Originally posted by dadudemon
Just because it comes from a clearly bias source, does not mean it is wrong
This is very true but a biased source means should be a trigger for skepticism (all arguments sound good in isolation) and, for rhetorical reasons, its best to avoid that kind of source all together. I'm inclined to agree with you about that particular page from the site, for the most part it doesn't seem that off base.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure.Google searched...first result:
"African women have a shorter gestation period, produce more multiple births, have fewer complications giving birth (due to fetus’ smaller head size and elongated skull), and African children become sexually mature at an earlier age and thereafter are considerably more sexually active than other races."
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap11.html
On top of that, there is even more reasons African American females mature faster, sexually:
Yes, I just used the "black kids do not have dads" argument.
But it is hardly new information to organizations like CPS:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/14/us-usa-fathers-idUSN0419185720070614
Just because she is termed black doesnt mean she is directly from africa stupid... 😆 She is brown now, and that has no factor to do with her being with an old goat, it prob has more to do with security and familiarity then anything else. Maybe this girl is a gold digger, maybe she just wants her 15 mins of fame, whatever she is feeling we dont know because her life along with freemans is private. 🙁 🙁 Good for him let him enjoy a young flesh girl before he dies!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is very true but a biased source means should be a trigger for skepticism (all arguments sound good in isolation) and, for rhetorical reasons, its best to avoid that kind of source all together. I'm inclined to agree with you about that particular page from the site, for the most part it doesn't seem that off base.
I agree. But it was only to function as a catalyst. It was not a primary source and those reading it, if they wanted more information, would be tempted to google search. This is why I stated, "first result" or some shit. It indicates that there is much more information on that topic than the superficial bias source.
I had to go five links down to find the one from the University Michigan, though.
Originally posted by rudester
Just because she is termed black doesnt mean she is directly from africa stupid... 😆
Uhhh....
Originally posted by focus4chumps
apologies for the late edits. please review the quoted post. 🙂
Nothing new to add. You're still wrong. 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
:edit: researching your new source.:edit2:
(of cited article)
source 1 & 2: Error 404 - Not Found
http://www.center4policy.org/children9.html
source 3:
http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtmlfact is not fact. wanna try again?
It does not matter that the primary research information is now 404'd: it comes from a very credible university.
I will not do any more searching for you.
Contradict the information presented if you disagree with it. Otherwise, suck it. 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
thats right. dodge 😉
It's quite amusing that you've changed your tune since I called your MO out. This is the "pretend to be calm but I'm raging and boiling on the inside" posting style that you pull. Nothing new.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. But it was only to function as a catalyst. It was not a primary source and those reading it, if they wanted more information, would be tempted to google search. This is why I stated, "first result" or some shit. It indicates that there is much more information on that topic than the superficial bias source.I had to go five links down to find the one from the University Michigan, though.
Uhhh....
I said, "directly" I'm sure she has generations of her ancestors being here, so her gene pool has been mixed around.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nothing new to add. You're still wrong. 🙂It does not matter that the primary research information is now 404'd: it comes from a very credible university.
I will not do any more searching for you.
Contradict the information presented if you disagree with it. Otherwise, suck it. 🙂
It's quite amusing that you've changed your tune since I called your MO out. This is the "pretend to be calm but I'm raging and boiling on the inside" posting style that you pull. Nothing new.
hmmm...artful editing of my post? surely an honest mistake of oversight on your part. readily forgiven. 🙂 lets just go ahead and try again:
http://www.emcom.ca/Key/marcia.shtml
"However, the authors do suggest some limitations to their data the most significant being that the subjects were selected on the basis of consulting a family physician that resulted in a physical examination. There was no attempt to exclude girls where the visit was percipitated by concerns of early puberty. As there are pathological conditions that result in signs of early puberty that need to be managed clinically, the pressence of these cases in the sample will bias the results towards an earlier age of pubertal development. It is not clear to what extent this factor influenced the results. Nonetheless, this study has caused increased concern about the age at puberty and the possibility that environmental factors can influence pubertal development."
Her name is, E'Dena Hines who is now 27, which means she would have been 17 when they first... um... got together. Once Freeman's wife found out about their secret affair she filed for divorce, and now the Enquirer is claiming that once proceedings go through, he and Hines are set to wed. "
Hines is the granddaughter of Morgan's first wife, Jeanette Adair Bradshaw, whom he divorced in 1979; he and E'Dena are not related by blood. Morgan married Myrna Colley-Lee in 1984, but they split in 2010.
The actor's granddaughter Hines also refuted the reports Thursday, telling TMZ: "These stories about me and my grandfather are not only untrue, they are also hurtful to me and my family."
-there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.
-secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.
i'll just go ahead and re-quote the boldfaced section of the author's suggestion of bias (author of the study in which ddm's link sited as evidence)
"There was no attempt to exclude girls where the visit was percipitated by concerns of early puberty. As there are pathological conditions that result in signs of early puberty that need to be managed clinically, the pressence of these cases in the sample will bias the results towards an earlier age of pubertal development."
therefore, environmental concerns aside, it could be that pre-pubescabt black girls are more susceptible to medical concerns relating to puberty than white girls. there is also the fact the the study samples were only in north carolina.
what i see is that its equally possible that young black girls from north carolina, on average, are taken to the clinic for pathological conditions related to early puberty than white girls. does this prove the study wrong? not necessarily. however, is the study airtight? as even the author of the study which ddm cited states: NO
Originally posted by focus4chumps
hmmm...artful editing of my post? surely an honest mistake of oversight on your part. readily forgiven. 🙂 lets just go ahead and try again:
No, it was not artful editing on my part.
It was artful editing on your part:
"Further, the data suggest that the relative size of this accelerated population is greater in black girls than in white girls. Dramatic results include the finding that over 7% of 4 year old black girls showed some sign of pubertal development compared to less than 1% for white girls and by 8 years of age these numbers had risen to almost 50% of black girls and almost 15% for white girls. Finally, mean age at first menses was earlier in black vs white girls..."
"The authors discuss these results in the context of previous population based studies of female puberty and conclude that, although the age at first menses closely match historic data (back to 1948*), this study suggests that age at which breast development and pubic hair are first apparent is younger, especially among black girls, compared to previous studies."
*Which is why it is considered common knowledge in the medical community. It has been known for decades.
You not only proved my point, you.....................you just can't be taken seriously, at this point.
I mean, I do not know how else to address your trolling other than laughing at you and how hard you're trying to troll me. Are you really that upset over our conversation last week?
But, another first page result shows subsarharan African Women are sexually active at much younger ages than most of the world.
http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/TABriefs/PGY_Brief26_SexualInitiation.pdf
You can definitely blame some of that on social effects but sociology shows us that the sexual practices in Sub-Sahara Africa are very diverse. So whence commeth these differences?
Also, the study's final conclusion (in the abstract) could have easily been addressed if they were as aware of medical science as I was (lol!):
http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/minority-health-tool-kit/AfrAm-fact-sheet.pdf
"Uninsured African Americans are less likely to receive preventive
care, screening services, and appropriate acute or chronic disease management, and they are more likely than insured individuals to have poorer overall health."
"Among African Americans, 34 percent report having no regular doctor, compared to 24 percent of whites."
"African Americans are also less likely than whites to visit a specialist, regardless of insurance status. Among insured African Americans, less than 20 percent had visited a specialist in 2003, compared to 27 percent of insured whites. Among the uninsured, 21 percent of African Americans had visited a specialist, compared to nearly 30 percent of whites."
How come they did not know that? How come they were not aware that African Americans are less likely to see the doctor for problems, especially if they are uninsured? If anything, the data is skewed in favor of a younger pubescence in African American girls.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
there is no conclusive proof that environmental issues cause black girls to mature sooner than white girls.secondly, there is no conclusive proof that black girls to mature sooner on average than white girls.
i'll just go ahead and re-quote the boldfaced section of the author's suggestion of bias (author of the study in which ddm's link sited as evidence)
does this prove the study wrong? not necessarily
is the study airtight? as even the author of the study which ddm cited states: NO
Please.
It is fairly airtight and this phenomena has been common knowledge in the medical community for decades.
You were wrong. Move on.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
therefore, environmental concerns aside, it could be that pre-pubescabt black girls are more susceptible to medical concerns relating to puberty than white girls. there is also the fact the the study samples were only in north carolina.what i see is proof that young black girls from north carolina, on average, are taken to the clinic for pathological conditions related to early puberty than white girls.
OMG! hahaha
You are a crazy person. 😆
"More susceptible to medical concerns". No, the exact opposite is true. They go to the doctor less and they go to specialists less.
What you see is confirmation that menstration starts sooner, on average, in African Americans girls than other race demographics. What you also see is that the data is possibly skewed and the age that this occurs may even be sooner because we are missing even more samples from the particularly poor and uninsured.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
chumps: if environmental factors are causing black girls to mature faster the result is that black girls end up maturing faster
That seems to be the case. There are probably biological factors, as well, at play. It cannot all be blamed on environment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Please.It is fairly airtight and this phenomena has been common knowledge in the medical community for decades.
by calling the study "airtight" you are contradicting the authors of the study 😂
oh, dadudemon 😍
"However, the authors do suggest some limitations to their data the most significant being that the subjects were selected on the basis of consulting a family physician that resulted in a physical examination. There was no attempt to exclude girls where the visit was percipitated by concerns of early puberty. As there are pathological conditions that result in signs of early puberty that need to be managed clinically, the pressence of these cases in the sample will bias the results towards an earlier age of pubertal development. It is not clear to what extent this factor influenced the results. Nonetheless, this study has caused increased concern about the age at puberty and the possibility that environmental factors can influence pubertal development."
Originally posted by focus4chumps
by calling the study "airtight" you are contradicting the authors of the study 😂oh, dadudemon 😍
"the study", huh?
It = "this phenomena"
this phenomena = puberty happens sooner in Sub-Saharan African females than other race demographics.
At not point did I directly refer to that particular study with the words "it" and "this phenomena".
Additionally, I helped you understand the researchers lack of information with their disclaimer at the end of their study.
So, basically this: you have the evidence. You are aware of the evidence. Yet, you deny it still.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
-you cite an "airtight" study to support your claim of 'common knowledge' aka fact.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"the study", huh?It = "this phenomena"
this phenomena = puberty happens sooner in Sub-Saharan African females than other race demographics.
At not point did I directly refer to that particular study with the words "it" and "this phenomena".
Originally posted by focus4chumps
-authors of said study admits bias data.
Originally posted by dadudemon
...I helped you understand the researchers lack of information with their disclaimer [not bias...you do not know what "bias" means if you consider their disclaimer a "bias data"] at the end of their study.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
all of your distractive tactics and bait-and-switch context doesnt change this simple and direct point we have arrived to.
This is obviously a dodge. Continue to pretend my points are something they are not.
It is not as though I forgot how you argue. You'll continue to argue until you can find a single point to "catch" me on and then you run with it. You almost thought you had one with the white-supremacist link. Then you thought you had me with the related study. THEN you thought you had me with the "this study" approach. Now...you're just crying because you did not have me at any point at all.
Keep moving the topic. Keep moving the bar. You'll eventually "get me" with some sort of rhetoric.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you would love to "move on" as you consistently plead.
I would? Where did I state that?
I am more than happy to continue talking in circles with you as you prove more and more than your trolly vendetta against me continues to fail. It at least provides amusement.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
well, i stated your dilemma in its most simplified form.
And I stated why you failed to state where there was actually a dilemma. All you did was show me that you wanted me to be wrong about something because a quote come from a no-so-credible source. When you found out it was right, you rage shit-posted. There was no gaps or wiggle room for you to fall into.
You should be more careful next time you decide to troll me. You're better off pretending I am on steroids and I abuse my cats and kids.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
since unlike you i dont intend to spend the day quoting myself, i suppose we will move on, despite your embarrassing unsubstantiated claim of common medical fact.
You certainly quoted yourself 2 or 3 times...it was a quote of a quote. But, you still did so.
And, again, I not only proved it, you proved it as well.
"BUT! SEE HERE! It has a disclaimer!"
😆