Memes

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

the idea that the CPC didn't incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense.

How is that nonsense? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population who died in the famine? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population that didn't die in the famine?

There is probably no data for that, so we can't know for sure, but I showed that in the U.S. a large famine would result in a lower incarceration rate because poor people would starve at a disproportionate rate, and poor people are also incarerated at a disproportnate rate, so that would reduce the overall rate per capita. This doesn't necessarily apply to the situation in China, but I don't think it is nonsense with no foundation in logic.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] p3n@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I never said it would make it equal. In fact, I'm confident that it would not.

The whole reason we started this argument is because you made a condescending comment implying either that I can't read, or that I don't understand what rate per-100,000 means. I understand what per-100,000 means, but I also understand that not all groups of 100,000 people are the same; removing a large sub-population of people that doesn't exactly match the overall population's average will result in a change to the overall population average.

If you have a total population (T), and you are measuring the rate of an event (E), then E / T gives your average event rate for the total population, which you can then normalize to a per-X number. For example: T = 1000 people E = 10 incarcerations. 10 / 1000 = .01, normalized to per 100 capita would be 1 per 100 people on average, from the total population.

If you have a sub-demographic in that population (Ts), and it has a different rate of an event (Es) then its rate is also Es / Ts. For example: Ts = 100 poor-people Es = 5 incarcerations. 5 / 100 = .05, normalized to a per 100 capita would be 5 people per 100 on average, for that sub-population.

If you suddenly remove that sub-population, what happens to the rate of the overall population? That's easy to calculate: (E - Es) / (T - Ts) (10 - 5) / (1000 - 100) = 5 / 900 = .0055, normalized to a per 100 capita would be .55.

Suggesting that a sub-demographic doesn't perfectly match the per-capita average of an entire population and that removing them would change the overall per-capita rate isn't nonsense.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Had the original post simply pointed out that America's incarceration rate is horrible, I would have no disagreement with it, but instead it chose to make a direct comparison between present-day America and China during the Cultural Revolution.

My primary disagreement with this comparison is not with that fact that present-day America has a higher reported incarceration rate than China during the Cultural Revolution, it is the fact that to an audience that may not study history, it helps craft the narrative that China during the 1960s was a much nicer place to live than present-day America because the incarceration rate was significantly lower. I thought it was worth mentioning that, regardless of why it happened, or if anyone was at fault, one of the largest famines in human history occurred in China immediately preceding this time period, which made it not a very nice place to live. There are things worse than incarceration, and most people, myself included, would choose life in a U.S. prison over starvation. Not that either choice is a good once.

My secondary disagreement was with the implication that I don't know how basic statistics work. I suggested that a massive removal of poor-people from a population could have reduced the overall incarceration rate. You said that this was "nonsense". Not that there is insufficient data, or that it wouldn't be a very significant change. My burden of proof is not, probable, or possible, it is just above the level of nonsense. Or do you retract your previous statement that I made a nonsensical argument?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country

That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death.

Nah, I don’t retract my statement

Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse.

I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not.

This is a rational argument:

Premise 1: The Earth is a planet.
Premise 2: The Earth is flat.
Premise 3: All flat planets have edges.
Conclusion: The Earth has edges.

Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense.

This is nonsense and irrational:

Premise 1: Apples are round.
Premise 2: Pyramids exist.
Premise 3: Unicorns have horns.
Conclusion: Aliens!

There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection.

Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation.

Good day.