(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Statistics are evul! Fuck science!

vzg
2007-04-14 08:21 am UTC (link)

No, I kind of thought, "If that fucker's away, someone can get them help that they wouldn't be able to get real easily if he were right there breathing down her neck." So, you know, she WOULDN'T. Because I'd rather try and get her some therapy and figure out a way to make her STOP going back than just sit there and say, "Well, damn, she's going to back. Shouldn't bother, then, I guess."

Uuuh, not sarcastic, but two things can coexist. Wthout the people being abused, there would be no abuse statistics. Firsthand experience MAKES UP the numbers. Every experience matters, and every experience counts. Of course, at the same time, the overall numbers should have some bearing, but neither completely outweighs the other. Acting like firsthand experience means nothing is just as stupid as acting like statistics mean nothing.

Hey, I'm not saying it's a fact. It's my view on the matter — I'm not putting it in textbooks, telling everyone my ideas on the subject are the only ones worth considering.

And please, stop this "double standards" bullshit. Stretch all you like, but I'm not he one still hiding behind numbers yet to be presented. You want people to take you seriously? Show them some proof that you know what you're talking about. If you'd shown people some evidence from a credible source — namely, the statistics you keep talking about — you wouldn't have half as many people getting pissed off as you do.

Not saying I'm proud of it, but I have better things to do than shuffle through a couple hours worth of comments just to try and fiure out if there was a valid point buried in there anywhere. After the first fifteen minutes of scouring, I moved on. Of course, then I was stupid enough to bother commenting, and I'm juuust short-tempered enough to come back when people respond.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Statistics are evul! Fuck science!

njyoder
2007-04-14 08:28 am UTC (link)

"Well, damn, she's going to back. Shouldn't bother, then, I guess."

This is where that 'reading' thing comes in handy. Numerous times I had to repeat myself stating that I'd get her help because idiots like you couldn't read. I, on the other hand, wouldn't try to piss off the aggressor in the process of getting her help.

Firsthand experience MAKES UP the numbers. Every experience matters, and every experience counts. Of course, at the same time, the overall numbers should have some bearing, but neither completely outweighs the other.

That doesn't make them equivalent. Statistics definitely outweigh first hand experience. If you read the situation that was at hand, you'd note that little was known about the woman, hence you have to make a guess of what's most likely to work and what you want to avoid. You can't do probability without statistics of some kind.

And please, stop this "double standards" bullshit.

I will when you stop demanding I give sources while simultaneously a) not providing any sources yourselves and b) not reading what I say.

Not saying I'm proud of it, but I have better things to do than shuffle through a couple hours worth of comments just to try and fiure out if there was a valid point buried in there anywhere.

All you had to read was my first one. Duurrh.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -