|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2006 : 10:39:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
[i]
quote:
This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.
Yeah maybe, or maybe the liberals who support abortion are the ones who are having them? I highly doubt cons are having more abortions then the libs.
Strawman. Points posited are that you have no baseline from which to make a comparison, you have no data on the political ideology of abortion seekers, and you have assumed that since the make up is this way it was the action of abortion that brought it here.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.
You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.
(bill) Call what you want. I am just reminding you that you guys are killing off miilions from your own future lib base.
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
quote:
quote:
I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?
(bill) Sure. I will start with 1994 mid-term elections...
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
quote:
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
Copyrighted material deleted
(bill) So there are the numbers Val. You can call it conjecture, or you can call it ruber stamped straigh from the RNC talking points memo, I really don't care. The fact remains that the liberals are dwindeling and if you want to dismiss the notion that abortion plays any role in this then knock yourself out.
And where the fuck is the data which identifies the political affiliation of the abortion seekers? All you have done is shown a coincidental trend of TEEN abortions (not all abortions) and voting in the 2000 elections.
Hell, Bill, if I cherry pick data enough, I could prove I was the most conservative member of the SFN. The statistics prove nothing because they don't have trending over the entire population and did not collect the political affiliation of abortion seekers. Maniac opinion rants which ignore basic statistical problems don't prove anything.
Since it seems impossible to carry on a conversation with you without you completely misstating my posited positions, I deeply regret responding to yet another sub-thread of yours. I will not make that mistake again. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/24/2006 10:43:24 |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 11:50:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
[i]
quote:
This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.
Yeah maybe, or maybe the liberals who support abortion are the ones who are having them? I highly doubt cons are having more abortions then the libs.
Strawman. Points posited are that you have no baseline from which to make a comparison, you have no data on the political ideology of abortion seekers, and you have assumed that since the make up is this way it was the action of abortion that brought it here.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.
You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.
(bill) Call what you want. I am just reminding you that you guys are killing off miilions from your own future lib base.
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
quote:
quote:
I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?
(bill) Sure. I will start with 1994 mid-term elections...
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
quote:
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
Copyrighted material deleted
(bill) So there are the numbers Val. You can call it conjecture, or you can call it ruber stamped straigh from the RNC talking points memo, I really don't care. The fact remains that the liberals are dwindeling and if you want to dismiss the notion that abortion plays any role in this then knock yourself out.
And where the fuck is the data which identifies the political affiliation of the abortion seekers? All you have done is shown a coincidental trend of TEEN abortions (not all abortions) and voting in the 2000 elections.
Hell, Bill, if I cherry pick data enough, I could prove I was the most conservative member of the SFN. The statistics prove nothing because they don't have trending over the entire population and did not collect the political affiliation of abortion seekers. Maniac opinion rants which ignore basic statistical problems don't prove anything.
Since it seems impossible to carry on a conversation with you without you completely misstating my posited positions, I deeply regret responding to yet another sub-thread of yours. I will not make that mistake again.
Ummm... I clearly gave credit for the material you removed as not being my own (you removed that part as well) and only reproduced a fraction of the article. Just as I was instructed my the moderator. You, Val, have just debunked Filthy article and have proved the liberal to be the whiner...
Go cry me a river |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 03/24/2006 12:18:33 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 12:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ummm... I clearly gave credit for the material you removed as not being my own and only reproduced a fraction of the article. Just as I was instructed my the moderator. You, Val, have just debunked Filthy article and have proved the liberal to be the whiner...
What article was that, and in what way?
And exactly which jumped-up superstition do you adhere to, and why? After lo, these many dreary posts, you have yet to impart that information. I am wondering if you are not a Satanist, and afraid to admit it.
"OBLIVION, n. The state or condition in which the wicked cease from struggling and the dreary are at rest. Fame's eternal dumping ground. Cold storage for high hopes. A place where ambitious authors meet their works without pride and their betters without envy. A dormitory without an alarm clock." -- Ambrose Bierce
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 12:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
[i]
quote:
This is misapplication of statistics. Liberal vs. Conservative baselines are not considered nor and the assumption that the abortions happen in the same frequency as the breeding statistics is an unsupported assertion. You have taken two unrelated statistics and assigned a meaning that is not there. Add in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and the trifecta of illogic is complete.
Yeah maybe, or maybe the liberals who support abortion are the ones who are having them? I highly doubt cons are having more abortions then the libs.
Strawman. Points posited are that you have no baseline from which to make a comparison, you have no data on the political ideology of abortion seekers, and you have assumed that since the make up is this way it was the action of abortion that brought it here.
quote:
quote:
quote:
(bill) You can come to your own conclusions. I am merrily pointing out the fact that abortion terminates future lib voters over future con voters with 3:1 kill ratio. Combine that with the fact that many non-welfare libs have 1.2 kids per household and the foundation is set for the libs to be in the minority with a with shrinking population.
You are pointing out conjecture, not fact.
(bill) Call what you want. I am just reminding you that you guys are killing off miilions from your own future lib base.
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
quote:
quote:
I can tell you that I can change the color of my urine at will in mid stream. It doesn't make it so. Got sources?
(bill) Sure. I will start with 1994 mid-term elections...
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
quote:
Cry me a fucking river, build a bridge, and get over it. You have the conjecture of this happening but have provided no evidence of it.
Not evidence of abortion statistics. You have assumed the result is due to abortion but have not evaluated it. Affirming the antecedent, Bill. Again, I ask you for sources.
Copyrighted material deleted
(bill) So there are the numbers Val. You can call it conjecture, or you can call it ruber stamped straigh from the RNC talking points memo, I really don't care. The fact remains that the liberals are dwindeling and if you want to dismiss the notion that abortion plays any role in this then knock yourself out.
And where the fuck is the data which identifies the political affiliation of the abortion seekers? All you have done is shown a coincidental trend of TEEN abortions (not all abortions) and voting in the 2000 elections.
Hell, Bill, if I cherry pick data enough, I could prove I was the most conservative member of the SFN. The statistics prove nothing because they don't have trending over the entire population and did not collect the political affiliation of abortion seekers. Maniac opinion rants which ignore basic statistical problems don't prove anything.
Since it seems impossible to carry on a conversation with you without you completely misstating my posited positions, I deeply regret responding to yet another sub-thread of yours. I will not make that mistake again.
Ummm... I clearly gave credit for the material you removed as not being my own and only reproduced a fraction of the article. Just as I was instructed my the moderator. You, Val, have just debunked Filthy article and have proved the liberal to be the whiner...
Go cry me a river
Whether or not you give credit is immaterial. You quoted fully 1/3 of the information. Fair use deems that a paragraph or two and then only if you provide commentary on the whole of the article as a critique is permissible. This is not whining, rather it is applying the TOS of this discussion board. A TOS that you agreed to when you signed in. I refer you again to the copyright FAQ referred to in the third warning message. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 12:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Whether or not you give credit is immaterial. You quoted fully 1/3 of the information. Fair use deems that a paragraph or two and then only if you provide commentary on the whole of the article as a critique is permissible. This is not whining, rather it is applying the TOS of this discussion board. A TOS that you agreed to when you signed in. I refer you again to the copyright FAQ referred to in the third warning message.
quote:
You quoted fully 1/3 of the information.
Oh good grief, the artical was only one page to begin with. But hey, your the moderator so I will not argue. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 20:19:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
Oh good grief, the artical was only one page to begin with. But hey, your the moderator so I will not argue.
Good plan. There are reasons for the rules that we have. Copyright infringement is a biggie. And since the people who frequent this site tend to open links, there is no reason to break that rule.
Bill, normally it's three warnings and you're out. But you have managed to be good for a little over a month and I am taking that into consideration. We don't like to ban people here. So the deal is, you get one more chance. Do not break our copyright rule again or you will be history at SFN.
Consider this a final warning Bill!
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 20:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
Oh good grief, the artical was only one page to begin with. But hey, your the moderator so I will not argue.
Good plan. There are reasons for the rules that we have. Copyright infringement is a biggie. And since the people who frequent this site tend to open links, there is no reason to break that rule.
Bill, normally it's three warnings and you're out. But you have managed to be good for a little over a month and I am taking that into consideration. We don't like to ban people here. So the deal is, you get one more chance. Do not break our copyright rule again or you will be history at SFN.
Consider this a final warning Bill!
Kil
Ok, I accept your final warning, and I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not invoking three strikes. In all seriousness, Kil, I thought I was playing by the rules. I gave credit to the original author and then posted two or three paragraphs of the piece, if I remember correctly.
Never the less, I will accept your final decision, as the administrator, and obey the forum rules.
Bill |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 23:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) How many libs do you know, marf, who have had three abortions, only to turn around and have 5 children? Heck, how many libs do know who have five children, period. I don't know any. Now, how many cons do you know with 3 children? I know a lot.
My husband is a sleep technologist (who sees a lot of poor, pregnant women, usually of minorities in the studies done) and I work with inner city truant teenagers. So I've seen plenty of liberals who both have several abortions and several children. Again, Bill, the poor tend to have more abortions and more children, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative voters. What's more, the poor also tend to vote less than the middle class and rich.
I asked why don't Dems who don't give a crap about the poor just switch over to the winning Republican side because, after all, Republicans will give them more tax breaks, and you answered: quote:
(bill) Because they are libs to the bone.
That is not a meaningful answer. Being a liberals isn't an end in of itself. Why is Ted Kennedy or whoever a “liberal to the bone”. How does it benefit them?
Also, Ted Kennedy is hardly representative of most liberals. Most liberals, as I said, are middle class, and they don't have the benefits of wealth and connections that someone like Ted Kennedy has. And Ted Kennedy would be a rich elitist whether he was liberal or conservative.
quote:
(bill) I don't like the spending habits of the repubs one bit, but yet I still voted repub in 04. Look, neither of us would say that the party we voted for shares our view on every issue. But we vote, dem or repub, because we only have the two choices, so we must go with the one we feel closest shares are beliefs, even if they don't share 100% of them.
Nice change of the subject.
quote:
(marf) “Why do they(middle class liberals) do it(vote Democratic)” (bill)To keep poor voters poor and dependant on them, therefore in their back pocket.
Bill, that doesn't make any sense. How do middle class people have the poor in their pocket? You can't just say because they are getting more votes for the Democratic party because that is a means, not an end. What selfish end are you getting at? What is the selfish benefit that middle class liberals are supposedly getting from keeping poor people down by providing them with welfare?
quote:
(bill) I would say most repubs think the very same way as you do of their own party.
Again you avoid the subject. You have tried to paint middle and upper class liberals like some sort of selfish and secretive elite that is consciously using the poor to keep themselves in pow- oh wait, they aren't in power. And we know that the poorer people are, the less likely they are to vote at all. Hmmmm. So you haven't exactly explained what this mythical liberal elite get out of this supposed exploitation of the poor. And you've totally ignore the issue of the majority of middle class liberals who are obviously not part of any elite, and who are often the ones crying out the loudest for mon |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 08:11:39 [Permalink]
|
Marf asked Bill:
quote:
Does that mean you don't have any evidence?
Hello!
The day Bill brings any evidence to one of these conversations I'll eat my shoe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 13:08:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
... There are reasons for the rules that we have. Copyright infringement is a biggie. ...
Did you see the libel scam on the BAUT? It was pretty interesting. I would guess they may be planning to scam more than a few BBs with it. I don't know if it was a total hoax or whether it is intended to get someone to pay them off to save a supposed lawsuit. If so you'd have to be pretty gullible to fall for it.
I'll edit a link into the post in a few. It'll have to wait, the site is experiencing problems right now. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/25/2006 13:44:38 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 03:03:59 [Permalink]
|
| The BAUT must have deleted the thread since I can't find it. If someone posts anything like it here, I'll let the moderators know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
