Romney

[Blind groper]

... said the guy whose three guided tours render him an expert on America.

I have never claimed to be an expert on America. You do not need to be to make the points I have made. They are clear cut.

No. I compared the US to all of Europe.

Can you not see that this is an inappropriate comparison?
Europe includes Russia. With its very large population and a murder rate of 12 per 100,000 per year, it alone pushes the Europe average way up.

Compare the homicide rate in the USA with Europe excluding Russia and see what happens.

[Coito ergo sum]

... said the guy whose three guided tours render him an expert on America.

I have never claimed to be an expert on America. You do not need to be to make the points I have made. They are clear cut.

No. I compared the US to all of Europe.

Can you not see that this is an inappropriate comparison?

It is a far more appropriate comparison than to compare Belgium to the United States.

Europe includes Russia. With its very large population and a murder rate of 12 per 100,000 per year, it alone pushes the Europe average way up.

So, you want to eliminate the bad States, and just cherry pick... If you can, then can't I eliminate the inner cities of the US? If you eliminated the inner cities of LA, Chicago, Newark, Detroit, Camden and New York City, you'd lower the homicide rate in the US dramatically. And, you know what? It would have nothing at all to do with redneck "gun culture." See?

If you want to compare the six or eight lowest homicide, tiny blips of countries, with the 330,000,000 strong, immensely varied, United States, then you're making an inappropriate comparison. The tiny country of Denmark, for example, cannot be considered a fair comparison to the huge nation of 50 separate states, most of which are bigger in size and/or population than Denmark.

[Blind groper]

If you want to compare the six or eight lowest homicide, tiny blips of countries, with the 330,000,000 strong, immensely varied, United States, then you're making an inappropriate comparison. The tiny country of Denmark, for example, cannot be considered a fair comparison to the huge nation of 50 separate states, most of which are bigger in size and/or population than Denmark.

I had a look at the Wiki list of homicide rates. The only European countries with a higher homicide rate than the USA were Russia and Estonia. Estonia would have nearly zero effect on the overall European average, which makes Russia the force that skews the average.

So I do not have to pick the 'six or eight lowest homicide'. I just need to pick Europe as a whole excluding Russia.

If you think Russia is the comparison you want to make, and take pride in saying America has fewer murders than Russia, then go ahead. That is like me taking pride in the fact that I am smarter than a Down's Syndrome person.

[Seabass]

The things I hate most about the USA are the ways that the adminstration thinks it has the right to interfere with the sovereign independence of other nations, and freely attacks other nations.

"Freely attacks other nations"? You say that as though the U.S. goes around invading countries willy-nilly without provocation or reason. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of muscular foreign policy either, but such is the nature of power, unfortunately. It is an unpleasant side effect of having a huge population, a huge economy, and a history of being dragged into world wars by other nations. Recall, the U.S. was not a superpower until after WWII. It even disarmed almost completely after the first world war, and then had to rearm again when the Axis decided to drag the world into yet another global conflict. It was only after the second world war that the standing army took. It's not like the U.S. just decided to become a superpower for the fuck of it. Fact is, it was dragged kicking and screaming into superpowerdom by those enlightened, peaceful Europeans. And now we're the bad guys. Give me a fucking break.

The U.S. isn't the world's first superpower by the way, and it won't be the last. It is, however, the most peaceful and benevolent superpower to date, without a doubt. Better a democratic superpower than a dictatorship like all those which came previously. When the empires of yore would wage war, they would raze the villages, slaughter the men, rape the women, sell the kids into slavery. At least the U.S. makes an effort to minimize civilian casualties and leave an intact, fledgling democratic government in place when it leaves. It isn't perfect--far from it in fact--but it's a considerable improvement over the old way, isn't it? I mean do you really expect humanity to suddenly become perfectly peaceful after millenia of perpetual warfare? That's naive. Progress takes time; it doesn't happen over night. Believe me, I'd rather do without the wars too, but I try to have realistic expectations, and I try to know a little history and context.

The amount of high level violence (putting bullets into people), the sick gun culture.

Whatever. Most of the homicides are gang/drug related. Personally I'll take dead gangbangers and drug kingpins over innocent crime and rape victims with no means to defend themselves. IMO, the federal war on drugs is the real culprit here, but that's a different discussion.

The religious right wing.

Other countries have religious wackos too.

And the occasional "Ugly American" who makes arrogance into something utterly repugnant.

Yeah, pot/kettle, chump. You know, there are a couple dozen countries I'd rather live in than New Zealand, but I don't go dumping on Kiwis every chance I get.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... said the guy whose three guided tours render him an expert on America.

I have never claimed to be an expert on America. You do not need to be to make the points I have made. They are clear cut.

You may not have claimed explicitly, but in this post, you state:

I doubt that Americans can appreciate the nature of America from their everyday lives, either.

... which is clearly an attempt to equate your pronouncements on a par with someone who has lived here, when read in context.

I'm referring to you as an "expert" in a sarcastic fashion because of this. If you're not an expert on America, then perhaps you'd ought to listen to those whose opinions have not only the benefit of data, but empirical observation on the scene.

[Blind groper]

"Freely attacks other nations"? You say that as though the U.S. goes around invading countries willy-nilly without provocation or reason. Don't be ridiculous.

That sounds like a semantics argument based the meaning of the words 'freely attacks'. However, the USA has shown little restraint when it comes to interfering with the affairs of other nations.

I agree that the US has adopted that role only since WWII. However, it has adopted it too enthusiastically. And not at the urging of other nations. List all the overseas military adventures. Korea. Cuba. Viet Nam. Laos. Cambodia. Nicaragua. El Salvadore. Grenada. Panama. Iraq. Somalia. Kosovo. Afghanistan.

This list is just the major events. A much longer list of military interventions in other peoples homelands is found on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... ions#1950s

Of the list above, the only ones justified by the sanction of United Nations and other nations are Korea and Kosovo.

It isn't perfect--far from it in fact--but it's a considerable improvement over the old way, isn't it? I mean do you really expect humanity to suddenly become perfectly peaceful after millenia of perpetual warfare?

It is far from perfect. It is way, way worse than any other nation since WWII, including the Soviet Union. Except for the US, worldwide violence as a whole is dropping drastically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

Yet the USA is not playing its part in lowering the violence. It is perhaps the greatest force in the world today for continuing violence in war.

As I pointed out earlier, I am not saying the USA is all bad. It has made some excellent contributions to the world. But this discussion has evolved towards a discussion of the bad things, and the efforts by its defenders to rationalise their way round those bad behaviours.

[Blind groper]

I'm referring to you as an "expert" in a sarcastic fashion because of this. If you're not an expert on America, then perhaps you'd ought to listen to those whose opinions have not only the benefit of data, but empirical observation on the scene.

Ever heard of the need for an outside viewpoint?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm referring to you as an "expert" in a sarcastic fashion because of this. If you're not an expert on America, then perhaps you'd ought to listen to those whose opinions have not only the benefit of data, but empirical observation on the scene.

Ever heard of the need for an outside viewpoint?

Outside viewpoints are useful, sometimes.

However, your outside viewpoint doesn't strike me as well informed. You were clearly unaware that the US has a lower rate of violent crime than any other EU nations. When this was pointed out to you, you then tried to argue that American violent crime rates only include actual injuries, an argument that is not accurate, as shown above. The truth is that even including crimes where the violence is only threatened, and don't actually result in physical injury, the US has an overall violent crime rate significantly lower than many EU countries.

Rather than simply acknowledge that you were wrong, and move on, you chose at that point to introduce your distaste for American foreign policy. Now, as understandable as that distaste is -- it's a distaste I share, for what it's worth -- it is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and is only deployed in what is clearly an appeal to emotions. Your distaste for America doesn't seem to permit you to acknowledge that in some aspects of civil and social life, it might have some good points in comparison to OECD countries.

It is for that reason that while I value outside opinion, I'm inclined to dismiss yours as irretrievably biased -- the opinion of someone who doesn't bend his views to comport with facts, but rather, cherry-picks facts to support his a priori views.

Opinions are only as useful as they are based on facts. When your selection of facts is so obviously skewed, your opinion is necessarily impugned.

[Blind groper]

You were clearly unaware that the US has a lower rate of violent crime than any other EU nations. When this was pointed out to you, you then tried to argue that American violent crime rates only include actual injuries, an argument that is not accurate, as shown above. The truth is that even including crimes where the violence is only threatened, and don't actually result in physical injury, the US has an overall violent crime rate significantly lower than many EU countries.

Actually, I hate to tell you this, Thumpa, but that is a straw man argument, since I never said that American violent crime rates only include actual injuries. I avoided that argument, simply because I do not have independent data on that comparison.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, I hate to tell you this, Thumpa, but that is a straw man argument, since I never said that American violent crime rates only include actual injuries. I avoided that argument, simply because I do not have independent data on that comparison.

Here's what you wrote:

As I pointed out, that cannot be answered due to a lack of clear definition of 'violent crime'.
I regard the act of one person pointing a loaded gun at another as an act of violence. It may not lead to physical injury but it is sure bloody traumatic! If that was accepted as a violent crime, then I predict the USA would jump to the top of the heap of any OECD list of violent crimes, simply because gun ownership and use against other humans is higher in the USA than any other developed country.

The most clear cut violent crime is murder, since that is definitive. Either a victim is killed or not killed. The USA is way out front in any OECD list of murder rates.

You clearly were operating under the impression that "American violent crime rates only include actual injuries". To pretend otherwise at this late stage only underlines the contortions of discourse you're willing to undertake in order to protect your pet theory from any, ahem, facts.

Perhaps next time you'll remember to track what it is you've written.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I must say, you're one of the more aptly-named "debaters" I've ever seen online. Blindly groping, indeed.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

That is not the same thing as saying American violent crime rates only include actual injuries. Your argument is still based on erecting a straw man.

The problem, as I said before, is one of definition. To compare violent crime rates across countries is difficult, because definitions vary. I have certainly not found solid statistics that I can use to compare overall violent crime rates. To give an example : in Sweden, they have a very broad definition of rape. A women who is persuaded to have sex, when she really does not want to, can later charge her lover with rape. Other countries do not call this rape, because the sex was consensual, even if reluctant.

So, to claim that other countries have a higher violent crime rate is based on dubious statistics. Homicide rates, on the other hand, are clear cut. If one person kills another, you really cannot quibble about definitions. For that reason, I prefer to stick to that more clear cut measure.

Let me also add that my biggest quibble about American gun culture is hand guns.
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/ ... tics.asp#8

I quote from the above reference.


"From 1993 to 2001, an annual average of 737,360 violent crimes were committed with handguns in the U.S., making handguns seven times more likely to be used to commit violent crimes than other firearms.50

Although handguns make up only 34% of firearms, approximately 80% of firearm homicides are committed with a handgun.51

Women face an especially high risk of handgun violence.52 In 2008, 71% of female homicide victims were killed with a handgun.53

A California study found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers.54 In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the firearm suicide rate among the purchasers was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population.55

A 1991 study documenting the effectiveness of Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns (this law was recently repealed following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding it unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) found that following the enactment of the ban in 1976, there was a 25% decline in homicides committed with firearms and a 23% decline in suicides committed with firearms within the District of Columbia.56 No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were similar reductions found in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia.57

As a result of its now-repealed handgun ban, the District of Columbia had the lowest rate of youth suicide in the nation – lower than any state.58 "

[Tero]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Homicide rates, on the other hand, are clear cut. If one person kills another, you really cannot quibble about definitions. For that reason, I prefer to stick to that more clear cut measure.

This isn't true, either. Killing a person can range from first-degree-murder to involuntary manslaughter, depending on circumstances.

Your preference is just as arbitrary, and is based on your existing bias.

As far as your opinion on our gun laws, who cares? You're not a citizen, you don't live here, if you did you couldn't vote, and your demonstrated willingness to massage statistics doesn't encourage me to regard your views as well-grounded. It doesn't surprise me that you wave away my cogent objection above.

When you address it, I'll get to any point you think you should make. Until then, I'm simply going to repay you in your own coin: You're wrong.

[Blind groper]

Your preference is just as arbitrary, and is based on your existing bias.

I can understand why you would prefer to think that. However, the factual base for my comments remains correct and accurate.