# Is Shodan more retarded lately, or has he maintained a consistent level of retardation all along? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530 "2012-01-24T20:31:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/841 "2012-02-07T16:20:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, yes, I said “drop.” But in fact, my argument in the thread was that the numbers did not rise. And since the thread was posted, they still haven’t risen. I agree that this small drop is statistically insignificant. But the point is: the law changed, and the numbers didn’t go up. At best, they remained steady. Well, that’s nice and all, but please take note of the fact that _I’m not in that thread_. If you make a different claim in another thread based on the same data, you have to expect to get called on it if your new claim is incorrect. Of course, now that I go back and look at that thread again, I notice that you were sloppy and inconsistent there too, having claimed in post 110 that crimes in bars and restaurants dropped between the two years. So it’s hard to know if you were being sloppy, or just trying to push the envelope and see whether you could get away with the larger claim. Anyway, if _you’re_ going to be inconsistent with the claims you make based on the data while trying to claim others are doing the same, IMHO that doesn’t leave you with much to stand on. > [@](#): > > And since the change in law was opposed by people that argued the numbers WOULD rise, what I was asking for in that thread was an admission that, at least so far, those predictions were wrong. > > Guess how many posters were willing to acknowledge that point, openly? As far as I was willing to read (about 20 posts in), everyone except **Der Trihs**. Take **Captain Amazing** : he said, “The statistics show what the statistics show, and I’m glad there hasn’t been an increase in gun crimes in Virginia restaurants and bars over the past year.” There’s your open acknowledgment. He still felt that the law was a bad idea, and you had to be an asshole about that, which I guess is why you didn’t notice that he acknowledged the validity of your evidence. > [@](#): > > And my point in THIS thread is: the attempts to dissassemble this evidence, and insist on more study and more detail, is reminiscent of the global warming deniers. When the numbers go your way, accept them; when they don’t, insist on more data, more controls, more anything. > > That’s exactly what’s happening with this issue. Except that it didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/842 "2012-02-07T16:28:34Z")
> [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > With regard to **Sam Stone** , the myth that **Sam** is somehow a polite, reasonable conservative poster, vicitmized by us savage lefties, really needs to be examined. **Sam** has worked very hard to earn the ire of those of us who are tired of him, and who no longer have any respect for him. He really is immune to logic and matters of fact, and has demonstrated this over and over again. He’s also dishonorable. > > **Sam** is _not_ reasonable. As **Hentor** pointed out earlier, he fixes his arguments around a conclusion he has decided on beforehand, the mark of the true ideologue. The real tell here is his fixation with libertarianism, which as most of us know is an utterly unrealistic form of social organization, and his insistence that it be taken seriously. Is it any surprise that Sam is always dragging in citations from the Heritage Foundation to support his long-winded, barely coherent rants? Heritage is a think tank based on exactly that principle, of working backwards from a conclusion that’s already been drawn. Their entire reason for existence is to give congressmen and their partisan allies vaguely plausible-sounding information to spew out into the discourse and muddy the issues. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/843 "2012-02-07T16:31:34Z")
Also too, if people like **Sam Stone** are really such valued intellects on this board, then why do they always cry and shit their pants whenever their arguments are challenged? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/844 "2012-02-07T16:39:31Z")
Sam is simply dishonest when it comes to his ideology. He would rather \*seem \*right than \*be \*right. That he’s nailing himself to a cross over all those dirty libs pointing out his lies and misinformation, isn’t particularly endearing either. It’s obvious that his purpose here was to create complex walls of text that make people skimming threads think his position has merit. He’s creating a backdrop, a set dressing. Up close you can see the brush-strokes, but from far away it looks almost convincing. To the extent that he isn’t here to peddle his lies, the board is better without him. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/845 "2012-02-07T16:43:40Z")
> [@](#): > > and I have seen their games from way back. I think the answer to the Op, lies in these words. I think they speak volumes. But maybe that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/846 "2012-02-07T16:46:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why would you consider it to be inane, when it seems to bring about the exact reaction you desired when you created it in the first place? Not that this matters or anything, but my name comes from [this](http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ETR1380&show_article=1), among many other examples. My name has nothing to do with garnering a stated reaction (though I can say it’s amusing to see so many people whine and bitch and moan about it), but rather makes fun of a common theme in public discourse. But I’ve explained this before and it’ll be ignored all the same. (Oh, and on numerous occasions this board has given credence to my username :p) > [@Bosstone](#): > > Dude, I quoted you as being a smug asshole about it. That’s what I was responding to. No, you quoted me making a statement of which you disagreed, which is far different than “being a smug asshole about it”. > [@](#): > > God, you people with your persecution complexes. You don’t get a chubby unless you think someone is hating on you. What do you mean “you people”? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/847 "2012-02-07T16:50:44Z")
**Shodan** : > [@](#): > > \*Again, this is a case of selective perception. If I let the Usual Suspects dominate my experience on the SDMB, I wouldn’t be here. I can have reasonable discussions with reasonable people, including people who disagree with me. I can also snark with the best of them, and if someone wants to play “Who Gets In the Best Dig While Remaining Within the Rules?”, I can accommodate them with much pleasure too. > > But the Usual Suspects can repeat “all you ever do is snarky one-liners” until they are blue in the face, and it won’t change anything. Because it isn’t true, I do both snark and substance, and I have seen their games from way back.\* I can’t think of a single substantive post from you (in a thread on politics, anyway) at all. Not one. Could you provide a link? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/848 "2012-02-07T16:53:46Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > What do you mean “you people”? Which part exactly of “you people with your persecution complexes” was too complicated for you? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/849 "2012-02-07T16:55:34Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Which part exactly of “you people with your persecution complexes” was too complicated for you? The whole thing? We’re not talking an A-list intellect here. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/850 "2012-02-07T16:58:11Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Which part exactly of “you people with your persecution complexes” was too complicated for you? “You people”. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/851 "2012-02-07T17:05:12Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > “You people”. God, you’re fucking stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/852 "2012-02-07T17:05:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When data appears that seems to support gun control, it tends to be accepted uncritically here. When data appears that flouts the gun control ideology, it’s examined carefully, with evry real and imagined flaw being trotted out. The result, of course, is what Feynman described. I like to present myself as empirically motivated. This is a good example. My attitudes towards the proliferation of guns in our country is guided and tempered by the data on the subject. Empirical analysis tends to suggest that people with guns in their houses are at increased risk for having someone in the family experience a firearm injury or fatality. So, I don’t want to own one and I don’t recommend that other people do. On the other hand, there’s not great data to conclude whether or not the general proliferation of firearms is causally linked to the general level of gun violence. Sure, the rate of firearms injuries and deaths, including the rate of shootings of law enforcement personnel varies by region of the country (with the Southeast being the highest), but there are lots of other things that are worse in those regions as well that may relate to violence too. Similarly, the overall prevalence of guns in our country is greater than many at the same time that our violent death rates are also greater, but conclusive evidence of a functional relationship between these data remains inconclusive. The data on successful use of firearms for home defense is so suspect and so shaky that I find it hard to give it credence. So, while I’m still disposed to gun control measures, I’m not a particularly strong advocate for any remarkable measures to place restrictions on them. Regarding the observation about the number of gun crimes in Virginia bars: To the degree that anyone predicted a blood bath or an OK Corral type situation, and the degree to which we can agree on what those mean, this observation is not consistent with such an outcome. (Did anyone make a prediction like that?) The reasons why this data does not do what you would seem to like it to do: 1. It was not systematically collected 2. It pertains to “gun crimes” which is not the same as gun violence 3. You (or those making similar hay out of these numbers) can only presume or surmise regarding the key mechanism. That is, I’m interested in whether the presence of a greater number of firearms is associated with a greater number of incidents of firearm violence. Can you tell me the change between the two years in the number of firearms present? 4. There’s insufficient context for the two numbers you have. a. Temporally, how do these numbers compare to the prior years? (You’ve made a claim that the numbers have remained low; what are they, and how were they reported before the following reporting year has even concluded?) b. Proximally, how do the numbers compare to other states? For instance, violent crimes have broadly trended downward in the US as a whole over this period. What if the policy in Virginia had the impact of increasing gun crimes in bars, while at the same time, broader factors were working to reduce gun crimes in Virginia bars. What was the rate of gun crimes in bars in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, etc during this same time period? What if the 8 case drop (5% of the total) you have pointed out compared to a 10% or 20% drop in other bars in other regions? Would you still feel it was compelling evidence that the Virginia law was not associated with a higher rate of gun crimes? So, yeah, I’m quite glad that there were 8 fewer gun crimes in Virginia bars. I wholeheartedly agree that it goes against any assertion that a blood bath or wild west scenario would erupt. I don’t consider it compelling enough in and of itself to change my views otherwise, because there’s just too much that two numbers coming out of Virginia over a two year period cannot tell us. Do you disagree with anything I’ve written here? If so, how? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/853 "2012-02-07T17:24:13Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > What do you mean “you people”? What do _you_ mean “you people”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/854 "2012-02-07T17:26:33Z")
> [@Mr.Svinlesha](#): > > **Shodan** : > > I can’t think of a single substantive post from you (in a thread on politics, anyway) at all. Not one. Could you provide a link? Sure thing. How about [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4834903&postcount=74)? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/855 "2012-02-07T17:29:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure thing. How about [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4834903&postcount=74)? > > Regards, > Shodan That’s what you consider substantive? How enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/856 "2012-02-07T17:39:56Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > That’s what you consider substantive? How enlightening. Hey, give the man some credit, wouldja? At least he spared us the sneering sig line in that post. Which I guess substantiates the case for “more retarded recently,” at least more retarded since 2004. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/857 "2012-02-07T17:43:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And my point in THIS thread is: the attempts to dissassemble this evidence, and insist on more study and more detail, is reminiscent of the global warming deniers. When the numbers go your way, accept them; when they don’t, insist on more data, more controls, more anything. > > That’s exactly what’s happening with this issue. Revising and extending, here: I can’t speak for everyone here, but speaking for myself at least, the “when the numbers go your way, accept them” part is bullshit. This is the first thing you learn while working towards a Ph.D. in mathematics: a single invalid step in your proof, kills the whole damned proof. So I vet the data I’m using, at least to the extent a layman can reasonably do. I see people all the time basing arguments on a cite from a questionable source that’s ‘too good to be true’ in the sense of confirming the poster’s prejudices a bit more than even they should expect. I think I by and large manage to avoid that trap, not because I’m some superior kind of being, but because, due to my background, I find it _embarrassing_ to be caught relying on data I should have known was bogus, or making an argument I should have known was faulty. I really _hate_ that feeling. And partially as a result of that, I think my arguments have held up well over the years. If you recall any instances where I’ve been a bit too quick to rush data into service of an argument, feel free to point them out. But I think they’ve been few and far between. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/858 "2012-02-07T17:44:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure thing. How about [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4834903&postcount=74)? > > Regards, > Shodan I had to look twice to see whether Shodan nominated that post or whether that one was dug up by someone arguing that Shodan is a douchebag. Self-loathing is so sad. Take off your “fuck you!” hat Shodan! Learn to love yourself and let others in. (To be precise, when you offer, as an example of your substantive posts, one that starts with “Sigh” and explicitly states that your point is that people are assholes, you’re making everyone else’s point for them.) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/859 "2012-02-07T17:49:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > and the the general weight of the board is NOT in favor of the best data in that area. What’s the best data? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530/860 "2012-02-07T17:51:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure thing. How about [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4834903&postcount=74)? > > Regards, > Shodan So, someone asks for a single substantive post you’ve made, and you have to go back eight years? Yeah, Shodan, way to show them. You go, girl. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-shodan-more-retarded-lately-or-has-he-maintained-a-consistent-level-of-retardation-all-along/610530.md?page=44)