Don Lemon's 5 point plan

MikeDamone said:

TheKobeStopper said:

MikeDamone said:

TheKobeStopper said:

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.

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.

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.

You angry, bro?

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!

I'm not angry Mike. I'm just disappointed.

Well, call Don Lemon and let him know. The sell out that he is.

MikeDamone said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheKobeStopper said:

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.

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.

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.

Why do you hate Liberals?
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.

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.