A little remembrance
Galloism wrote:Chessmistress wrote:
Yvette Cooper of the British Labout Party doesn't agree with your stats
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... hin-labour
Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how science works.
Science is the study for facts, even social sciences (such as they are). This means that a scientist will form a hypothesis, ask questions, take surveys, collect data, and otherwise figure out if the hypothesis is true or not. The scientist then usually publishes a compilation of such data, usually with graphs and tables, in a format known as a "study".
If you do not agree with a study, then you need to break it down to look at the methodology and show where the study is wrong. Conversely, you can bring to the table another study which has different results. If a result cannot be repeated, it is not valuable.
Saying "This famous person disagrees" does not in any way invalidate a study. It just makes a person look like they have no idea how to even argue or debate anything involving the use of stats and data. That's why it has its own fallacy name - appeal to authority or argument from authority.
I hope this has been helpful to you. In the future, please use science to try and contradict science.
Thank you.
Chessmistress wrote:
Ok, let me talk to you a bit about how politics works: highlighted issues are considered, other issues are dismissed (just like in NSG).
Let me talk even more straight: Convention of Istanbul, sounds familiar?
Yvette Cooper is highlighting cyber violence ON WOMEN
UN is highlighting cyberviolence ON WOMEN
The fact that UN ignores some studies do not invalidates these studies: it make these studies useless to drawing a law.
Authorities are the ones who draw laws, their opinion is, at the end, the only opinion that really have influence on laws.
Would you bet that something like a Cyber VAWA and/or an extension to Internet of Convention of Istanbul will be implemented?
That basically mean that, after such law will be passed, people like Ostroeuropa and Tahar Joblis will have to be very careful when they'll write something, when instead I'll have no problems
Hirota wrote:The defeated candidate Yvette Cooper doesn't have to agree with "my stats." She can cry her sour grapes all she wants. Heck, she can be as deluded as you if she wants - doesn't mean anyone has to take her seriously.
Yvette Cooper fails to support her assertions with any evidence,and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Chessmistress wrote:
I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn will take her seriously.
Especially after the protests he already received about the composition of his shadow cabinet: he cannot risk to alienate even more women from him.
Hirota wrote:Pandering to her to avoid a split is not the same as taking her seriouslyChessmistress wrote:
I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn will take her seriously.And plenty of women told those "protesting" to shut up and stop being stupid.Especially after the protests he already received about the composition of his shadow cabinet: he cannot risk to alienate even more women from him.
It seems I was right
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34392427
"Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics", he said.
I hope that will help Galloism and Hirota to better understand how real political pressure works.