Anonymous wrote:

This sub-plot of the discussion was fun to read through. I hope readers scroll back up to read the entire exchange. The best part was reading the morphing of the original claim that the numbers had to match exactly. (I believe the poster used upper case letters to make that point)

You have a problem with reading in context. The statement was that the numbers of encounters have to match exactly, which is obvious. The numbers quoted were percentages of people who report, and for a specific population which can obviously have sex outside of the group. Which is why I said at first that you have to be "careful", not that the numbers were wrong.

So you have a problem comprehending the intended meaning. And so you only resort to lawyerly legal looping gotchas. You were actually able to dispute the LOGIC I presented.


It was fun reading him walk-back his original point all the way to accepting that 72% of males said that they have had sex and 61% of females said that they have had sex is not only plausible, but is likely to be accurate.

Entirely consistent. So I'll repeat again, those percentages are likely accurate for TWO reasons, as I already reported. (1) they are actually less than the typical reporting bias between men and women, and (2) they can be reasonably well explained by the survey group having sex with people outside of that demographic group of college people.

Because we all know that college students have sex OUTSIDE of the group.

But when you are talking about larger populations, the numbers need to line up somewhat. Imbalances can occur because there are fewer women, or more women in the population, because men die younger, etc.

Nevertheless, what I said REAMINS EXACLTY AND PRECISELY TRUE: The total number of sexual encounters between men as a group and women as a group is EXACTLY THE SAME.

The only thing you're wasting your time on is that you didn't understand that obvious truth and the obvious context in which it was meant.

You make want to find better things to do with your time than coming up with fake gotchas.


The childish part is that he attempted to maintain all along that he was never wrong.

It's pretty clear here who's the childish and petulant one.

Prove otherwise by actually arguing the logic, rather than going over the text like a high school grammar teacher who doesn't actually understand discussion.