Tom Brady is father to 2 children??

[highwater]

Just because i dont give a rats ass about removing snow from the roof of my car because I have other things to do and I dont want to waste time ... (snip) ... I do take the time to avoid a potential accident.

Does anyone else find that funny (in a pitiful sort of way, of course)?

[Losac]

Does anyone else find that funny (in a pitiful sort of way, of course)?

Yeah, I caught that. Not sure if he was trying to be ironic, or if he really is that stupid.

[Greg]

I'll let his comments as they present themselves stand.

As for Brady, I would also prefer to agree to disagree. I don't think fathering multiple children out of wedlock is something that can be dismissed out of hand.

[purplepoe]

Just because i dont give a rats ass about removing snow from the roof of my car because I have other things to do and I dont want to waste time

So let me get this straight.

You don't give a rats ass about removing snow/ice from the roof of your car knowing that it can cause not only damage to other cars but injuries and death?

I've read your posts on this and Im still dumbfounded.

Just to be clear, you stick by your statement above?

PP

[crazyraven]

So let me get this straight.

You don't give a rats ass about removing snow/ice from the roof of your car knowing that it can cause not only damage to other cars but injuries and death?

Compared to fathering two babies from two different women? You got that right.

[Ravens0587]

[purplepoe]

Compared to fathering two babies from two different women? You got that right.

No, not compared with fathering 2 babies with 2 women.

Again, is it your stance that you don't give a rats' ass about clearing ice/snow off your roof?

PP

[ClericBlackDave]

Greg:


All I'm saying is that I'm a graduate student in Political Science. PLEASE don't try to state your or a group political opinion or theory as FACT


I live with a libertarian (He's French), and I'm exposed to various political opinion on a day to day basis as i interact with professors, students, grade papers, attend faculty events, etc.


So its not as though I'm writing off your libertarian view. But admit that your views have a slant, and PLEASE don't state them as fact.


And please don't scream LOOK AT THE STATISTICS because lots of numbers are gotten from lots of places with lots of possibly biassed methods.


For a good read, see what Deborah Stone has to say about numbers in her book "Policy Paradox"


-CBD

[Greg]

No, he doesn't. He has made it abundantly clear that he thinks the few minutes it takes to make others safer isn't worth it. He is the epitome of the "me-first" attitude that is pervading this country and has our culture on a rocket sled into a slag heap of dung.

All I'm saying is that I'm a graduate student in Political Science. PLEASE don't try to state your or a group political opinion or theory as FACT

Dave, it is not my OPINION that 199 out of 200 people in poverty who don't have children out of wedlock, get ANY kind of job and graduate high school will get out of poverty. That is a fact. And if you venture back over this thread only one poster has continually posted facts to SUPPORT his opinion and you are reading his take right now.

FACT, poverty can be overcome by those in it by doing 3 simple things.
OPINION, based on the above fact, poverty is caused by people making poor choices.

If you care to actually debate that point and quit trying to impress with me with your vast exposure to various opinions, positions and people then do it.

[crazyraven]

Again, is it your stance that you don't give a rats' ass about clearing ice/snow off your roof?

If we are talking about a few inches I dont give a shit especially if it isnt packed. I have a carport so for the most part I dont have to worry about it. However if Im at work and some flakes fall on the roof while its snowing when Im there normally I'll just clear a window or two, let the deforster get the back window then Im on my way. If that make me the "He is the epitome of the "me-first" attitude" then I'm guilty as charged. You guys are over the top with this , you make it sound like I was driving drunk and shit.

[Greg]

Oh please, you are now completely shifting the argument. The discussion you blew off before regarded ice sheets flying off of cars and busting them up, something you blamed on the victims.

An inch of puffy snow that will blow off in the same manner in which it fell is immaterial and not what the discussion was about and you know it. We are talking about ice that is on roofs of vehicles and trailers that comes off in huge, hard, rock-like chunks.

[highwater]

This has been a fascinating thread for getting to know some people's credentials -- Raven Nurse has a minor in Psychology, CBD is a graduate student in Political Science and lives with a French Libertarian, and crazyraven is a certified moron who doesn't have the common sense to clear ice off the roof of his car.

Pretty soon, we'll be posting our resumes on this thread.

[ClericBlackDave]

That is a fact.

You can't help yourself. That is the problem with political diehards, and why these discussions usually have about 0% usefulness outside the academic sphere.


Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).


Then also tell me who commisioned the study to have this data collected, where the funding came from, and what the parameters were for this data (if it exists)


Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity? Did the data have any sort of selection bias? For that matter, was it "fudged" by doing any interesting permeutations to the data?


Do all of that w/o there being a shread of bias, and then maybe, MAYBE you can state it as fact.


But please don't tell me because you and the economist said so, its fact. If you think thats true, I think you should invest a few G to take a few basic classes in politics and political science

[Bez513]

Oh please, you are now completely shifting the argument. The discussion you blew off before regarded ice sheets flying off of cars and busting them up, something you blamed on the victims.

An inch of puffy snow that will blow off in the same manner in which it fell is immaterial and not what the discussion was about and you know it. We are talking about ice that is on roofs of vehicles and trailers that comes off in huge, hard, rock-like chunks.

Greg...there is no sense arguing with this moron.

[highwater]

Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity?

Oh yeah, we have a grad student in the room. You're never as smart as when you're a college student. Question methodology and never admit you just might be wrong.

Explain why they "probably decided to leave out several other relevant variables" -- wow, strong arguement there.

[camdenyard]

You can't help yourself. That is the problem with political diehards, and why these discussions usually have about 0% usefulness outside the academic sphere.


Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).


Then also tell me who commisioned the study to have this data collected, where the funding came from, and what the parameters were for this data (if it exists)


Oh yeah and also explain the research design and why they probably "decided" to leave out several other relevant variables. Did they control for heteroskedaticity? Did the data have any sort of selection bias? For that matter, was it "fudged" by doing any interesting permeutations to the data?


Do all of that w/o there being a shread of bias, and then maybe, MAYBE you can state it as fact.


But please don't tell me because you and the economist said so, its fact. If you think thats true, I think you should invest a few G to take a few basic classes in politics and political science

I know guys who can do Calculus in their sleep, but have a hard time with their multiplication tables.

I know at least one person who aced her JD but couldn't reason her way out of a wet paper bag.

Common sense, dude. Look around you. I don't need to commission a study to see what's obvious. If you do, I wonder about you. Children who don't have a strong two-parent influence are behind the eight ball and are allowed to make bad decisions.

[Greg]

Please produce said data that is "fact". Then please explain to me how the data was collected, the "N" size (if you don't know what that means, then there isn't a point to my saying it).

How about this, all of the information you want was printed in The Economist on April 25, 1987. You go look it up for yourself.

You have posted exactly ZERO facts, studies, ANYTHING to back up your points then you have the nerve to attack somebody who actually brings it to the discussion? Your own bias in denying what you don't agree with is more in play than those who conducted the study.

Again, here is a challenge for you. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WHO ARE IN POVERTY WHO:
1. Have worked steadily, even at minimum wage, since leaving school
2. Graduated High School
3. Avoided having children out of wedlock or better, got married and stayed married

My guess is ZERO, because the people who make those minimal good choices and stay or go into poverty DO NOT EXIST.

And you know something, impoverished people are less to blame than excuse makers like you who cloud the truth from them. I could try and tell them but I would get dismissed out of hand by them just as you have done to me because the likes of you have convinced them they have no hope.

AGAIN, HOW MANY PEOPLE MEET THE CRITERIA I NOTED DO YOU KNOW?

Oh, and again, I am the product of a broken home and I also got married young and got divorced. I am not standing on some moral high ground and looking down my nose at people who have made poor choices. I have lived it as a child and an adult, though thankfully my first marriage produced no kids. I am not morally superior to anybody, I just don't deny the obvious.

[ClericBlackDave]

Oh, and again, I am the product of a broken home and I also got married young and got divorced. I am not standing on some moral high ground and looking down my nose at people who have made poor choices. I have lived it as a child and an adult, though thankfully my first marriage produced no kids. I am not morally superior to anybody

Good to see you can admit you're not perfect. No one is.


That said, that still doesn't make a study published in the economist "fact". Being that its my job to make and review such studies, there is a lot that goes into such numbers or statistics thats hardly "factual".


Because a study in the economist publishes it as "fact", does make it so.


For Highwater or someone arguing that I have no argument, here's just a snipet of the problem with such studies.

1) How did they contact and track poor people? And at what intervals? If they tracked poor people using census data, or relied on poor people who have phones or addresses, then there is a large selection bias to this study: it totally overlooks those who are homeless, who lack phones, people without SS #'s, people who generally don't show up on census data and represent a larger problem than those who are poor "on the fringes." These are people who are so poor, you can't contact them or track them for significant periods of time. Any consideration of poor people and their mental/psychological health? I dont think so.


2) Who commissioned this study? All studies are funded. Its likely that such a study would be commisioned by a libertarian or conservative think tank or organization so that people like Greg, no offense, can have this "fact" to throw around on message boards and in wine and cheese discussions. Where does the number 199 out of 200 come from? Sounds like a convenient number to me . . . a number that has political meaning.


By all means, think that all numbers from studies are "factual" and cannot be argued with. But there isn't a statistic out there that doesn't have a political meaning, slant, or origin.


Again, read Deborah Stone's "Policy Paradox" for a good read about the nature of numbers in politics before you throw said numbers around as "fact"


Thing is, I read the economist. I have an issue right in front of me talking about fixing the Bush Presidency. I'm not against opening my mind.


But your average person out there like Greg is no longer digesting new informations or facts. All he is doing is absorbing facts that are compatible with his specific world view.


If your world view is "right" or "factual" why doesn't everyone agree? Why do we have politics, and voting, and conflict?


Let me guess; everyone besides you is an idiot.

[Greg]

Again Dave, how many people in poverty do you know who have done these three things?

Forget about there being some kind of fucking intent on regard to who did the study or why. Again...

CAN YOU NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS DONE THE THREE THINGS NOTED AND IS IN POVERTY?

Where does the number 199 out of 200 come from? Sounds like a convenient number to me . . . a number that has political meaning.

Look, they studied people in poverty and noted the differences between those who got out and those who did not. Those who got out did the 3 things I noted, those who did not made the poorer choices.

If your world view is "right" or "factual" why doesn't everyone agree?

LOL, well, because people can interpret data differently in some cases. But reasonable people can at least acknowledge the data. You keep dismissing it because it doesn't fit with your view and I have on a number of occasions invited you to cite one example that contradicts it. I mean come on, even I admit 1 out of every 200 people in poverty who do these three things will still be in poverty. You must think that number is higher, so list one name. Hell, find the 1 person in 200 I admit still failed.

But your average person out there like Greg is no longer digesting new informations or facts. All he is doing is absorbing facts that are compatible with his specific world view.

This coming from the guy who refuses to acknowledge the data. Okay, tell me, WHAT NEW INFORMATION OR FACT AM I NOT ABSORBING? You have posted ZERO facts or data. And you have no idea what information I absorb or don't. Here's something we all observe but I guess can't call fact without the Cleric's blessing, you have a unique ability to stand there with your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" while accusing me of it.

[festivus]

Boys, boys.

Greg gave his opinion, a reasonable one, and gave his reasons for it. Cleric Black Dave was (for once, no offense) arguing rationally, with a *different* opinion, and gave *his* reasons for it. He cited no data, but gave his reason for not citing data, and cited supposed learned treatises instead. So be it.

A fine debate in good faith, if not up to ivory tower standards, so much the better in my humble opinion.

Really, it's time to agree to disagree. . .

Greg, go back to your corner contemplating your superior awesomeness, and CBD, go back to your corner contemplating political theory, which was some of my favorite material when I was an undergrad myself.

:toast: and :hug: