CDZ Disagreement

[DGS49]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

 

[jwoodie]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

 

[Asclepias]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

“FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.”

What you fail to understand is that there are those who will fall prey to the fallacy that 'all' children of single parents are at some sort of 'disadvantage,' and use that fallacy as 'justification' to subject single mothers to punitive measures in an effort to compel them to conform.

 

[jwoodie]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

 

[Asclepias]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

I do not believe single women should put their children up for adoption because they do not have a husband. Absolutely not. Ann Coulter and her priests suggestion to put your child up for adoption if you don't have a husband is bizarre. I surprised to learn she would even agree with such an idea.

Ben Carson was raised by a single mother with a 3rd grade education. Does he seem troubled to you? He is one of the most well balanced individuals on the political scene today - a neurosurgeon who has accomplished many great things. And his mother didn't give him up for adoption! Imagine that.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

DGS49 SAID:

“FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.”

What you fail to understand is that there are those who will fall prey to the fallacy that 'all' children of single parents are at some sort of 'disadvantage,' and use that fallacy as 'justification' to subject single mothers to punitive measures in an effort to compel them to conform.

Ann and her Priest should mind their own business about other people's children. Single mothers should not put their children up for adoption solely because they are single. The very suggestion is downright creepy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

15 minutes of Ann Coulter? I wonder how many of your brain cells would be killed by such a long time without O2.

As for, "I know a woman who....."

Why would the audience have anything but anecdotal evidence to contradict her hate speech? Who goes to sit in an audience armed with mountains of scientific study results?

Not to mention that the plural of anecdote is data.

And what did she produce to back up her specious claims?


Its nonsense to think that two parents in the home is always good or better and that having only one is always bad but its also very typical of the way Coulter sees the world - in absolutes that are aimed at selling her ridiculous books.

 

[jwoodie]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -Asclepias

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments. At best one can say its a possible factor. There is no evidence whatsover simply being a child of a single mother will make you have a messed up life. Like most things it is a combination of factors that cause this. In order to be correct every child raised in a two parent household would have to have great lives. That would constitute fact. She is merely offering an opinion based on stats.

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

 

[jwoodie]

Unlike your opinion, which is based solely on your personal feelings. The fact that you continuously repeat your new vocabulary word ("puerile") instead of posting an intelligent rebuttal underscores this point.

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

Don't like owning up your own words? Puerile, indeed.

 

[Asclepias]

My opinion is based on science not my personal feelings. Just because the sun appears to set does not mean it goes to sleep once it goes below the horizon. Thats a very simplistic explanation of the event. The fact you think puerile is a new vocabulary word speaks to your lack of familiarity with the word. Dont give it away you had to look it up because you didnt know what it meant..

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

Don't like owning up your own words? Puerile, indeed.

That was nonsensical and puerile response. What is "owning up your own words"? Sounds like some white turn of phrase.

 

[jwoodie]

No, it was obviously an attempt to upgrade your "childish" name calling.

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

Don't like owning up your own words? Puerile, indeed.

That was nonsensical and puerile response. What is "owning up your own words"? Sounds like some white turn of phrase.

LOL, is that what you call Standard English?

 

[Asclepias]

You need to grow thicker skin. No one called you a name. I just said Coulters argument was puerile. Grow up.

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

Don't like owning up your own words? Puerile, indeed.

That was nonsensical and puerile response. What is "owning up your own words"? Sounds like some white turn of phrase.

LOL, is that what you call Standard English?

What does that have to do with your reading comprehension issue?

 

[jwoodie]

Are you suffering from amnesia, too?

"Thats a puerile argument and one that most simple minded people use to make political arguments." -A.to

P.S. It is literally childish to use the same words over and over again.

No. It appears you are suffering from reading comprehension though.

P.S. Not concerned with what you think is puerile about using the same words over and over again.

Don't like owning up your own words? Puerile, indeed.

That was nonsensical and puerile response. What is "owning up your own words"? Sounds like some white turn of phrase.

LOL, is that what you call Standard English?

What does that have to do with your reading comprehension issue?

New word of the day?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

The answer to your question is

yes, Americans are stupid.

Look on this board where people ignore statistics in favor of whole numbers thinking that makes some sort of point.

It's a good thing for many that we don't euthanize the mentally challenged.

 

[Statistikhengst]

...Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Been saying that for years. Good point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I just finished watching a 15-minute video of Ann Counter being interviewed on one of the daytime talk shows. This one was some guy in a clerical collar in front of an audience of women.

Briefly, Ms. Coulter's point was that if any pregnant single girl/woman wants to "do what is best" for her unborn child, she will make arrangements to give that child up for adoption. Her argument is based on overwhelming statistical evidence that the children of single mothers are MANY times more likely than a child of an intact couple to (a) drop out of school (b) do drugs, (c) end up in jail, (d) [do every other bad think you can imagine].

And as with all of what she says, she has published a book where the studies confirming her points are set forth in excruciating detail.

To be clear, she is not rendering her "feelings" on the point, merely pointing out the FACT, as illustrated by a mountain of statistics, produced by agencies and organizations coming from all over the political spectrum. FACT: Children of single mothers are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MESSED UP LIVES than children of married couple. Not OPINION, FACT.

After briefly making her point, the Host threw his hissy fit, and 5-6 women in the audience threw their respective hissy fits, punctuated by numerous gratuitous.

But NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE was a rebuttal of her point. Every single one, was...

I know a woman who.....

I was raise by a single mother and.....

I know a married couple who fight all the time, and...

I know single mothers who work their asses off...

I'm a single mother and my kids get.....

Are we, as a nation, too stupid to understand how to form a cogent rebuttal to something we disagree with? Are we too stupid to comprehend that "I know a guy..." is not a rebuttal to a statistical point?

Question the relevance, question the methodology, cite a conflicting study.

Statistics are not "hurtful" or "insulting." They speak for themselves. If I'm a Catholic geezer and someone cites a study that says 92% of Catholic geezers beat their wives I have no reason to be insulted. If I think the study is bogus, then I can question how they define "Catholic," or what constitutes "beating your wife," or how the statistical sampling was conducted. That's how you dispute the findings of a study. You DON'T say, "I know a bunch of Catholic geezers who don't beat their wives." That's just stupid.

Well, there are two major problems with what you're saying, although I do agree with it in a sense.

First of all, statistics don't "speak for themselves". They offer a small slice of reality that supports the argument being made. They are spoken by the people making the argument because they lend credence to the argument.

Secondly, the reason why people get emotional is due to the arguments, not the statistics in support of them. See any thread on gun control - it's an absolute fact that if you have a gun in your house, you and your family are statistically much more likely to be shot than people who don't have a gun in their house. That doesn't prevent everyone with a gun getting upset at the idea that guns should be illegal.

The women in your example are angry at Coulter not because of her statistics, but what she thinks should be done because of them.