Utah's Westminster College offers 'Porn' class where students will watch pornographic films together

A lot of space just to say, "how statistically significant of a difference is it?" Well the links, if you just read my SNIPS, bear out that it is a statistically significant difference. They also offer a plausible reason for this difference: living in a more repressive environment, with fewer other alternative outlets or options, for satisfying specific urges, as well as just for sating curiosity. So you have no reason, nor any basis, to claim that either of us do not understand statistics, just because we can't read your mind. Here's a tip, scientist, since you are apparently not bright enough to figure this out for yourself: if you want to be understood, try explaining your thinking initially, as you now are only, belatedly, getting around to doing. Your doing so, does not negate the stupidness of your earlier inability to fathom any statistic that was not expressed in terms of per 100 thousand, which is obviously not always possible.

So was there any point to your post, other than to say you now are formally accepting the difference that you had, all along, seemed to deny?

 

Read what "Snips" .. just give the numbers .. simple .. if you figure you got "Statistical significance" OK .. great .. post.

And you failed to answer the question relating to statistical significance. .. so I will answer it for you 1 vs 1.5 per hundred do the female black dominance thing .. Sample is those visiting porn sites . and there is the rub.. which you did not consider.. can't extend that to the whole population ..

This is simply false .. never said that .. and in fact you have clarification in the post you are responding to .. 1 in 100, 1000, 10,000 .. is one way to quantify.. what I said .. is give me some quantification .other wise the figure is meaningless.

and yes .. you have no clue what you are talking about .. Now post some data which supports your claim .. or shut up.

 

As I already noted, the SNIPS, in the post to which you have already replied, gave statistics. Is reading, problematic for you?

 

No data have you posted to me that gives quantification of any kind. you say "read my snips" .. but do not link to them .. or give the post number. Ridiculous nonsense this is.

 

Delete

 

This refers to Hasidic Jewish people. Have you ever seen how they dress?

 

Who says…?

 

I thought Utah was a big Jesus believing State

well, I guess God did kick Adam and Eve out of the garden when they put cloths on

 

when they go blind, they gonna sure the school

 

Christ.

 

What's the issue you're seeing between this and Christianity I don't understand.

 

it may seem normal to you, but seems weird to me

course evangelicals even support Trump nowadays, so nothing should surprise me

 

Hmmm .. not the same perhaps . but the good "satanic" pagan rituals involve porn ! -- not with children though -- even Satanists do not go that far .. cept the extreme nut jobs but one in every crowd of those..

Not sure exposing young children to porn is not at least borderline dangerous cultish. I don't like it.

 

What should surprise you?

The fact that people aren't perfect and that religious people don't expect out of others?

 

mmmmmmm......ok?

 

so they support Adultery now, interesting, how about selling those cakes?

 

How do you get did anybody is supporting adultery out of this?

Just because you vote for somebody doesn't mean you supported every life decision they've made.

 

You know how George thorogood said when I drink alone I prefer to be by myself?

...... Let your imagination fill in the rest... All by yourself

 

It was post #98; which you quoted, in post #124. So your claiming that you haven't seen the findings within it, is the only "ridiculous nonsense," here.

 

Not complicated .. tell me which post these supposed "Findings" are .. "Data" that supports your claim .. that Republicans tend to enjoy domination by black women.

 

God, you are confused. For starters, that was not my claim: it was Krane56's. Next, my post that I just directed you to, because it was too much trouble for you to refind it, yourself, begins by saying that I did not find evidence to support that claim. And yet, for some f'ing reason, you answered that post, telling me that I knew nothing about statistics. So I suggest that you figure out what the hell it is that you were talking about, in your own post.

Does Giftedone have a reading problem?

 

Your the one that has the problem .. backing up your claim that is. You said you had "Snips" which showed the claim true .. now you are saying it is not your claim .. and you clearly don't know much about stats if you agree with Krane's position ...

 

You once again show how meaninglessly inaccurate are your assertions. I never said either:
1) that I agreed with Krane's position on that one particular claim; or
2) that I had snips that showed that claim to be true.
My SNIPS do show statistical data, which is the thing that you questioned.

So, tell you what. Since you have shown your word to be worthless, from now on, when you claim that I said something, please provide a quote, to prove it.

And I say again, "read my SNIPS." They do give "quantification of any kind." But not of the one claim that I specifically mentioned, in the post which you have already answered, which begins:

Hopefully, the next reply of yours, will not be as totally fictional as the last several.

 

'Cept no one but you is talking about exposing children to porn during Satanic rituals. Try to remember the point of the thread, and your argument, if you have a point: we are talking about a college class, which may even have prerequisites, or not be available to freshman. IOW, we are not talking about "children," in the class. Obviously, showing porn to children is objectionable. Do you think you are winning any argument, by pointing that out?

 

I wasn't talking about no college class .. perhaps you are confusing me with someone else .. or desperate to build strawmen again