BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Dec 4 20:03:29 EST 2002


"Gray Shockley" <gray at compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BA12C6430063426D0F7E9060 at news-central.giganews.com...
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:20:34 -0600, John Knight wrote
> (in message <6u7H9.4784$K64.72437 at news2.west.cox.net>):
>
> >
> > "Gray Shockley" <gray at compcomm.com> wrote in message
> > news:0001HW.BA0E8C1F003BB56811C295D0 at news-central.giganews.com...
> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:20:43 -0600, Jhon Kignth wrote
> >> (in message <LY9G9.39804$kz4.1861412 at news2.west.cox.net>):
> >>
> >>> Even if someone were to believe your anecdotes, they remain anecdotes,
> > and
> >>> anecdotes don't even begin to make the case for our Draconian DWI
laws,
> >>> particularly when so much scientific evidence disputes them.  The
> > following
> >>> is a summary of the NHTSA data which shows how they arrived at "42% OF
> >>> FATALITIES ARE ALCOHOL INVOLVED"
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Jhon - I would suggest that my "antedotes" - based on experience - are
> > much
> >> more reliable than your specious webpages.
> >>
> >> When I was briefed on Louisiana laws in 1985, one of the things that
was
> >> impressed on us was that the third DUI violation branded the criminal
as a
> >> "habitual offender" and the resulting sentence usually included a
period
> > of
> >> incarceration at Angola (state penitentiary).
> >>
> >> Sort of a "three strikes and you're in".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gray Shockley
> >
> >
> > A typical arrogant "liberal" response:  "I don't care about the facts,
> > because how I feel is far more important than 'your statistics'".
>
> You need to learn to read for comprehension without thrusting your raging
> hormones into what you read. If you can't learn to control your passions,
> sooner or later, you'll find yourself in trouble with the law.
>
> I made no use of emotions, Sonny; I based my responses on observed fact
> rather than your rather juvenile manipulation of statistics.
>
>
> > Let's try a different approach, using statistics.
>
> Sorry, Sonny; your only use of statistics is to manipulate them. I go by
my
> own observations rather than your rather pathetic attempt to exist using
> polls as your morality and statistics as your gospel.
>
> > At a time that your "news
> > media" was touting that "drinking drivers cause 42% of all accidents",
the
> > US Statistical Abstract was reporting that there were only 19,233
> > alcohol-induced deaths http://christianparty.net/alcoholabuse.htm in the
> > entire nation, coast to coast, from ALL causes, including cancer and
> > cirrhosis.
> >
> > Do you see the disconnect yet?
>
> Nope; I don't have a news media.
>
> > IF correct (and you now know that it is NOT correct), this is half as
many
> > people as died in auto accidents, fewer than died of cirrhosis, or of
AIDS,
> > or committed suicide, one third as many as died of diabetes, one fourth
as
> > many as died of flu or pneumonia, half as many as died of all other
> > accidents besides autos, one fifth as many as died of pulmonary
diseases,
> > one eighth as many as died of cerebrovascular disease, 1/28th as many as
> > died of cancer, and 1/38th as many as died of heart disease.
>
>
> And your inference is that because more people die from other causes,
> automobile accidents are unimportant.
>
> Wrong, Sonny. I lost my first wife to a car wreck caused by someone who
> shouldn't have been driving.
>
> Don't try to feed me your moronic crap.
>
>
> > 1.6 million people are arrested for drinking and driving each year, many
of
> > whom lose families, jobs, and business as a result, and all of whom pay
> > fines and fees which average $15,000 each.
>
> Here in Vicksburg, second offense is about $1,100. That's total. I don't
> think many of the perps use a lawyer as it wouldn't do them any good in
any
> but the strangest cases.
>
> > Not counting the loss in human
> > suffering, this is an annual economic loss to the nation (and a booming
> > cottage industry to the "legal profession") which exceeds $24 billion.
Has
> > it been a "success"?
>
> Like a typical liberal, you're trying to turn the perp into the victim.
>
> Sorry, Sonny; it doesn't wash. If people are so stupid that they can't
figure
> out how to separate their drinking and driving, maybe they should be
> incarcerated or have their licenses taken away permanently for stupidity.
>
>
> > By the way you feminazis, jews, niggers, latrinos and
> > other "liberals" and muds define "success" it may be, but to normal
> > Americans this putative 20% reduction in the *rate* of alcohol-induced
> > deaths, from 8.4 per 100,000 population in 1980 to 6.7 in 1993, was far
too
> > expensive.  If correct, these 4,420 lives which were supposedly saved in
> > 1993 cost $5.4 million each, PLUS the loss of personal freedoms and the
> > right to travel, PLUS the destruction of families, businesses, and
careers.
>
> ROTFL.
>
> > Compare this  to the $200 per cancer death that is spent for cancer
> > research.  How many MORE lives might have been saved from heart disease
or
> > cirrhosis if this $24 billion had been spent on real medical research?
> >
> > Is that a good trade-off Gray?
> >
> > John Knight
>
> Whoa, Sonny! You just pulled a switch of topics. Or do you think that
drunk
> driving and cancer are related?
>
> If you'll check the statistics, you'll find that more people die from
drunk
> driving than from dying from cancer while driving.
>
>
>
> Gray Shockley


Obviously you missed the point, so let's put it another way.

Even IF the reduction in the rate of alcohol-induced deaths since MADD went
mad was due 100% to a reduction in drinking and driving, and even IF none of
the putative 4,420 lives "saved" were due to a reduction in supposed
alcohol-related cirrhosis deaths (from which more people die from  the
non-alcohol-related variety than from the alcohol-related variety), and even
IF none of them were due to a reduction in alcohol-related heart disease
deaths (which by itself, according to some claims, exceed 100,000 lives
"saved"), and even IF none of them were due to a reduction in the number of
alcohol-related cancer deaths (which is another group which claims to have
saved hundreds of thousands of lives as the *rate* of NON-ALCOHOL-related
cancer deaths more than tripled), then IS $5.4 million per life saved a wise
investment, OR would there be better uses for those dollars?

You did NOT answer that question, under the pretense that this was a "switch
of topics", so let's phrase it differently.

If ALL of the 4,420 alcohol-induced deaths were traffic fatalities CAUSED by
drinking drivers, and if all of the other 37,580 traffic fatalities were
caused by NON-drinking drivers, then:

A)  Who causes the most traffic fatalities?

B)  By how much?

John Knight






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list