Anecdotal story is anecdotal

I'm going by numbers I've heard outside of the clip. The professorship example, while anecdotal, supports a number between 90% and 97%.

He dismisses women's career choices factoring into their lower pay at 3:30, 5:38, and 6:52. I get it, he's trying to make a point in an entertaining way, so he glosses over a few points. It's just I find him more inciteful than insightful.

If I wanted the close the gender gap, I'd encourage more girls to get into engineering, and pay teachers more (try to make the US education system more like Finland).

Can you please stop posting your bullshit woo and misinformation?

While marijuana might help with ALS, there are still no proper studies with anything conclusive on the subject.

As for the rest....Eric is not "winning", he's a scam artist out to sell products to desperate people. The worst kind of snake oil salesman.

Finished off with a nice dose of anecdotal bullshit.

To be fair to lantern, he said "smash his face in" in reference to me in the lounge when I wasn't there. So it wasn't like it was a direct threat, so I apologize for embellishing a bit. but yeah. Lantern obviously forgot that the Lounge is recorded for everyone to see for many days. He also seems to forget that everyone can see his comment history and all the other retarded and racist things he has said over the years.

So while it MAY NOT have been a "threat" per se. It shows a propensity for violence when mere words are exchanged.

Standard Internet Tough Guy syndrome.

It doesn't even matter if he is a cop or not. Either way it makes him look bad. Either he's lying about being a cop. Or he is a cop and he's just a desk jockey talking tough. Or he is actually on the streets and we've seen first hand how quick to anger and racist he is (not to mention insecure). No scenario paints him in a good light.

And this is why you don't make appeals to authority. It's a logical fallacy in the first place and when you try to bring RL into an internet debate without using the disclaimer that it's all anecdotal anyway (there's that word again Lantern, maybe you really should look it up), it usually means your arguments don't have their own merits and it just devolves into "my dad can beat up your dad" mentality which pretty much means you've lost.

Still angry about that small sample size eh? still haven't looked up anecdotal either I see.

That's a very poor definition of thug, as that actually describes life in general.

traditions are ALWAYS challenged and eventually put down, convention is ALWAYS challenged and put down, Laws are always challenged and changed. Social responsibility is an ever changing term

30 years as a cop means nothing, it's just a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy, and you just being insecure...again, about a great many things, which prompts you to play your tired Internet Tough Guy routine. The 90s called, they want their early internet "debate" tactics back.

as a former cop (gee, wonder why you aren't anymore) you should know that you are answerable to the taxpayers...That means I'm your boss dipshit. not the other way around, your former coworkers would do well to remember that.

you push us? we push back.

funny, I don't see the thug term being applied to any white criminals. just the black ones.

Anarchist? are you deaf blind and dumb? (oops, my bad, of course you are)

choggie and blankfist are/were the resident anarchists. Both were banned and my comment history shows me arguing with them constantly. You don't like to read though do you..

You just aren't very good at this are you.

Exactly.. It's one tiny, irrelevant anecdote about a demonstration that wasn't even designed as experimental proof against the mountains of data that support AGW.

Still having trouble with that whole data vs anecdote concept, eh?

Don't you know that anecdotes and data are pretty much the same thing to libertarians?

I heard SOME STORY FROM SOME DUDE therefore INCREDIBLY TENUOUS CORRELATION and WE SHOULD ALL ACT LIKE COLOSSAL DICKHEADS.

yet another anecdotal video is anecdotal.

still haven't figured out what anecdotal means, have you.

anecdotal video is anecdotal.

Wow, you certainly don't write like it.
Because you seem to have trouble understanding him, I'll explain.
The anecdote is the singular story of an illegally armed man that actually didn't stop another man with a gun being used as 'proof' that more guns make us more safe.
The data of gun violence per capita vs percentage of gun ownership says the opposite.

And to your point about the 'gun free zones', they were created because mass murders had repeatedly already happened in these places, not before. EDIT: You seem to imply that they CAUSE mass murders...that's simply not true, they are BECAUSE of mass murders. If they enforced them, they would likely work, but you need a lot of metal detectors. I don't have the data of attacks in these places in a 'before the law vs after the law' form to verify 'gun free zones' work, but I would note any statistics about it MUST include the overall rate of increase in gun violence to have any meaning, as in 'a percentage of all shootings that happened in 'gun free zones' vs all those that happened everywhere', otherwise it's statistically completely meaningless.

When I earned a doctorate, I co-taught several graduate level classes on research in the social sciences, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research design. What difference between anecdotes and data, specifically, are you referring to? What specific anecdote and what data specifically? How do you know?

Learn the difference between anecdote and data.

Do you have proof that every one of these instances of cops behaving badly were because of orders from high up in the chain of command? Because you know, that would be rather big.

That's what I mean by calculated intent. You have to prove all of this is by design, which has clearly never been demonstrated.

This video...and all the others are anecdotal. The Alex Jones nutbags of the world would have you believe that there is someone, or a cabal of people who are fiendishly steepling their fingers and cackling maniacally at the diabolicalness of their master plan. That's nice and all, but you need proof.

Until then, it's far far far more rational to believe that every single one of these situations can be traced back to very human things like poor training, poor judgement, fragile egos, over worked, underpaid. and actual complex psychological issues all of which are part of the human condition.

Sure, these things need to be addressed, but it's complex and not simple to implement. If it were, they'd have done it by now.

The pundits (aka the armchair quarterbacks) don't like complex issues, they like to try to reduce everything to sound bites. It's far easier to sell the "ZOMG FASCIST STATE THEY:RE OUT TO GET YOU" message than something that actually requires critical thought and tough questions to answer. It's easier to just lazily point the finger at a scapegoat.