Society/Culture How the AFL contributes to, and profits from, Domestic Violence

[Lethality]

I don't think either Adelaide or West Coast get equalisation money do they?

Who knows. It's in the hundreds of millions of dollars overall, similar to the pokies revenue. If the clubs didn't make money from pokies the AFL would have to pay out of their own pockets.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Is this not your own post stating correlation?

Except it's written by a senior lecturer in Health Sciences rather than a uni student.



He seems to reference it pretty accurately.

Highlights


•
Domestic violence (DV) is associated with electronic gaming machine (EGM) accessibility.

•
Areas with no EGMs have 20% fewer family incidents than those with 75 EGMs/10,000.

•
Areas with no EGMs have 30% fewer DV assaults than those with 75 EGMs/10,000.

•
Other areal correlates of DV include disadvantage, female income and Indigeneity

•
Regulators should consider impacts on domestic violence when licensing EGMs.


The paper references data from different sources, showing clear correlation between AFL pokies and family violence all the time.

Wow... Talk about selective use of statistics to try and build a case... At its purest interpretation the chart you have provided is trying to imply that the number of AFL EGMs is the causal factor for changes in rates of DV. I wasn't aware that the machines owned by AFL clubs had more of an impact on societal behaviour than machines owned by other entities. It says a lot about the motives of the author that such a chart would even be included in a report, seems like more of an opinion piece than a balanced view of the world. Why on earth would you only show a subset of machines to try and make a point? It's like showing a graph thank links lung cancer with the % of sales of one type of cigarettes... Misleading at best.

The parallels drawn by other posters to the behaviour of businesses like supermarkets isn't actually as wildly inappropriate as you would have everyone believe. You are aware that companies like Coca Cola Amatil pay for the shelf space they occupy in supermarkets aren't you? And that the space they pay for varies store by store?

There is a valid discussion that should be had here (though personally I err on the side of personal responsibility) but it gets completely derailed when garbage like this is served up to try and prove a point.

 

[Lethality]

Wow... Talk about selective use of statistics to try and build a case..

That wasn't the case, it was one post in reply to another poster. Since you didn't bother with the context I'm going to assume you made the same mistake as owen87 rather than bother reading your wall of text.

 

[Carn The Berries]

That wasn't the case, it was one post in reply to another poster. Since you didn't bother with the context I'm going to assume you made the same mistake as owen87 rather than bother reading your wall of text.

Therein lies your mistake then, my point was that is was misleading by THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER to include data that makes such a tenuous and misleading link which implies causation where there may in fact be none.

I deliberately ignored the context of why you were using it because my issues was with it being available for use in the first place. The context that you use the data in is irrelevant if it is dubious and misleading.

 

[owen87]

That wasn't the case, it was one post in reply to another poster. Since you didn't bother with the context I'm going to assume you made the same mistake as owen87 rather than bother reading your wall of text.

You're yet to provide any evidence of the causation you're alleging exists; your suggestion that it's in another post means it should be quite easy for you to link to said post I'd have thought?

 

[Lethality]

Therein lies your mistake then, my point was that is was misleading by THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER to include data that makes such a tenuous and misleading link which implies causation where there may in fact be none.

You should probably read the paper in full before you come to that kind of conclusion.

You're yet to provide any evidence of the causation you're alleging exists; your suggestion that it's in another post means it should be quite easy for you to link to said post I'd have thought?

It should be easier for you to find it yourself. I tracked this down for another poster already in this thread.

 

[Carn The Berries]

You should probably read the paper in full before you come to that kind of conclusion.



It should be easier for you to find it yourself. I tracked this down for another poster already in this thread.

Hang on... So it's OK for you to cherry pick data from a report which is contentious at best, use it to support your argument but then demand that I read the entire report to understand the context that it is meant to be used in?

To be honest it doesn't really matter. Selectively using a sub-set of data is misleading regardless of what the context is. But if you would like to provide me the context that this chart is meant to be taken in then please do. I fail to see how any type of context can justify using data in this way.

 

[Lethality]

Hang on... So it's OK for you to cherry pick data from a report which is contentious at best, use it to support your argument but then demand that I read the entire report to understand the context that it is meant to be used in?

You should probably also read the context of the conversation I provided the data in. I was talking to someone who had also read the paper. So that's two things for you to read, rather than jump the gun in your desperation to defend your precious AFL.

 

[owen87]

It should be easier for you to find it yourself. I tracked this down for another poster already in this thread.

ShanDog? His comments provide excerpts that imply correlation, not causation, thus the stated need for further research.

 

[Lethality]

ShanDog? His comments provide excerpts that imply correlation, not causation, thus the stated need for further research.

They would be in my posts, dude . . .

 

[Carn The Berries]

You should probably also read the context of the conversation I provided the data in. I was talking to someone who had also read the paper. So that's two things for you to read, rather than jump the gun in your desperation to defend your precious AFL.

The context you are talking about is precisely the point I am trying to make. The poster you were discussing it with claimed that the author was making spurious connections between machines and DV. You, in fact, proved his point by posting a chart that... Makes a spurious link between machines (even worse a subset of the entire universe of machines) and changes in DV rates.

Can you please show me where I used the data to defend the AFL? All I did was point out that the data that you provided didn't do anything to prove fault on behalf of the AFL (or any entities operating under its banner). If you have credible data that shows that a direct action by the AFL has a CAUSAL link to changes in DV rates then please feel free to share it.

 

[owen87]

They would be in my posts, dude . . .

They really aren't; as ShanDog already said, if you're not a troll, you do a very good accidental impression of one.

 

[Carn The Berries]

They would be in my posts, dude . . .

Just for clarification... You do know the difference between correlation and causation? The only reference made to either of those in your post is correlation... Which counts for exactly zero when trying to prove what you have suggested.

 

[Lethality]

The context you are talking about is precisely the point I am trying to make. The poster you were discussing it with claimed that the author was making spurious connections between machines and DV. You, in fact, proved his point by posting a chart that... Makes a spurious link between machines (even worse a subset of the entire universe of machines) and changes in DV rates.

Nope, your complaint that I replied to was about cherry-picking, which means nothing as I was talking to someone who had read the paper, or claimed to. A bit too soon to try and retcon the meaning of your post.

 

[Lethality]

Just for clarification... You do know the difference between correlation and causation? The only reference made to either of those in your post is correlation... Which counts for exactly zero when trying to prove what you have suggested.

I made many posts, who knows why you zeroed in on that particular one. There are other posts about causation, but you would have to read them.

 

[Lethality]

They really aren't; as ShanDog already said, if you're not a troll, you do a very good accidental impression of one.

He may want that to be true, but he's shown no evidence or even reasoning. It's easy to say someone's a troll.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Nope, your complaint that I replied to was about cherry-picking, which means nothing as I was talking to someone who had read the paper, or claimed to. A bit too soon to try and retcon the meaning of your post.

OK - You make a reasonable point there in terms of my specific accusation. Addressing that though does nothing to address the issue that there is a question mark over the partiality of the paper that you are using as the basis of your contention when it demonstrates such spurious links between the 2 factors.

You're right, there are plenty of other posts that discuss causation, there just aren't any that show evidence that it actually exists in this circumstance. Correlation is well and truly established, but it means nothing. Where is the factual evidence that shows that EGMs directly impact the level of DV?

 

[owen87]

He may want that to be true, but he's shown no evidence or even reasoning. It's easy to say someone's a troll.

You refer back to posts that don't appear to exist as evidence for the position you're arguing, whilst refusing to actually link directly to those posts - let alone any supporting information.

It's circular.

The funny part is that no one is actually disagreeing with you that there's correlation between EGM's and DV occurence, or that the AFL and clubs should move away from EGM revenue as a source of income.

 

[Lethality]

You're right, there are plenty of other posts that discuss causation, there just aren't any that show evidence that it actually exists in this circumstance

You refer back to posts that don't appear to exist as evidence for the position you're arguing

Hot Tip: type causation into the search bar if you're having that much trouble.

 

[owen87]

Hot Tip: type causation into the search bar if you're having that much trouble.

So there's no actual data to support your position is what i'm getting from this, just what's in the OP along with your continued insistence that it's causation.

 

[Lethality]

So there's no actual data to support your position is what i'm getting from this, just what's in the OP along with your continued insistence that it's causation.

Data, the opinion of the paper of the author, and that of another study which is also cited, off the top of my head indicate causation. Apart from that, nothing.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Data, the opinion of the paper of the author, and that of another study which is also cited, off the top of my head indicate causation. Apart from that, nothing.

The portion of the paper that you have provided as your "proof" includes only a reference to correlation only, the word causation isn't mentioned anywhere. The only data you provided us does nothing to prove any kind of causation whatsoever. If you'd kindly share even one excerpt from the report that addresses causation that would be a great help. BTW - Someone simply saying that causation exists doesn't make it so.

 

[owen87]

Data, the opinion of the paper of the author, and that of another study which is also cited, off the top of my head indicate causation. Apart from that, nothing.

The one post with data in it cites correlation; ShanDog's excerpts cite correlation.

https://www.monash.edu/news/article...controlled-pokies-and-rise-in-family-violence also discussed correlation, not causation.

As I said; we all agree that there's a correlation between gaming venues and DV occurence.

 

[Lethality]

The one post with data in it cites correlation; ShanDog's excerpts cite correlation.

https://www.monash.edu/news/article...controlled-pokies-and-rise-in-family-violence also discussed correlation, not causation.

As I said; we all agree that there's a correlation between gaming venues and DV occurence.

You're nowhere near it.

 

[Lethality]

The portion of the paper that you have provided as your "proof" includes only a reference to correlation only, the word causation isn't mentioned anywhere. The only data you provided us does nothing to prove any kind of causation whatsoever. If you'd kindly share even one excerpt from the report that addresses causation that would be a great help. BTW - Someone simply saying that causation exists doesn't make it so.

This is the worst easter egg hunt in history. I am literally cracking up over here, at both of you.