| kenzomatic said: Well i'm sorry I didn't include my (exaguration) clause. But they are easliy missinterpited even by experts. They're are too many variables to have an accurate statistical analysis on this. Your tying to tell me the unquantifiable number of variable for the reasons the crime rate goes down have been removed. And then deny what other sudies show. Then you call me lair multiply times. Yet you admit to the studies only to deny there exististance and ask for proof. I have not lied to you and I'm getting tired of the insults, and innuendos. You are no longer arguing about the study but rather every single thing along the way. The same things can be argued of your side of this issue and you damn well know it. We might as well argue over electron microscopes and whether or not they are properly calibrated. because that is what it has boiled down. Clearly you are on the LEFT and I am on the RIGHT. Do your best not to insult me on the way out. Oh and if you want to know the study I did was not on humans but rather the electrolysis of water as it releate to clean fuel production. |
Left? Of what? That's the problem. You have a political motivation.
The only motivation I have is a scientific one and getting past the political nonsense, because politics is what screws up too many legitimiate areas of study.
You've made the mistake of not only taking a stance, but refusing to believe the opposite stance might be true.
It's one reason i put my proffesional life towards the buisness side of psychology. Politics don't often get involved there and screw things up because their is too much money at stake. The stakes lie in the truth.
Also, I'm a registered Republican. 
Have been since i reached voting age.
If you want to prove something to me though, you've got to show me the hard evidence... and not dance around the issue with studies on things that are only slightly related to the point you are trying to prove.
