Feminists keeping it classy at Toronto mens event.

[The Real]

You did blatantly fabricate the numbers through your analysis, read it again. I explained how your numbers were based entirely off of assumptions and your final numbers failed to take lots of external factors into account. But hey, if you want to ignore that I said that in order to be able to sleep better at night, go ahead and ignore the rest of the statistics that I posted and forget everything else I said regarding your abuse statistics, or all of the other stuff I wrote regarding all of the pseudo-intellectual dribble you wrote.

You asserted that I fabricated, but have yet to explain how, without which your assertion remains just that. You're also using the word "fabricate" incorrectly, since I didn't introduce new numbers, but rather took them from the same study you posted. You also still haven't addressed that you posted the same set of statistics I used as if they were brand new, which in effect concedes that you're ok with my calculations since it means you accept the rates of abuse by sex.

It's not ad-hominem for me to call you out for these things if I've been providing tons of statistics that go against what you said, told you why your analysis was bad, and you failed to counter the many, many other things that I pointed out to you.

You didn't provide tons of statistics. You provided one set of alleged calculations that you pasted from another site, with no indication of method. Without a step-by-step method, that's not evidence of anything. Anyone can make up and post numbers supposedly derived from stats. If we all did that, we'd just have competing numbers with no explanation behind them. I could have done that, too. Instead, I showed you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions. You have yet to do the same for your pasted text. Just saying "you don't understand statistics" is no substitute for honesty, but it can be a substitute for dishonesty and ignorance.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

You asserted that I fabricated, but have yet to explain how. In fact, you haven't provided a single explanation as of yet. You also still haven't addressed that you posted the same set of statistics I used as if they were brand new, which in effect concedes that you're ok with my calculations since it means you accept the rates of abuse by sex.



You didn't provide tons of statistics. You provided one set of calculations that you pasted from another site, with no indication of method. Without a step-by-step method, that's not evidence of anything. Anyone can make up and post numbers supposedly derived from stats. If we all did that, we'd just have competing numbers with no explanation behind them. I could have done that, too. Instead, I showed you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions. You have yet to do that.

I explained EVERYTHING to you. Everything you wanted an explanation for, you got in my criticism of your analysis of the data. Yes, I provided tons and tons of stats AND analysis that were posted and re-posted for the sake of clarity and you still couldn't understand where I was going. You're either not able to understand why your analysis was seriously flawed, or you're just in this to make it look to the untrained and easily fooled observer (of whom I'm assuming you're a part of at this point because of the way you'll skew numbers and assume that obviously false statistics are true). I told you how your methods were arriving at your numbers was flawed. Go back and read it again if you like? I posted hard polling data from credible resources that didn't operate off of the assumptions that I had no way of being sure of the way that you did. I also pointed out to you that your analysis was inflated and made sensationalizing and dramatic assumptions in order to make the patriarchy myth seem like a real thing.

Again, I'd like to point out again that this was just one facet that you decided to cling to and had nothing to counter the rest of the stuff I brought up. All those points you're just gonna let float because you think that anyone watching this thread is gonna hopefully miss all the stuff I brought up that you weren't able to address.

 

[The Real]

I explained EVERYTHING to you. Everything you wanted an explanation for, you got in my criticism of your analysis of the data. Yes, I provided tons and tons of stats AND analysis that were posted and re-posted for the sake of clarity and you still couldn't understand where I was going. You're either not able to understand why your analysis was seriously flawed, or you're just in this to make it look to the untrained and easily fooled observer (of whom I'm assuming you're a part of at this point because of the way you'll skew numbers and assume that obviously false statistics are true). I told you how your methods were arriving at your numbers was flawed. Go back and read it again if you like? I posted hard polling data from credible resources that didn't operate off of the assumptions that I had no way of being sure of the way that you did. I also pointed out to you that your analysis was inflated and made sensationalizing and dramatic assumptions in order to make the patriarchy myth seem like a real thing.

Again, I'd like to point out again that this was just one facet that you decided to cling to and had nothing to counter the rest of the stuff I brought up. All those points you're just gonna let float because you think that anyone watching this thread is gonna hopefully miss all the stuff I brought up that you weren't able to address.

Let's make this as simple as possible:

You already conceded the stats I used were accurate since you reposted them thinking they would defeat me. If you want to backpedal on that, then you have to prove why the stats you yourself posted are unreliable for use in calculations.

How did the person who you pasted from arrive at those numbers? There is no explanation in any of the block of text you pasted.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Let's make this as simple as possible:

You already conceded the stats I used were accurate since you reposted them thinking they would defeat me.

How did the person who you pasted from arrive at those numbers? There is no explanation in any of the block of text you pasted.

Let's concede this: Your failure to address all my other points is a tacit assumption that you're admitting that I'm right.

Go back and read my past posts. Not gonna spend all night repeating myself.

 

[The Real]

Let's concede this: Your failure to address all my other points is a tacit assumption that you're admitting that I'm right.

Go back and read my past posts. Not gonna spend all night repeating myself.

You're trying to change the subject again. I don't care to address any of your other points until this is done. I'm not interested in having a sloppy exchange about a volley of unrelated information. That's not how a proper debate works.

1. Are you going to admit you concede the validity of the stats you yourself posted?

2. I reread your pasted block of text. There's no explaination of method within it. Are you going explain how the numbers at the end were derived from the stats, or should I just assume you don't know?

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

You're trying to change the subject again. I don't care to address any of your other points until this is done. I'm not interested in having a sloppy exchange about a volley of unrelated information. That's not how a proper debate works.

1. Are you going to admit you concede the validity of the stats you yourself posted?

2. I reread your pasted block of text. There's no explaination of method within it. Are you going explain how the numbers at the end were derived from the stats, or should I just assume you don't know?

Really? You decided to cling to the last number of a long set of statistics I pointed out and use that as the order? And you're going to ignore what I wrote again? And you're still wondering why I keep bringing up the fact that you haven't even made any kind of attempt to counter anything else I brought up in case someone is watching us talk? I think that you're mad that I bring up that you've got nothing at this point for that very reason. Since when do you dictate the order of what we discuss?

How about you read it all again and try to counter me?

Spoiler

You can't counter this, let alone anything else I brought up, so you're going to pretty much just sit here and try to at least get the last word.

Just admit that I was right and clinging to this point is an excuse to dodge everything else I brought up.

 

[The Real]

Really? You decided to cling to the last number of a long set of statistics I pointed out and use that as the order? And you're going to ignore what I wrote again? And you're still wondering why I keep bringing up the fact that you haven't even made any kind of attempt to counter anything else I brought up in case someone is watching us talk? I think that you're mad that I bring up that you've got nothing at this point for that very reason. Since when do you dictate the order of what we discuss?

How about you read it all again and try to counter me?

Spoiler

You can't counter this, let alone anything else I brought up, so you're going to pretty much just sit here and try to at least get the last word.

Just admit that I was right and clinging to this point is an excuse to dodge everything else I brought up.

I'm not clinging to those numbers. I'm questioning them. You're the one clinging to them, by refusing to explain how the statistics from the studies can be calculated to produce them.

Like I said, explain that, and we can move on to other topics. I know you're desperate to change the subject. Well, I'm tired of going over this point, too, but I'm not going to move on until it's resolved, which you have yet to do. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume you're incapable of doing so and just pasted them in without thinking.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

I'm not clinging to those numbers. I'm questioning them. You're the one clinging to them, by refusing to explain how the statistics from the studies can be calculated to produce them.

Like I said, explain that, and we can move on to other topics. I know you're desperate to change the subject. Well, I'm tired of going over this point, too, but I'm not going to move on until it's resolved, which you have yet to do. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume you're incapable of doing so and just pasted them in without thinking.

They're valid questions, and you're only trying to get me to "concede" (laughable) things because you want to make it seem like you're gaining some sort of ground in this argument (you aren't), while not actually getting me to agree with any of your actual arguments in order to get anyone watching this discussion to think that I've agreed with some tenant of feminism (I don't).

You aren't precluded from addressing my other points while addressing this one. You're then repeatedly claiming that I didn't explain why you were wrong in your line of reasoning (I did), yet you thoroughly demonstrated your lack of how statistics work from the very beginning.

In fact, you've so thoroughly lost sight about what this whole entire debate was about because you got so hung up on one set of abuse statistics (which you were totally wrong about in your analysis) that you thought that I was actually changing the subject rather than bringing us back on track, and when I brought more statistics from credible sources rather than the ones you made based off of nothing, you accused me of trying to change the subject.

Go ahead. Avoid the other points that I made as if you can't address all of them at once. I made them all at once, but maybe you have an evil patriarchal computer that only allows you too address one criticism of feminism one contention at a time?

 

[The Real]

They're valid questions

And yet you make post after post doing everything but actually answering them. That in itself is extremely telling.

Like I said, I'd like to move on, too, but not until you provide an explanation like I did.

 

[Yuzo Lightheart]

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

And yet you make post after post doing everything but actually answering them. That in itself is extremely telling.

Like I said, I'd like to move on, too, but not until you provide an explanation like I did.

LEARN TO READ

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

And yet you make post after post doing everything but actually answering them. That in itself is extremely telling.

Like I said, I'd like to move on, too, but not until you provide an explanation like I did.

LEARN TO READ

 

[The Real]

LEARN TO READ

I read and reread. You never answered the question of what method was used to arrive at the conclusions of the stats you posted. I'm sorry, but that explanation is just not present in this thread. That's what I was referring to.

*waits for another response about how I'm clinging to the statistics that still doesn't answer the question*

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

I read and reread. You never answered the question of what method was used to arrive at the conclusions of the stats you posted. I'm sorry, but that explanation is just not present in this thread. That's what I was referring to.

*waits for another response about how I'm clinging to the statistics that still doesn't answer the question*

*waits for you to continue to pretend that I didn't explain myself and use it as an excuse to dodge all of the other points that I brought up*