I was just quoting your assertions about the claim being false and “blatantly false”. If you don’t think you are calling someone a liar, or at least saying they lied, when you say that, alright. But I don’t think it’s a wild leap to see it accusations of someone making “blatantly false” claims as accusations of lying.
And as long as you are still paying attention, I’ll ask the question that occurred to me on your other post: how is it that you stand behind everything you’ve said AND the apology that you offered? “You’re a dumb idiot…I’m sorry… but I mean it when I say you’re a dumb idiot.” ? Was your apology unrelated to your statements?
“Hey, sailor! Handshakes, $10 each. Multiple handshakes, while you watch? Negotiable!”
Seriously, women (or men, for that matter) who enable batshit are equally batshit.
I’ve long given up on you being able to engage in intelligent, coherent debate, and this latest post simply confirms that you are a seething rotting cumstain on the bedsheet of humanity.
You take issue with being accused of calling Annie a liar. Fair enough, since you did not.
But since you are (wisely, I think) prioritizing accuracy and precision in characterizing what others have said, allow me to take issue with your characterization:
I don’t see anywhere that anyone said that, particularly Annie. Just as you see a meaningful difference between calling someone a liar and telling them they are making statements that are blatantly false, I see a meaningful difference between
[ul]
[quote]
When a top authority like John Douglas of the FBI’s unit that handles serial killings writes "Most serial killers were adopted," that’s food for thought.
[li]In his book “Mind Hunter” John Douglas, FBI serial killer expert, writes “Berkowitz, like a number of serial killers, was raised in an adoptive family.”[/li][li]Bolding added–Adoption is definitely a major factor in serial killers. MANY were adopted.[/li][li]ALL I said is that experts agree that adoption is a causation factor in the making of a serial killer. Whether it’s bad genes or growing up without a biological bond to your family is debatable.[/li][li]Since more babies would be adopted, and adoption is a causation factor in creating serial killers, the rates of serial killing would increase.[/li][li]BTW, all the experts agree that adoption is a factor in creating serial killers.[/li][/quote]
[/ul]
and “adoption causes people to become serial killers”
Annie’s statements contained a number of inaccuracies, but all of them were very clearly qualified. Your “adoption causes people to become serial killers” is not.
So I guess your argument is almost certainly right: nowhere in that book will you find that statement, which is not a statement anyone else has made either.
Statement A implies multiple factors, adoption being only one among others, without any indication of the weight it carries, which might be a lot or a little.
Statment B implies that adoption is the only factor, and when there’s only one factor, the weight it carries is all of it.
“Smoking is a causation factor in heart attacks” is a true statement. Smoking, combined with other factors, can contribute to heart attacks.
“Smoking causes heart attacks” is not a true statement. Smoking does not, by itself, in the absence of any other factors, cause heart attacks; if it did no one would live through their first pack. If it were the only factor, then non-smokers would never have heart attacks at all.
So yes, there is a meaningful difference.
(In case there’s any question, the word “factor” is the clear indication of “one among multiple” vs. “only”. No one says “a causation factor” about something which stands alone, and they don’t say “X causes Y” without qualification when they mean it to be understood as one factor among multiples. The very definition of the word “factor” is something that contributes to a result.)
When I said I stand by everything I said, I meant the substance of my complaint and my argument, not the fact that I insulted her in the OP. That part, I felt bad about and apologized for.
I don’t see anywhere that anyone said that, particularly Annie. Just as you see a meaningful difference between calling someone a liar and telling them they are making statements that are blatantly false, I see a meaningful difference between
and “adoption causes people to become serial killers”
Annie’s statements contained a number of inaccuracies, but all of them were very clearly qualified. Your “adoption causes people to become serial killers” is not.
So I guess your argument is almost certainly right: nowhere in that book will you find that statement, which is not a statement anyone else has made either.
[/QUOTE]
Is this going to be an episode of “Death by a Thousand Nitpicks?” Even if you think my statement is too simplistic and doesn’t reflect what Annie has said, there are so many obviously wrong statements in what you quoted above, that it doesn’t even matter.
False. Most serial killers were not adopted.
False. It is unestablished whether adoption is a “major” factor in serial killers.
False. All the experts do not agree, that adoption is a causation factor. Quite to the contrary
False. Adoption is more correlated with being adopted as an older child, not as an infant.
Again, false.
I feel just as confident in saying that the book doesn’t show that adoption is a MAJOR factor in creating serial killers. Showing high correlation =/= being a MAJOR causative factor, or any kind of a causative factor. And here’s the reason for the pitting, when it comes right down to it. Time and time again, Annie would state that there was causation and then quote a statement that showed correlation and not causation. I would think that if there was data of any kind that showed causation, that it would be pretty easy to demonstrate, and that someone like Annie who seems fairly invested in the theory would be able to show it to me, and yet she never does. Ergo, I believe it doesn’t exist.
OK, so these sentences are not true statements, “Arsenic can be inhaled or ingested, or, to a lesser degree, absorbed through the skin. One-tenth of a gram accumulated over a two month period can produce death, and arsenic is carcinogenic at much lower levels.” Exposure to low levels of arsenic obviously doesn’t kill you, so it must not be fatal.
In this corner we have Stoid, our all knowing source of infinite wisdom and knowledge, and in the other corner is the CDC, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who say
Y’know, I am not easily offended. I rarely use that word, I think it is mis-used in the extreme.
Congratulations, you have actually offended me and pissed me off, mostly on my adoptive parents’ behalf but a bit on my own account as well.
I was adopted at 4 days old. I have no idea who my genetic parents are and I don’t really want to know. My parents, the ones that raised me, loved me, called me their own while at NO TIME hiding the fact that I was adopted, they offered many times to get me any and all info possible about my genetic family. I wasn’t interested, I had/have my family and they gave me a wonderful life. Adopting wasn’t some power trip they were on, they just wanted to give a couple of kids a good life, and enjoy having a family. They were giving people that way, they also gave to charities, did all sorts of volunteer work, helped out other people in trouble in little ways, as best they could.
Was it all sunshine and roses? No, of course not, not any more than any other family. There is/was some alcoholism, some depression, some in-fighting. There was also loving, giving, education, rules, boundaries, freedom to grow and learn and make my way in the world. My sister is adopted too. Neither one of us is a serial killer, neither one of us is suffers from depression. Interestingly it was my mother’s only natural child who was so severely manic-depressive that she committed suicide - make of that what you will. And yes, when I say mother I mean the woman who adopted me. She died over 10 years ago and I still ache with missing her.
Lest you think that we’ll develop killer tendencies when we’re older, my sister is 60 and I’m 50.
ZPG, you are sad and warped, and you have NO CLUE as to what you’re talking about.
Guys, guys, guys…*! We’re missing a golden opportunity here! We all need to work together, but if we can focus, I know we can do this. All we need to do is get Stoid and ZPGZ arguing with each other. Then the rest of us can sneak out the back, lock the doors, and get back to the party! Come on, people…let’s make this happen!
*“Guys” in this case representing a gender-neutral, mostly non-rapey all-encompassing description.
Jesus christ, Stoid, shut the fuck up. Just shut up. You don’t have to do this shit every time. It was ZPG’s turn to get raked over the coals. Let her have her own time in the warmth of the pit without you trying to steal her thunder. Already, *she’s *stolen Annie’s thunder. Now by Thor, let her have it.
Wait, how did you get from “Smoking causes heart attacks” to “smoking is the only factor that causes heart attacks”? I think you accidentally left some nonsense where you intended to write something smart and persuasive.
So committing murder is the way to do it. (Note people, she’s talking about killing an infant AFTER it’s born.) It’s no longer a part of your body. Now you have a separate human being.
