Fail Quotes

[Skm1091]

Ladies and gentlemen--this article is an example of going full retard.  Never go full retard.

What about all the people killed BY US SOLDIERS. huh?

[Travis Retriever]

What about all the people killed BY US SOLDIERS. huh?

That's my point.   Hell, over 600,000 were killed in the Civil War alone, so I have no clue where that OP goes about the 222k people killed in all US wars combined being 'proven' when basic math and fact checking that it would take about 10 seconds to Google would debunk it.

[Skm1091]

That's my point.   Hell, over 600,000 were killed in the Civil War alone, so I have no clue where that OP goes about the 222k people killed in all US wars combined being 'proven' when basic math and fact checking that it would take about 10 seconds to Google would debunk it.

Can you kind of see the implications of that? They are saying that people, especially foreigners killed by Americans doesn't count as murder.

[Travis Retriever]

Can you kind of see the implications of that? They are saying that people, especially foreigners killed by Americans doesn't count as murder.

I can.  And yeah, it sucks.  Hard.

[Skm1091]

I can.  And yeah, it sucks.  Hard.

These people make my blood boil. Hate is not a strong enough word to describe my loathing towards these people.

[Dallas Wildman]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/81929/11-disturbing-facts-about-the-nsa-that-will-piss-you-off
The fail isn't the article, it's Geoffrey Chamber's comments.

[Skm1091]

[yt]g-RGGlfxUtg[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

"IM IN THE US ARMY SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS OR GO FUCK YOUR SELF!"

Somebody must have been a bad little boy, because someone has been spanking his ass.  Because his butt's hurt!
But seriously:  http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/SoldiersProtectYourFreedom
OP is an ape who shouldn't be allowed to live in society.

[evensgrey]

Somebody must have been a bad little boy, because someone has been spanking his ass.  Because his butt's hurt!
But seriously:  http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/SoldiersProtectYourFreedom
OP is an ape who shouldn't be allowed to live in society.

He's also unlikely to be in the US Army, as actual soldiers usually like people who favor not sending them into harm's way without really good reasons.

[Travis Retriever]

He's also unlikely to be in the US Army, as actual soldiers usually like people who favor not sending them into harm's way without really good reasons.

Oh believe me, I figured.  To give you an idea, during the 2008 election, Ron Paul got more contributions/support from US Servicemen than all the other candidates combined.

[Travis Retriever]

Every one of Aldark's comments here: http://travis-retriever.deviantart.com/journal/And-while-I-m-on-the-topic-of-misandry-feminism-433194106#comments
This is a guy who thinks that using an argument someone else came up with is "dishonorable" or something.  Probably because he's an Australian Otaku who thinks it's macho or some bogosity.

I also removed him from my Skype contacts, and from my DA watchlist.  I'm sorry, but there isn't vacancy in my friend-zone--or even the acquaintance-zone for people who are going to lie and say, "Well it's just my opinion! whether valid or not" (read: doesn't know what an "opinion" actually is) hiding behind that (when making statements of facts--e.g. people are lazy/etc but dogs won't be happy unless they're doing something...yeah, citation needed bro), or try to bullshit around grammar rules (yes, but when I say, "Humans are lazy" it only means all humans are lazy unless you don't specify afterwards--citation needed, bro), or lie about the math to prove their point as he seemed to do in those comment.

"that logic also requires everyone to have had sex. lol. I havent, so yeah. the maths has too many variables to make an accurite evaluation of which gender has more sex. XD some have some, some have alot, others dont have any. if all 'somes' and 'somes' were boning each other, and all 'lots' and 'lots' were boning each other, and neither were boning anyone in any othe catagory, then maybe it would be a 50 50 split. But then, what if a 'lots' has sex with a 'some', and that 'some' neve has sex again? doesnt that throw off the average? too many variables. way too many. XD not to mention most people will lie about how many theyve had to sound better anyway."

My response: "that logic also requires everyone to have had sex." Nonsense.   Reread the article.  The first example is with 4 virgin dudes and one super-stud.
Also, it was talking about number of sexual partners.  And how the sex of one gender compares to the other.  Also, no one's saying some men have more sex than others or some women have more sex than others.  I don't know where you're getting that.

His reply to that:  My point about 'some people having more then others' is my OWN statement. a statement that directly contradicts what the article is saying. which is: "You see, by virtue of the fact that sex has to occur between two people, it's mathematically impossible for men to average more sexual partners than women." That only works if everyone is boning the exact same ammount of people in their lifetimes. which would require a perfect fate or destiny to control such a number, which scientifically speaking is unthinkable.
"So, when you take a national average of heterosexual sexual partners, as all of these studies have done, the number of partners for men has to exactly equal the number of partners for women." Thats the true nonsense.

Think of it like this:
-Person 1 has 5 partners.
-Each of those partners have 5 other partners each. Thats where the above statement stops counting, that if one person has sex with 5 people, EVERYONE has to have sex with 5 people. which is silly.
-Because its probable that 1 of those people will only have had 1 other partner.
-That one person might have 15 other partners.
-All those people would then all have varying numbers of other partners.
I dont see how that would make the world come out with perfectly even numbers. Its mathmatically improbable [not impossible] for that to be the case. Exadurated example: If 1 person has 50 partners, and they are all faithful to that 1 person, thats already fucked up the balance.
And faithfulness does exist, which the article doesnt account for.

My latest reply:  "My point about 'some people having more then others' is my OWN statement. a statement that directly contradicts what the article is saying. which is: "You see, by virtue of the fact that sex has to occur between two people, it's mathematically impossible for men to average more sexual partners than women." That only works if everyone is boning the exact same amount of people in their lifetimes."
A statement you've done nothing to prove, meanwhile the article proved itself mathematically.

"Think of it like this:
-Person 1 has 5 partners.
-Because its probable that 1 of those people will only have had 1 other partner.
-That one person might have 15 other partners.
-All those people would then all have varying numbers of other partners.
I dont see how that would make the world come out with perfectly even numbers. Its mathmatically improbable [not impossible] for that to be the case. Exadurated example: If 1 person has 50 partners, and they are all faithful to that 1 person, thats already fucked up the balance.
And faithfulness does exist, which the article doesnt account for."

Again, does nothing to prove otherwise, reread the article.

"Person 1 has 5 partners"
And that means that there are another 4 dudes not getting any, so the average stays at one.

"-Each of those partners have 5 other partners each. Thats where the above statement stops counting, that if one person has sex with 5 people, EVERYONE has to have sex with 5 people. which is silly."
This ONLY works if the number of males and females in the population is different or if straight men are having loads of gay sex with other each. Otherwise, the average would have to be the same mathematically, as it happened in your own example.
Also, you're making the mistake of not taking into account the ENTIRE population like the studies did, to make a statement about an entire population you have to take a population (and the math into account) which is what the cracked.com article did.

Maybe getting back in touch with this fucktard really was a mistake.  Especially since he believes "using someone else's arguments is dishonorable" or something equally bullshit.

Also, you DO know there is a difference between an average, and an individual data point, right?  Because reading this it seems you don't know that difference.

Again, reread the article.  They take into account a ten person population: 5 women, 5 men.  If one guy has sex with each of the 5 women, it is still an average of 1 sexual partner, even if stud boy had five because the four who got none bring down the average:  (5+0*4)/5 men = 1 sex partner/man average.  And with the woman:  (5*1)/5 woman = 1 sex partner/woman average.  Why you think having them do it again would make a difference is beyond me.

Again, go through the math and keep track of the average number of sexual partners for men vs. women, even if you change it up.  It will ALWAYS come out to the same unless the populations of men and women are different (which you seemed to try and sneak in), if you don't count the men who didn't have sex (which is dishonest as it means you don't know what an average is), or if the men are having TONS of gay sex despite being straight.

Hell, in your own example, each of those five partners they had would men 4 other people got none, so again, it still balances out.  Take into account the entire population, don't cherry pick just so you can make a bogus appeal to complication.

"-All those people would then all have varying numbers of other partners."
Irrelevant. doesn't matter.  The average would still come out to the same number of sexual partners for each gender.

So any thoughts on his latest reply?

[MrBogosity]

Yeah, there's no way around the average. Of all of the heterosexual men and women in the world, they have on average the same number of sexual partners. Unless someone can come up with a way for a man to have sex with a woman without the woman having sex with the man. That should be interesting...

[Travis Retriever]

Yeah, there's no way around the average. Of all of the heterosexual men and women in the world, they have on average the same number of sexual partners. Unless someone can come up with a way for a man to have sex with a woman without the woman having sex with the man. That should be interesting...

Which leads me to believe Aldark is either lying about having read the article, lying about what it said or lying about understanding it.  As nothing he's said (as seen above) does ANYTHING to falsify that cracked.com article* in question.

* http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/mathematical-proof-that-media-sexist-bad-at-math/

All he could do when not babbling incoherently in text form was to bring in a guy who had sex with five women and NOT count the women as having had sex, but the guy as having had sex, while babbling about "many variables" and how "that logic only works if you've had sex" (it doesn't--reread the article Aldark).  So dishonest cherry picking bullshit, lying and appeal to complication.

[tnu]

Somebody must have been a bad little boy, because someone has been spanking his ass.  Because his butt's hurt!
But seriously:  http://v.i4031.net/StatistFallacies/SoldiersProtectYourFreedom
OP is an ape who shouldn't be allowed to live in society.

That's not fair. Apes are noble and majestic creatures capable of incredible feats of intelligence.

[R.E.H.W.R.]