Stem Cells and Human Cloning

[quote]I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the "Size of Household" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they "can't afford") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.

You overlook the fact that such prime and engineered people would no doubt come from well developed countries, who could afford such things. Surely, there would be some over-population as it has been occuring, but in reality not many would actually have these benefits.

[quote]

Quote:

---

I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the \"Size of Household\" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they \"can't afford\") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.

---

Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

[quote]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the \"Size of Household\" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they \"can't afford\") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.

---

Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

---

... and that would be relevant how?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

---

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

---

Quote:

---

Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

---

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...[/b]

---

A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.

Peregrinus, That is very intersting. Not what I would have thought. I am like you Yume or me/yu :P
When it comes to polls most of them are not accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.

---

But I think a US Census Bureau's would be a lot more accurate than a bias media poll.
The problem I have with Cencus polls again comes from the poor. Since a large portion of the poor are minorities or immigrants they are less apt to take part in the poll or not give an accurate account on how little they make if they do. I know people out of pride that have exagerated their income, and they are not poor by any means.

Your cencus still comes at a suprise. Thanks for the information.

And CT. Had you read the post above mine you may see that the relavance was a response to Peregrinus post. :tongue:
And what happened to our discussion on the weather? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

---

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...

---

A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.[/b]

---

Have you ever had a statistics or math class in general? Do you even know what a "representative sample" is? Do you think that when medical scientists do drug studies, they use every single person in the US as their test subjects? How about when the AP polls Americans with various questions that are then reported on the news? Do you get a call every time? Does that mean that these polls are crap? Absolutely not. Representative sample. Polls do have error inherent in them, but nothing like this 10% accuracy you're positing. With a well-constructed sample, you can poll 1000 people and get +/- 3% accuracy for the entire American population.

Take a minute to actually research before you post.

[quote]The problem I have with Cencus polls again comes from the poor. Since a large portion of the poor are minorities or immigrants they are less apt to take part in the poll or not give an accurate account on how little they make if they do. I know people out of pride that have exagerated their income, and they are not poor by any means.[/color]

I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)

---

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

---

Quote:

---

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

---

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...

---

A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.[/b]

---

Have you ever had a statistics or math class in general? Do you even know what a \"representative sample\" is? Do you think that when medical scientists do drug studies, they use every single person in the US as their test subjects? How about when the AP polls Americans with various questions that are then reported on the news? Do you get a call every time? Does that mean that these polls are crap? Absolutely not. Representative sample. Polls do have error inherent in them, but nothing like this 10% accuracy you're positing. With a well-constructed sample, you can poll 1000 people and get +/- 3% accuracy for the entire American population.

Take a minute to actually research before you post.[/b][/quote]I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

---

Are you smoking something? You are saying nothing is valid and acceptable if it is not perfect. That's ludicrous. Everything is an approximation. +/- 3% accuracy is enough to base national policy decisions on, so I think it's good enough for an internet post. And what the hell does "each person being an individual" have to do with average size of household? Your post is like the lovechild of a nihilist and a PC spokesperson.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.

---

I would simply have to disagree. :?

I think we can all conclude that the original topic...what was it? Stem Cells and Human Cloning. can spark many a debate aside from what's right in front of you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

---

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.

---

I would simply have to disagree. :? [/b]

---

There's really no possibility of further constructive discussion when the presentation of compelling data is countered with unsupported and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to discredit the data based on opinion alone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer@
<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.

---

I would simply have to disagree. :?

---

There's really no possibility of further constructive discussion when the presentation of compelling data is countered with unsupported and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to discredit the data based on opinion alone.[/b]

---

Is your, "serious Doubt" any less credible than my opinion?
Do you honestly think that any immigrants are going to take part in a cencus?
And do they not make up a large portion of the low income households? Also Peoples pride is a strong thing. So even if they were to take part in the cencus pole and it was accurate. What recentage of peolple whoes income that is considered in the poor bracket, when it arrives in the mail is it likely to arrive in the trash soon there after.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer
Is your, \"serious Doubt\" any less credible than my opinion?
Do you honestly think that any immigrants are going to take part in a cencus?
And do they not make up a large portion of the low income households? Also Peoples pride is a strong thing. So even if they were to take part in the cencus pole and it was accurate. What recentage of peolple whoes income that is considered in the poor bracket, when it arrives in the mail is it likely to arrive in the trash soon there after.

---

It was my mistake to use the term "serious doubt," and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have created. I should have phrased it as, "I have never seen any research that calls into question the accuracy and validity of US census data, and until such research is conducted or existing research brought to my attention, I will continue to view census data as accurate representations of US demographics." Does that make it clearer? Since I provided you with nationally-recognized data on the subject in question, if you would like to dispute that data, it would require scientifically valid research, not opinions. If you find research on the subject of census responder honesty as correlated with household income, I would be more than happy to read it and reconsider my views on the accuracy of US census data. Until such time, however, I will treat census data as valid within minimal margins of error.

You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?

Uhh....how about those stem cells? :?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

---

Quote:

---

I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

---

Are you smoking something? You are saying nothing is valid and acceptable if it is not perfect. That's ludicrous. Everything is an approximation. +/- 3% accuracy is enough to base national policy decisions on, so I think it's good enough for an internet post. And what the hell does \"each person being an individual\" have to do with average size of household? Your post is like the lovechild of a nihilist and a PC spokesperson.[/b]

---

I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Quote:

---

You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?[/b]

---

US census data is used to make policy decisions at all levels of government and is used in social sciences research both in academia and the corporate sector. If there were any serious doubt about the validity of the data, it would have been raised and evaluated long ago. Since it has not been to my knowledge (and apparently not to yours either, since you haven't linked to any research in that area), there is absolutely no further point in this idle speculation about honesty in responses to government surveys declining with a decline in household income. You have no evidence to support it, so I'm not going to discuss this further. Playing the game of stereotypes and what-ifs is an activity I prefer to avoid.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

---

My "interpretation skills" require no further improvement, at least not to deal with your posts. You've simply repeated yourself only this time in slightly more circuitous language. There is no "proof" that meets your criteria of perfection. To hold such a standard requires that you accept no data whatsoever, because no data is perfect and completely free of error, however minute. A lack of validity and utility does not follow from a lack of perfection. The fact that I’ve had to explain this twice indicates that you probably lack the background in mathematics and the methods and conventions of science necessary to restore this discussion to its original purpose. I'm really not in the mood to go around in another circle of incomprehension while trying to act as a science tutor right now, so if you still don’t understand why your objection to poll and census data is invalid, I’ll simply leave you to your misconceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer@
You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?

---

US census data is used to make policy decisions at all levels of government and is used in social sciences research both in academia and the corporate sector. If there were any serious doubt about the validity of the data, it would have been raised and evaluated long ago. Since it has not been to my knowledge (and apparently not to yours either, since you haven't linked to any research in that area), there is absolutely no further point in this idle speculation about honesty in responses to government surveys declining with a decline in household income. You have no evidence to support it, so I'm not going to discuss this further. Playing the game of stereotypes and what-ifs is an activity I prefer to avoid.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume

---

Quote:

---

I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

---

My \"interpretation skills\" require no further improvement, at least not to deal with your posts. You've simply repeated yourself only this time in slightly more circuitous language. There is no \"proof\" that meets your criteria of perfection. To hold such a standard requires that you accept no data whatsoever, because no data is perfect and completely free of error, however minute. A lack of validity and utility does not follow from a lack of perfection. The fact that I’ve had to explain this twice indicates that you probably lack the background in mathematics and the methods and conventions of science necessary to restore this discussion to its original purpose. I'm really not in the mood to go around in another circle of incomprehension while trying to act as a science tutor right now, so if you still don’t understand why your objection to poll and census data is invalid, I’ll simply leave you to your misconceptions.[/b]

---

What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

Peregrinus, I was asking a question.
How would I come across that data?
I use google.There seems to be a lot of information on suveys, polls and cencus. But if you can look at it from my point of view. How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

Joseph_Stalin You are right. As I stated earlier, this has a lot of validity to the obsructions & debates that cloning will be sure to have.
And a lot of protesting ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer
How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

---

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

---

That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer

---

Quote:

---

How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

---

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

---

That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.[/b]

---

That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

---

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

---

That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.

---

That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.[/b]

---

So basicly what you're saying is that the facts that Peregrinus supplied (Which are based on statistical data, with a negligible margin of error in the opinion of government, academia and corporations, negligible enough to base important policies on it) are wrong because they have a margin of error that is too large in your opinion, so unless Peregrinus comes up with facts based on 100% correct data your argument (which is backed up with no such facts) wins by default?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CT+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CT)</div>

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)

---

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

---

Quote:

---

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

---

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

---

That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.

---

That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.[/b]

---

So basicly what you're saying is that the facts that Peregrinus supplied (Which are based on statistical data, with a negligible margin of error in the opinion of government, academia and corporations, negligible enough to base important policies on it) are wrong because they have a margin of error that is too large in your opinion, so unless Peregrinus comes up with facts based on 100% correct data your argument (which is backed up with no such facts) wins by default?[/b][/quote]Not neccissarily 100%, but with less error. Since the poll doesn't even cover half of the U.S. Population the chances of it are extremely unlikely. It could be that he could be way off. The margin of error is too great to consider it. Small polls are not a good tool when dealing with a big population. His poll is not accurate enough to back up his statement. I would be comfortable putting in $20.00 US dollars against his data since the chance of it not happening is more likely.