Mgtow

[bellisarius]

No... not... at all... that's not how that works. That just means that 33 is 50% of 66. That doesn't mean anything in context. To find population growth you have to use a growth formula, and you HAVE to have a good sample size. Neither of us knows what the growth rate would be, but it sure as hell wouldn't be HIGHER than the initial population if the initial population was under 50% of the original sample group. Because that's not how fucking reality works. That's insane. Not in one interval. Like... I'm not understanding why you would suggest that or how you came to that conclusion. I read this and I'm still not super sure what you've done here.

I read this like 3 times and I can't get it to make sense. Like even by your own logic that should be a 30% increase, not 50. If you had a 100 sample size and used the math that you've outlined here, 30% of the original sample size would be 30, not 50. But again, that's... not how you populate the growth of a certain population, like criminals, drug addicts, or even people with red fucking hair. Makes no damn sense.

And the reason I bring up national averages is because it's important for exponential growth in samples- to see if it's generalizable. To see if it MEANS anything. Anybody can have a bullshit fluke- there's somebody out there right now chain smoking cigars and not dying of cancer.

I'm saying that if 30% of the kids in this center got their addiction started by someone OTHER than a trusted adult- the national average sits around 5%. I get from what I just read that statistics are not your strong suite, but that would mean that the VAST MAJORITY, almost ALL of the kids in the entire country who got their addiction started because of "peer pressure" would be from your community. Because they are over-represented HEAVILY, to the tune of 5x the national average. So your community would be /skewing/ the national average, because the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang lives there, and instead of trapping kids in an underground hell, he gets them addicted to drugs. In which case, YOUR community would need to have this problem addressed, as a specialty case.

It's kind of like how Appalachia is skewing the national average on opiod abuse, if that helps you understand. It looks like the whole damn country is addicted- but it's not. Opiod abuse is just REALLY rampant in the bible belt (people in other places do other drugs). It's considered an "epidemic".

If the numbers you gave me were true, statistically there would be an EPIDEMIC of peer-pressure-based addiction in your community. And that would be super easy to solve, because that shit's not generational. You could just get these kids into rehab, ask them where they got their drugs, and arrest the person who got them addicted. It would have to be a small group of people, because of how fucking difficult it is to get someone with no history addicted- that's why it usually HAS to be someone who is a trusted adult. If these numbers are right, this is a problem for your community that needs solving- and could be solved in like 3 months. If someone in the field gets a case like that here, they fucking REJOICE. Because of how rare it is, and how (comparatively) easy it is to fix.

First of all you're playing games with the numbers. Given two populations, A and B, and B represents 33% of the total population, then B is 50% of A's population. But, irrefutably, B is still 33% of the total. Extending that out. In this case B represents those that come from families that don't use drugs. But without intervention THEIR children will come from drug using families. And that adds to the A population to one degree or another. You can cut the fine hairs on the percentages anyway you want but you're still looking at a geometric progression. So given that the goal would be to see population A representing 100% of the population and with effective intervention the raw numbers should decline.

Be that as it may, you're point is well taken. The local problem may be at one percentage but extending that to the national population can't be done. I stand corrected on that point.

 

[CandiCame]

First of all you're playing games with the numbers. Given two populations, A and B, and B represents 33% of the total population, then B is 50% of A's population. But, irrefutably, B is still 33% of the total. Extending that out. In this case B represents those that come from families that don't use drugs. But without intervention THEIR children will come from drug using families. And that adds to the A population to one degree or another. You can cut the fine hairs on the percentages anyway you want but you're still looking at a geometric progression. So given that the goal would be to see population A representing 100% of the population and with effective intervention the raw numbers should decline.

Be that as it may, you're point is well taken. The local problem may be at one percentage but extending that to the national population can't be done. I stand corrected on that point.

I mean, also your math is wrong. I'll go on a fucking math off. That's not how you calculate the growth of a population. Your whole study would be thrown out on its face. Your grant proposal would be rejected if you wrote what you wrote in this post. That's just not true.

Ok, so a geometric progression is a common ratio. That's not the same as a population growth formula. It's just NOT. Population growth is calculus. Because populations ALSO grow or reduce. Your independent variable is not a FIXED NUMBER. It is constantly in flux. It's not a fucking mandelbrot set where the overall population stays a Z and never trends away.

Edit: I also did the actual math for funsies but idk if you saw it because it's on the other page and I had JUST posted it when I saw this so I think we posted at the same time.

 

[CandiCame]

You know, I think I get what your problem might be, and it explains how you got that 50% number earlier. In a simple ratio like a geometric progression, your IV is the ENTIRE POPULATION, not the control population. So even by your own math it should be 30 out of 100 (or ten out of 30), not 33 out of 66. The control population will also grow at it's own rate, it isn't the complete population.

 

[schism666]

Yeah. I think I've reached that point. I've got shit I need to be doing IRL right now- I've got like 4 commissions backed up. You remember how the other day you called me out for posting too much? I legit do that- because it lets me procrastinate, I think. I'm going to do that stupid bet thing with Rory, because then depending on external circumstances that I can't control, I can pretend I have a reason not to post. I think that would be good for me.

I think I can doublethink myself into losing the bet whether I do or not, too. Then I "won't be able to post" for a year, and by then the desire should be out of my system.

q takes great umbrage to this and related topics. see, his wife took his child and ran off with one of her bulls, a large black man, and now they are all thriving without his interference.

single parent
black man​

you see where his rage originates from.

 

[bellisarius]

You know, I think I get what your problem might be, and it explains how you got that 50% number earlier. In a simple ratio like a geometric progression, your IV is the ENTIRE POPULATION, not the control population. So even by your own math it should be 30 out of 100 (or ten out of 30), not 33 out of 66. The control population will also grow at it's own rate, it isn't the complete population.

Yeah, and that was my concession. I expanded a local into a global and expressed it as a constant. The phrase "without intervention" should have been the notice that I KNOW it's not a constant. But the expansion to global was in err.

Your math also shows a geometric progression. What we seem to be arguing over is the rate of that progression. I'm going to assume that both of us agree that any rate of progression is highly undesirable.

 

[beew]

What a complete and total crock of shit.

The one and only thing that creates sources of stability for a child is if a parent is selfless enough to love their child more than they love themself. Period. And that includes knowing when tough-love is needed. Your sanctimonious " traditional family unit" is just another way of saying you have a total lack empathy for anyone else and are dead inside. Join the living.

No, I simply assume that, when two people consciously decide to have a child, they're committed to staying and raising the child together at least during the child's formative years.

I simply can't grasp your guys' logic: Why would it be so catastrophic to formalize things at that point?

I'm not referring to cases of accidental pregnancies, or in which one of the partners feels coerced by the other. Or to people who realize further down the road that they made a mistake, so they decide to split.

 

[mAnn_Tagonist]

No, I simply assume that, when two people consciously decide to have a child, they're committed to staying and raising the child together at least during the child's formative years.

I simply can't grasp your guys' logic: Why would it be so catastrophic to formalize things at that point?

I'm not referring to the cases of accidental pregnancies, or in which one of the partners feels coerced by the other. Or to people who realize further down the road that they made a mistake, so they decide to split.

Isn't time for the goat fisting, you sick fuck?

 

[bellisarius]

No, I simply assume that, when two people consciously decide to have a child, they're committed to staying and raising the child together at least during the child's formative years.

I simply can't grasp your guys' logic: Why would it be so catastrophic to formalize things at that point?

I'm not referring to cases of accidental pregnancies, or in which one of the partners feels coerced by the other. Or to people who realize further down the road that they made a mistake, so they decide to split.

The simple fact is that most marriages are ended because the wife decides so, and no reason be given. A decision that is generally devastating to all parties involved. That being the case why take the risk?

I don't like this turn of events but I can find no logical argument against it. Telling a man that his 'duty' is to marry, stay married, and procreate while teaching women that they are under no such obligation is going to lead to this phenomena.

 

[beew]

The simple fact is that most marriages are ended because the wife decides so, and no reason be given. A decision that is generally devastating to all parties involved. That being the case why take the risk?

I don't like this turn of events but I can find no logical argument against it. Telling a man that his 'duty' is to marry, stay married, and procreate while teaching women that they are under no such obligation is going to lead to this phenomena.

Well, it might be that we don't understand each other's views because where I come from, marriage or divorce laws aren't skewed in favor of any party.
Being raised within a marriage still is the best option for children there.

I'm still baffled by the men versus women issues in the US and UK - according to who you speak to, you hear such conflicting versions...

 

[bellisarius]

Well, it might be that we don't understand each other's views because where I come from, marriage or divorce laws aren't skewed in favor of any party.
Being raised within a marriage still is the best option for children there.

I'm still baffled by the men versus women issues in the US and UK - according to who you speak to, you hear such conflicting versions...

First of all I agree on the above emboldened. And I'm out of the game so I have no dog in this fight. But I damn sure understand the motives behind this movement.

 

[CandiCame]

Yeah, and that was my concession. I expanded a local into a global and expressed it as a constant. The phrase "without intervention" should have been the notice that I KNOW it's not a constant. But the expansion to global was in err.

Your math also shows a geometric progression. What we seem to be arguing over is the rate of that progression. I'm going to assume that both of us agree that any rate of progression is highly undesirable.

No, honey, it doesn't. A geometric progression is a SPECIFIC kind of mathematical growth based on ratios. An exponential growth formula is DIFFERENT kind of mathematical growth based on variable inputs. On grows EXPONENTIALLY and the other grows based on relative ratios. One assumes a variable set, the other a constant set.

They're two different things. One is used for consistent numbers, and the other is used for variable numbers.

Generalizability is not the issue. It would have been wrong either way. The growth rate is 9.9- not anywhere NEAR 50- 50 would be a growth rate of over 100. You would have doubled your original 30- not added 9.9 to it. You just got the word problem super duper wrong. There's no getting around that. You can't bullshit math.

And it certainly would NEVER overtake the control population.

This shit aggravates me.

 

[CandiCame]

No, I simply assume that, when two people consciously decide to have a child, they're committed to staying and raising the child together at least during the child's formative years.

I simply can't grasp your guys' logic: Why would it be so catastrophic to formalize things at that point?

I'm not referring to cases of accidental pregnancies, or in which one of the partners feels coerced by the other. Or to people who realize further down the road that they made a mistake, so they decide to split.

So like... 3 people.

Most people don't "decide" to have kids- kids are a surprise because condoms aren't 100% effective. Almost all 1st kids are unplanned, and even after that the number NEVER climbs past a little over half.

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_900x720/public/images/unintendedpregnancyratesmap.png?itok=AW8JVO6r

You can not want kids all day long, but unless you strive to keep your dick in your pants, no contraception is 100% effective. Shit happens, and you deal with it.

https://i.imgur.com/RMy2WZI.jpg

Edit: Also, if you'll read back over the thread, I've listed SEVERAL reasons that people don't want to get married. It could hurt them financially. It causes women unnecessary stress that they don't have from cohabitation. It gives no benefits to children. It gives no benefits to women. AND IT IS AN OPT-IN PROCESS. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT.

It's not a default thing. It's something you have to go out of your way to do. You have to have a reason TO do it- not to just... do nothing. Doing nothing is the DEFAULT. Marriage is something you actively have to go out of your way, pay money for, plan (even if it's planning to take a day off and go down to the court house- they don't get in no hurry down there). It's an unnecessary hassle UNLESS you get some benefit from it. A lot of people don't.

You don't need a reason NOT to do something. You need a reason TO do something.

 

[von_Bismarck]

So Ismale is arguing geometric growth and exponential growth are the same thing? Lol, okay. Guess he failed high school algebra, among other things.

 

[CandiCame]

So Ismale is arguing geometric growth and exponential growth are the same thing? Lol, okay. Guess he failed high school algebra, among other things.

I think they're just trying to push my buttons in particular.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I think they're just trying to push my buttons in particular.

Could be. But when it comes to Ish, I'd never discount the power of stupid.

 

[CandiCame]

Could be. But when it comes to Ish, I'd never discount the power of stupid.

This post just made me take a real deep breath through my nose and then exhale slowly.

https://i.imgur.com/lSzLHBS.jpg

 

[bellisarius]

No, honey, it doesn't. A geometric progression is a SPECIFIC kind of mathematical growth based on ratios. An exponential growth formula is DIFFERENT kind of mathematical growth based on variable inputs. On grows EXPONENTIALLY and the other grows based on relative ratios. One assumes a variable set, the other a constant set.

They're two different things. One is used for consistent numbers, and the other is used for variable numbers.

Generalizability is not the issue. It would have been wrong either way. The growth rate is 9.9- not anywhere NEAR 50- 50 would be a growth rate of over 100. You would have doubled your original 30- not added 9.9 to it. You just got the word problem super duper wrong. There's no getting around that. You can't bullshit math.

And it certainly would NEVER overtake the control population.

This shit aggravates me.

And when the 'common ratio' varies over time?

The solution to that would be instantaneous updates to the 'common ratio' but lacking that I suppose we just have to work with the meager data we have.

 

[CandiCame]

And when the 'common ratio' varies over time?

The solution to that would be instantaneous updates to the 'common ratio' but lacking that I suppose we just have to work with the meager data we have.

No, it's not. We have forumulas to identify how often to collect data for longitudinal studies. Normally in a population study we use the Jolicoeur and Pontier formula because they take into account specific time-honored growth rates that have been recreated over and over again since the 19-fucking-80s. It was originally used for organism growth measurement timing, but later became the standard for population sample collection timing because it worked so well.

E(Yt)=(1/(C1e^(t/d1)=C2e(-t/D2)), t(Epsilon)(0, (infinity)).

Where C1, C2, D1, D2 ≥ 0, t is the time and Yt the size or the proportion of the population at time t. The parameter D1 is responsible of the growth of the population, D2 measures the decline rate and C1 and C2 simultaneously control the relative rates of increase, decrease and height of the curve. That'll tell us when to take measurements to keep our longitudinal predicted growth rate correct with actual physical reality, without wasting resources by measuring too often.

You've never done a fucking longitudinal study in your life. It's super obvious. I'm about with the other dude that you didn't graduate high school.

 

[beew]

Me too lol. Plus I never wanted kids.
But most of those that I grew up with back home -men included- did.

First of all I agree on the above emboldened. And I'm out of the game so I have no dog in this fight. But I damn sure understand the motives behind this movement.

Yes, I can partially understand where they're coming from.
Because I HAVE seen marriages in which one of the partners took their partner for granted after the "For better or for worse" vows, and morphed into a tyrannical monster. Others feel trapped because a divorce would bleed them dry.

If I understood correctly, is that why all those men want the marriage institution gone?
The skewed divorce laws + they assume that their partner would be on their best behavior if they weren't as certain of them?

I don't get it. Why don't those men argue for more flexible marriage laws instead?
Women have other hangups too. As an example: that they might be taken for granted and asked to sacrifice their youth cooking and darning their socks and whiping the kids' mucus while the hubby watches TV, beer in hand. After which "Bye bye, now it's time for a younger model."

 

[CandiCame]

Me too lol. Plus I never wanted kids.
But most of those that I grew up with back home -men included- did.


Yes, I can partially understand where they're coming from.
Because I HAVE seen marriages in which one of the partners took their partner for granted after the "For better or for worse" vows, and morphed into a tyrannical monster. Others feel trapped because a divorce would bleed them dry.

If I understood correctly, is that why all those men want the marriage institution gone?
The skewed divorce laws + they assume that their partner would be on their best behavior if they weren't as certain of them?

I don't get it. Why don't those men argue for more flexible marriage laws instead?
Women have other hangups too. As an example: that they might be taken for granted and asked to sacrifice their youth cooking and darning their socks and whiping the kids' mucus while the hubby watches TV, beer in hand. After which "Bye bye, now it's time for a younger model."

You absolutely don't understand, which means that you weren't paying attention any more in this thread than Belli did in math class.

No one said anything remotely like any of that.

It's just an archaic system that cheats the woman, has legal ramification, and very few benefits THAT YOU HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PARTICIPATE IN. It is EASIER not to get married. It is the default position.

If there is no reason to do a thing- not just this thing but ANY thing- then people don't do it. The default is NOT doing things. That's how humans work.

Like... I want you to pretend that you had never heard of the concept of marriage. Then your boyfriend came up to you, and said the following:

"So I was reading and there used to be this ancient ceremony, back when women were viewed as property, because DNA testing hadn't been invented, but patrialinial lineage had. So in order to make sure that all your kids were genetically yours, you would buy a woman from another man. You'd have a big party to celebrate the transaction, where you would invite all your friends and family and in front of all of them, even the children, you would swear to god that you wouldn't fuck anyone else for the duration of the legal contract you were sold into. She'd even change her name, because her identity depends on which man currently owned her. Studies of this institution show that the women's happiness severely drops and doesn't pick up until the guy she's sold to straight-up dies. There aren't any real benefits for kids, but depending on the financial and legal situation there may be some benefits on that end, mostly for the guy. So, would you like to do that?

No? No you want me to go fuck myself for introducing this concept to you?

Fair enough, babe. Have a nice day. I'll just sleep on the couch tonight, then."

Edit: "Oh, and it doesn't make our commitment stronger in any way. Most of these things only lasted about 4 years. It absolutely won't make our relationship any stronger- in fact, it'll strain it because now you'll be miserable until I die or you break up with me, due to the aforementioned miserableness.

Still go fuck myself, ey? Yeah, I totally get that."

 

[beew]

It's just an archaic system that cheats the woman, has legal ramification, and very few benefits THAT YOU HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO PARTICIPATE IN. It is EASIER not to get married. It is the default position.

If there is no reason to do a thing- not just this thing but ANY thing- then people don't do it. The default is NOT doing things. That's how humans work.

Like... I want you to pretend that you had never heard of the concept of marriage. Then your boyfriend came up to you, and said the following:

"So I was reading and there used to be this ancient ceremony, back when women were viewed as property, because DNA testing hadn't been invented, but patrialinial lineage had. So in order to make sure that all your kids were genetically yours, you would buy a woman from another man. You'd have a big party to celebrate the transaction, where you would invite all your friends and family and in front of all of them, even the children, you would swear to god that you wouldn't fuck anyone else for the duration of the legal contract you were sold into. She'd even change her name, because her identity depends on which man currently owned her. Studies of this institution show that the women's happiness severely drops and doesn't pick up until the guy she's sold to straight-up dies. There aren't any real benefits for kids, but depending on the financial and legal situation there may be some benefits on that end, mostly for the guy. So, would you like to do that?

No? No you want me to go fuck myself for introducing this concept to you?

Fair enough, babe. Have a nice day. I'll just sleep on the couch tonight, then."

Edit: "Oh, and it doesn't make our commitment stronger in any way. Most of these things only lasted about 4 years. It absolutely won't make our relationship any stronger- in fact, it'll strain it because now you'll be miserable until I die or you break up with me, due to the aforementioned miserableness.

Still go fuck myself, ey? Yeah, I totally get that."

Are you sure you're not describing Islam?


And you guys are now doing it because you're Feminists?

The same people who attack anyone who claims that the Muslim family unit is 50 times more patriarchal the Western one?

You're so full of shit. But in an entertaining way.

 

[CandiCame]

Are you sure you're not describing Islam?


And you guys are now doing it because you're Feminists?

The same people who attack anyone who claims that the Muslim family unit is 50 times more patriarchal the Western one?

You're so full of shit. But in an entertaining way.

All Abrahamic religions are patriarchial and awful. I'm an atheist. I've never said anything in defense of Islam?

You will just keep pulling shit out of your ass.

But's it's not JUST religious marriage that has these effects- we see them in secular marriages as well.

The added danger with religious marriages, particularly in the Abrahamic religions, which I will focus on because I know more about them- is this focus on "purity", and this desire to see marriage as a lifetime commitment instead of a legal contract for no particular reason besides the fact that King David pissed god off one time in an old book. That adds unrealistic expectations onto the already sizeable pile of problems that marriage can create, along with a LESSENING of the all-important social support structure because people may be shunned after divorce.

Religion very rarely tends to make things better. When it does, like with the single-parent church-family thing, I'll admit it. But I still think that the risks outweigh the benefits. Just not a fan of organized religion.

Edit: Also, have these deflections ever worked? Has this plan of, "Well other people have an even shittier system so you should engage in this shitty system instead of just not doing either and continuing to have a higher lifetime happiness!" ever once worked? Or do people just roll their eyes at you and sigh at the nonsense?

2nd edit: You highlighted my comment about women changing their name for marriage. Are you trying to say that you literally didn't know that was a thing that women were pressured to do, even in secular marriage? To take their husband's name? Are you THAT sheltered?

3rd edit: Also, did you not know that in CHRISTIAN ceremonies, the dad literally hands off the bride in a property exchange to the groom? That brides are "given away"? Is this all new information to you? These are things that still happen, to this day.

 

[beew]

Yes, besides those men who feel that they were taken advantage of, single mothers face a lot of stigma.
I get that part of the rationale against the marriage culture.

But there's a reason why they call it maternal instinct.
There are 100 times more men who are likely to be ratbags and either abandon or chip in much less in child care, than women.

If not marriage, then there needs to be another way to perpetuate a cultural view in which raising a child is a big and shared responsibility.

 

[Que]

You sent me a link to an interlibrary loan program. Even with a membership I can't read this. Which... makes me think that you didn't either. And this abstract states that this is a critique of a 1993 study that they deem is still relivent despite it being performed before modern guidelines about experimental design were implemented. All this says is, "This probably still tracks."

And... yeah, of course I do? Have you ever spoken to anyone and had them bullshit you and them not have the thing pulled up on their phone? The argument is over sources, not the topic- "You dumbass, this is a Fox News article" or "This is literally from the onion" or "Dude that's some bitch's tumblr blog." No one just makes radical assertions about shit like they're true. And again, this is NOT a common assumption like you seem to think it is. You have one review of a study from before people actively working in the field were BORN.

I think Luk might be right. You're trying to run out the clock, not trying to learn. You want to be allowed to think bullshit and have no one call you on it, and you think that the best way to do that is to be so aggravating that they eventually quit.

I recon that'll work. So more power to you.

Well then I guess that settles that. Apparently Human Nature has been abrogated and all of the things that have happened throughout history throughout all of recorded time no longer applies because somehow or another modern society has decided that fathers are Superfluous. Good to know.

 

[CandiCame]

Well then I guess that settles that. Apparently Human Nature has been abrogated and all of the things that have happened throughout history throughout all of recorded time no longer applies because somehow or another modern society has decided that fathers are Superfluous. Good to know.

To repeal something, people would have had to believed it at one time. No one ever thought that kids needed two parents instead of loving family except you. That's why no one said it but you and everyone made fun of you for it. Even the people who were advocating for marriage said that it was good because it brought in TWO extended families.

You don't need a mother, either. Kids who are adopted by a parent or parents with a good social support structure get along just fine.

I'm sorry that happy, healthy children make you feel unnecessary. Idk if what the other users said about your personal situation is true, but it sure sounds like it from how you post.

Also, not for nothing, but we're a postmodern society.