Don Lemon's 5 point plan
Lemon then listed five essential reforms black men need to make:
pull up pants
drop the N-word
take care of their communities
finish high school
lower rate of children born out of wedlock.
“More than 72% of children in the African American community are born out of wedlock,” Lemon continued, emphasizing this point as the top priority. “That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues.
Comments
-
The lack of causation is too big to overlook
-
"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link. -
Meadowlark Lemon >>>>>>>>>> Don Lemon
-
homophobe.TheGlove said:Meadowlark Lemon >>>>>>>>>> Don Lemon
-
Yea, there's that, but still.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
-
MikeDamone said:
This asshole shows no causation. He is likely a racist..and gay..($75,000.00)
-
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir. -
Less litter! Gooooooooo Planet!MikeDamone said:This asshole shows no causation. He is likely a racist..and gay..
Lemon then listed five essential reforms black men need to make:
pull up pants
drop the N-word
take care of their communities
finish high school
lower rate of children born out of wedlock.
“More than 72% of children in the African American community are born out of wedlock,” Lemon continued, emphasizing this point as the top priority. “That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues. -
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013 -
look at DJ and his screenshots.DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013 -
DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013
I agree with the general tone of both of those quotes.
-
living a life of ANDTierbsHsotBoobs said:DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013
I agree with the general tone of both of those quotes. -
You angry, bro?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Ann Coulter, the fuck? I said nothing about that cunt. Take it up with Don Lemon. I was just passing along what I was hearing from him.
Here's the answer! We need more of this, and more calling people racists and getting angry at them when they bring up the truth.
I SAID GOOD DAY! -
This comment shows how little you understand the problem and the potential solutions.TheKobeStopper said:
Less litter! Gooooooooo Planet!MikeDamone said:This asshole shows no causation. He is likely a racist..and gay..
Lemon then listed five essential reforms black men need to make:
pull up pants
drop the N-word
take care of their communities
finish high school
lower rate of children born out of wedlock.
“More than 72% of children in the African American community are born out of wedlock,” Lemon continued, emphasizing this point as the top priority. “That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues. -
I'm not angry Mike. I'm just disappointed.MikeDamone said:
You angry, bro?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Ann Coulter, the fuck? I said nothing about that cunt. Take it up with Don Lemon. I was just passing along what I was hearing from him.
Here's the answer! We need more of this, and more calling people racists and getting angry at them when the bring up the truth.
I SAID GOOD DAY! -
Well, call Don Lemon and let him know. The sell out that he is.TheKobeStopper said:
I'm not angry Mike. I'm just disappointed.MikeDamone said:
You angry, bro?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Ann Coulter, the fuck? I said nothing about that cunt. Take it up with Don Lemon. I was just passing along what I was hearing from him.
Here's the answer! We need more of this, and more calling people racists and getting angry at them when the bring up the truth.
I SAID GOOD DAY! -
Mods?DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013 -
I don't think anyone is moderating these boardsTheKobeStopper said:
Mods?DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013 -
Don't test me.DerekJohnson said:
I don't think anyone is moderating these boardsTheKobeStopper said:
Mods?DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013 -
If you can't make your point without a personal attack you'll probably fit in here
-
Dr. Ben Carson approves this post.MikeDamone said:
Well, call Don Lemon and let him know. The sell out that he is.TheKobeStopper said:
I'm not angry Mike. I'm just disappointed.MikeDamone said:
You angry, bro?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
Ann Coulter, the fuck? I said nothing about that cunt. Take it up with Don Lemon. I was just passing along what I was hearing from him.
Here's the answer! We need more of this, and more calling people racists and getting angry at them when the bring up the truth.
I SAID GOOD DAY! -
Why do you hate Liberals?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/#disqus_thread
-
What does that asshole Kobestopper have to say now? No causation I'm sure.HoustonHusky said:
Why do you hate Liberals?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/#disqus_thread -
The Atlantic? What's next Rush Limbaugh or Faux News?
-
Watch it with the personal attacks, guys.MikeDamone said:
What does that asshole Kobestopper have to say now? No causation I'm sure.HoustonHusky said:
Why do you hate Liberals?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/#disqus_thread -
RaceBannon said:
The Atlantic? What's next Rush Limbaugh or Faux (lol) News?
-
Un trapo progresiva finalmente reconoce lo obvio. Los hogares monoparentales es igual a un aumento de la delincuencia que se puede compensar con el aumento de la acción policial. Causalidad QED.HoustonHusky said:
Why do you hate Liberals?TheKobeStopper said:
I don't need to do all that. You can just link us to all the published peer reviewed studies that show a correlation between single mothers and crime. But you wouldn't even know where to look for those would you? Besides "scientists" and their "scientific method" clearly have an agenda. But all these studies that you and Ann Coulter can't stop popping off about are legit. I mean a religious organization did them and "scientists" with their agenda have rejected them at every turn so they must be true.MikeDamone said:"studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison, and the cycle continues."
Really? What studies? I doubt these studies...if they exist, are valid in their conclusions.
Readers of these studies need to consider two types of validity, internal and external. Internal validity means that the study measured what it set out to; external validity is the ability to generalize from the study to the reader. With respect to internal validity, selection bias, information bias, and confounding are present to some degree in all observational research. Selection bias stems from an absence of comparability between groups being studied. Information bias results from incorrect determination of exposure, outcome, or both. The effect of information bias depends on its type. If information is gathered differently for one group than for another, bias results. By contrast, non-differential misclassification tends to obscure real differences. Confounding is a mixing or blurring of effects: a researcher attempts to relate an exposure to an outcome but actually measures the effect of a third factor (the confounding variable). Confounding can be controlled in several ways: restriction, matching, stratification, and more sophisticated multivariate techniques. If a reader cannot explain away study results on the basis of selection, information, or confounding bias, then chance might be another explanation. Chance should be examined last, however, since these biases can account for highly significant, though bogus results. Differentiation between spurious, indirect, and causal associations can be difficult. Criteria such as temporal sequence, strength and consistency of an association, and evidence of a dose-response effect lend support to a causal link.
You don't know what the numbers are. I don't care about anything else. Youve made up your mind and you don't care what the facts are. You can say studies show but you've never seen the studies. You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know.
Good day sir.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/#disqus_thread -
My sources are telling me most liberals are either gay, have gay tendencies (which also means gay), or eat nachos while looking at young men in athletic tights.
Causation AND abundance support this theory. -
Mods?Swaye said:My sources are telling me most liberals are either gay, have gay tendencies (which also means gay), or eat nachos while looking at young men in athletic tights.
Causation AND abundance support this theory. -
There might be 1 or 2 mods lurking but that's about it.DerekJohnson said:
I don't think anyone is moderating these boardsTheKobeStopper said:
Mods?DerekJohnson said:
"Mike Damone is the funniest person I have ever encountered."
-TheKobeStopper, June 2013
"You're ignorant, an idiot and kind of an asshole for the way your arguing something you really don't know."
-The KobeStopper speaking to Mike Damone, July 2013
