CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 11 minutes ago, Black Dog said: 63% of men aged 18-29 are single but only 34% of women in that same age group, I wonder how that's possible, where could these young women be finding partners.... Not really relevant because that's not what he said. Here was his quote "But right now most men in the country are single and most women aren't. 63% of men say they are single compared to 34% of women." Do you see anything in there about age groups? He didn't present a source so we don't really know where he got it from and couldn't look up it's accuracy. But thanks for jumping in and proving that you're reading skills and comprehension or at least as bad as his At least you provided a source for your stupidity though so that's nice Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 Just now, CdnFox said: Not really relevant because that's not what he said. Here was his quote It's relevant because that's the full statistic and the source for it. Quote "But right now most men in the country are single and most women aren't. 63% of men say they are single compared to 34% of women." Do you see anything in there about age groups? He didn't present a source so we don't really know where he got it from and couldn't look up it's accuracy. I don't care. Quote But thanks for jumping in and proving that you're reading skills and comprehension or at least as bad as his At least you provided a source for your stupidity though so that's nice Well you could have looked it up yourself like you're always demanding other people do when you make some stupid unsourced claim, I'm just happy to help provide some clarity and give you another chance to prove what stupid and miserable little cocksucker you are. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 1 minute ago, Black Dog said: It's relevant because that's the full statistic and the source for it. It's not relevant at all because it's not the information he presented. It's not the statistic he presented either. Quote I don't care. I know Truth and facts have never been your thing. And your dedication to looking stupid is certainly impressive Quote Well you could have looked it up yourself No I couldn't. He gave the wrong statistic. There's absolutely no source out there that proves what he said is accurate. You have found something similar and are hoping that that's what he was referring to but that's not what he said. I'm sure I could spend endless hours looking up sources for information he didn't say. But what he said was 63% of all men and 34 percent of all women. Did you find that stat anywhere? No? Can't find it at all? Well there you go See, even you can understand if I hold your hand and explain it to you really slowly and simple words Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 (edited) 11 minutes ago, CdnFox said: It's not relevant at all because it's not the information he presented. It's not the statistic he presented either. It's the statistic to which he was referring. I know this because he reference Pew research and the numbers match up exactly. Quote I know Truth and facts have never been your thing. And your dedication to looking stupid is certainly impressive I'm not the one looking stupid here, c*nt. Quote No I couldn't. I found it in 10 seconds of googling. Quote He gave the wrong statistic. There's absolutely no source out there that proves what he said is accurate. You have found something similar and are hoping that that's what he was referring to but that's not what he said. It's what he meant. I'll even make a bet that he'll confirm it. Quote I'm sure I could spend endless hours looking up sources for information he didn't say. But what he said was 63% of all men and 34 percent of all women. Did you find that stat anywhere? No? Can't find it at all? Well there you go See, even you can understand if I hold your hand and explain it to you really slowly and simple words Lol I've shown you up again and your only instinct as a sad, pathetic, pedantic loser is to lash out instead of accepting the information. You are a miserable little worm, aren't you? Edited January 28 by Black Dog Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 8 minutes ago, Black Dog said: It's the statistic to which he was referring. I know this because he reference Pew research and the numbers match up exactly. It is not the statistic he referred to. He referred to a very different statistic. He claimed that it was all men and all women. I pointed out that that was mathematically impossible and he kept going without providing a source. So once again you're lying. The source you provided does not include the statistics he claimed. Had he provided the source we might have been able to catch his error. Or perhaps he has a different source that actually claims what he said. We don't know. So what you've done is gone out and found something similar to what he claimed sort of in a way but different. And you're trying to pass this off as being the same thing as what he said when it isn't Nice to see you making such an effort to get an early jump on the "Dumbest person on the internet" leaderboard for 2025 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
impartialobserver Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 not today but in the future, this is going to impact the low population states. Their influence will continue to erode. Each state has its own reasons as to why they are seeing low growth or even decline. The worst of them is West Virginia. Not sure what they can do to reverse this trend. Quote
User Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: not today but in the future, this is going to impact the low population states. Their influence will continue to erode. Each state has its own reasons as to why they are seeing low growth or even decline. The worst of them is West Virginia. Not sure what they can do to reverse this trend. You are falsely presuming that only decreasing birth rates impact states with low populations when they are also impacted by net migration to and from states. Low-population states have been seeing net increases in migration from other states. You see states like Idaho, Nebraska, among others with increases in population. Montanna gained an electoral vote after the last census. Quote
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 24 minutes ago, CdnFox said: It is not the statistic he referred to. He referred to a very different statistic. He claimed that it was all men and all women. I pointed out that that was mathematically impossible and he kept going without providing a source. So once again you're lying. The source you provided does not include the statistics he claimed. Had he provided the source we might have been able to catch his error. Or perhaps he has a different source that actually claims what he said. We don't know. So what you've done is gone out and found something similar to what he claimed sort of in a way but different. And you're trying to pass this off as being the same thing as what he said when it isn't Nice to see you making such an effort to get an early jump on the "Dumbest person on the internet" leaderboard for 2025 It's quite obviously the survey he was talking about, but he got it wrong by excluding the demographic breakdown. The funny thing here, and the most telling, is that my posting that survey with the demographic breakdown was helping your argument, not his. But you, being a pathetic piece of shit who's only joy in life comes from arguing with strangers on the internet, are too stupid to recognize that and can only lash out like the sad little worm creature you are. I can't imagine you act like this IRL, because you would be getting your ass kicked on a daily basis if you were. Quote
impartialobserver Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 2 minutes ago, User said: You are falsely presuming that only decreasing birth rates impact states with low populations when they are also impacted by net migration to and from states. Low-population states have been seeing net increases in migration from other states. You see states like Idaho, Nebraska, among others with increases in population. Montanna gained an electoral vote after the last census. Some states are growing... Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Montana being the best examples. Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, West Virginia, and Mississippi are already not all that populated and are either low growth or declining. Basically kicking them while they are down. These are states that have the double whammy of low birth rates and low in-migration (even if you take undocumented immigrants) into account. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 31 minutes ago, Black Dog said: It's quite obviously the survey he was talking about No it isn't. The survey does not match what he said. You have found some numbers that appear to correlate with what he said so you're making that assumption. And in fact if that was accurately what he was referring to then it makes no sense in context of the discussion. Referring to only one age group would make no sense whatsoever I suspect something different. I suspect that he read something perhaps that report or something like it or a newspaper article sometime ago and is remembering it inaccurately and put it down as a figure by mistake. He probably didn't even look at the original research paper he probably just read about it. And that's why he didn't put a source. So there's no chance I'm going to find it and know what he's referring to. At best you can find something that looks like it's sort of similar This is logic and reason 101. You want to assume something as fact when you don't know it to be fact because you feel it somehow improves your narrative. I was 100% correct all along, the figures he gave for which he provided no reference could not mathematically be true. I pointed it out and he didn't correct his mistake but continued to insist. Now you have found something that sort of looks like what he was talking about and you want to pretend that he didn't give the wrong facts to begin with He did. What he said was false. You're sad attempts to try and cover up for him by pretending that something else which is different is in fact exactly the same just makes you look like a child Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Hodad Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 48 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: not today but in the future, this is going to impact the low population states. Their influence will continue to erode. Each state has its own reasons as to why they are seeing low growth or even decline. The worst of them is West Virginia. Not sure what they can do to reverse this trend. They could try dating outside of the immediate family? 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 1 minute ago, Hodad said: They could try dating outside of the immediate family? Isn't it a little early for you to start losing the next election? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
impartialobserver Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 28 minutes ago, Hodad said: They could try dating outside of the immediate family? In the case of West Virginia.. it boils down to jobs. Coal mining is no longer seen as the go to or sure thing. The younger folks do not want to work that hard for what is relatively little. The older crowd perceives an opioid problem and stays away. Add those two up and no wonder that these smaller towns have no health care options. Can't have a hospital if you have no willing staff.. Therefore the senior crowd is not moving in . Quote
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 51 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No it isn't. The survey does not match what he said. You have found some numbers that appear to correlate with what he said so you're making that assumption. Its the exact same figures he gave you stupid twat. Quote And in fact if that was accurately what he was referring to then it makes no sense in context of the discussion. Referring to only one age group would make no sense whatsoever You don't think 60% of men in the prime young demographic being single with many dropping out of the dating game entirely doesn't have implications on future population growth? Makes sense, you are very stupid. Quote I suspect something different. I suspect that he read something perhaps that report or something like it or a newspaper article sometime ago and is remembering it inaccurately and put it down as a figure by mistake. He probably didn't even look at the original research paper he probably just read about it. And that's why he didn't put a source. So there's no chance I'm going to find it and know what he's referring to. At best you can find something that looks like it's sort of similar Let's make a bet. if buddy comes here and confirms the study I posted was the same one he was thinking of then you stop posting for a whole year. Let's go, pu$$y. Quote This is logic and reason 101. You want to assume something as fact when you don't know it to be fact because you feel it somehow improves your narrative. I was 100% correct all along, the figures he gave for which he provided no reference could not mathematically be true. I pointed it out and he didn't correct his mistake but continued to insist. Now you have found something that sort of looks like what he was talking about and you want to pretend that he didn't give the wrong facts to begin with This is just pathetic. I literally said he got it wrong. Why are you even arguing here, you stupid cow? Quote He did. What he said was false. You're sad attempts to try and cover up for him by pretending that something else which is different is in fact exactly the same just makes you look like a child. Like i said, I was giving the context and showing how he got it wrong but you're a petulant little baby who can't handle actual arguments. It's pretty obvious you've been bullied pretty badly you're whole life and this smug pedantic shithead routine is overcompensation, but you'll always carry that f*ckin loser stank. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Its the exact same figures he gave you stupid twat. Well as i took the time to quote and cite it is not. He gave a figure for all men and women and you've given a figure for a small subgroup of men and women. I would imagine you could expand or shrink that group to come up with similar numbers if you wanted, but they would still be different than the ones he gave Blackdog lies even when presented with absolute irrefutable evidence, quotes and cites. Yawn. 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Let's make a bet. if buddy comes here and confirms the study I posted was the same one he was thinking of then you stop posting for a whole year. You mean if you can get another liar to lie? Yeah, sorry. The preschoolers you usually hang with might fall for that But it wouldn't change anything, even if it was he still gave the WRONG numbers The numbers for a select group of men and women is not the same as all men and women. If you want to make a bet, lets bet that the numbers he gave for all men and women are wrong If i win you stop posting for a whole day. I don't want you to go away for a year because it's so hilarious watching you eff up like this Lest go pu$$y!!! No? hhmmm 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: This is just pathetic. I literally said he got it wrong. Then you don't know what he was citing and the numbers he gave didn't match the research you quoted. So you're wrong. So why are you still arguing? i appreciate the admission but there you go. 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Like i said, I was giving the context No you weren't. you didnt provide any context at all. You just posted numbers that are different than the stats he posted and when i pointed that out you had a hissy fit. And at the end of the day if that WAS where he got his numbers and he screwed up then i was absolutely right in what i said and he should have reallized he screwed up. Only you could take someone's complete screw up and somehow screw it up even further and then be mad about it Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 (edited) 20 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Well as i took the time to quote and cite it is not. He gave a figure for all men and women and you've given a figure for a small subgroup of men and women. I would imagine you could expand or shrink that group to come up with similar numbers if you wanted, but they would still be different than the ones he gave I repeat: they are the same figures he quoted exactly, do you understand what that means? That means the numbers are the same. Quote You mean if you can get another liar to lie? Yeah, sorry. The preschoolers you usually hang with might fall for that But it wouldn't change anything, even if it was he still gave the WRONG numbers The numbers for a select group of men and women is not the same as all men and women. And i never said or implied they were but you're still arguing about it because you're a hideous f*cking dork. Quote If you want to make a bet, lets bet that the numbers he gave for all men and women are wrong If i win you stop posting for a whole day. I don't want you to go away for a year because it's so hilarious watching you eff up like this Lest go pu$$y!!! I already said he misquoted the stat (the numbers themselves were accurate however). I don't even think you know why you're arguing, you're such a miserable twat that you don't know how to do anything else. Quote Then you don't know what he was citing and the numbers he gave didn't match the research you quoted. 63 and 63 are the same numbers. So is 34 and 34. The numbers matched. So did the source. Quote No you weren't. you didnt provide any context at all. You just posted numbers that are different than the stats he posted and when i pointed that out you had a hissy fit. Me: these are probably the stats he's talking about, he got the age groups wrong tho You: those aren't the same numbers they aren't there's simply no way to determine if those numbers which happen to match exactly and come from the same source are the stats he was referencing it could be something else completely REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE like, just shut the f*ck up for once you loser. Quote And at the end of the day if that WAS where he got his numbers and he screwed up then i was absolutely right in what i said and he should have reallized he screwed up. That's what I've been saying from the start but you're such a goddamn freak that you are compelled to try and "win" arguments that aren't even there because your lack of self esteem or something, IDK, it's pretty f*cked up though. Quote Only you could take someone's complete screw up and somehow screw it up even further and then be mad about it Only you could turn an absolute nothing into an argument where you end up looking like an utter dipshit who should have his face stuffed into the office toilet. Edited January 28 by Black Dog 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 5 minutes ago, Black Dog said: I repeat: they are the same figures he quoted exactly, do you understand what that means? That means the numbers are the same. The numbers are not the same. You posted two sets of numbers, a percent for men and women, and an age range for the men and women involved He did not. they are not the same. You are literally trying to argue that two very different things are the same. They are not. What he posted is not the same at all as to what you posted. You can whine and cry and beg to your heart's content but there is nothing similar between "all males wear glasses" and "all 8 year old males wear glasses". they both might have the word glasses and "males" it them but they are two totally different statistics You're starting to make me feel bad for picking on the mentally retarded As to the rest, you're wrong and you're having a hissy fit. Yawn. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Matthew Posted January 28 Author Report Posted January 28 11 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Only you could turn an absolute nothing into an argument where you end up looking like an utter dipshit who should have his face stuffed into the office toilet. For real. Trying to talk to someone who is obviously so miserable and suffering from untreated mental health problems is sad. But at the same time it's hard to feel empathy for someone so unlikable. I have a biopolar family member who is similarly loathsome to everyone. I get the same vibes from this guy. 1 Quote
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 25 minutes ago, CdnFox said: The numbers are not the same. You posted two sets of numbers, a percent for men and women, and an age range for the men and women involved He did not. they are not the same. You are literally trying to argue that two very different things are the same. They are not. What he posted is not the same at all as to what you posted. You can whine and cry and beg to your heart's content but there is nothing similar between "all males wear glasses" and "all 8 year old males wear glasses". they both might have the word glasses and "males" it them but they are two totally different statistics You're starting to make me feel bad for picking on the mentally retarded As to the rest, you're wrong and you're having a hissy fit. Yawn. 35 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Me: these are probably the stats he's talking about, he got the age groups wrong tho You: those aren't the same numbers they aren't there's simply no way to determine if those numbers which happen to match exactly and come from the same source are the stats he was referencing it could be something else completely REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Quote
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 16 minutes ago, Matthew said: For real. Trying to talk to someone who is obviously so miserable and suffering from untreated mental health problems is sad. But at the same time it's hard to feel empathy for someone so unlikable. I have a biopolar family member who is similarly loathsome to everyone. I get the same vibes from this guy. It's so funny that I was actually helping his cause by showing you'd misquoted the study in question, but this guy is so dumb and incapable of normal human interactions that he has to make a big argument out of nothing. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 1 minute ago, Black Dog said: I guess what i'm really saying is that i know i was wrong and they're not the same numbers at all, but i just hate seeing you be right again and me wrong. I realize it's a mental health issue i've got to wrestle with. I'll take a remedial math and logic class and get back to you, The truly stunning thing is that you would actually waste as many posts as you did trying to argue that two very obviously different things are the same thing, have a meltdown about it to the point where you are false quoting people because you can't argue with what they actually said. The two statistics are not the same. They're not even close to the same. That's obvious to anyone with a grade one or better education. Yet you have gone on forever trying to claim that the numbers for a select age group are the same as the numbers for all people. LOL wow. I'm going to be making fun of you about this for a while i think 21 minutes ago, Matthew said: For real. Trying to talk to someone who is obviously so miserable and suffering from untreated mental health problems is sad. But at the same time it's hard to feel empathy for someone so unlikable. I have a biopolar family member who is similarly loathsome to everyone. I get the same vibes from this guy. LOL ahhh so you were wrong and y ou refused to admit it for pages and then ran off to hide when you were shown up, but now you want it to all be my fault Let me guess... the bipolar relative is actually you Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: It's so funny that I was actually helping his cause by showing you'd misquoted the study in question No you didn't, you started off trying to pretend that it was the same, and you're STILL insisting it's the same 😮 LOLOLOL Well if we ever needed more proof the left is bonkers, there you go He made a stupid incorrect statement that should have been OBVIOUSLY wrong and refused to admit it or provide a source, and you are claiming two different things are the same thing ... but it's all my fault well done boys I think we've found the real reason women aren't interested in you two Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 7 minutes ago, CdnFox said: The truly stunning thing is that you would actually waste as many posts as you did trying to argue that two very obviously different things are the same thing, have a meltdown about it to the point where you are false quoting people because you can't argue with what they actually said. The two statistics are not the same. They're not even close to the same. That's obvious to anyone with a grade one or better education. Yet you have gone on forever trying to claim that the numbers for a select age group are the same as the numbers for all people. *cries about being "falsely quoted" *invents an argument out of whole cloth that no one made I have never once claimed the numbers were the same for a select age group as they were across the board. That would be nonsensical given that I provided the information showing the differences between the age groups in the first place. Did you get kicked in the head by a horse as a child? Dabble in autoerotic asphyxiation and have your oxygen cut off for an extended period of time? Did your mom live on nothing but Marlboros and Jim Beam when she was carrying you? Seriously: why are you like this? Quote
CdnFox Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 7 minutes ago, Black Dog said: *cries about being "falsely quoted" Awww muffin. No more crying or you have to go for your nap Quote I have never once claimed the numbers were the same Sure you did. I pointed out a dozen times that you're wrong and you cannot compare his numbers with your numbers because they are not referring to the same thing. You said they were Here's me quoting you saying it earlier: Blackdog - "I repeat: they are the same figures he quoted exactly" So you lied and tried to pretend yet again you didn't say what you very clearly did 9 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Did you get kicked in the head by a horse as a child? 9 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Dabble in autoerotic asphyxiation and have your oxygen cut off for an extended period of time? Oh look, black dog is losing an argument and is resorting to weird homosexual fantasies in order to defend himself LOL ! Every. Single. Time. He was wrong, you were wrong. And he still wasn't able to answer or address the basic point I raised that this is an economic issue rather than a relationship issue. Probably too stupid to understand the concept, and seeing as he's smarter than you it's way over your head Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 (edited) 20 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Sure you did. I pointed out a dozen times that you're wrong and you cannot compare his numbers with your numbers because they are not referring to the same thing. You said they were Here's me quoting you saying it earlier: Blackdog - "I repeat: they are the same figures he quoted exactly" So you lied and tried to pretend yet again you didn't say what you very clearly did Ah so you're stupid stupid. Remember this started because you insisted that there was no way the survey I found could have been the survey he was referencing (erroneously as it turns out). I pointed out the fact the numbers-the actual numerical values-were the same as the ones he quoted was evidence that it was. As in: "I bet he was thinking of this thing he read but he got the part where it was a specific demographic wrong". But you insisted that there was no possible way to determine where he arrived at his idea that 63% of men are single, certainly not from 63% of men in a specific age group being single. And somehow, in your fetid slop bucket of a brain, you turned that into me saying "the rates of single men aged 18-30 and the overall rates of single men are exactly the same" even though I was the one who pointed out the differences in those rates in the first place. In short: eat shit, loser. Quote Oh look, black dog is losing an argument and is resorting to weird homosexual fantasies in order to defend himself LOL ! Every. Single. Time. You think it's gay to jack off? Wow. Quote He was wrong, you were wrong. He was, I wasn't and now you are too, sucks to suck, try not sucking? Quote And he still wasn't able to answer or address the basic point I raised that this is an economic issue rather than a relationship issue. Probably too stupid to understand the concept, and seeing as he's smarter than you it's way over your head Well it's probably a bit of both but we know you struggle with simple concepts so complex ones will leave you gasping for breath like a fish out of water. Edited January 28 by Black Dog Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.