In case you’re not familiar with the Turnip, it’s a whimsical Google search, wherein I type a random phrase and we see what kind of interesting pages ‘turn-up.’ As always with this feature, the _floss is not responsible for accuracy. If you know one of the below statements/links to be untrue, by all means, let the world know in the comments below.
Today I typed in “the study showed that” unearthing the following:
Turnip #1
Experts say the study shows that orangutans are on an intellectual par with chimpanzees
Turnip #2
The study shows that income gaps both between rich and poor and between the rich and the middle class widened in the 1980s and 1990s alike and reached their widest point on record in 1997.
Turnip #3
The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America
Turnip #4
For baby boomers earning $100000 or more, the study shows that more than 9 in 10 are homeowners
Turnip #5
The study shows that children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership.
Turnip #6
“Asking drivers to pay for road use ignites debates over fairness, but the debate often fails to address the larger question of how funding for transportation projects is actually being distributed throughout the community,” Schweitzer said. “Freeways are a premium transport service, and they should be priced accordingly. The study shows that if we are prudent, we can do that while being sensitive to the circumstances of low-income drivers.”
Turnip #7
Crack cocaine – Previous research has shown that a drug’s addictiveness is influenced by the speed at which it is delivered to the brain and absorbed into and from the blood stream. “The study shows that the modern cigarette does to nicotine what crack does to cocaine,” says addiction expert Jack Henningfield, at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The notorious addictiveness of smoking crack results from the vapourised cocaine reaching the brain almost immediately.
Wow, is that paper on religion done poorly. I mean seriously complete confusion of correlation and causation. Totally ignoring any other factors, eg. income level. Completely ignoring the fact that the two societies are not homogeneous. It completely ignores the fact that people consider themselves religious, but only about 20% are in church on a Sunday morning. Thought it might be interesting but it’s a total propaganda piece written by a guy who illustrates dinosaur books.
posted by David on 11-2-2010 at 9:27 am
according to today’s ny times the greatest gap between the rich and the middle class has occurred in the last couple of years. who believes them though?
posted by julie on 11-2-2010 at 12:05 pm
Turnip 2…
Those figures are staggering! How impressive is it that the top 1% of income earners were able to raise their after tax income by 157%?
Equally impressive is that 60% off all Americans were able to increase their after tax income by 10% or more!
Way to bring down the stats lower 40…
Turnip 5…
It is a tragedy any time a child accidently dies. But having a gun does not increase or decrease the likelyhood that a suicidal teen is or isn’t going to kill himself.
Also, there are far more acidental drownings ever year than there are accidental gun deaths…why not ban private pools?
The point is, accidents happen, they are horrible, but “it isn’t the gun stupid”…
Turnip 6…California is broke and will soon become the first “Federal State”. I don’t care what they do with their tolls, or anything else for that matter. They are an embarassment to the country and should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by graham on 11-2-2010 at 12:16 pm
>>>”… having a gun does not increase or decrease the likelyhood that a suicidal teen is or isn’t going to kill himself.”
The above cannot be true.
Chances of a suicidal teen killing themselves with a gun if a gun does not exist where the teen exists: ZERO.
Chances of a suicidial teen killing themselves with a gun if a gun exits where the teen exists: GREATER THAN ZERO.
Ergo: Having a gun in the same place and time as a suicidal teen (or any person) does increase or decrease (even by the tiniest little bit) if the choice is between totally not having a gun and totally having a gun.
It is not possible to be shot by a gun if a gun does not exist near you.
As the above suggests correctly, it does stand to reason, that the complete arming of every place where there is a human would not necessarily lead to gunshot wounds on people every place where there are humans — the gun must go off, etc.
But it also follows that the removal of all guns would prevent all gunshot wounds.
But that sentiment is just as absurd as the above captioned statement.
The human urge is not to prevent merely a type of wounding — gunshots — but to eliminate, or at least appreciably reduce interpersonal violence.
Most interpersonal violence in the United States that ends in unlawful death involve in some way the use of a gun.
But, we are stuck in a feedback loop because both ‘sides’ of the debate are arguing asymetrically.
Is the concern over violence, or is it over guns? One view would wish it to be over violence, with guns, as mere inanimate objects, absolved any role, which is ridiculous because only guns cause gunshot deaths. Another ‘side,’ sees the chance at a quick, technical solution that seems to have little cost — get rid of the guns, which is ridiculous because guns are not a cause but a method — the cause of violence is indeed people. The cause of gun violence is violent people with guns.
As shown, especially by the above captioned quote, we are long way from resolving the issue, since the terms of the argument are pre-arranged by the debaters to be unsolveable.
The only way the issue will be solved is when parties of goodwill can agree, before the argument begins, on mutually acceptable basis of evidence that could be used to accurately describe and measure the problem and indicate evidence-based solutions.
Until then, we’ll get all this absurd back-and-forth.
posted by Nacho Mama on 11-2-2010 at 12:37 pm
#5: On that same token, natives in the Amazon are much less likely to die in a car accident than your average American.
posted by Ben H. on 11-2-2010 at 1:07 pm
To Nacho Mama – it is amazing that for the 25,000 plus years of human socity prior to the invention of the gun that people ever managed to kill themselves and others!
Oh what a peaceful world, full of faries and unicorns, that existed prior to the gun. (not counting the occasional canabalistic tribal genocide).
posted by 'Da guy on 11-2-2010 at 2:34 pm
Nacho Mama…
“The only way the issue will be solved is when parties of goodwill can agree, before the argument begins, on mutually acceptable basis of evidence that could be used to accurately describe and measure the problem and indicate evidence-based solutions.”
Are you referring to the analysis of guns in homes/states and the rate to teenage deaths/suicides, or are you referring to another argument of whether or not citizens should own guns?
I suppose you must be correct, if you are referring to the accidentlal and suicide rate of teenage death from guns…the same would have to be true of knives, rope, tall buildings and cocain…
posted by graham on 11-2-2010 at 2:40 pm
@Nacho Mama
Thank you!
posted by margoGo on 11-2-2010 at 10:28 pm
@ margoGo…
Nacho Mama didn’t say anything of value. He or she only made an argument about the odds of something happening if an object was or was not present.
That object could be a gun,a knife or a car.
The argument made was neither pro or anti…it was just a logical argument about odds.
Not sure why a thank you is in order?
posted by graham on 11-3-2010 at 10:39 am
“The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America”
Even though? Probably because. Not bashing religion, but bashing what people do with it.
posted by Bakedpotatoes on 11-4-2010 at 7:09 pm