15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPlease don't start throwing phrases from the marauder's handbook.
You are moving the target. Your 30% claim was with respect to the whole population, and I have shown it to be wrong.
You only introducted the HIV sub-population metric a couple posts ago.
First of all, what 30% claim did you show to be wrong? What are you talking about? The only 30% that has come up in this discussion is a typical African remarriage rate statistic provided by BdN. And, if you care to actually read the description in the link he provided, it's amply clear it is defined on the eligible population.
Second, go back and read my response to the 60-70% metric (also provided by BdN) on page 3. It's clear I'm talking about the HIV+ sub-population.
Do your homework before jumping mid-way into a discussion.
15 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's never clear what you are talking about because you equivocate in nearly every post.
It's clear I'm talking about the HIV+ sub-population.
Nemesio's request for my expertise indicated that there was a consensus between the two of you that the 60-70% statistic was implausible, in light of an apparent 50% upper bound that it violated. Were you ever part of such a consensus?
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBy your logic, defining a drug's success rate on sick people and defining the unemployment rate on people of a particular age range should also be tantamount to falling for Zeno's paradox.
What's truly funny is that adopting your preferred metric is tantamount to falling for Zeno's dichotomy paradox.
To complete a race, you must first go 50% of the distance. If two people are starting a race, neither is currently eligible to win because neither has achieved all of the logical preconditions of winning the race, according to Zeno.
...[text shortened]... If not, why do you choose one precondition as being special while ignoring the others?
By your logic, the success rate of a condom should count the number of times unprotected sexual intercourse occurs as well. Divorce rates should include live-in relationships as well (and maybe even single people).
Care to differ?
Your analogy to Zeno's racers is flawed because this isn't a dichotomy between people in the same race, but between people in a particular race and those in the stands. Zeno's paradox does not deal with eligibility, but with actually winning the race - you're confusing the two. Anyone who licitly starts a race is eligible to win it, anyone who doesn't (usually) is not.
Your last paragraph is just an argument for its own sake - and flawed for the same reason.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat study? All we have so far are the comments of an interviewee.
That's the claim of the study! The set of empirical results of the study is the reason.
You're rejecting the study. On what basis? It sounds like it's on the basis that you merely doubt its findings.
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes. You're wrong.
By your logic, defining a drug's success rate on sick people and defining the unemployment rate on people of a particular age range should also be tantamount to falling for Zeno's paradox.
By your logic, the success rate of a condom should count the number of times unprotected sexual intercourse occurs as well. Divorce rates should include live-in relationships as well (and maybe even single people).
Care to differ?
Why should divorced people who don't have new fiancees be counted in your basis?
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesApparently you are the only person here who thinks I wasn't clear enough the first time around. If you're too lazy to read the thread - that's your problem, not mine.
It's never clear what you are talking about because you equivocate in nearly every post.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs this your version of the "Simon Says" defence?
Yes. You're wrong.
Why should divorced people who don't have new fiancees be counted in your basis?
Because they are [legally] eligible to remarry. That they cannot actually remarry unless they have a fiancee does not affect their eligibility - just as you are eligible to vote when you reach a certain age even if there is no election in your region.
Before continuing with this silly discussion any further, you might want to check how remarriage rate is usually defined:
http://www.poplibnet.org.pk/app/glossary/default.aspx?p=10&ss=
EDIT: Do you still want to dispute the definition of remarriage rate?
15 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerA single person who has never been married is legally eligible to remarry to the same extent that a divorced person without a new fiancee is, unless you're going to assert that every divorced person without a new fiancee achieved that state illegally.
Why should divorced people who don't have new fiancees be counted in your basis?
Because they are [legally] eligible to remarry. That they cannot actually remarry unless they have a fiancee does not affect their eligibility - just as you are eligible to vote when you reach a certain age even if there is no election in your region.
Befo ...[text shortened]... /default.aspx?p=10&ss=
EDIT: Do you still want to dispute the definition of remarriage rate?[/b]
We see that you're really equivocating on the term eligible, applying its legal interpretation when convenient, and its logical interpretation when convenient.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou're just wasting time. If you disagree with the definition of 'remarriage rate' take it up with the demographers.
A single person who has never been married is legally eligible to remarry to the same extent that a divorced person without a new fiancee is, unless you're going to assert that every divorced person without a new fiancee achieved that state illegally.
We see that you're really equivocating on the term eligible, applying its legal interpretation when convenient, and its logical interpretation when convenient.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's irrelevant anyway since you have moved the target to an entirely new statistic, one in which only HIV infected people are counted in the basis.
You're just wasting time. If you disagree with the definition of 'remarriage rate' take it up with the demographers.
Were you ever part of the consensus that Nemesio alluded to, or was he the only one that thought 50% was a logical upper bound on the intra-marriage transmission statistic?
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAs I said earlier, stop throwing phrases at me from the marauder's notebook when you're the one too lazy to read what I've written earlier. I've consistently spoken in terms of remarriage rates (explicitly or implicitly) of the HIV+ sub-population. No moving of targets by me here - just your failure to see where the target was initially.
It's irrelevant anyway since you have moved the target to an entirely new statistic, one in which only HIV infected people are counted in the basis.
Were you ever part of the consensus that Nemesio alluded to, or was he the only one that thought 50% was a logical upper bound on the intra-marriage transmission statistic?
As to your second question, I'm the one who said that, barring remarriages, 50% was a logical upper-bound on intra-marriage transmission. Got a problem with that?
15 May 06
Originally posted by Nemesio"Age-specific remarriage rates are the number of remarrying males or females registered in the calendar year, by age at marriage, per 1,000 widowed and divorced estimated resident population of the same sex and age at 30 June. Males and females aged under 15 years are excluded from the population."
What is the definition?
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3310.0Glossary12002?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=3310.0&issue=2002&num=&view=
Also see:
http://www.poplibnet.org.pk/app/glossary/default.aspx?p=10&ss=
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9270
15 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo if a person remarries 6 times, he is only counted once in this metric, correct?
"Age-specific remarriage rates are the number of remarrying males or females registered in the calendar year, by age at marriage, per 1,000 widowed and divorced estimated resident population of the same sex and age at 30 June. Males and females aged under 15 years are excluded from the population."
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestprod ...[text shortened]... /glossary/default.aspx?p=10&ss=
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9270