Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
And riots, well roll in quick n nip it in the bud.
If you let things get momentum, far more damage will be done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 22:53:58
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/24 23:03:18
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Orlanth wrote: Don't the most dangerous occupations include statistical aberrations like astronauts and bomb disposal?.
Not at all, no. There aren't enough astronauts or EOD techs to skew the numbers. Depending on where you pull the data from and how well it's cited, it's pretty always some permutation of loggers, construction workers, fisherman, ranchers, farm workers, truck drivers, roofers, and things like that.
Any job with a lot of driving is going to have a high on-the-job-casualty rate because driving is statistically the most dangerous thing most people do.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend theselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 23:01:53
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Funny thing is more and more police are using the tazer as a first use weapon, and the police are still attacked over it.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Maybe you should take a look at the rest of the thread before replying
And perhaps not just assume that I for some reason don't know that electricity tends to cause muscles to contract, hence making such an incapacitive weapon a bad idea to use when someone is pointing a gun at you. Tasers are an example of current technology which can be issued to police to allow them to subdue suspects with a much lower level of lethality than firearms, not the solution to all violent confrontations.
The emphasis of the post was on the development of new systems to replace firearms as the go to weapon for the police, a body whose role is, nominally, to protect the public, apprehend people planning to, suspected of, or in the act of committing crime. Not to go round killing people. Although clearly even if effective nonlethal weapons are available to police, lethal weapons may still be required for specialist use against appropriate situations.
Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 23:17:43
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
DarkLink wrote: Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
Which is why such statistics need to be countered.
The best counter are plausible statistics of your own. For lasting credibility those stats should of course be true.
Showing the urban policing in the US is a dangerous job would proffer sympathies and provide a balance of public opinion more in favour of the law enforcement community.
Even if say working a wood chipper is more dangerous than policing New York, and even if this (random example) were true it would do nothing to help as public perception is that working in the forestry industry is peaceful stress free work out in the fresh air and if thats more dangerous than police work then 'obviously' the police are overreacting to reports of their own safety.
Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/24 23:44:16
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Strictly speaking the sample size for all space shuttle missions is much too small to draw any meaningful statistical conclusion, let alone in comparison to something like automotive travel. The same goes for the profession of astronaut versus the profession of construction worker, or even police officer. Indeed, if you compare the percentage of astronaut fatalities in 2011 to the percentage of construction worker fatalities in the same year the profession of astronaut would appear safer.
At any rate, you're about twice as likely to die working construction as you are to die working as a police officer, although in both cases the probability of death is well under 1%*. Of course, that's not really a meaningful comparison as there are many different types of police officers just as there are many different types of construction worker.
*About .05% for construction workers, and .025% for police officers.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Maybe you should take a look at the rest of the thread before replying
And perhaps not just assume that I for some reason don't know that electricity tends to cause muscles to contract, hence making such an incapacitive weapon a bad idea to use when someone is pointing a gun at you. Tasers are an example of current technology which can be issued to police to allow them to subdue suspects with a much lower level of lethality than firearms, not the solution to all violent confrontations.
The emphasis of the post was on the development of new systems to replace firearms as the go to weapon for the police, a body whose role is, nominally, to protect the public, apprehend people planning to, suspected of, or in the act of committing crime. Not to go round killing people. Although clearly even if effective nonlethal weapons are available to police, lethal weapons may still be required for specialist use against appropriate situations.
Tell you what. Go invent phasers or blasters with a stun setting. Get a nobel peace prize. In the meantime, the police will just have to work with the tools they have.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Orlanth wrote: Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
So, lets discard the reality, and instead just make up an argument that feels right instead, is what you're saying. Again, the idea that police work is idyllic and peaceful is a fake strawman as it relates to this thread. It's a rebuttal to a nonexistent argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/24 23:48:41
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
DarkLink wrote: Throwing random facts, factoids, and logical fallacies at the wall and hoping something sticks with the hope to distract opponent's arguments and railroad the discussion in a direction favorable to your argument no matter how irrelevant to the original discussion is also a political weapon, just not a particularly ethical one. Whether or not policework is the most dangerous job out there is not relevant to the discussion of what equipment the police need to effectively perform their job. It is a red herring, and based on the context in which it usually gets brought up it is a red herring designed to cast the police in a negative light for political purposes.
Which is why such statistics need to be countered.
The best counter are plausible statistics of your own. For lasting credibility those stats should of course be true.
Showing the urban policing in the US is a dangerous job would proffer sympathies and provide a balance of public opinion more in favour of the law enforcement community.
Even if say working a wood chipper is more dangerous than policing New York, and even if this (random example) were true it would do nothing to help as public perception is that working in the forestry industry is peaceful stress free work out in the fresh air and if thats more dangerous than police work then 'obviously' the police are overreacting to reports of their own safety.
Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
I can definitely agree with this, yeah.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
While statistics can be used as a political weapon, that is not what they inherently are. Though I do find it amusing that you're essentially advocating that they be used in such a manner.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Actually its the small numbers that skew statistics. For example 1.48% of space shuttle journeys result in total crew and passenger casualties. If you tried to compare that percentage to buses and lorries.
Strictly speaking the sample size for all space shuttle missions is much too small to draw any meaningful statistical conclusion, let alone in comparison to something like automotive travel. The same goes for the profession of astronaut versus the profession of construction worker, or even police officer. Indeed, if you compare the percentage of astronaut fatalities in 2011 to the percentage of construction worker fatalities in the same year the profession of astronaut would appear safer.
At any rate, you're about twice as likely to die working construction as you are to die working as a police officer, although in both cases the probability of death is well under 1%*. Of course, that's not really a meaningful comparison as there are many different types of police officers just as there are many different types of construction worker.
*About .05% for construction workers, and .025% for police officers.
Dogma, I agree, but this reinforces my point not refutes it.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
I mentioned space shuttle era astronauts as an easily calculable statistic.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: Its not really the statistics that you need to concern yourself with, but public perceptions and misconceptions which the statistics play on. With this case in point a lot of very dangerous professions are seemingly peaceful, idyllic and relaxed.
So the last thing US society needs right now is a jackass warped statistic making police work seem relatively risk free compared to the public perceive to be an idyllic profession; and thus undermining public sympathy and support from cops who have very good reason to be extra wary at this time.
And here again.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Statistics are a political weapon, you need to load them yourself with plausible and relevant data.
While statistics can be used as a political weapon, that is not what they inherently are. Though I do find it amusing that you're essentially advocating that they be used in such a manner.
If you fight a political battle without your gun it wont matter how good your argument was. I do not advocate a lack of ethics in working statistics, I advocate shrewdness and the willingness to counter unfair statistics with positive statistics that have more justifiable parameters. Small but significant difference,
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
Actually, that's not true at all. There are many different means of objectively testing for significance, several of which turn on calculating acceptable sample sizes.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
It really isn't as by any objective measure the small number of astronauts precludes the development of a significant result. I think I've said this before, but your understanding of statistics is rather poor. You do have a solid grasp of how they can be used to deceive, but that has more to do with the tendency of people to ignore pertinent details in the course of pursuing something with passion than it does with statistics.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
I don't think its correct to produce statistics on the basis of how the public will perceive them. Rather the intention should be to produce stats that accurately reflect reality. Whether or not public figures should cite them in the course of interacting with the public is different matter altogether.
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
I think that's true if the statistics are central to a particular cause, which is generally not the case. Rather they tend to be used as a means of rallying existing supporters, and to a lesser extent swaying those who are on the fence regarding an issue*. This is why methodology, when its discussed at all, generally features in the fine print.
*Environmentalists are infamous for this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/25 00:22:31
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
DarkLink wrote: Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
Fair enough. I definitely wouldn't consider police work "safe" by any stretch of the imagination, personally, regardless of venue. I think any profession that requires you to carry a sidearm generally speaking can't be considered safe.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Whoops, looks like I started a bit of a tangent here. Sorry.
I come from a family that includes fishermen and police (and soldiers).
Fishing, especially deep sea fishing, is a very dangerous job, and probably more dangerous than being a policeman in most instances. But being a policeman in the US is definitely more dangerous than doing it here in Ireland. Police here do not carry firearms as standard, and I don't think they need to, because it just isn't as dangerous as it is in the US.
When I made my post, I merely meant to make some of the other EU posters perhaps re-evaluate their assumptions with regard to policing in the US, which I think is generally more dangerous than in most EU countries because of the availability of firearms.
I am not really cool with the police shooting people (and I think long term it is damaging to their effectiveness as a police force) if it can be avoided, and in general I would "side with" the protesters if I was in the US. But I've seen some pretty ignorant statements from people on my side of the pond, is all.
Statistics can be very unfair and there are no hard rules as to what are valid statistics so long as thraw data is technically accurate.
Actually, that's not true at all. There are many different means of objectively testing for significance, several of which turn on calculating acceptable sample sizes.
The example given of astronauts is actually frequently used, and relevant. The danger of manned space flight and the statistical probability of death in space travel have not been underplayed b the space agencies or US government.
For example the relative danger of the space shuttle program and worse Apollo is often used to build the mystique of NASA, and also to instill a sense of common understanding that the manned space program has a casualty rate that is acceptable in the long term to society.
Relative sample sizes are still relevant as a strategy to eliminate unfavourable statistics, its also relevant when you want it to be though. The statistical chance of x occurring in population y can be relevant even if population y is small, if there is a desire to act against x. x might be anything from an unwanted foreign regime, to tobacco, to firearms etc
Again it comes down the the opposed political opinion to argue the relevance of particular study.
Likewise your comparing construction worker deaths in 2011 against those of astronauts (none) is equally 'valid'.
It really isn't as by any objective measure the small number of astronauts precludes the development of a significant result. I think I've said this before, but your understanding of statistics is rather poor. You do have a solid grasp of how they can be used to deceive, but that has more to do with the tendency of people to ignore pertinent details in the course of pursuing something with passion than it does with statistics.
I have a solid grasp of how statistics work, I don't generally calculate them out of laziness, an admitted rustiness, and general unwillingness. That being said I don't need to calculate statistics, that someone elses job. I will admit to not being a mathematician though, far from it in fact.
Wielding statistics is as important as gathering them, and the first step to wielding statistics is to determine the parameters of a study. Outside pure geographical research there is always a loading to the parameters, this is inevitable as you cant calculate everything, and some data while statistically relevant is not politically relevant, and that of itself does not indicate a dishonest position. The example of discounting rural policing in a study of the comparative dangers of policing in the milieu as sen by the public (inner city areas with high ethnic populations) does lead to statstics that favour the opinion that policing is dangerous and deserves as measure of public sympathy. But calculating the statistics this way is not dishonest, it is simply more relevant, and the relevance can be argued politically.
In essense it can be boiled down to one essential truth, statistics is a subsection of mathematical science, politics however is an art.
Taking your comparison of construction work to police work. You could rework the statistics to exclude rural policing as it is fundamentally different to urban policing wheras construction is largely similar in risk nationwide. This is appropriate as the public will compare policing in regions that are in the public eye, like Berkeley and New York ignoring the large number of relatively safe rural communities in the US.
I don't think its correct to produce statistics on the basis of how the public will perceive them. Rather the intention should be to produce stats that accurately reflect reality. Whether or not public figures should cite them in the course of interacting with the public is different matter altogether.
When presented as a purely academic study you are correct. However public perception is always relevant, and those statistics presented for the press are handled differently to those statistics handled for the betterment of geographical science.
If we really want to muddy the waters take a look at lrge scale statistical studies in the early nineties comparine average IQ with ethnicity. The results, that Orientals ( US Asian) were tiered higher than Causcasians who were tiered higher than Blacks might well be anthopologically sound but they weren't politically welcome, and were not accepted dispassionately.
The controversy remained even though the study was conducted on such a large scale that they had no relevant bearing on any individual, and while the researcers (both white academics of up to then good standing) were accused of White Supremecism, and this neatly avoided the question as to why someone would make a particular ethnicity as mentally superior if it was not his own.
The above is a good example of how non political, scientifically based statistical research can have human consequences that are considered to overrule the desire to provide dispassionate scientific data.
Advocating dodgy stats is a poor move, its easy to get caught, and makes your spokesman look bad. You have to be able to justify the parameters from which you draw your data, and give sources - preferably a University for extra kudos, and expect that political analysts working for another side will scrutinise them.
I think that's true if the statistics are central to a particular cause, which is generally not the case. Rather they tend to be used as a means of rallying existing supporters, and to a lesser extent swaying those who are on the fence regarding an issue*. This is why methodology, when its discussed at all, generally features in the fine print.
*Environmentalists are infamous for this.
Indeed, this process is known in the industry as greenwashing. Environmentalists are not generally well paid as a rule, or at least not well paid compared to business professionals. So when a study is held as to an economic impact, there is encouragement from business and some political concerns for the ecological impact estimates to be predicted as conservatively as possible.
As most environmental concerns deal with future prediction, and that means tallying up known data with considered estimates there is a great deal of leeway involved.
This explains why scientists cant apparently make up their mind as to the consequences, or even the existence of global warming.
Environmentalist are not alone in this. Statistical bodies are also subject to corruption. The UK is a good case in point, as the government statistical offices became party politicised alongside the rest of the civil service in the early years of this century. And while government statistics everywhere have some tie in with propaganda this was internalised to become party political.
Once this threshold is crossed a media savvy government can explain exactly what it wants to the public, and generally does. I don't think the US is that far down the slippery slop yet. The US government still lies for common gain, (Iraq anyone) but the machinery of state does not directly favour one national party over another.
All in all statistics, including polls, used in any study of political and or economic importance should be taken lightly, but absorbed as important even if only for what it tells the populace to believe.
If you witnessed the statistical schenanigans regarding this years Scottish referendum you will have had a good spread of these strategies in action over a sustained period. Though as the normal US presidential election system works over an extended time period with primaries etc this is telling you nothing you won't already have seen for yourself closer to home.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/25 03:30:43
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
SilverMK2 wrote: Or maybe invest in better, multi-shot, long range tasers/other non-lethal incapacitating weapons as a front line, first choice weapon to arm police with?
You know, so police don't kill so many people?
If I point a gun at you and you shoot me with a tazer....you will not even be able to regret that decision.
Funny thing is more and more police are using the tazer as a first use weapon, and the police are still attacked over it.
yup, goal posts will just keep moving.
Trying to appease the unappeasable will never work,
the whole "blame whitey" trope that is so indemnic isnt helping anyone either.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
Well then, you are wrong.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The example of discounting rural policing in a study of the comparative dangers of policing in the milieu as sen by the public (inner city areas with high ethnic populations) does lead to statstics that favour the opinion that policing is dangerous and deserves as measure of public sympathy. But calculating the statistics this way is not dishonest, it is simply more relevant, and the relevance can be argued politically.
In essense it can be boiled down to one essential truth, statistics is a subsection of mathematical science, politics however is an art.
Regarding opinion polling you are certainly correct, but opinion polling is distinct from the collection and analysis of data related to any particular objective measure of danger.
As to politics being an art: for the most part I agree. However, it is mistaken to believe that the analysis of collected data has no place in political decision making.
When presented as a purely academic study you are correct. However public perception is always relevant, and those statistics presented for the press are handled differently to those statistics handled for the betterment of geographical science.
At least in this country statistics developed for the press are generally based on the assessment of political opinion regarding a person or an issue. This usually involves a fairly simple survey with some form of multiple choice response set, designed to produce a sample of respondents numbering ~1000. This sort of data can only really be influenced by likely respondents, and the specific wording of a given question. The former can be
The controversy remained even though the study was conducted on such a large scale that they had no relevant bearing on any individual, and while the researcers (both white academics of up to then good standing) were accused of White Supremecism, and this neatly avoided the question as to why someone would make a particular ethnicity as mentally superior if it was not his own.
Oh, you mean the Bell Curve? If so, the criticism I 'm most familiar with was centered around the notion that intelligence was genetically heritable. I know there was also a lot of mudslinging, but that didn't stay in the public eye for long as it was primarily grounded in long-held grudges within the psychology community.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/25 04:50:56
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
DarkLink wrote: Arguing over what's the most dangerous job is a pointless red herring designed to try and claim police work isn't dangerous.
Reality is, there are plenty of dangerous jobs, and each job requires a unique approach to ensure their safety. Just because there is another, more dangerous job somewhere doesn't mean that construction workers should stop wearing safety gear, fedex driver should stop driving carefully, solders on patrol should stop looking out for IED's, and so on. In order to perform their job safely, the police need to be prepared to defend themselves and others from violent, armed criminals, and they must have the means and equipment to support that effort.
Well, no one in this thread claimed police work wasn't dangerous. Someone claimed it was extremely dangerous, and it was pointed it that statistically, it's not in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, so isn't "extremely" dangerous. The whole rest of your thread is more strawman destruction of arguments no one actually made.
Kinda my bad, posting off a tablet while watching TV. I've seen a fair few people online who have legitimately made the argument that policework isn't dangerous and they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, or multiple magazines, or whatever else is the subject of the argument. Several of the people I've see making this sort of argument have done so in dakka threads.
That is not what the argument was about at all and I was asking questions and requesting people provide me with reasons why they should carry 2-3 extra magazines on them. I was genuinely looking for reasons for my mind to be changed. That was never provided to me and after one or two attempts by users I was insulted. Please, if you are going to attempt to make a passive aggressive remark towards another user from a post in another thread..... you know what, you could just not do that and be an adult. That fixes things.
If you do not see why two or three extra magazines could be needed in a situation involving either multiple assailants or criminals armed with long guns (like the guy with the AK in the video), there really isn't much more to discuss. I'm willing to attempt to explain it to you, but as far as I can tell your mind is already made up.
Well then, you are wrong.
I asked for evidence and was not provided with any where a cop needed more than one additional clip. Either way, this is the wrong thread to be discussing this in.
Then why did you bring it up again? So you're saying you literally cannot imagine another similar situation in which a police officer would need more magazines, such as a situation with a single officer and multiple assailants?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
