Liberal Forum

Vegas » 18 Dec 2023, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:15 pm

Rule, idiot. 

Rule, idiot. 

Rule, idiot. 

This pig never has any thoughts of his own. His control issues consume him. **** coward.

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:16 pm

Shut your face..

 

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:13 pm

Are these your words?


Are these your words?


Is it "not necessarily" true, or is it "false"?
 

 

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:22 pm

Already addressed that.  I reposted the entire comment with a link and no edits.  When you do the same I will address it a second time.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 18 Dec 2023, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 12:35 pm

Ok ****! Read all of this! ALL!!!

God man. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? 

Ok...follow along...I will try to explain this at a elementary level. 

1 mass shooting in 1982. 11 in 2022. Ok. So far so good?   Follow....follow...focus now....

The percent change increase was (333M - 231M)/231) x 100 = 44.1% population increase. (Or your factor of 1.44).

This means if the rate was proportional, then for every 1 year, there would be a 44.1% increase in mass shootings every year. So, in 2022, proportionately there would have been (2022 -1982) 40 x .44 = 17.64 more mass shootings. There were 11. So we are actually under the expected target. 

@Huey  what are the chances that he would have read past the first 5 words of this? Let alone understand it.

We are at a 100 million more people, so of course their will be a proportionate increase. 

But it's only 10 more. That's actually pretty damn good

Vegas » 18 Dec 2023, 1:27 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:27 pm

Mary is almost here. She has one foot in the door. 

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:22 pm

Already addressed that.  I reposted the entire comment with a link and no edits.  When you do the same I will address it a second time.

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:28 pm

Right now he is simmering over the fact that in the same post I did not use "violent" to qualify crime although I did in earlier in that post and had done so for every other post.

If I let him he will go on for pages about it.

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:29 pm

That doesn't "address" it.

And it is all irrelevant.

Both statements can't be true...
 

 

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:28 pm

Here's the original stupid

This shocks the conscience with its Stupidity...

Note that it refers to a "proportional increase". It follows by suggesting that the NOMINAL increase is "pretty darned good"....

But the proportional increase is, in fact, an order of magnitude.

Now you try to spin it by yammering about "rate of growth", the first derivative of the above...
But rate is a function of time, and it is clear from the data that the "rate of growth" of mass shootings is not linear, it's exponential.

You're innumerate. An imbecile.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:30 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:30 pm

No, I don't.

Don't retell.

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 12:23 pm

The econd two are from the same post.  

 

 


Looks like ONE Stand to me NoStands.

 

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:32 pm

Actually, that is the case?  Wanna see?  When I repost where I addressed it you will STFU, got it?

Monderegal » 18 Dec 2023, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 11:28 am

According to statistics, the crime rate is down across the board in almost every major American metropolitan area. I guess that might be a win for Biden but I think something deeper is going on in the local level. Will crime continue to fall? At least I can hope so.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... tlanticcom

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:33 pm

@R. Suave  

Don't say another word.

Vegas » 18 Dec 2023, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:31 pm

Dude, **** your semantics. Give me the math to disprove it. 

Nobody is fooled by your irrelevant narrative. 

Now. Coward.

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:35 pm

Tiny,

The 2 statements are in direct conflict.

They are both yours.

 

 

R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:34 pm

You can't even figure out what you said, looking right at it.

Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2023, 1:43 pm

I know what I said.  In the same post I was talking about violent crime, where in the first sentence I said violent crime, I did not qualify "Crime" with violent.  Although every other post on that subject I did.

You lose.  Now post the offending comment, in full, in context using the quote function.

You won't because it causes you argument to crash and burn.