Being single 'worse than smoking'

[Mish]

Who said to disagree is to disprove?

You have to base your disagreement on facts. Otherwise there are no bases for the disagreement. ...And to have facts is to have proof.

[Only-virgins]

Ofcourse. All bogus! Every single one of them!!! Whats a number but some form of logical construct created by a human mind. How can anyone know anything without investigating every single atom in the universe? Is our existence interpretation of electrical signals by our brain, then whose to say we even exist?

Science, statistics, medical stuff, who needs all that when you can just be ignorant and pretend nothing happens outside of your own head Yeh, just live carefree and ignore everything... Ignorance is bliss! Right OV?

To bad that I am a science major. Your a flop. I love math and science. They are the answer to everything....how ever..what I said is that numerical statistics are NOT.

You have to base your disagreement on facts. Otherwise there are no bases for the disagreement. ...And to have facts is to have proof.

Precisely. Now tell me what is a "fact" and tell me how single man dying quicker because of being single is a fact? Its not. Once the words "More likely" are inlcuded then whocares...says who that I am going to be the single guy who dies...pffft. If a group of research scientist came up to me and showed me hard evidence that being single causes some form of bodily failure or mental state leading to body failure then fine...but what we have here is a bunch of wannabe psychologists wasting room because they have no other story to right about.

It's okay if someone disagrees with reaserch based on objective principles, with a proven hypothesis backed up by analyses and statistical data. But the one who disagrees should provide their own statistics and research to counter that argument or at least links to where these can be found. Simply saying "I disagree and therefore I am" is not enough to prove or disprove anything.

You have this the wrong way. First some thing must be proven before I would ever eve attempt to disprove it. Think about that. I dont understand why so many people get worked up over religion for example. Religious people ask others to disprove god...fools they are..its up to them to prove him first because if not then they can try and disprove the green bean giant living in my closet....offcourse they can not trasspass on my property or the giant will get angry. I dont have to prove your statistical data wrong..I just have to provide the obvious fact that in general all statistical data taken on a servey bases is faulty and has a margin of error. Another funny thing is how something posted on the internet that is said to have statistical data can be taken so seriously by you people. What if its just some attention hungry journalist who asked 10 people ..or worse..just made the entire thing up?

Its absolutly un-fair that you call me ignorant and say that I use philosophy to justify my ignorance. I for one love knowledge. I am just picky on what is factual and not.

[Junsui]

Ok, I didn't read every single post in here and this article was done awhile ago, but I think it has something to do with what y'all are talking about. I don't know about being single being Worse than smoking and I haven't found any research about it effecting men, only this one on women. [url]http://www.apa.org/releases/maritalbenefit.html[/url]

[Tone]

What are these "single women" you speak of???

I thought they existed only in myth...

[Mish]

To bad that I am a science major. Your a flop. I love math and science. They are the answer to everything....how ever..what I said is that numerical statistics are NOT.



Precisely. Now tell me what is a "fact" and tell me how single man dying quicker because of being single is a fact? Its not. Once the words "More likely" are inlcuded then whocares...says who that I am going to be the single guy who dies...pffft. If a group of research scientist came up to me and showed me hard evidence that being single causes some form of bodily failure or mental state leading to body failure then fine...but what we have here is a bunch of wannabe psychologists wasting room because they have no other story to right about.



You have this the wrong way. First some thing must be proven before I would ever eve attempt to disprove it. Think about that. I dont understand why so many people get worked up over religion for example. Religious people ask others to disprove god...fools they are..its up to them to prove him first because if not then they can try and disprove the green bean giant living in my closet....offcourse they can not trasspass on my property or the giant will get angry. I dont have to prove your statistical data wrong..I just have to provide the obvious fact that in general all statistical data taken on a servey bases is faulty and has a margin of error. Another funny thing is how something posted on the internet that is said to have statistical data can be taken so seriously by you people. What if its just some attention hungry journalist who asked 10 people ..or worse..just made the entire thing up?

Its absolutly un-fair that you call me ignorant and say that I use philosophy to justify my ignorance. I for one love knowledge. I am just picky on what is factual and not.

1. Statistics are numerical data used to justify and arrive to results in both Maths and Science. If you are a Science Major you should already know that.
2. "Fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." What is "More Likely"??? It is a probability. Since you love Maths so much here is a little bit of information for you on how to calculate a probability [url]http://www.netnam.vn/unescocourse/statistics/46.htm[/url] . Educate yourself.
3. I am not wrong at all. The way i see it, the theory has already been proven. The research and numbers are available for calculation for anyone who wants to disprove this hypothesis. Here is a little bit more information for you on how proability is used in both maths and science and why it is an important feature of both [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability[/url]. Also, have a look here while you're at it [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics[/url]. You are saying you want a concrete proof to every single thing and even then it has to conform to your set of beliefs to justify its relevance. If yes, you are being ignorant. Let me tell you, there is no concrete proof I can give you such as if you smoke 5 packets per day there will be known the exact time and day when your death will occur. But I can give you a probabillity based on statistical data, which will give you the percentile chances of your departure from next year to 50 years from now.
4. I can understand your skeptisism about this being some journalist who doesn't know what he is doing, but you are wrong. If you weren't so ignorant to have a look at the links I provided you would see that the research was actually carried out by the university of Warwick. So you are not arguing with some poor journalist. You are arguing with University Proffesors and Scholars. And I tell, so far you are very far from winning.
5. I still think that you are being ignorant, just on the basis that you say that you love maths and science, are a science major and yet you can not comprehend one of the most important facillities/concepts used by both schools of thought. You tell me, this is not contradictory and ignorant???

[Rosebud]

Not to defend Ov or anything but this is not about winning anything. And why are you trying to make agree with these posts? I know it's based on actual statistics and proeven theories but it's almost like yout trying to impose that everyone agree with those just because the people that wrote them were professors and what not. I know it's not a matter of believing or disbelieving but gees.

Ok so they did some research and found that married men will live longer because they are married.. And they have numbers to prove this... Ok, I believe that is not the whole case otherwise they would be trying to do something about but whatever that's my opinion and I'm so sick of all the arguements on here... GRRRRRR

[Mish]

Not to defend Ov or anything but this is not about winning anything. And why are you trying to make agree with these posts? I know it's based on actual statistics and proeven theories but it's almost like yout trying to impose that everyone agree with those just because the people that wrote them were professors and what not.

It's simple. I love a good Argument!!!

Not trying to impose anything, but give me a good argument if you disagree.

I'm challenging people to give reasons for their arguments and not be so shallow to say, or this is all crap anyway because all statistics are wong.

While being such a jerk, I encourage people to make an effort to actually do some rational thinking, analyze facts and numbers on thich they base their answers on.

Is that so bad?

I believe that is not the whole case otherwise they would be trying to do something about

Rosie. Do you know how many things and proccesses have been found that directly affect our health and yet nothing has been done about them??? I am not even going to go into this field.

Just as an example, I will bring up the sacking of a couple of journalists from FOX news who were doing story on Monsanto's chemical used in US livestock. Their research found that the chemicals affect the cow's health, causes swelling and infection, which later on ends up in the milk that all of us drink. The reporters were sacked for trying to report the story. When they went to court to sue their employer, the employer was found as innocent, because falsefying news in US is not against the law. That's just one example. This is a major problem with people today, everyone thinks that just because something was found as wrong or bad that automatically means someone is going to do something about it. Myself included. We are such spoiled brats...

[Only-virgins]

Ok so they did some research and found that married men will live longer because they are married.. And they have numbers to prove this...

That bad that is not the case. They have nothing but the statments of few people and a theory some sociologist came up with. Im not going to read everything that guy just wrote. He seems to not be able to realize that there is a difference between the scientific method statistics and these percentage this and that statistics. There is a big difference. These are not facts..they are full of errors statistics. Statistics are NOT proof. Evidence is proof. I didnt read evidence there only jibberish by pathetic wannabe psychologists.

[Only-virgins]

1. Statistics are numerical data used to justify and arrive to results in both Maths and Science. If you are a Science Major you should already know that.
2. "Fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." What is "More Likely"??? It is a probability. Since you love Maths so much here is a little bit of information for you on how to calculate a probability [url]http://www.netnam.vn/unescocourse/statistics/46.htm[/url] . Educate yourself.
3. I am not wrong at all. The way i see it, the theory has already been proven. The research and numbers are available for calculation for anyone who wants to disprove this hypothesis. Here is a little bit more information for you on how proability is used in both maths and science and why it is an important feature of both [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability[/url]. Also, have a look here while you're at it [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics[/url]. You are saying you want a concrete proof to every single thing and even then it has to conform to your set of beliefs to justify its relevance. If yes, you are being ignorant. Let me tell you, there is no concrete proof I can give you such as if you smoke 5 packets per day there will be known the exact time and day when your death will occur. But I can give you a probabillity based on statistical data, which will give you the percentile chances of your departure from next year to 50 years from now.
4. I can understand your skeptisism about this being some journalist who doesn't know what he is doing, but you are wrong. If you weren't so ignorant to have a look at the links I provided you would see that the research was actually carried out by the university of Warwick. So you are not arguing with some poor journalist. You are arguing with University Proffesors and Scholars. And I tell, so far you are very far from winning.
5. I still think that you are being ignorant, just on the basis that you say that you love maths and science, are a science major and yet you can not comprehend one of the most important facillities/concepts used by both schools of thought. You tell me, this is not contradictory and ignorant???

Probability is a chance. Doesnt mean 100% of the time. Single man die quicker then married man....yea well..so do man who drive cars die quicker then those who do not. So...whos losing their car over this....its statistically proven. In the article they made it seem like it is dangerous to be single..what a load of horse shit..its just as dangerous as going to the bath room at night or even EATING!.

I'm challenging people to give reasons for their arguments and not be so shallow to say, or this is all crap anyway because all statistics are wong.

While being such a jerk, I encourage people to make an effort to actually do some rational thinking, analyze facts and numbers on thich they base their answers on.

Is that so bad?

That is perfectly fine as long as there is ABSOLUTLY no margin of error in these statistics but since I am 22 and single and no one marked me as a anti-evidence against this that it only shows me its crap. All people must be accounted. Percent statistics have a large margin of error...cause says who they even are accurate in the first place..who took them and were? You seem like someone who could eat up false information easier then Anna Nichole would jump a cheese burger.

I like math and science. I enjoy a good given hypothesis that is put through a test and experiment. These statistics are not like this. Coincidence alone in these types of statistics is alone a margin of error.

I can go out and ask three girl if they like sex. They all say no. 3 out of 3 females hate sex.. all of female species hates sex?

[NeoSeminole]

That is so funny Mishanya b/c I found this article by BBC a while ago

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm]Men Smarter Than Women[/URL]

Your site is the same group that published the article in my link. Interesting, eh?

I agree with OV that statistics do not always constitute evidence. There is too much uncertainty for drawing conclusions. For example, perhaps men with a higher education and income are more likely to marry. They appear more attractive to women than men with less education and income. The smarter group of men are more educated about healthy food choices and can afford better quality food, thus prolonging their lives. This has nothing to do with "emotional support" as mentioned in your article. Just a thought.

[Only-virgins]

That is so funny Mishanya b/c I found this article by BBC a while ago

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm]Men Smarter Than Women[/URL]

Your site is the same group that published the article in my link. Interesting, eh?

LoL, that is funny...almost as funny as a long time ago article I read that said "Dipping Oreo cookies may cause athrites" ...lol

For example, perhaps men with a higher education and income are more likely to marry. They appear more attractive to women than men with less education and income. The smarter group of men are more educated about healthy food choices and can afford better quality food, thus prolonging their lives. This has nothing to do with "emotional support" as mentioned in your article. Just a thought.

Another margin of error. That is exactly what I mean.

[Mish]

Probability is a chance. Doesnt mean 100% of the time. Single man die quicker then married man....

OV, you realised!!! It is a CHANCE!!! A 9% chance to be exact. I.e. 9% Risk factor. No one is saying that all single men will die quicker than married man. The reasearch states that there is a 9% risk factor that they will...

Jeezus

[Mish]

That is so funny Mishanya b/c I found this article by BBC a while ago

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm]Men Smarter Than Women[/URL]

Your site is the same group that published the article in my link. Interesting, eh?

I agree with OV that statistics do not always constitute evidence. There is too much uncertainty for drawing conclusions. For example, perhaps men with a higher education and income are more likely to marry. They appear more attractive to women than men with less education and income. The smarter group of men are more educated about healthy food choices and can afford better quality food, thus prolonging their lives. This has nothing to do with "emotional support" as mentioned in your article. Just a thought.

Neo, the actual reasearch is located here [url]http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/e...iagejan2002.pdf[/url]. Warwick University. Nothing to do with BBC site, so you can stop with conspiracy theory

Good theory about educated, high income earner, never had an emotional problem, attractive men. Can you give statistics of percentile value that these men represent in general community and then run this against the statistics provided in the research backed by the university. Let's see what kind of a result we will get

[Rosebud]

My god, are you two (OV and Mish) getting off on this stuff. I swear you two are worse than an old married couple! LOL

[Only-virgins]

OV, you realised!!! It is a CHANCE!!! A 9% chance to be exact. I.e. 9% Risk factor. No one is saying that all single men will die quicker than married man. The reasearch states that there is a 9% risk factor that they will...

Jeezus

To bad you wont realize how insignificant that 9 percent is. Given all the conicidences and errors its probably more like 2%...I have a bigger risk of choking on tomorrows breakfast so whocares?

My god, are you two (OV and Mish) getting off on this stuff. I swear you two are worse than an old married couple! LOL

I am sorry that its not "hip" enough for you.

in general community

I hilghlighted the problem.