Originally posted by blaze8492 You are aware that the Japanese (the historical example I referred to being Hiroshima and Nagasaki) armed children for combat and trained them to kill as many Americans as possible, right? And that they released so much propaganda for the civilians in Okinawa that the Japanese citizens committed suicide by throwing themselves and their families off cliffs ...[text shortened]... lict where children are combatants, you would allow one to stab you multiple times in the chest.
You do realise why people all over the world think it's a bad idea that people like you have nuclear weapons, don't you?
25.000 children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were too young to carry anything but pacifiers.
Originally posted by shavixmir You do realise why people all over the world think it's a bad idea that people like you have nuclear weapons, don't you?
25.000 children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were too young to carry anything but pacifiers.
I happen to agree. But it's not logical to disarm oneself when the rest of the world is arming. As to the children in Nagasaki, tell that to the people who trained them to use awls as weapons. Tell you what, why don't you let yourself get stabbed with an awl by a child, see how long it takes for you to bleed out, before you claim that indoctrinated children en masse wouldn't represent a threat. Why don't you sit in on the next school shooting (in any country), see how long you last. This whole notion of "oh, children can't be combatants" is ridiculous and flies in the face of empirical reality. Child soldiers are such a huge problem in Africa that we have entire charities devoted to ending them, and you have the nerve to try and claim that indoctrinated children wouldn't be a threat? Laughable.
Originally posted by kquinn909 Compared to the libs this. http://www.numberofabortions.com/
Did you know that in the Netherlands, where abortions are freely available on the taxpayers' dime, the abortion rate is about ten times lower than in the U.S.?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Did you know that in the Netherlands, where abortions are freely available on the taxpayers' dime, the abortion rate is about ten times lower than in the U.S.?
Anecdotes aren't science. Your sample size here isn't even large enough to invoke CLT. Insert the necessary qualifiers please.
Originally posted by blaze8492 Anecdotes aren't science. Your sample size here isn't even large enough to invoke CLT. Insert the necessary qualifiers please.
Find a dictionary and look up the word "anecdote".
You'll find that a data set from an entire country with a population of 17 million isn't one.
Originally posted by no1marauder Find a dictionary and look up the word "anecdote".
You'll find that a data set from an entire country with a population of 17 million isn't one.
You've selected the population of your country as your data set, when the proper data set here is the average used on a country by country basis (i.e. your index is country, not country population). I'm just fine on my definitions, but it seems you need a brush up on basic stats.
Originally posted by blaze8492 You've selected the population of your country as your data set, when the proper data set here is the average used on a country by country basis (i.e. your index is country, not country population). I'm just fine on my definitions, but it seems you need a brush up on basic stats.
That is babble. There was a comparison made between two countries with very different policies regarding the funding of abortions. You trying to ignore that by using the term "anecdote" improperly doesn't change the validity of the data.
EDIT: Though it seems KN's figures are off though the rate in the Netherlands is significantly lower than in the US despite access being greater and cost non-existent.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Did you know that in the Netherlands, where abortions are freely available on the taxpayers' dime, the abortion rate is about ten times lower than in the U.S.?
I don't think so; it's lower but not by that degree:
By 2011, abortion rate in the United States dropped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure. According to a study performed by Guttmacher Institute, long-acting contraceptive methods were having a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age.
Anyone who actually thinks that a nuclear arms race is a "good thing" is a lunatic.
It is also barred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires signatories (like the US) with nuclear arms to move toward disarmament.https://www.state.gov/t/isn/npt/
ARTICLE VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Originally posted by no1marauder That is babble. There was a comparison made between two countries with very different policies regarding the funding of abortions. You trying to ignore that by using the term "anecdote" improperly doesn't change the validity of the data.
EDIT: Though it seems KN's figures are off though the rate in the Netherlands is significantly lower than in the US despite access being greater and cost non-existent.
It's not. When you state "x country has an abortion rate lower than the US," the number of data points you have invoked is 1. N = 1. You have literally 1 observation. That, no matter how you try and wiggle it, is an anecdote for all intents and purposes.
N=1 is nowhere close to rigorous enough to draw ANY conclusions on the significance of an abortion policy. Good try though.
EDIT: to clarify, your lone observation is the abortion rate in country x. That's it. No other observations (because in order to have another observation, you'd have to invoke the abortion rate in another country, say, country y)
Trump wants more nukes: HELL YEAH!!!
23 Dec '16 18:21
Back to Top