CDZ Disagreement

[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.

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.

Wait... did you just say that the plural of anecdote is data?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Well, actually, they do. They tell a story all on their own, and without embellishment, if people would only read them. Then, afterward, in context of other things, that data can take on yet another meaning.

 

[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.

Well, actually, they do. They tell a story all on their own, and without embellishment, if people would only read them. Then, afterward, in context of other things, that data can take on yet another meaning.

They tell a very specific slice of the story. Not the "whole" story.

And people rarely read statistics outside the context of them being used in an argument.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Well, actually, they do. They tell a story all on their own, and without embellishment, if people would only read them. Then, afterward, in context of other things, that data can take on yet another meaning.

They tell a very specific slice of the story. Not the "whole" story.

And people rarely read statistics outside the context of them being used in an argument.

Please point to where I said that statistics tell the "whole" story.

Hint: you won't be able to find it.

 

[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.

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.

While it is true that statistics don't "speak," they do stand alone as putative facts. Whether they lend credence to a particular argument is another matter. For example, your statistic about guns in houses does not lend credence to the idea that guns should be illegal any more than automobile accident statistics lend credence to the idea that cars should be illegal.

People are generally emotional because of the subject matter (i.e., something they care deeply about) rather than the argument being made. For example, people do not usually get emotional because someone else puts forth an argument that cherry pie is superior to apple pie. In my experience, people get most upset when their own argument (about something they care deeply about) is shown to be false or illogical.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

While it is true that statistics don't "speak," they do stand alone as putative facts. Whether they lend credence to a particular argument is another matter. For example, your statistic about guns in houses does not lend credence to the idea that guns should be illegal any more than automobile accident statistics lend credence to the idea that cars should be illegal.

People are generally emotional because of the subject matter (i.e., something they care deeply about) rather than the argument being made. For example, people do not usually get emotional because someone else puts forth an argument that cherry pie is superior to apple pie. In my experience, people get most upset when their own argument (about something they care deeply about) is shown to be false or illogical.

The bolded:



Statistics can also, of course, be misused for nefarious purposes, for this reason, discernment should always be the Soup Du Jour in statistifying things.

-Stat

 

[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.

Well, actually, they do. They tell a story all on their own, and without embellishment, if people would only read them. Then, afterward, in context of other things, that data can take on yet another meaning.

They tell a very specific slice of the story. Not the "whole" story.

And people rarely read statistics outside the context of them being used in an argument.

Please point to where I said that statistics tell the "whole" story.

Hint: you won't be able to find it.

I didn't say that you said they did. Stop being so defensive.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Well, actually, they do. They tell a story all on their own, and without embellishment, if people would only read them. Then, afterward, in context of other things, that data can take on yet another meaning.

They tell a very specific slice of the story. Not the "whole" story.

And people rarely read statistics outside the context of them being used in an argument.

Please point to where I said that statistics tell the "whole" story.

Hint: you won't be able to find it.

I didn't say that you said they did. Stop being so defensive.

I'm not being defensive and I am definitely enjoying our conversation. I am just a stickler for clarity.