Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "The math problem that stumped thousands of mansplainers" video.

  1. Correlation implies causation. Sorry about that, friend, but saying "correlation does not imply causation" only goes to show that you've taken a first-year Science For Idjits course and you don't know the common meaning of "imply." The implication is usually confirmable, on rare occasions false. Not only does correlation imply causation, but the implication is almost always accurate. Causation is the most common cause of correlation. In the very few cases where correlation is not, ahem, caused by causation, it almost always points to joint causality, often of an interesting sort. In the very very few cases where there is not even a joint causation involved, what you get is an interesting freak case. These are valuable. They are treasures for stats teachers who want to make their courses more interesting -- and are too stupid to do this with the amazing things that actually exist within mathematics.
    4
  2. Anonymous troll "theawecabinet" is passing on a current rightwing lie to the effect that the United Nations is asking the United States to "get rid of the 1st Amendment." It isn't. An obscure subcommittee within the UN has tut-tutted about hate speech but has said exactly the opposite to what this troll has claimed, i.e. it has emphasised the importance of freedom of expression. (Google up "United Nations, 1st Amendment" if you're interested. But it's dull, because it's the usual stupid lie.) The Supreme Court of the US has ruled over and over that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not grant absolute "freedom of speech." Legal limitation on, and punishment for, speech are common in the United States, as they are in the many countries which, unlike the US, have democratic governments, universal adult suffrage, and civillian control over their police and military. It will be nice if the United States ever advances to their level of modern popular governance.
    2
  3.  @1jamesodom  James, You're welcome to read my post above again. As often as necessary...
    1
  4.  @1jamesodom  And precisely what in my post do you disagree with?
    1