this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
-37 points (21.5% liked)

Conservative

380 readers
6 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wow you straight up admitted you were cherypicking. You have no argument so I'll move on.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The difference between you and I is that I'm honest enough to admit when I'm using cherry picked stats.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Intentionally using cherry picked stats is by definition dishonest.

And I wasn't using cherry picked stats.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I see you've completely missed the point of why I used those stats and disclosed that they are cherry picked. I was hoping it would lead to critical thinking on your part, guess you showed me. I doubt you even know what made the stats I provided cherry picked even though I used two creditable sources census data from 2020 and the secret service study from 2016-2020.

You used mass shooting stats from 2013-2021, then claimed that trans shooters are a low percent. When you look into those numbers you'll see that starting in 2013 was intentionally dishonest. They pulled that stat down by moving the start date as far to the left as they could. Publicly sharing your whole life on social media is a relatively new phenomenon, relying on the media to discover their picked gender was more difficult than two clicks. That is why the secret service study which went from 2016 - 2020 had a much higher percentage. They relied on actual investigation data instead of searching facebook.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you're just going to admit you're wrong, then I won't waste my time. You dug your own grave on this one all by yourself.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

How did I dig my own grave?