Let people be - eviltoast
  • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, we’ve been over this, it does not show a direct increase. Average is the word they used. If you keep repeating the same wrong thing, it doesn’t suddenly become correct.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      You can’t just say “nuh uh” and look away. Both with words and on the multiple graphs show increase as a result of legalization.

      • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        If you can’t even count, I don’t see a reason to listen to anything else you have to say on intelligent. There are two graphs in the paper you cited, the one that I’ve posted in another comment (figure 1) and a pie chart of prostitution regimes in appendix C. The former shows some places have the substitution effect overshadow the scale effect and it some places the opposite occurs. The latter is a pie chart that doesn’t have a dependent variable.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Technically none of them are labelled graph, so zero, but I was including the tables and appendices.

              • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                It’s not the label that makes something a graph. Including tables and charts that are data but do not show a relationship into the things that support your conclusions is incorrect. You claimed to have a preponderance of evidence where what you had was one incorrectly interpreted graph. Do you understand why I called you out on that?