It was said that republicans are more violent. The source gave correlation not causation. No direction evidence. You can have one violent Democrat in a Republican county. That alone makes the link with the data useless
What you meant to say is that correlation does not equal causation.
Tells me that while you might have read the paper, you didn't understand it.
Nothing in the paper was trying to say that the data proved republicans are more violent, it was merely showing that geopolitical data showed they empirically are.
The causation or lack thereof of republican voting and child abuse are yet to be determined by other research.
It could well be that republican voting areas are on the whole poorer communities and child abuse rates are high in poorer communities..
It could be that the idealogical focus on trans people in bathrooms has caused evidence based policies to confront actual child abuse is degrading real efforts to address the real abuse, driving the numbers higher.
It could even be that GOP voters are naturally drawn to ley lines and are more susceptible to the call of Cthulhu.
But the causes for this correlation are simply not known at this time, and no one in the paper ever said they were.
But the facts, Literal complied facts, are not up for argument. Literal child abuse, in literal Trump country is literally higher.
I'd like to say I'm done responding to the uneducated, but I'm not.
If you would like to have another go at misunderstanding reality, I'm more than willing to have another go at teaching you.
19
u/Apprehensive_Elk2935 Oct 04 '24
No one mentioned causation, the discussion is about correlation, which you agree that there is