PDA

View Full Version : So why is ESPN bring up Harrisons DM case from 2008??



steelchamp204
09-24-2014, 10:44 AM
What spurred all this on? Seriously. Just something to talk about it take it?

SuperSteelers
09-24-2014, 11:08 AM
I saw that and thought the same thing. The article started out fine about Harrison's return to the Steelers and than it got off the original topic.

greg1964
09-24-2014, 11:09 AM
Because all the stuff happening in the NFL in political: You have a player from one of the major teams in the NFL so they just keep stirring the pot for their addenda.

The Steelers sign a war hero to the practice squad and no one say boo.... but the Cowboys sign a player that has sex with men and they hold a press conference and ever through he is on the sidelines in street cloths, every time the sorry defense gives up a play, the show him on the sidelines.

LatrobePA
09-24-2014, 11:16 AM
They're slow.

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 11:17 AM
ESPN (like all media) makes money by blowing "problems" out of proportion or making them up if they do not exist.

This is Exhibit A.

DV has actually gone down since Goodell got the position.

NFL players commit about half the DV cases compared to other men in their demographic.

NFL players get arrested at a fraction of the level as other men in their demographic.

If this was any profession except football, it would be illegal (tortious) to "fire" Rice, et al. for their DV crimes.

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 12:02 PM
ESPN (like all media) makes money by blowing "problems" out of proportion or making them up if they do not exist.

This is Exhibit A.

DV has actually gone down since Goodell got the position.

NFL players commit about half the DV cases compared to other men in their demographic.

NFL players get arrested at a fraction of the level as other men in their demographic.

If this was any profession except football, it would be illegal (tortious) to "fire" Rice, et al. for their DV crimes.

just curious where those exhibits were sourced from?

(i tried to find a source, and only found your same comments on CBS. lol)

ChucktownSteeler
09-24-2014, 12:03 PM
ESPN (like all media) makes money by blowing "problems" out of proportion or making them up if they do not exist.

This is Exhibit A.

DV has actually gone down since Goodell got the position.

NFL players commit about half the DV cases compared to other men in their demographic.

NFL players get arrested at a fraction of the level as other men in their demographic.

If this was any profession except football, it would be illegal (tortious) to "fire" Rice, et al. for their DV crimes.

Link?????

ChucktownSteeler
09-24-2014, 12:03 PM
Next thing you know Ben's non-case will be retried in the court of public opinion.

SuperSteelers
09-24-2014, 12:11 PM
ESPN (like all media) makes money by blowing "problems" out of proportion or making them up if they do not exist.

This is Exhibit A.

DV has actually gone down since Goodell got the position.

NFL players commit about half the DV cases compared to other men in their demographic.

NFL players get arrested at a fraction of the level as other men in their demographic.

If this was any profession except football, it would be illegal (tortious) to "fire" Rice, et al. for their DV crimes.

Please provide credible sources for exhibit A so that I may verify the accuracy.

Raleigh Steel
09-24-2014, 12:23 PM
Maybe the media should clean their own house first:


http://mobile.spectator.org/theamericanspectator/#!/entry/when-journalists-commit-domestic-violence,542126ad025312186c517e67

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 12:26 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388484/domestic-violence-nfl-has-decreased-under-goodell-j-delgado

http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/ray-rice-domestic-violence-and-the-nfl-a-phony-problem-25857/

This last one is a blog, but from a high profile attorney (a close friend of mine who was an Assistant US Attorney and White House Counsel went to law school with him) who knows the legal ramifications. It is not some guy in his pajamas in a basement.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/will-the-obama-eeoc-sue-the-nfl-for-its-new-domestic-violence-policy.php

And don't worry, I am not hurt a bit that no one believes me. ;-)

DBR96A
09-24-2014, 12:42 PM
What spurred all this on? Seriously. Just something to talk about it take it?

Same reason people bring up Ben Roethlisberger's rape allegations from 2010: They think they know what people are about, and believe that they don't deserve forgiveness.

LatrobePA
09-24-2014, 01:01 PM
Are we even sure Ben did anything wrong???

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 01:04 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388484/domestic-violence-nfl-has-decreased-under-goodell-j-delgado

http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/ray-rice-domestic-violence-and-the-nfl-a-phony-problem-25857/

This last one is a blog, but from a high profile attorney (a close friend of mine who was an Assistant US Attorney and White House Counsel went to law school with him) who knows the legal ramifications. It is not some guy in his pajamas in a basement.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/will-the-obama-eeoc-sue-the-nfl-for-its-new-domestic-violence-policy.php

that national review article is all sorts of stupid.

First, slipping the math by 4 months (pushing Goodell's tenure to start 4 months later and thus counting those 3 incidents in the previous era), and then counting 2014 as an entire year...)

the real math is 6.00 from 2000 to start of Goodell and 5.93 since...

Fudging the math to favor a narrative, how "national review" of them

the next article.... focusing on a public age of 25-30? why not 20-40?
and comparing the arrest rate of NFL players to the whole of society is just plain dumb. oh my gosh, wealthy peoples arrest rates are far below the national average? who knew!!!

oh look... the article even recognizes this...
"There are a variety of reasons for this, the most obvious being that the average income of NFL players is high, with higher arrest rates strongly correlated with lower income"

MAYBE a comparison of DV of NFL players against a similar economic class. That might be a relevant comparison. the story should be... all things being equal... football/mma/etc are violent activities, and violence begets violence.

"It isnít possible with the existing data to sort domestic violence arrests by income level, but the fact remains: Terry OíNeill and others who claim the NFL has an unusual problem of violence against women are very wrong."

i'd like to see that quote. based on the rest of the article, I have to assume that the truth has been bent.

It would be nice if the data was more transparent

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 01:38 PM
that national review article is all sorts of stupid.

First, slipping the math by 4 months (pushing Goodell's tenure to start 4 months later and thus counting those 3 incidents in the previous era), and then counting 2014 as an entire year...)

the real math is 6.00 from 2000 to start of Goodell and 5.93 since...

Fudging the math to favor a narrative, how "national review" of them

LOL Nice genetic logical fallacy. You are obviously looking to unnecessarily parse statistics to fit a narrative more than any of these sources.

Although not commonly done, it makes perfect sense to move the data point 4 months. It is like faulting the president for the economy on his inauguration day. If you were looking to seriously and fairly criticize, it would be that Goodell probably had nothing to do with the drop (which would be my hypothesis).

And you do not even acknowledge, let alone counter, the point being made. There is no rampant DV cases going on since Goodell took the position. The ESPN narrative is wrong.


the next article.... focusing on a public age of 25-30? why not 20-40?

It is simple. The average age of the NFL player is between 26-27 years old. 20-40 would skew the data incredibly towards the older data set. There are virtually no 20 year olds or 40 year olds, and very few 35 year olds. It is not perfect, (statistics never are), but it is a no brainer that 25-30 is the correct demographic.


and comparing the arrest rate of NFL players to the whole of society is just plain dumb. oh my gosh, wealthy peoples arrest rates are far below the national average? who knew!!!

The wealth effect is there but far less than you assume. These people recently became rich. They NOW have money, but you don't miraculously lose the ghetto/trailer park mentality when you sign a professional football contract. Does this really need to be explained?

In fact, a reasonable argument could even be made to the contrary. The NFL is over represented with people who were poor until they signed a contract and could skew the data in the opposite direction.


oh look... the article even recognizes this...
"There are a variety of reasons for this, the most obvious being that the average income of NFL players is high, with higher arrest rates strongly correlated with lower income"

Of course but it does not even come close to explaining a DV rate that is half the general population of the same age.


MAYBE a comparison of DV of NFL players against a similar economic class. That might be a relevant comparison. the story should be... all things being equal... football/mma/etc are violent activities, and violence begets violence.

You state this because you want to continue a narrative of victimhood typical in the liberal mindset (Redskins, Sam, etc.). Using "economic class" as a comparison would have the same issues and more. Rich people are overwhelmingly white. Rich people overwhelmingly grew up in rich households (rather than became rich in adulthood). Rich people overwhelmingly had a father and mother in their household as a child. I could go on and on. All of these are not true of the "average" NFL player and would unfairly skew the data to fit your victim narrative.

You are great at poking holes (holes the authors even pointed out for you) but your answer, to the extent you give one, is even worse. Your problem is pretending that statistical analysis can be perfect. Take a statistics class and the first day you will learn that it is an impossibility in a data set bigger than one person.


"It isn’t possible with the existing data to sort domestic violence arrests by income level, but the fact remains: Terry O’Neill and others who claim the NFL has an unusual problem of violence against women are very wrong."

i'd like to see that quote. based on the rest of the article, I have to assume that the truth has been bent.

Here it is: "The NFL has lost its way. It doesn't have a Ray Rice problem; it has a violence against women problem," NOW president Terry O'Neill said in a statement released on Wednesday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-lost-calls-roger-goodell-resignation-article-1.1934857

It is quite clear that O'Neill is pretending that the problem is greater than that of general society, or is "unusual."


It would be nice if the data was more transparent

LOL They quoted their sources (e.g. the USA Today). They were very transparent. Even in academia (a much higher standard than journalism), citing a source is all that is required. If you do not trust the data, look it up. The author is not required, especially in limited space, to hold your hand.

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 02:29 PM
LOL Nice genetic logical fallacy. You are obviously looking to unnecessarily parse statistics to fit a narrative more than any of these sources.

Although not commonly done, it makes perfect sense to move the data point 4 months. It is like faulting the president for the economy on his inauguration day. If you were looking to seriously and fairly criticize, it would be that Goodell probably had nothing to do with the drop (which would be my hypothesis).

And you do not even acknowledge, let alone counter, the point being made. There is no rampant DV cases going on since Goodell took the position. The ESPN narrative is wrong.

When was the narrative that the problem began with Goodell.

The narrative is that there IS a problem.

moving the data around to pretend that it has improved since Goodell took over (remind me which policies he passed in those 1st 4 months?) is just window dressing the data.

The author fudged the data to make his narrative work (improved since Goodell)... to counter a narrative that doesn't exist (gotten worse since goodell), all to pull a no look pass on the real issue.


It is simple. The average age of the NFL player is between 26-27 years old. 20-40 would skew the data incredibly towards the older data set. There are virtually no 20 year olds or 40 year olds, and very few 35 year olds. It is not perfect, (statistics never are), but it is a no brainer that 25-30 is the correct demographic.

it's not ideal, statistics should be.... not perfect, but ideal given the available data



The wealth effect is there but far less than you assume. These people recently became rich. They NOW have money, but you don't miraculously lose the ghetto/trailer park mentality when you sign a professional football contract. Does this really need to be explained?

In fact, a reasonable argument could even be made to the contrary. The NFL is over represented with people who were poor until they signed a contract and could skew the data in the opposite direction.

when you say, "a reasonable argument could be made"... is that an assumption?




Of course but it does not even come close to explaining a DV rate that is half the general population of the same age.

I'm waiting for your explanation. Outside of the impact of money, please enlighten us on why YOU believe there is such a drastic difference. What is the purpose of the data comparison?

It is about the money... whether because it changes the person's behavior, or makes the victim less likely to report it, or diminishes the likelihood of arrest (see Ben)... all of it is related to money.

What is the point of the comparison to the general population then?




You state this because you want to continue a narrative of victimhood typical in the liberal mindset (Redskins, Sam, etc.). Using "economic class" as a comparison would have the same issues and more. Rich people are overwhelmingly white. Rich people overwhelmingly grew up in rich households (rather than became rich in adulthood). Rich people overwhelmingly had a father and mother in their household as a child. I could go on and on. All of these are not true of the "average" NFL player and would unfairly skew the data to fit your victim narrative.

I don't have a narrative about domestic violence...If I do, it's simply that Domestic Violence exists.
My argument is that the articles you provided that try to diminish that existence as being a problem are nonsense... and hiding behind the imperfection of statistics is a classic example of the crumbling of a biased position.


You are great at poking holes (holes the authors even pointed out for you) but your answer, to the extent you give one, is even worse.

what answer is that?
DV exists
DV is a problem


Your problem is pretending that statistical analysis can be perfect. Take a statistics class and the first day you will learn that it is an impossibility in a data set bigger than one person.

don't patronize me with the "take a class" stuff...




Here it is: "The NFL has lost its way. It doesn't have a Ray Rice problem; it has a violence against women problem," NOW president Terry O'Neill said in a statement released on Wednesday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-lost-calls-roger-goodell-resignation-article-1.1934857

It is quite clear that O'Neill is pretending that the problem is greater than that of general society, or is "unusual."

exactly as I suspected. putting words in her mouth

And in fact, even in your word association excercise... SHE'S STILL RIGHT.


http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/morris-datalab-nfl-vaw-2.png?w=610&h=474


LOL They quoted their sources (e.g. the USA Today). They were very transparent. Even in academia (a much higher standard than journalism), citing a source is all that is required. If you do not like the data, look it up. The author is not required, especially in limited space, to hold your hand.

see the above chart for what "not being transparent" looks like... the national review cited this exact article, and then chose to ignore the fact that Domestic Violence in relation to the national average, is the NFLs biggest problem.

Although this is still lower than the national average, it’s extremely high relative to expectations. That 55.4 percent is more than four times worse than the league’s arrest rate for all offenses (13 percent), and domestic violence accounts for 48 percent of arrests for violent crimes among NFL players, compared to our estimated 21 percent nationally.

bolded... does that not qualify as "having a problem"... being unusual?

(not if you consider that the NFL is a violent sport, and violence begets violence... the NFL has an unusual problem with DV (a MUCH greater % of its violent crime, is domestic... compared to the national average)....

The NFL's problem is that it is a violent profession

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/

one more time:
and domestic violence accounts for 48 percent of arrests for violent crimes among NFL players, compared to our estimated 21 percent nationally

Did any of your sources publish this data?
Is it not entirely relevant to your argument?
Were you aware?

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 03:25 PM
Neil,

Arguing with someone who is clueless about statistical analysis is like debating politics with a 5 year old. Both will end up just being tired and crabby and nothing will come from it. I will try again.


The narrative is that there IS a problem.

Wrong. If it was merely that it "is" a problem, the discussion would not be centered almost solely around the NFL. The narrative is that it is much worse in the NFL, and it is not.


moving the data around to pretend that it has improved since Goodell took over (remind me which policies he passed in those 1st 4 months?) is just window dressing the data.

LOL Even by your calculations (without moving the first 4 months), it improved. Not by much, but it improved. The worst case scenario is that things have stayed the same as under his predecessor, but that does not fit your/ESPN's narrative.


it's not ideal, statistics should be.... not perfect, but ideal given the available data

Laughable. Your "ideal" was to break it down by economic class instead of age, even though age is a much more common and useful tool than economic class. I gave you several reasons why. There is a reason why a bunch of enterprising journalists are not running out to find the data and make the comparisons. Because it is a much worse indicator.


when you say, "a reasonable argument could be made"... is that an assumption?

It is about 1/10 the assumptions you make. Like this one:


It is about the money... whether because it changes the person's behavior, or makes the victim less likely to report it, or diminishes the likelihood of arrest (see Ben)... all of it is related to money.


I don't have a narrative about domestic violence...If I do, it's simply that Domestic Violence exists.
My argument is that the articles you provided that try to diminish that existence as being a problem are nonsense... and hiding behind the imperfection of statistics is a classic example of the crumbling of a biased position.

It did not "diminish" the society-wide problem of DV at all. It only pushed back on the unsupported notion that DV is worse in the NFL than in the general public among people in the same demographic. In fact, it is the media, if anyone, who is under reporting the true problem with DV. (for example, any outrage that Hope Solo continues to play and be on the US National Team?).


exactly as I suspected. putting words in her mouth

Oh, my heavens. You are not this thick. She is obviously indicating this problem is bigger in the NFL than society (unusual). If not, her statement would be meaningless. If it is not "unusual", then there would be no reason to call for Goodell's head because he just has the run of the mill problem that the rest of society has.


And in fact, even in your word association excercise... SHE'S STILL RIGHT.

Not at all. That the DV rate in the NFL did not drop as much as other crimes in relation to the general population is irrelevant. It is lower.


The NFL's problem is that it is a violent profession

Yes, there are many factors, no one has said otherwise but it is still lower. And it is an "assumption."


one more time:
and domestic violence accounts for 48 percent of arrests for violent crimes among NFL players, compared to our estimated 21 percent nationally

Which only proves my (and NR's point), that DV in the NFL is lower than the national average. Yet, somehow, you think this means it is worse?


don't patronize me with the "take a class" stuff...

Now, you saying THAT is funny. BTW, take a class. You obviously know nothing about statistical analysis. You just gave me a bunch of data that showed DV in the NFL is far less common than the general population (my entire point) and I suspect do not even know it.

All I had to do was let you talk.

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 04:36 PM
Neil,

Arguing with someone who is clueless about statistical analysis is like debating politics with a 5 year old. Both will end up just being tired and crabby and nothing will come from it. I will try again.

there's a term for your approach... what is it... ab bobbiden... abdominen... abominable snowman?


Wrong. If it was merely that it "is" a problem, the discussion would not be centered almost solely around the NFL. The narrative is that it is much worse in the NFL, and it is not.

There is no narrative that it is "much worse" in the NFL. That's your attempt to create a position to argue your crabbiness from.

As for it being centered solely on the NFL... maybe you should take a class on "communications - mass media"



LOL Even by your calculations (without moving the first 4 months), it improved. Not by much, but it improved. The worst case scenario is that things have stayed the same as under his predecessor, but that does not fit your/ESPN's narrative.

You continually try to assign narratives.

I don't have one, other than the association of incidents to the national average being entirely irrelevant.

Find one quote where I or anyone else STATED that it is MUCH WORSE.

You are staging an argument.


Laughable. Your "ideal" was to break it down by economic class instead of age, even though age is a much more common and useful tool than economic class. I gave you several reasons why. There is a reason why a bunch of enterprising journalists are not running out to find the data and make the comparisons. Because it is a much worse indicator.

That wasn't my ideal. That was pointing out the flawed perspective. Giving other examples of stratifying the data that would produce different results.

As for finding the economic data, it is acknowledged that it does not exist.



It is about 1/10 the assumptions you make. Like this one:

so you and i made assumptions... you feel yours are superior because you label them "reasonable". lol



It did not "diminish" the society-wide problem of DV at all. It only pushed back on the unsupported notion that DV is worse in the NFL than in the general public among people in the same demographic. In fact, it is the media, if anyone, who is under reporting the true problem with DV. (for example, any outrage that Hope Solo continues to play and be on the US National Team?).

the myth. entirely created for the purpose of political arguments.


Oh, my heavens. You are not this thick. She is obviously indicating this problem is bigger in the NFL than society (unusual). If not, her statement would be meaningless. If it is not "unusual", then there would be no reason to call for Goodell's head because he just has the run of the mill problem that the rest of society has.

you can't support the position you've attributed to her.

the data clearly shows that DV is the highest % of crime in the NFL relative to the national averages.

"The NFL has a Domestic Violence problem" is an accurate statement that doesn't need to be interpreted any differently to make a mythical argument.




Not at all. That the DV rate in the NFL did not drop as much as other crimes in relation to the general population is irrelevant. It is lower.

it's irrelevant because it doesn't fit your argument. typical.




Which only proves my (and NR's point), that DV in the NFL is lower than the national average. Yet, somehow, you think this means it is worse?

your hung up on the national average, because it's the only point you think you have.

your premise is essentially that the NFL has no problems as it relates to crime.
Total Arrest rate 13% of National Average

But within their community (the NFL), Domestic Violence is OBVIOUSLY a problem, as it is the highest among it's relation to the national average.

When Domestic Violence in the larger community amounts to 21% of arrests, but 48% of NFL arrests... that's a problem. There community is more susceptible to DV than the larger national community. The NFL doesn't have a fraud problem, the NFL doesn't have a petty theft problem, it DOES have a DV problem.

Stating that the NFL has a problem based on the data is entirely accurate. Distorting a singular statement and framing the argument in a manner merely meant to throw a tantrum by making a comparison between the NFL and the National average is a political stunt, and nothing more.


Now, you saying THAT is funny. BTW, take a class. You obviously know nothing about statistical analysis. You just gave me a bunch of data that showed DV in the NFL is far less common than the general population (my entire point) and I suspect do not even know it.

You don't get that the comparison to the national average doesn't negate the problem. I've never argued that the National Average ISN'T higher than the NFL. I've argue it's irrelevant that it is.

You created a false narrative ("unusual problem") so that the data as presented would appear relevant.

I don't need to compare neighborhood burglaries to the national average to state that there's a problem in the neighborhood if it is being burglarized.

Your misrepresentation of a quote or comical reaction to mass media doesn't change the existence of the problem, it merely allows you to apply a deep seeded defensive and reactionary mindset to events.

The irony is that your association of national averages, means that in your opinion that NFL has no problems with it's players legal behavior within the law. Tthe NFL is a group of law abiding citizens... far more abiding than the nation itself... since all types of crime are far below the national average, there is nothing to see here... which is even funnier when relating back to your previous statements about players coming from the trailer park/ghetto... which thus requires the question of what changed their behavior... leading right back to the economic argument.

look, i get it... the people that feed you your talking points took this approach (compare to the national average), and you ate it up and regurgitated it all over the internet without a 2nd thought (figuratively, regurgitated)

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 05:49 PM
there's a term for your approach... what is it... ab bobbiden... abdominen... abominable snowman?

Really? What kind of ad hominem is it? (I already hear the Google servers whirring.) Again, I love seeing you complain about ad hominems. Irony tastes like chocolate.


I don't have one, other than the association of incidents to the national average being entirely irrelevant.

Which is ironic because the first person to throw out the words "dumb" and "stupid" is making the dumbest and stupidest argument in the history of this board. There is not a statistician in the world who would call it "entirely irrelevant." It is why ALL crimes are indexed against "national averages." If I had a brain in my head, I would not go any further. There is absolutely no way to have a fruitful discussion with someone who is so ignorant about a topic.


As for it being centered solely on the NFL... maybe you should take a class on "communications - mass media"

Right. Terry O'Neill is calling for the resignation of every CEO of every company that employs people in the 25-30 range because their domestic violence problem. Oh, wait. She isn't, but yeah, that is not making it out that the NFL is worse. lol


You continually try to assign narratives.

Because people often have them. Critical Thinking 101 (BTW, I teach that class and could sign you up.)


I don't have one, other than the association of incidents to the national average being entirely irrelevant.

Find one quote where I or anyone else STATED that it is MUCH WORSE.

I don't need to. Your defense of those who did is quite enough.


That wasn't my ideal. That was pointing out the flawed perspective. Giving other examples of stratifying the data that would produce different results.

Don't trip on the ottoman as you go in reverse. So, let me see. You pointed out the need for an "ideal". First, you gave 20-40 year olds but that was really dumb. Then you moved to socio-economic class on the assumption that it makes a difference (you provided no actual data), which may be even dumber. You now claim you never gave an ideal. Then, what was your point? So, you are just being an ankle biter banana?


As for finding the economic data, it is acknowledged that it does not exist.

In other words, you are making a huge assumption.


so you and i made assumptions... you feel yours are superior because you label them "reasonable". lol

Again, you show your ignorance of statistics. Assumptions are ALWAYS made and, yes, I believe mine are much more "reasonable" than yours. For one, experts who look at these topics are comparing NFL crimes according to age but are not doing it compared to economic class.


the myth. entirely created for the purpose of political arguments.

The only political aspect of this is those deciding to put all of their attention on the NFL, which has fewer arrested for DV than the general public in the same demographic. It is completely political. You are a consistent PC sheeple.


you can't support the position you've attributed to her.

Yeah, again, she is going after the NFL because it has a "usual" DV problem. Makes perfect sense. lol


the data clearly shows that DV is the highest % of crime in the NFL relative to the national averages.

Which is the definition of a meaningless stat.

An analogy to point out your flawed argument is an NFL defense. By your "logic", if a team has the best yardage defense by 33 percent, points defense by 29 percent, interceptions by 22 percent, and recovered fumbles by 8 percent, it has a fumble recovery "problem."


"The NFL has a Domestic Violence problem" is an accurate statement that doesn't need to be interpreted any differently to make a mythical argument.

I will fix it for you: "The NFL has a Domestic Violence [sic] problem that is no worse or even better than the rest of society."



t's irrelevant because it doesn't fit your argument. typical.

It is irrelevant because it is irrelevant. See the analogy above. Your point is dumb.


your hung up on the national average, because it's the only point you think you have.

I am hung up on it because it is the one that makes the most sense to use and it is used for crime rates in all crimes by experts in analyzing crime data. Think of it this way, your argument is that because DV is the highest crime rate among NFL crimes even though they are ALL below the national average, they have a problem. By your own logic then, if the DV crime rate in the NFL stayed the same but all of the other crime rates were higher than DV but still below the national average, the NFL would not have a DV problem! This is true even though the incidents of DV did not change one bit. A great piece of logic there! lol


your premise is essentially that the NFL has no problems as it relates to crime.

It is "essentially" nothing of the sort. one crime is a problem. My "premise" is that its crime problem is no worse than general society.


Total Arrest rate 13% of National Average

Which is darn good, regardless of the reason.


But within their community (the NFL), Domestic Violence is OBVIOUSLY a problem, as it is the highest among it's relation to the national average.

LOL I thought "national average" was "completely irrelevant?" Your entire argument is based on it though! Funny how that works!

Again, by your logic, if the DV rate stayed the same but all of the other crimes jumped above it but remained below the national average, the NFL would not have a DV problem even though there is not one fewer case of DV. Logic like a sieve.


When Domestic Violence in the larger community amounts to 21% of arrests, but 48% of NFL arrests... that's a problem. There community is more susceptible to DV than the larger national community. The NFL doesn't have a fraud problem, the NFL doesn't have a petty theft problem, it DOES have a DV problem.

And THAT is where economics comes in, just not in the way you want. People rob banks for money. People beat a grandma over the head for her SS check because they need money. People embezzle because they need money. Money does not keep the wife from getting on your nerves.


Stating that the NFL has a problem based on the data is entirely accurate. Distorting a singular statement and framing the argument in a manner merely meant to throw a tantrum by making a comparison between the NFL and the National average is a political stunt, and nothing more.

The political stunts are all by ESPN, O'Neill, and you.


You don't get that the comparison to the national average doesn't negate the problem. I've never argued that the National Average ISN'T higher than the NFL. I've argue it's irrelevant that it is.

And you are the only one in the world doing so. The ones who know about stats are not.


You created a false narrative ("unusual problem") so that the data as presented would appear relevant.

LOL Then if O'Neill does not think it is "unusual", she should be calling for the heads of every CEO or none at all.


I don't need to compare neighborhood burglaries to the national average to state that there's a problem in the neighborhood if it is being burglarized.

Then why does every statistical analysis of crime do it? Would any sane person say "Chicago has a murder problem" if there were only two murders a year there? They say it because it is many times the national average.


Your misrepresentation of a quote or comical reaction to mass media doesn't change the existence of the problem, it merely allows you to apply a deep seeded defensive and reactionary mindset to events.

Your attempt at psychology is more pathetic than your attempt at statistics.


The irony is that your association of national averages, means that in your opinion that NFL has no problems with it's players legal behavior within the law.

Again, a misrepresentation of my position. It is no worse, even better than I would expect from people of their backgrounds.


Tthe NFL is a group of law abiding citizens... far more abiding than the nation itself... since all types of crime are far below the national average,

As a whole, yes, the statistics back it up.


there is nothing to see here... which is even funnier when relating back to your previous statements about players coming from the trailer park/ghetto... which thus requires the question of what changed their behavior... leading right back to the economic argument.

For some crimes, economics do matter. Again, these guys will not be stealing cars. However, they do have most of the relationship problems that people with their backgrounds often will. People do not beat women in college and stop the day they sign an NFL contract. They almost definitely WILL stop stealing cars though.


look, i get it... the people that feed you your talking points took this approach (compare to the national average), and you ate it up and regurgitated it all over the internet without a 2nd thought (figuratively, regurgitated)

LOL Says the guy who is talking from the NOW/ESPN playbook.

TarlsQtr
09-24-2014, 06:11 PM
Murder Rates:

Flint, Michigan-62 per 100,000
Scottsdale, AZ-1.2 per 100,000

That is less than 2 percent of Flint's rate but you would call that "completely irrelevant."

By your logic, Scottsdale has a "murder problem" if DV, theft, assault, etc. all come in at less than 2 percent of Flint's rates for those respective crimes.

That is plainly silly.

And by your/NOW/ESPN's logic, we should fire the police chief of Scottsdale and ignore Flint.

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 09:33 PM
Which is ironic because the first person to throw out the words "dumb" and "stupid" is making the dumbest and stupidest argument in the history of this board. There is not a statistician in the world who would call it "entirely irrelevant." It is why ALL crimes are indexed against "national averages." If I had a brain in my head, I would not go any further. There is absolutely no way to have a fruitful discussion with someone who is so ignorant about a topic.

Not having a brain would be a good explanation for why you believe comparing a business's crime rates against the national average, is the same as comparing a large city..


Right. Terry O'Neill is calling for the resignation of every CEO of every company that employs people in the 25-30 range because their domestic violence problem. Oh, wait. She isn't, but yeah, that is not making it out that the NFL is worse. lol

I dont have any idea who Terry Oneill is. the quote you sourced, and then tried to mischaracterize, is my only reference point.

You used it to get cranky

I dont think Roger Goodell should be fired because of Domestic Violence.. if the owners want to fire him over his handling of this (lying/cover up), that's their choice.




Because people often have them. Critical Thinking 101 (BTW, I teach that class and could sign you up.)

i love how much you reference your teaching job. if you're interested in my academic history, career, and net worth.... PM me... it would be tacky for me to use it as a crutch


Don't trip on the ottoman as you go in reverse. So, let me see. You pointed out the need for an "ideal". First, you gave 20-40 year olds but that was really dumb. Then you moved to socio-economic class on the assumption that it makes a difference (you provided no actual data), which may be even dumber. You now claim you never gave an ideal. Then, what was your point? So, you are just being an ankle biter banana?

socio economic class makes a difference
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Does_age.pdf


my point is that comparing the NFL to the National Average is dumb. And assuming standard models of comparing cities/nations should apply to a business that employs a very specific group of people, is also dumb.




In other words, you are making a huge assumption.

see above... that's what assuming correctly looks like




Again, you show your ignorance of statistics. Assumptions are ALWAYS made and, yes, I believe mine are much more "reasonable" than yours. For one, experts who look at these topics are comparing NFL crimes according to age but are not doing it compared to economic class.

experts? who?




The only political aspect of this is those deciding to put all of their attention on the NFL, which has fewer arrested for DV than the general public in the same demographic. It is completely political. You are a consistent PC sheeple.

the media covering this is not political... it's media. the fact that the PR machines are ramping up for their causes is par for the course of any issue, on any aisle.




Yeah, again, she is going after the NFL because it has a "usual" DV problem. Makes perfect sense. lol

so your problem is with the people whose cause is in the national spotlight, znd they are using that spotlight to further their cause...

you don't need bullshit correlations to the national average to be pissed off. be pissed off regardless... because you would be regardless of the


Which is the definition of a meaningless stat.

An analogy to point out your flawed argument is an NFL defense. By your "logic", if a team has the best yardage defense by 33 percent, points defense by 29 percent, interceptions by 22 percent, and recovered fumbles by 8 percent, it has a fumble recovery "problem."


by your example, your logic is that the NFL and the United States of America are accurate comparables. let's compare the national average income of 24-29 year olds, to the NFL next.



I will fix it for you: "The NFL has a Domestic Violence [sic] problem that is no worse or even better than the rest of society."

a distinction without a difference


I am hung up on it because it is the one that makes the most sense to use and it is used for crime rates in all crimes by experts in analyzing crime data. Think of it this way, your argument is that because DV is the highest crime rate among NFL crimes even though they are ALL below the national average, they have a problem. By your own logic then, if the DV crime rate in the NFL stayed the same but all of the other crime rates were higher than DV but still below the national average, the NFL would not have a DV problem! This is true even though the incidents of DV did not change one bit. A great piece of logic there! lol


your argument is that changing the data entirely, shouldn't change the view of that data?


It is "essentially" nothing of the sort. one crime is a problem. My "premise" is that its crime problem is no worse than general society.

and you've yet to produce any quote or evidence that anyone is making the argument that the NFL is worse than general society.




Which is darn good, regardless of the reason.

it's darn good.... you don't want to approach the reason... because once you do, the comparison to the national average argument crumbles


LOL I thought "national average" was "completely irrelevant?" Your entire argument is based on it though! Funny how that works!

you're right... i get far too caught up in trying to re-purpose poor comparisons



Again, by your logic, if the DV rate stayed the same but all of the other crimes jumped above it but remained below the national average, the NFL would not have a DV problem even though there is not one fewer case of DV. Logic like a sieve.


the only relevant information to come from the comparison to the national average... is that ALL crime is down in the NFL (correlation to socio-economic status being a primary component of that result)... but while ALL crime is down... domestic violence is down the least.

that's a pretty straightforward view of the NFL and the problem it has... it just doesn't work with your world view


And THAT is where economics comes in, just not in the way you want. People rob banks for money. People beat a grandma over the head for her SS check because they need money. People embezzle because they need money. Money does not keep the wife from getting on your nerves.

you sure about that?
You think the guy in the trailer park with no money and nowhere to go... is in the same situation as the guy who can fly to Tahiti and buy a new car.

you're not that naive




The political stunts are all by ESPN, O'Neill, and you.

what stunts... as far as i know, Goodell is under fire for his handling/lying about the incident... not because of the DV itself...




And you are the only one in the world doing so. The ones who know about stats are not.

websites referencing stats, and people who know about them are different things.



LOL Then if O'Neill does not think it is "unusual", she should be calling for the heads of every CEO or none at all.

i don't know who she is... i presume she speaks for a cause, and is using an incident to further that cause. or maybe she is calling out goodell for trying to publicly cover something up.


Then why does every statistical analysis of crime do it? Would any sane person say "Chicago has a murder problem" if there were only two murders a year there? They say it because it is many times the national average.

comparing diverse cities to the national average is not the same thing as comparing a business with a very distinct demographic of employees.


Again, a misrepresentation of my position. It is no worse, even better than I would expect from people of their backgrounds.

you can view the article above about the correlation between money and crime....


For some crimes, economics do matter. Again, these guys will not be stealing cars. However, they do have most of the relationship problems that people with their backgrounds often will. People do not beat women in college and stop the day they sign an NFL contract. They almost definitely WILL stop stealing cars though.

the premise you tried to create here and previously are simply not true. but its understandable why you would believe it. it doesnt fit your world view.

get your google whirling.


LOL Says the guy who is talking from the NOW/ESPN playbook.

I dont know what NOW is, and I don't understand why you think im espousing a talking point... rather than simply dismantling ones weak argument

NeilPatrickBanana
09-24-2014, 09:36 PM
Murder Rates:

Flint, Michigan-62 per 100,000
Scottsdale, AZ-1.2 per 100,000


thanks for a great example of the impact of socio economic factors on crime rates. it makes a great closing argument.

FlatsSteeler
09-25-2014, 09:02 AM
:popcorn::popcorn:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/FlatSteeler/bigbangwrestle.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/FlatSteeler/media/bigbangwrestle.jpg.html)

HumanPudding
09-26-2014, 12:48 AM
Rabble. Rabble. Rabble.