What's going on? What's this trend with the unemployed men?

[vashti]

No, you have ascribed a causality to a correlation which is a logical mistake. I'll remind you that you said it's because "most people under 30 aren't ready" which is simply one interpretation.

Kudos to you for identifying a correlation, though. It's probably got some merit however I wouldn't purport it as a fact because that's utterly foolish.

Argumentative little bugger, aren't you? Sorry - I primarily save my arguing for KingZ. Making up is worth it.

[masticate]

Argumentative little bugger, aren't you? Sorry - I primarily save my arguing for KingZ. Making up is worth it.

Hmm? Are you calling me names... why? Because I dispute something you'd wantonly purport as fact without providing adequate rationale? Ok....

I might be "a bugger" but what does that make you? ... assuming we have the same definition of buggery... you know what that makes you

[vashti]

Hmm? Are you calling me names... why? Because I dispute something you'd wantonly purport as fact without providing adequate rationale?

I said that the divorce rate is higher under the age of 30. It is, and that fact is easily supported by doing your own research. I did not offer rationale, nor will I bother.

[masticate]

I said that the divorce rate is higher under the age of 30. It is, and that fact is easily supported by doing your own research. I did not offer rationale, nor will I bother.

That isn't true.

What you said is that "most people aren't ready to have kids and get married under 30" and you used the divorce rates as your rationale. I rejected your conclusion as being fallaciously conceived based on the fact that you ascribed a causality to a correlation.

It's pretty straightforward, you don't have to backpedal. Just forget it.

- - - Updated - - -

A better way to go about it is by stating the facts first then proffering your analysis after that. Instead, you chose to claim something as fact and then rationalize it post hoc by illustrating a correlation.

Example:

"Divorce rates have been shown to decline in marriages that commenced after the age of 30, so I believe this means many people are not ready until that age, as this is what the data imply. The inherent assumption in this reasoning is that a marriage that ends in divorce implies the participants were not ready to be married in the first place."

- - - Updated - - -

See? ALL SORTS of assumptions. No need to call me names over it.

- - - Updated - - -

For more information on logical fallacies, please see Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this") (correlation does not imply causation), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

[vashti]

I think you need to re-study the difference between an argument and an explanation.

[KingZ]

Argumentative little bugger, aren't you?

He's either really young or really stupid - or both.

[Rowen]

He's either really young or really stupid - or both.

You forgot overly controlling of others.

[masticate]

Where do you guys get this stuff? Is this a cult?

[BeyondReason]

Troll detected.

I clearly said that this thread should be continued in a Political forum, I'm aware that my comment exceeds the boundaries of this website. There's really nothing more to discuss here, you've all openly admitted that females of my generation no longer value productivity.

And bear in mind that I never said that being productive and "having things" is the make/break of a relationship. To me, it's the BARE MINIMUM of any relationship. Only after a man can provide food, shelter and other vital resources, should he even be CONSIDERED as a partner. Then both he (and she) must prove themselves as civilized and faithful/trustworthy and reliable partners. And then they actually need to "click" which is just a luck of the draw/roll of the dice, that no one can control (since it's a mutual subconscious feeling).

[smackie9]

It's OCD.....his brain is caught up in a loop of arguing, doesn't know when to stop.

[chinagirl]

It's OCD.....his brain is caught up in a loop of arguing, doesn't know when to stop.

Yeah Smackie, still going at it on the other thread.

[smackie9]

Ya he is doing everything to feel he's got some superiority over us lol.

[chinagirl]

Ya he is doing everything to feel he's got some superiority over us lol.

I'm with Michelle, I don't understand the geebrish, yadi, yadi, yada.

[IndiReloaded]

I clearly said that this thread should be continued in a Political forum, I'm aware that my comment exceeds the boundaries of this website. There's really nothing more to discuss here, you've all openly admitted that females of my generation no longer value productivity.

And bear in mind that I never said that being productive and "having things" is the make/break of a relationship. To me, it's the BARE MINIMUM of any relationship. Only after a man can provide food, shelter and other vital resources, should he even be CONSIDERED as a partner. Then both he (and she) must prove themselves as civilized and faithful/trustworthy and reliable partners. And then they actually need to "click" which is just a luck of the draw/roll of the dice, that no one can control (since it's a mutual subconscious feeling).

Are you a whale?

- - - Updated - - -

Hellooo... eeeee....

∞:
(._.)^

[masticate]

you've all openly admitted that females of my generation no longer value productivity.

That is not true.

Take note (not you ... YOU), this is what is actually known as a 'strawman'.