. You failed to do that. So, do as you preach, bring it or get your hind end to the play room and hang out with the kids. Having a real argument appears to be out of reach for you.

             I’m going nowhere, I’m staying here and constantly destroying your arguments. Your reactions, how you are replying, indicates someone that knows that he/she is losing control. You’re pulling straws as a result.

             I’m having too much fun holding your feet to the fire in this argument. I have no intention of going anywhere as long as you give me the incentive to keep dismantling you… And watching your reactions as a result.

             The Old Maj: Raw sourced data

             Which you continued to fail to provide “proving” the following statement “wrong”:

             “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.”

             What I wanted to see, before you made your demands that I provide raw data:

             “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” – thebesig

             You failed to provide anything meeting that standard. until you provide me with information that meet’s that standard, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with any raw data. Additionally, until you answer my questions, per the parameters that I set, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with anything.

             The Old Maj: not some weirded out data manipulation. [Deflecting your traits unto me.]

             First, in order to dismiss anything that I say as “weirded out data manipulation”, quotation marks used strongly, you have to advance a valid argument proving that it is. More importantly, you have to stay on topic. You failed to do that.

             Second, you’ve done nothing to support any of your numbers. Instead, you pointed to a couple of websites that provided no real raw data that meets the scientific research method.

             The cold hard reality is that you, not me, are providing weirded out data manipulation. The initial argument that I set up involved the equal likelihood of either gender committing domestic violence. Instead of addressing the fact, you advanced a strawman argument involving murders and violence intensities.

             This automatically made your response irrelevant and put you in position to where you failed to address my argument.

             The Old Maj: Until then your assertions are still unsupported. [Deflecting your traits unto me.]

             As usual, you are wrong.

             In order for me to initially state something, or to enter an argument, two main criteria have to be in place.

             1. I have to have extensive first-hand experience, researched/studied experience, or combined experience in the topic.

             2. The potential opposition in the case of my first post, or the actual opposition in an ongoing argument, have to clearly not be knowledgeable about the topic.

             Since I’m consistently dismantling your argument, it’s obvious that both of those conditions have been met. There’s a third condition:

             3. Once the opposition rebuts my argument, I must provide a counter rebuttal.

             These three conditions will continue to be implemented for the duration of our argument.

             Simply stating that I’m “providing assertions” that are “not supported”, does not constitute refutation. I provided you with facts, you failed to “prove” those facts “wrong.”

             The cold hard reality is that I called you to task to provide me with raw data along with the statistical testing that was done on that data, to prove your assumptions. Instead of providing me with that, you turned around and demanded from me what you refused to do for me.

             I provided the fact that either gender is likely to perpetrate domestic violence. That’s the argument that’s relevant to this thread. That’s the argument that you have issues with. You failed to address that. Instead, you advanced a strawman argument, and demanded that I provide you with raw data while ignoring my demands that you do the same.

             You simply failed to prove me “wrong”. It’s that simple.

             The Old Maj: I know it is tough but try to keep it under a thousand words,

             The way you are replying to me guarantees that my rebuttals to you will be longer than normal.

             First, you do realize that the length of my replies is dependent on the length of your replies, do you? If you paid attention to what you are reading, you will notice that I’m taking you apart point by point. Meaning, the more points that you make, the longer my counter rebuttal. The longer your own post, the more points that I’m going to dismantle. The resulting post is going to be longer.

             Let me simplify this for you. Let “X” be your rebuttals. Let “Y” be my counter rebuttals. What is going on is this: if “X”, then “Y”. You only have control over “X”. You do not have any control over “Y” in this exchange.

             Understand that I have absolutely no intention of meeting your word count limit. Meaning, if you want me to cut down on my word count, you have to do that on your end. Meaning, do as you preach.

             Second, I’m going to tell you the same thing I have told other people, that I have debated with online over the past 14, years who made the same demand. I don’t accommodate people that I argue with. Suck it up.

             Third, the way you are approaching this only guarantees that I would hit you back with longer replies than normal. Someone else attempted to use the “point by point” rebuttal in their argument against me. I ended up hammering this person with 75 + MS Word pages long, single spaced, rebuttal posts.

             Perhaps I could break that record this time around.

             Let that sink in if you think that you could demand that I do something on my end while you continue to do on your end the very things that lead me to do what I do on my end.

          4. The Old Maj: I’ll be headed to bed soon.

             I went to bed, and right to sleep, right after I sent you my last counter rebuttals. I didn’t even hover around the computer to wait for your reply. Understand that you don’t have psychological control over my actions… Like what I have on yours. More on that later.

             I’ve been debating with people, online, over the past 14 years. I do this as a hobby, more on this later. So, I went to bed knowing full well that this argument would continue the following day. In fact, as long as you reply, expect my counter reply .

             The Old Maj: Oh hell, make it a thousand words it should knock me right out.

             If by “knocking you right out”, you are insinuating that you would “fall asleep” reading my reply, then I’m calling bull… Just like with the rest of your argument. The anger, stress, and control issues that I am seeing in your replies suggest that you would not be “knocked out asleep”. The urge to “regain control” by providing a response would have been too great for you.

             But, the reality is that I knocked your argument out the first time that I replied to you. Then, I continued to knock your argument out.

             The Old Maj: By the way, dialogue includes conversations that are fluid and wide ranging.

             This isn’t a “dialogue”. I hold dialogues and discussions with people on topics that we agree on. You disagreed with something that I said, and used a keyword or two that guaranteed that this would become a debate. This is not a “discussion” or a “dialogue”. We are engaged in debate/disagreement.

             The Old Maj: Except in this case where the topic is pretty narrow.

             Actually, the topic is specific. I made a statement that you disagreed with. A statement that essentially said that either gender is likely to commit domestic violence. You disagreed with that, and moved the goalposts in order to have an argument. Excessive violence is just a red herring, and does nothing against the fact that either gender is likely to commit domestic violence.

             The Old Maj: I didn’t make a straw man argument. I merely pointed out that when domestic violence is most severe the man is nearly always the aggressor. “Where it counts”.

             False, you advanced a strawman argument. Again, I focused on the fact that either gender was likely to commit domestic violence. You failed to address that. Instead, you tried to make this about where killing is involved, or the most severe forms of domestic violence.

             I accurately pointed out the fact that this was irrelevant to the fact that either gender is likely to perpetrate domestic violence. You couldn’t argue that position, so you advanced a strawman argument, and emphasized that with the “Where it counts” baloney.

             This was you leveraging control; “forget” the actual argument advanced, you wanted to pull crap out of your hind end and only focus on the who murders who, or the most severe forms of domestic violence.

             That’s the line of baloney that gets in the way of actually being able to tackle domestic violence… And guarantees that this is an issue that remains a problem for a long time.

             What matters, in this argument, is what I mentioned in the above post. The equal likelihood that either gender could perpetrate domestic violence. Either stick with the actual topic, or get the F(BEEP) to the playroom with the kids and let the real adults address this topic.

             The Old Maj: This is a different topic.

             It’s a strawman argument that has no business in this argument. It’s just a crutch that you’re using to make this a different argument, rather than address the actual argument that I’m advancing. “Where it counts” is just pure, “I have control issues” nonsense.

             The Old Maj: Tough to figure it out but I thought you were smarter than that, my bad. I thought I made it clear up front but failed.

             Wrong. I saw what you were doing, and I got ahead of you and called you out. You’re not the only one that has utilized this antic in the 14 years that I’ve debated against people online.

             What was clear was that you knew that you didn’t have an argument when it came to the statement that I originally advanced. However, being the type that expects things to go your way, you decided that you were going to make this about “murders” and “severe domestic violence”. A totally different argument not related to what I was arguing in the original post. This is just you being driven by control, anger, and stress issues.

             The Old Maj: Somehow you got all butt hurt [Projecting your own traits unto me.]

             Wrong. Again, debating with people online is one of my hobbies. I’ve been doing this for over 14 years. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying you people’s arguments, knowing full well that you folk will react a certain way.

             Then, I take sadistic pleasure in reading the responses that you people give. In fact, this morning I was like a kid, on Christmas morning anticipating opening gifts, looking forward to reading your reactions.

             I have you people analyzed and categorized into psychological profiles. The more you guys argue with me, the more I refine each person’s psychological profile. Based on my knowledge on someone’s psychological profile, I refine my responses to get the opposition to say and react a certain way.

             There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, and paragraph that I use. Your psychological profile plays a role on how I address you, and in what I say while rebutting your arguments. So far, you’ve nicely done exactly what I intended for you to do, you’ve reacted exactly the way I wanted you to react… All to my amusement.

             You’re also starting to “sound” like someone else that posts here. Good! Ghoood! Let the butthurt emotions floooooowwww through you!

             I’m not the one that got “butthurt”.

             You’re the one that got butthurt, but that’s not all you’re getting. While I’m laughing on my end, your stress and anger is working to drive your responses. Your first reply to me was an attempt to gain control. Your following responses demonstrate an attempt to regain control that’s frustratingly escaping you.

             I wouldn’t be surprised if you were involved in a relationship where you contributed to the escalation that lead to a verbal or physical altercation that amounted to being called domestic disturbance or violence. If this possible scenario were true, and you indeed were a part of such relationship… Then I wouldn’t be surprised if you are, to this day, denying your role in it… insisting that it’s the other person’s fault.

             I also wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve been accused of creating a hostile working environment, or of being hard to work with.

             These are just scenarios that, if they actually happened, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

             Something else that I’m getting, from your replies, is your constant exercise of poor judgement. Sooner or later, the actual puppet master will show. 😈

             The Old Maj: and conflated in to something it isn’t. [Projecting your own traits unto me.]

             Conflating something is insisting on arguing the “most violent” aspect, labeling that as “where it matters”, rather than focusing on the fact that either gender is likely to perpetrate domestic violence. Not conflating anything on my end, just pointing out the fact that you rolled a strawman argument out.

          5. The Old Maj: Next time I bring up a different topic I will put in there NEW TOPIC in all caps so you will be in the know.

             Irrelevant when your “new topic” is a strawman argument. Labeling it as “new topic”, in all caps, won’t change the fact that you’re dodging the actual argument. It’s like spray painting a cat’s used litter box with gold colored spray paint, and calling the entire thing a “heap of gold”. You’re stilling going to have something nasty that many still won’t want to deal with.

             The only way that I’d “agree” to something like this, regarding your “new topic”, is if your post was posted as a separate article, with its own thread. Thus, keeping your baloney argument off my thread, where one of the original topics was on the likelihood of both genders to commit domestic violence… NOT on the most violent acts of domestic violence.

             The Old Maj: Lastly that 55% number you bring up is simply not true because you did not read what I wrote.

             Do you realize how ridiculous you sound with this statement? I’m not surprised though, with each additional reply that you give, you’re increasingly driven by emotion.

             You’re doing the equivalent of slinging poo all over the place with the hopes that some of it “sticks”. You’re grasping at straws and slinging your fists into the air. Heck, your conduct could be described as doing the equivalent to doing a Mexican hat dance in a barrel of poop, splattering poop all over the place. 🙄

             You claim that my number is “not true”. What was your justification? That I “didn’t” read what you wrote. No, you didn’t provide any substantive argument against that 55% number. It’s “wrong” because “I didn’t read” something. 🙄

             REPEAT POST by The Old Maj, aka Non Compos Mentis:

             INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN

             What I wrote was:

             “The vast majority of women that are murdered, are murdered by men. The killer is most often in a domestic relationship, former relationship or a spurned one with the victim. The vast majority of men are killed by other men, the men that are murdered by women were nearly always in a domestic relationship of sorts.”

             90% of all killers are men. So yes, the vast majority of killers of women are also men.
             The killer is most often in a relationship: Also true.

             INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN

             Your repeat post gets a repeat reply:

             “First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, perpetrated by both genders.

             “Second, raw data, that hasn’t been subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, point to half or 55%, of the cases that fit your argument. That doesn’t constitute a “vast” majority, as you point out above. Guess where a big chunk of that comes from? One of the groups that contributed to this large number also contributed to the number of deaths of other members of this group.

             “The need for ANOVA and other forms of statistical tests is needed before you could run off with the “vast majority” baloney, or even point to this as a simple “man versus woman” issue to use against the overall statement regarding domestic violence.” — thebesig

             As you can see, I did, indeed, read your reply with the intention of understanding what you’re getting at. I’ve read it again, and still see that you’re advancing a strawman argument. Again, you disagreed with the fact that men and women are equally likely to perpetrate domestic violence. But, not being able to argue that point, you shifted the goalposts and emphasized your opinion about “what matters”.

             Guess what? What you think “matters” is irrelevant to the original arguments that I made. It’s nothing but you attempting to force “your way” into an argument that you disagree with but can’t engage. You’re having issues with the fact that I’m not going along with your strawman, and with the fact that I’m holding your feet to the fire with sticking to the topic… A topic that you know you can’t effectively argue against.

             The Old Maj: You then turned that in to something it wasn’t.

             False. One of the topics in the original post argued about the equal likelihood among the genders to commit domestic violence. You disagreed with that argument, and turned it into something that it wasn’t. That’s the crux of our argument here, the equal likelihood of either gender committing domestic violence.

             The Old Maj: You must be really upset. [Projecting your traits unto me.]

             Wrong again. Don’t mistake my disagreeing with your “source”, and with the “credibility” that you are assigning it, as my being “upset”. Again, I take sadistic pleasure in taking arguments, like yours, apart.

             Understand that you are not the first one to argue against me the way you are arguing here. I’ve lost count of how many people, before you, who argued the same way and with the same methods, that you’re arguing. I hammered their arguments the way I’m hammering yours here.

             Again, I’ve been doing this for over 14 years. There’s a purpose behind every word, sentence, and paragraph that I use. If you slot yourself, into the same psychological profile held by the others that I have argued against, it’s easy to get you to respond in a certain way.

             The Old Maj: I see you posted some more. Here:

             Good job, Captain Obvious. 🙄 You should know, by now, that if I’m going to address you point by point, I’m going to be posting more.

             The Old Maj: Nope.

             WRONG, I was dead accurate. Again, what you’re seeing, when you access their reports, is the result of someone else’s analysis of the raw data. It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data that you get depends on the search parameters that you put in. Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.

             I will expand on that with your next point:

             The Old Maj: The data is overwhelmingly presented electronically through police reports directly by ORI/OCA.

             From what you quoted:

             “It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data that you get depends on the search parameters that you put in. Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.” — thebesig

             Information inputted into Google is also “overwhelmingly ‘presented’ electronically”, but that’s as meaningless as your argument.

             Since you couldn’t understand simple English, I’m going to spell it out for you.

             Police reports are going to individually get inputted into the system. What that represents is unorganized information. Get that? It’s up to the person, doing research on these reports, to input search words, and search criteria, that’s going to pull these reports up based on the search criteria.

             This is similar, in concept, to a Google search. The results that you’re going to get when doing an internet search is going to depend on the key words, and key phrases, that you put in. When it comes to portals containing reports, as with the organization that you bring up, or to a portal leading to scientific articles published within a scientific journal, there are “qualifying” criteria that you could put in to narrow or expand the search for data.

             Now, someone has to organize this data into something meaningful and useful. In order for that to happen, someone has to gather that data, via research question related search parameters and put it together as raw data addressing a specific research question… To include subjecting that raw data to statistical analysis in order to test the validity of those numbers.

             Overwhelmingly presented electronically is not the same thing as raw data that has been subjected to statistical testing such as what’s involved with ANOVA, regression analysis, etc.

          6. The Old Maj: Mistakes happen, ok but mistakes happen with all data that has human input. Arguing that something is less valid due to human input you would have something without human error. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

             What I said:

             “Most men, that experience domestic violence, don’t report the incident. If these men don’t report the incident to the police, or to any other law enforcement, how is their data going to end up in the database? It isn’t.

             “Thus, the result is going to be based on what’s reported. This isn’t ‘scientific’.” — thebesig

             Hence what I meant by this:

             “Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.” — thebesig

             If you read what I said, with the intention of understanding what you’re reading, you would’ve made the connection between “input” and “what’s reported versus what’s not reported”.

             Your attempting to explain this away as “mistakes” or “human error” is nothing but a strawman argument. Nowhere, in this part of the reply, do you address the fact that an incident not being reported is not going to make it into the database.

             The Old Maj: Love to see it.

             What I would love to see is you answering the questions that I previously asked you per the parameters that I set:

             1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

             2. The quoted statement (above), Definition of Domestic Violence matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

             Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply, and spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

             If your argument was valid, you’d easily be able to answer these questions. But you won’t because you know that the correct answers to these questions proves your entire argument, on this thread, wrong.

             The Old Maj: Until then it is what we have unless you have something better (but I already know you don’t or you would have posted it).

             False.

             First, I already told you that there’s something better than the two organizations that you linked to: “This is opposed to the gold standard of credibility… the academic peer reviewed journal… aka ‘the study’.” — thebesig

             Second, you don’t know what I would do, regarding what I would post or wouldn’t post. If your ability to hit the water, after falling from a boat in the middle of a lake, were as good as your guesses about what my argument is or why I say or do things, you’d completely miss the water… You’d hit the clouds instead. You’re THAT far off.

             Third, you’ll need membership, or a paid account, to a website that contains a database of these studies. Without an account to one of these sites, the only thing you could hope for is for enough of these studies, relevant studies, to be publicly available.

             This isn’t exactly my “not having anything”, just you pulling crap out of your hind end due to your need for control.

             The Old Maj: I can pull stuff out of my ass too. Most women don’t report domestic violence either. Their data does not end up in the database either. How do you validate this? You can’t “for reals” validate it.

             Every single post that you’ve made here indicates that you’re pulling stuff out of your ass. No need to give me the obvious, Captain Obvious. 🙄

             The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of domestic violence related calls made to the police involve domestic violence where a man assaulted a woman. The balance involves domestic violence where the woman assaulted the man.

             That doesn’t sound like “most women not reporting domestic violence”. The fact of the matter is even if there are women who do not report instances of domestic violence, more men don’t report it then women.

             You would have to be living under a rock to not see why that is the case.

             How seriously do you think a community would take a man that claims that his wife hit him? How many men do you know of who would admit, to the police or to others, that he was hit by a woman, let alone beat up by one? Compare that to the number who wouldn’t.

             When you have these percentages, where the vast majority of the calls involve men on women violence, even you would have to see that it is this number that makes it into the database that you embrace.

             Nowhere, in your reply, do you deny the fact that unreported domestic violence is not going to make it into the database that you are pushing. Expecting me to verify your strawman argument is like expecting me to verify the existence of unicorns.

             The Old Maj: Great, awesome, yea! Go you. Now put up some sourced numbers instead of an empty appeal to authority. It is not your education that is in question here it is your actual numbers that don’t seem to exist. 75% and go: [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

             First, one of our arguments involves the credibility of the database. We are arguing about the process that involves taking raw data from nature (or society indicated this argument), checking that they’ve been statistically validated, as well as their results, then presenting them here to support an argument.

             Remember, I was the first one to demand, in this argument, that you provide valid information, validated by statistical tests, proving your argument. You failed to do that. Until you do that, and answer the questions I’ve asked you per the parameters I’ve set, you have no legs to stand on demanding that I do this for you.

             Second, an intelligent person, possessing common sense and the willingness to have a dialogue rather than an argument, would see this for what it is. The fact that I am more qualified than you when it comes to arguing about types of databases and the validity of their data.

             An emotional person, with stress, anger, and control issues, who is confrontational when he/she does not get his/her way, would dismiss my mentioning my credentials and ignore the fact that these credentials gives me a vantage point in this argument that the other doesn’t possess.

             Third, until you provide me with the data that I requested in my initial counter rebuttal to you, and until you answer my questions per the parameters that I said above, you have no leg to stand on demanding that I provide you with any data…

          7. The Old Maj: blah, blah, blah, numbers please.

             I asked you first:

             “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

             And:

             1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

             2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

             Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

             Until you answer these questions, per the parameters that I set, you have no legs to stand on demanding that I provide you with any answers or numbers.

             Again: Show me what I wanted you to show me first, and answer my questions, then we’ll talk about what I could show you.

             Answer these! GO!

             The Old Maj: Help me out here.

             Want me to help you out?

             First, anger, stress, and the need for control, is clouding your ability to read my posts in a way that you would understand what I am actually arguing.

             So, what you need to do is read my posts multiple times before you reply. In fact, I would recommend taking 15-minute breaks after reading each batch. You would find that with each new reading, you would be less emotional/angry, and a little bit more rational.

             The more rational you are, the less confrontational you would have been in the first place, and the more you would’ve focused on where we have agreement and disagreement lay. This would’ve lead to you actually engaging in the “dialogue” or “discussion” or “conversation” that you think that we are engaged in but we are not.

             At this point of the argument, it’s too late for you to bring it around to a “dialog” or “discussion”. But, using multiple readings may lead to you providing relevant replies.

             Second, I recommend that you pull your head out of your rear end. Follow that up by removing your horse blinder sized blinders. Not doing this has led to your coming across as if retarded ghost has possessed you, and it’s that ghost that’s typing through you.

             You see, like this…

             The Old Maj: Your circular argument is that domestic violence leads to domestic violence? [Projecting your traits onto me.]

             What I said, which you initially agreed “to a point”:

             “Thus not be forced to address the anger, control, etc., issues that motivated them to commit domestic violence.” — thebesig

             Where, in this statement, am I arguing that domestic violence causes domestic violence? Even you agreed with that statement “to a point”. A combination of anger, stress, control, and other emotions contribute to someone committing domestic violence.

             If you quit being emotionally charged while reading my posts, you wouldn’t be putting words into my mouth. I guess that’s easier for you to do than to actually deal with the real argument that I advanced on this thread.

             This is symptomatic of the fact that you are arguing a debate that you think, or wish, existed rather than arguing the one that actually faces you. As much as you love to advance strawmen, maybe I should just sit back and let you post your misconceptions of what I said in lieu of my replying. 🙄

             The Old Maj: My argument is that the in the most egregious form of domestic violence (murder) men are overwhelmingly the aggressor/ instigator. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMANM + REPEAT POINT]

             And my response reminded you that you were off topic:

             “First, domestic violence involves any act, that the state defines, as domestic violence. It could range from throwing something at someone all the way to shooting someone. Which gender murders the other gender, or vice versa, is irrelevant when you attempt to use those numbers to dismiss the fact that domestic violence is equally, or near equally, perpetrated by both genders.

             “Second, raw data, that hasn’t been subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, point to half or 55%, of the cases that fit your argument. That doesn’t constitute a “vast” majority, as you point out above. Guess where a big chunk of that comes from? One of the groups that contributed to this large number also contributed to the number of deaths of other members of this group.

             “The need for ANOVA and other forms of statistical tests is needed before you could run off with the ‘vast majority’ baloney, or even point to this as a simple “man versus woman” issue to use against the overall statement regarding domestic violence.” — thebesig

             Hence what I stated in the original post:

             “Scientific data proving that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both genders is pure baloney.” — thebesig sarcastically poking fun at the FEMNAZI argument.

             Now listen up and listen carefully…

             This is about the likelihood that both genders committing domestic violence, NOT about violence intensity.

             The Old Maj: Unless you are making the classic “She was asking for it argument”.

             And you continue to pull stuff out of your pooper. 🙄 You wish I were making that comment, don’t you? Then, it would be easy for you to argue against me. But, I didn’t advance that argument. I’m advancing an argument that you can’t engage directly… So you pull strawmen arguments and pull crap out of your rear. Symptomatic of you being driven by control issues.

             Don’t let your mother see your performance here. She might just smack you silly, call you Philly, and remind you that she raised you better.

             Again, what I said:

             “Thus not be forced to address the anger, control, etc., issues that motivated them to commit domestic violence.” — thebesig

             Where, in this statement, am I arguing that “she was asking for it”? If you read my posts without being driven by emotion, you’d know that I lay the cause on the perpetrator of the violence. You’d also quit sounding like someone possessed by a retarded ghost.

             The Old Maj: If that is the case we can quit now.

             I have absolutely no intention of quitting this argument. I have every intention of dismantling your rebuttals… Ad infinitum. This is fun.

             The Old Maj: I have UCR. You have absolutely nothing credible. [REPEAT POINT]

             I’m sorry, but your UCR is “Wikipedia” compared to a peer reviewed scientific journal article.

             What I said:

             I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.

             UCR stands for Unified Crime Reporting.

             What part of “report” did you not understand?

             A report, that includes raw data, methodology, and statistical testing, is NOT the same thing as the action involved in reporting. I asked for a valid report, not for a website that law enforcement reports crime information to. I wasn’t just asking for raw data, but also methodology, and statistical testing.

             What you referenced was a link to the UCR, which contains reports, but not the report that I was asking for.

             The reality is that you have nothing, you provided nothing credible, and that you failed to provide anything relevant to this argument with either UCR or Wiki.

          8. The Old Maj: UCR not peer reviewed? Seriously? You are actually claiming to be an expert in the field? Hell, the website lists just a small number of peer reviews of the system.

             As with everything else that you’ve argued, you consistently prove that you have absolutely no clue about what you’re talking about. Maybe if you made the effort to understand English that even a 5th grader could understand, you wouldn’t have this problem and would know what I’m talking about.

             What I said, that you disagreed with:

             “With a peer reviewed study, I’ll have access to the literature that lead to the research question, the research questions, the methodology used to gather and analyze the information, the raw data, the statistical testing, etc.” — thebesig

             A scientific journal article is generally divided into a few sections: the abstract, introduction, initial argument/concept, previous literature (peer reviewed studies) used that lead to the research questions, hypotheses and research questions, methodology, results, testing and analysis, limitations and future directions, conclusion, and references.

             This captures the scientific method in a nutshell.

             Peer review comes in when other experts, in the discipline that the study was conducted in, review the study, the literature, the raw data, the analysis, then verify the data and verify that the researchers properly used the scientific method, etc. They vouch for the scientific validity of the study.

             The researchers, and reviewers, are generally people that hold doctorate degrees, and are referred to as “Doctor” instead of “Miss or Mister”.

             As with anything else, you’re pulling crap out of your arse with the “other people reviewed UCR” nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the results of scientific methods-based research is far more credible than a site that lists reports by police officers. It doesn’t matter if the system itself has been reviewed… it matters that the vast majority of your preferred reports aren’t done using the scientific method.

             The scientific method attempts to replicate the variables that exists in the real world. Police reports collectively are only going to reflect what’s reported to them, or what they have observed.

             The Old Maj: Nope, just want the same exact standard you are asking for. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

             Wrong. Before you demand “the exact same standard” that I’m demanding, you need to do three things:

             1. Understand the standard that I’m asking for…

             2. Remain on topic…

             3. Actually give me the very things first that you demand that I give you.

             I asked you to provide me with valid data, to include statistical testing of the raw data. You failed to do that. You continue to fail to do that with every response. All you did was reference two links. No reports. None. Nothing. Nada.

             This isn’t the case of you demanding the exact standard that I’m demanding. What you’re really doing is dodging my questions and refusing to come to terms with the fact that you don’t have an argument.

             Notice that nowhere in any of your replies do you answer my questions, or provide me with the information that I requested in my first reply to you.

             The Old Maj: Polls are notoriously unreliable on practically every issue you can think of. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: FALLACY OF COMPOSITION + PLUS REPEAT POINT]

             What you’re arguing is that because of the existence of manipulated polls, all polls are invalid. Many academic and scholar disciplines require the use of scientific poling. In order for the study to be valid, the poling methods have to be valid. Not all polling is inaccurate, whether that’s what’s being done and being reported in the news, or done as part of a study.

             This is a far cry from the point that I’m making… unorganized raw data, like the individual reports in UCR versus organized and validated raw data as contained in an individual study.

          9. Don’t worry, my rebuttals to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. The only way you could escape my rebuttals is to outlive me. I’m almost 48. Do you feel lucky? In case you missed it, I have every intention of dismantling your replies… ad infinitum.

             Originally posted by Non Compos Mentis:

             REPEAT POINT

             Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful.

             REPEAT POINT

             First, I respond to you at time of my choosing. I read your replies this morning, and the follow-on reply later in the day. I’m just now getting around to replying to you.

             But even if I don’t get back to you, burn this into your head:

             If I don’t get back with you the day of your reply, the night after your reply, the next day, week, month, year, decade, etc., I will get back with you! I wouldn’t have engaged in protracted arguments like this, for over 14 years, if I didn’t have fun in the process.

             Our back and forth argument is just a drop in the bucket for me.

             I didn’t reply to you, after seeing your replies this morning and later in the day, because I’m testing to see how much emotion drives your actions on this thread. An emotionally charged opponent will add replies before the other side of the argument comes back to reply to their earlier response.

             Sure enough, you came back and posted another comment.

             Before you could dismiss my fact based, logical, reasoned, arguments, you need to actually advance an argument proving them as being other than facts, reason, or logic. You’ve colossally failed to do that.

             Also, you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado:

             “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

             And (bolded so that you don’t miss them:

             1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

             2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

             Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

          10. Off to bed I go, ready to sleep good. If you have a question about whether I’ll reply or not, review what I said above. I will reply at a time of my choosing.

              Meanwhile, your replies make you come across the way Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali came across in this video:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAeMtcURg0

    3. But wait! There’s more!

    4. The Old Maj: Uniform Crime Reporting data by it’s very definition is raw data.

       False. What you’re seeing, when you access their reports, is the result of someone else’s analysis of the raw data. It’s also a database that contains unorganized data. The data that you get depends on the search parameters that you put in. Also, the accuracy of the data is going to depend on input.

       Most men, that experience domestic violence, don’t report the incident. If these men don’t report the incident to the police, or to any other law enforcement, how is their data going to end up in the database? It isn’t.

       Thus, the result is going to be based on what’s reported. This isn’t “scientific”.

       The Old Maj: If you need an education on what it is or how it is collected check out Wikipedia.

       You do realize that I’ve taken a doctoral level research class across two academic quarters, do you? A doctoral research class teaches you how to utilize the scientific method to gather data related to a research question, and how to analyze that data.

       Wikipedia is an invalid reference to use. As was pointed out to you, anybody could edit a Wikipedia article. There’s no screening for qualification. This is opposed to the gold standard of credibility… the academic peer reviewed journal article… aka “the study”.

       The Old Maj: If it is flawed in some way please show it.

       The Wikipedia article doesn’t show the scientific method. It only explains what the UCR does. It doesn’t show raw data, it doesn’t show a literature review, it doesn’t show an analysis section, methodology, etc. Neither does the actual UCR site.

       The Old Maj: You will make the Black Lives Matter people thrilled.

       The emotional drive that I see in your arguments, your argument’s lack of logic, your lack of direction, etc., makes you more consistent with Black Lives Matter.

       The Old Maj: To a point. Your arguments would actually make sense if women murdered male domestic partners at equal or higher rates. They don’t so this is a logical fallacy. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]

       FALSE! Again, see the definition that I posted above, about what constitutes domestic violence. The points that you claim that you agree with “to a point” must be agreed to completely, or be disagreed with completely.

       You can’t claim that you agree with a point I made, about addressing the undercurrent of what causes domestic violence, when you insist on focusing on the murder aspect.

       The fact of the matter is that regardless of what type of domestic violence is used, the one committing domestic violence is jockeying for control. There’s control, supported by anger, stress, and other issues. There’s an element of control that drives this process.

       Ignoring the other types of domestic violence, and only focusing on murders, ignores the undercurrents/causes that lead to domestic violence. Focusing only on the murders not only ignores what actually constitutes domestic violence, it ignores what leads to domestic violence.

       You won’t effectively be able to address domestic violence, as a problem in society, if you ignore the causes.

       The Old Maj: Do tell. And when I say tell show me some raw data on this without referring to a person or organization…. nah you can refer to a person or organization I’m not THAT crazy. Since you are bringing up actual physical assault show some actual data on assault proving that point.

       First, since you failed to provide me with actual, raw data, obtained via the scientific method, as I argued in my previous rebuttal, you don’t have a leg to stand on demanding that I show you the same. Show me what I wanted you to show me first, then we’ll talk about what I could show you.

       While we’re on that topic about showing data, don’t forget to answer the questions that I’ve asked you above… Per the parameters that I set.

       Second, where, in any of my posts, do I argue that this raw data can’t be obtained by someone, or by an organization? Again, I didn’t want a rehash. A “rehash” implies that original data was obtained, then weaved together in an analysis/opinion that’s based on those numbers.

       Reading comprehension… Try it sometime. You’ll save yourself the embarrassment.

       The Old Maj: Again, only because you think it is so. In real life however it matters quite a lot. More false equivalency. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN + REPEAT POINT]

       False on the “it matters in real life”. What matters in real life is what causes domestic violence, not the intensity of domestic violence. Fail to remove the cause, and you’ll continue to have domestic violence.

       If you read what I said, with the intention of understanding what I said, you’d realize that I was talking about the actual definition of domestic violence, and its causes.

       Again, there’s NO “false equivalency” about this. I was making a statement of fact regarding what constituted domestic violence, which had a wide range of acts that included murder. Which leads me to this question:

       1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

       2. The quoted statement, Definition of Domestic Violence matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

       Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply, and spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

       Your failure to answer these two questions, per the parameters that I set, will result in my asking them again.

       Not a “false equivalency” but a factual statement.

       The Old Maj: Ok, Then Show Me, oh keeper of the raw data. [REPEAT POINT]

       Since you failed to provide me with the data that I requested, you don’t have a leg to stand on demanding that I present anything to you.

       The Old Maj: Not with some opinion based poll or some organization’s analysis of whatever but with raw data,

       What I said:

       “that the data and polling that I’ve found, that were done using the scientific method,” — thebesig

       You should’ve understood that the scientific method requires the gathering of raw data. That raw data, and the patterns in that raw data, doesn’t represent “an opinion”. What does does represent an opinion is what I dismissed above as a “rehash”.

       The Old Maj: say from settled court cases

       If you’re talking about domestic violence, then the validity of this, from a scientific method standpoint, is going to depend on what has been initially reported, and on how the cases were treated. Two main things affect “settled court cases” or the results of a criminal trial.

       1. As I mentioned, what has been reported is going to have an impact on validity. Since most men don’t report domestic violence victimization, their situation isn’t going to lead to a court case, civil or otherwise. This automatically skews the results that you’ll find digging through court cases.

       2. How the different law enforcement, and district attorneys, are going to handle a domestic violence report, man versus woman, and prosecute it, it also going to affect the ultimate outcome.

       Reported cases don’t reflect the real picture… Something that’s captured by gathering data via the scientific method.

       The Old Maj: or UCR data

       Same as above. The UCR data is going to be based on what has been reported, and not on the actual domestic violence that happens. It’s also going to be based on the search parameters that you put in.

       The Old Maj: or some equally definitive source.

       The sources that you support are inferior to a peer reviewed study done based on the scientific method.

       With a peer reviewed study, I’ll have access to the literature that lead to the research question, the research questions, the methodology used to gather and analyze the information, the raw data, the statistical testing, etc. If the raw data isn’t available on the peer reviewed study, I have the option of obtaining the raw data from the people that did the study.

       The Old Maj: If is a poll of any type, forget it. I give polls about as much credence as the Trump vs Clinton Polls.

       It is only has as much credence as a Trump vs Clinton poll because you think it is meaningless and you have created a false equivalency in your statements. It is a false equivalency that a poll conducted, to obtain a population sample representative of the overall population via the scientific method is the same as liberally biased poll organization’s predicting that Hillary had the election. Lumping a wide variety of polls in to single catch all phrase of polls that range from scientific to, lying with numbers, ignores the real issue of scientific method obtain realities, and fudging the numbers to get the results that you want.

11. Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful.

    1. Meant to post it here, from above:

       Don’t worry, my rebuttals to you are almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. The only way you could escape my rebuttals is to outlive me. I’m almost 48. Do you feel lucky? In case you missed it, I have every intention of dismantling your replies… ad infinitum.

       Originally posted by Non Compos Mentis:

       REPEAT POINT

       Still no numbers to back your assertions. Shocked I am not. Going to be out and about all day, maybe tomorrow? Doubtful.

       REPEAT POINT

       First, I respond to you at time of my choosing. I read your replies this morning, and the follow-on reply later in the day. I’m just now getting around to replying to you.

       But even if I don’t get back to you, burn this into your head:

       If I don’t get back with you the day of your reply, the night after your reply, the next day, week, month, year, decade, etc., I will get back with you! I wouldn’t have engaged in protracted arguments like this, for over 14 years, if I didn’t have fun in the process.

       Our back and forth argument is just a drop in the bucket for me.

       I didn’t reply to you, after seeing your replies this morning and later in the day, because I’m testing to see how much emotion drives your actions on this thread. An emotionally charged opponent will add replies before the other side of the argument comes back to reply to their earlier response.

       Sure enough, you came back and posted another comment.

       Before you could dismiss my fact based, logical, reasoned, arguments, you need to actually advance an argument proving them as being other than facts, reason, or logic. You’ve colossally failed to do that.

       Also, you need to answer my questions first before you demand that I provide you with anything. So, without further ado:

       “I want to see the actual report, including raw data, methodology, and statistical testing. Not someone’s, or an organization’s, rehash of that data.” — thebesig

       And (bolded so that you don’t miss them:

       1. Is murder the ONLY form of domestic violence? YES [ ] NO [ ]

       2. The quoted statement (from above), Definition of Domestic Violence, matches which one of our definitions? THEBESIG’S [ ] THE OLD MAJ’s [ ]

       Copy and paste these two questions, and options, to your reply. Place an “X” in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional argument that you’d want to add to support or clarify your option.

       1. Thanks for all that, I need a new scroll button on my mouse now.

12. I’m with dusty
    TL,DR
    Too long, didn’t read
    Don’t we have any sort of moderation here ?

    1. Yeah, we do. It’s called ‘self-moderation’ otherwise known as editing copy.

       So do you want fries and a shake with that? Or would you rather have the comic book version from DC Comics?

13. Docduracoat: I’m with dusty

    Then that makes both of you wrong, for the arguments listed below. SPLASH! The lemmings are jumping… SPLASH! There goes Lemming Docduracoat. 🙄

    Docduracoat: TL,DR…Too long, didn’t read

    Yet, you had to open your pie hole and complain about the length while not offering anything related to any of the arguments on this thread, or to the original topic.

    Most adults, when they see an article, or comment, that’s too long for them to read, go on to a shorter article or post. They don’t bitch, whine, moan and groan about a post length that forces their one brain celled activity to actually do its job. Apparently, we’re not dealing with an adult here, aren’t we?

    Just like a kid to complain about something rather than do the sensible thing and move on to the next post or article. Do you want popcorn with that. 🙄

    But, you come across as being the braindead drama type. Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to stop trying to take you over, and to actually do its job. This will hopefully prevent you from typing as if a retarded ghost possesses you.

    Docduracoat: Don’t we have any sort of moderation here ?

    If you need babysitting, go elsewhere. There is moderation here, but not to the extent that you want. If there would be any need for moderation, it would be to do things like delete stupid comments like yours.

    Exposing you pulling the snowflake maneuver is funner.

    I look forward to reading, and to dismantling, your butthurt reply tomoorow.

Comments are closed.