Utopia Talk / Politics / U.S. life expectancy decreases II

Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 03:20:59 Previous thread: http://www...hread=57430&time=1349423847940 >> Cam Yes, I tend to compare apples with apples and correctly assumed we were using the same source (wiki). This is generally the approach approved of in academic circles. << I gave you my source long ago. Why would you continue to believe we were using the same one? Your source didn't disagree with me, however. It merely disagreed with you. >> Now, I see that I was incorrect in doing so in this case as you correctly pointed out it was a comparable number. However, I employed an adequate degree of due diligence, my only mistake was to assume you were using relevant data and not one that is simply circular (non graduates are increasing dying younger, but that is not relevant because non graduates are simply dying younger). << Your mistake was to incorrectly read a simple sentence and a simple graph. Compounded by a repeated tendency to lie about what was said. >> In sum, it represents good, honest academic standards given the nature of the fora we are in. << Good, honest academic standards involve lying about the subject you're discussing? It would need to for what you said to make sense. >> Here is the base source btw: http://www...tion/data/cps/2011/tables.html Closer examination of the overall population shows that the percentage of non-graduates in 25-34 is higher (11%) than the percentage of graduates aged 35-54 (10,8%). 55+ has a non-graduation rate of 15% for reference. << And? >> This seems to indicate that the number of graduates in a cadre has remained stable over the last number of decades. Improvements then in graduation ratios main explained by non-graduates dying off in the 55+ age range. << I has. I was explicitly never talking about that. You simply lied and claimed I was after several corrections. >> Note that graduation rates are given for non-institutionalized populations, so any increase in prison populations where non-graduates are overrepresented would wrongly imply that graduation rates have improved. For example. << Care to give numbers on how this would change things? >> The 40% you cited is far away from the 20% you claimed. Which makes you wrong. A 4 year old might call that lying of course. << The article was talking about 1990 - 2008, and as a result so was I. 1983 is a year you bought up, and were wrong about (when talking about percentage of the population that had graduated, which is all that I was ever discussing, however much you like to pretend otherwise) So another lie. You can't help yourself, can you?
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 06:59:30 Lets talk about abusive moderating instead as this is a field you are an expert in Cam.
Rugian Member	Fri Oct 05 07:07:06 Heh, I don't know what happened in the first thread, but this is getting ugly. *gets some popcorn*
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Oct 05 07:09:36 dittoes
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 10:24:56 Heh, you've been owned. :-) Anyhow, your attempts to cover up your lies are easily resolved. ;-)
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 10:32:26 >> Heh, I don't know what happened in the first thread, but this is getting ugly. << It is entertaining :-) Long story short, I claimed Jergul lied, he asked me to show him where and here we are. Jergul's being forced into mod abuse to divert attention from his lies.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 12:59:32 Yet, we have no lies. This game has been played before Cam. Posters with better memory retention skills than you know it simply can't be done. Like I said. The educated need not lie to avoid being truthful. And btw, declaring you have pwnd someone is a trick you may have picked up from TC, but generally denotes something said by someone who has lost a discussion and has nothing left to say. That and..."he lied" You say neither if either are true because you can trust the audience to note both. But this is a bit off-topic. You were saying that you used to delete posts because you were owned by the posters who made them? That would be a logical extension of what you said here.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Oct 05 13:50:22 >> Yet, we have no lies. << Not if you're happy to ignore the stream of lies you handed me on a platter to cover your incompetence. :-) >> Like I said. The educated need not lie to avoid being truthful. << So logically your education must be another lie. >> And btw, declaring you have pwnd someone is a trick you may have picked up from TC, but generally denotes something said by someone who has lost a discussion and has nothing left to say. << Saying that WITHOUT reason is one thing. I've given detailed reasons. :-) Which you have attempted to rebutt using further lies and censorship. >> That and..."he lied" You say neither if either are true because you can trust the audience to note both. << It's always best to draw attention to it. >> But this is a bit off-topic. You were saying that you used to delete posts because you were owned by the posters who made them? That would be a logical extension of what you said here. << I hadn't and it wouldn't, but I can see how someone with your poor logic, comprehension and lack of intellectual honesty would believe this.
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 13:59:45 Yet, there are no lies. If you felt your detailed reasons were at all convincing, then there would be no need to say pwnd TC style would there? Nor would you need to keep repeating "jergul lied, jergul lied" if you felt secure that was the case, would you? Your idea of what is best: "mommy, jergul lied, kaboom burn pwn'd" is a bit juvenile don't you think. I for one certainly do not believe I have lied in any of the examples shown, but I am quite happy to let others decide for themselves. Its the adult approach after all. Do elaborate. Why did you delete posts in manners that infuriated so many? Now that we know it does not mean you felt pwnd, what other reasons did you have?
jergul Member	Fri Oct 05 14:11:55 Let me expound a bit more using two posters as reference. We know TC uses pwn'd regularly along with a few other immature posters. Now who is it we know that has the same kind of fixation on exposing [liberal] lies? Why Hot Rod of course. Now far be it for me to condemn a man for the rhetorical soul-mates he has chosen, but you do see why some would find it worrisome that they compare so easily to TC and HR, right? Now, I know I advise you take babysteps as you attempt to improve yourself, but TC and HR?? That is like regressing to the first trimester of intellectual being.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Oct 06 04:19:12 >> Yet, there are no lies. << Is there some series of characters you need put around them as a code? Re-read the first post. >> If you felt your detailed reasons were at all convincing, then there would be no need to say pwnd TC style would there? Nor would you need to keep repeating "jergul lied, jergul lied" if you felt secure that was the case, would you? << Depends, really. If I did it TC-style without giving details, you'd be right. But I've given details. That you refuse to read them is beside the point. >> I for one certainly do not believe I have lied in any of the examples shown, but I am quite happy to let others decide for themselves. Its the adult approach after all. << Of course you won't admit to it :-) But I enjoy watching the further evasions that you find necessary/ >> Do elaborate. Why did you delete posts in manners that infuriated so many? Now that we know it does not mean you felt pwnd, what other reasons did you have? << Spam and the whole HR thing. >> Let me expound a bit more using two posters as reference. We know TC uses pwn'd regularly along with a few other immature posters. Now who is it we know that has the same kind of fixation on exposing [liberal] lies? Why Hot Rod of course. << The TC difference has been elaborated, and HR is obviously a partisan hack whose claims appear to be easy to rebutt. You're not rebutting my claims :-) >> Now, I know I advise you take babysteps as you attempt to improve yourself, but TC and HR?? That is like regressing to the first trimester of intellectual being. << Is this to become the UP version of Godwin's law? "But TC/HR did something vaguely similar, so it's identical to what they did and invalid?" (Yes I know Godwin's law doesn't say anything about an argument about invalidity, but for your argument to have any meaning, it needs that bit)
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Oct 06 04:20:30 Anyway, I've made the archives available. If you can find an example of me deleting because I was owned in an argument, feel free :-)
jergul Member	Sat Oct 06 06:44:00 Yes, we know there are many things you claim are lies, but that does not make them lies. We are quite familiar with the tactic however as the more uhm unsophisticated posters (Hot Rod) uses the devise all the time. Its pretty much at the same level as you or TC declaring you have pwned someone. You can claim it to be the case all you like, but it does not become true just because you or TC do. Nor will it become truer just because you repeat it as often as a dog returns to its own vomit. But pray do continue to use tools from the same toolbox as TC and Hot Rod. I am sure no one will think less of you for it. I for one certainly won't. Yes, we have established posts are not deleted because someone feels owned. But what other explanations to you have for your arbitrary deletions?
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Oct 06 07:08:04 >> Yes, we know there are many things you claim are lies, but that does not make them lies. We are quite familiar with the tactic however as the more uhm unsophisticated posters (Hot Rod) uses the devise all the time. Its pretty much at the same level as you or TC declaring you have pwned someone. You can claim it to be the case all you like, but it does not become true just because you or TC do. << Depends if valid reasoning that stands up to scrutiny is given. The difference is that TC in particular, and HR from what I've noticed rarely give reasoning that stands up to scrutiny. That you've stopped trying to attack my evidence, but have gone on a rant about how no-one should ever be called a liar (how else am I meant to take this?) or that calling someone a liar makes the liar honest (how else am I supposed to take this?) my evidence and reasoning has stood up to whatever you could thrown at it. >> Yes, we have established posts are not deleted because someone feels owned. But what other explanations to you have for your arbitrary deletions? << I didn't delete posts because I felt owned, but that doesn't mean it's an impossibility. It's just that my standards are higher than yours (One reason I didn't delete posts that defeated my arguments was because I felt it to be an instant failure). And I've given my reasons for my deletions. Please find an exception. I've posted the link that will allow you to download the entire UP archives from 2008 to today so you can search them yourself. Would have been updated about an hour ago. But anyway, summing up: I have provided several examples of your lies after you handed them to me on a silver platter when attempting to cover up the first example I gave, which appeared to simply be your incompetence. You have not provided me with any examples of me deleting arguments that defeated mine.
Camaban The Overseer	Sat Oct 06 07:16:25 You're currently reminding me of our own PM (Australia). Who lied blatantly to the electorate, and is now putting opposition to this lie down to "negativity" and a general culture of opposition. After several months of attempting to claim the lie wasn't a lie, and then even giving up that argument. If we're drawing parallels, mine fits you well :-)
jergul Member	Sat Oct 06 14:33:37 Cam I am quite sure we will get around to a vasectomy of your reasoning (yes, phrases like this denote fluency in several languages - of which English is one) in either this thread or perhaps the next. For now I remain interested in your distinctions. You are basically saying that statements like this: "you lied, you lied, kaboom, burned, pwned" are meaningful and astute for as long as you believe the emotional and intellectual thought process behind it is valid in your eyes. My point being that if your thought process is generally valid, then the sentence is redundant as readers would have drawn the same conclusion as you. However, repeating the sentence with slight variations a multitude of times is a strong indication that your reasoning does not hold water and that you are trying to bolster it through volume of repetition. Now, this is obviously taking place at a subconscious level - I can see you honest think "he lied, he lied, kaboom, burn pwnd", but to me, then need to state this is a sign of intellectual immaturity at the level of hot rod and TC, and the need to repeat it denotes a subconscious intellectual insecurity. Yes, a small voice in your head is telling you that you are probably wrong and you better start preparing other defences, Repetition to beyond boredom and tears, then no doubt claims about my relative intelligence as you are forced to abandon the lying position. So there is hope - a part of your mind is trying to see reason. But let us start by clarifying what you mean by lying. If I were to say "Cam, you are a gem, a credit to your family, and an intellectual gift this forum treasures highly" Would you think that I lied if you knew for sure I did not think you are a gem, a credit to your family (I would have to hold it in pretty low esteem for you to be a credit at least), nor an intellectual gift to this forum?
Camaban The Overseer	Sun Oct 07 06:49:03 >> Cam I am quite sure we will get around to a vasectomy of your reasoning (yes, phrases like this denote fluency in several languages - of which English is one) in either this thread or perhaps the next. << There are two primary purposes to a language. The comprehension and conveyance of information. You fail at both. Until you succeed at these basics, however loquacious you may be, you'll continue to fail. For instance, here: " Cam McKobb just referenced "The Wizard of Oz" I well-known book made famous by a silver screen adaptation in the 1950s. " IIRC, the phrase was "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" which meant they were in a place that was thoroughly unlike Kansas. Which is the opposite to what you thought was meant (either by McKobb or by Dorothy, possibly both) which is another literary failure. Really, you should be grateful when someone asks for your sources. They're willing to take their time to explain to you, in detail, where your misunderstandings lie and help you avoid making the same mistake again. I realise that having your incompetence on full display can be embarrassing, but your lies to cover it up are just... sad. While I realise that Sir Humphrey is admirable in his way, the difference between his logorrhoea and your own is that he understands exactly what is said, and means exactly what he says. His is a product of true mastery of the English language, yours is a product of someone trying to look like he's mastered it and failing. >> For now I remain interested in your distinctions. You are basically saying that statements like this: "you lied, you lied, kaboom, burned, pwned" are meaningful and astute for as long as you believe the emotional and intellectual thought process behind it is valid in your eyes. My point being that if your thought process is generally valid, then the sentence is redundant as readers would have drawn the same conclusion as you. << You insist on ignoring the reasoning given, Which separates it from a bare statement without reasoning. And I'm a believer in calling someone out on his lies. Even if you obviously prefer that this wasn't done. >> However, repeating the sentence with slight variations a multitude of times is a strong indication that your reasoning does not hold water and that you are trying to bolster it through volume of repetition. Now, this is obviously taking place at a subconscious level - I can see you honest think "he lied, he lied, kaboom, burn pwnd", but to me, then need to state this is a sign of intellectual immaturity at the level of hot rod and TC, and the need to repeat it denotes a subconscious intellectual insecurity. Yes, a small voice in your head is telling you that you are probably wrong and you better start preparing other defences, Repetition to beyond boredom and tears, then no doubt claims about my relative intelligence as you are forced to abandon the lying position. << It's repeated because you keep evading it. It will be repeated until it's accepted or actually rebutted. >> But let us start by clarifying what you mean by lying. If I were to say "Cam, you are a gem, a credit to your family, and an intellectual gift this forum treasures highly" Would you think that I lied if you knew for sure I did not think you are a gem, a credit to your family (I would have to hold it in pretty low esteem for you to be a credit at least), nor an intellectual gift to this forum? << I would think you were trying to use implied personal insults to divert this conversation away from areas in which you feel you are unable to compete.
jergul Member	Sun Oct 07 08:22:25 Cam Ah, so to you, discussion not following a rigid linear path is almost by definition chaff and confusion? That certainly helps explain your insistence on repetition. Ok, another example. In this last post you claim I fail to comprehend and convey information. Which seems a clear statement that my English is very poor. In an earlier post you claimed my English was very good. These two statements seem to be contradictions. Which if any do you consider to be a lie? I am trying to map to which degree you may have underlying clinical reasons for what has demonstrably revealed obsessive traits. Aspberger's Syndrome, or similar types of light autistic afflictions would explain your pre-occupation with this issue. Needing order in your universe. You have to be systematise in black-white, or the universe collapses. A light affliction of this type is certainly compatible with both your debating techniques (I refer you again to the class of poster that uses the devises you favour), and your educational choice that allows for limited exposure to complicated social and linguistic dynamics. The easiest way to clarify this is by understanding what you mean with the term "lie".
jergul Member	Sun Oct 07 08:48:46 You did mention at some earlier point in time that issues with modulation and intonation cause you to speak English in a quite idiosyncratic manner did you not Cam? If not quite robotic, then certainly in a distinctively unique way. I understand English to be your mother tongue, so modulation and intonation issues could fit into a more general clinical diagnosis.
Camaban The Overseer	Mon Oct 08 09:52:41 >>Cam Ah, so to you, discussion not following a rigid linear path is almost by definition chaff and confusion? That certainly helps explain your insistence on repetition.<< It's a line that should be taken with people who have a habit of evasion. Politicians, RoB, KreeL, you, TC and so on. >> In this last post you claim I fail to comprehend and convey information. Which seems a clear statement that my English is very poor. In an earlier post you claimed my English was very good. These two statements seem to be contradictions. Which if any do you consider to be a lie? << I stated for a second language speaker, but I'll admit you have made me re-examine my criteria. Gramattically you are fine, which I did previously use as my primary criteria of judgement, but examining your posts has made me realise that correct grammar is very secondary to comprehension and conveyance. >> I am trying to map to which degree you may have underlying clinical reasons for what has demonstrably revealed obsessive traits. Aspberger's Syndrome, or similar types of light autistic afflictions would explain your pre-occupation with this issue. Needing order in your universe. You have to be systematise in black-white, or the universe collapses. A light affliction of this type is certainly compatible with both your debating techniques (I refer you again to the class of poster that uses the devises you favour), and your educational choice that allows for limited exposure to complicated social and linguistic dynamics. << Simply put: People evade questions for a reason. If a question is worth evading, it's a question worth seeing the answer to. >> The easiest way to clarify this is by understanding what you mean with the term "lie". << To state something which you know to be untrue. If you'd like to put all of the recent discussion down to a serious learning disability on your part, I'll be happy to apologise for attacking a disabled person. However, the comprehension problems you have displayed can only be the result of a serious learning disability. >> You did mention at some earlier point in time that issues with modulation and intonation cause you to speak English in a quite idiosyncratic manner did you not Cam? If not quite robotic, then certainly in a distinctively unique way. I understand English to be your mother tongue, so modulation and intonation issues could fit into a more general clinical diagnosis. << Due to moving frequently during my younger years, I have an unusual accent. Which is completely undetectable when I type.
jergul Member	Mon Oct 08 12:31:58 Yes, issues with modulation and intonation would typically give an "unusual accent". Though again we are back to causation and correlation. Moving frequently in impressionable years does not generally cause an "unusual accent". Normally a person would adopt one or more dialect variations and either stick with one, or happily change between several depending on social context. The inability to do either is rather singular and should be seen within the context of possible clinical afflictions. I have however no doubt there is a correlation. Yes, you have an "unusual accent" and yes, you have moved frequently during your younger years. There seems no grounds to dispute those two facts. Now back to my example. According to you, if I say "I think you are a gift to this forum and a credit to your family" and I know this to be untrue, then I am lying. Is that a fair assessment of what you said lies are, and a fair assessment of how you understand languages to function? I am glad you realized that language has more functions than to convey information (not here that comprehend is actually a part of conveying information, so need not be mentioned as doing so would be a redundancy). I am unsure as to what question you think you have asked when you believe I am avoiding a query from you. Though even a quite unimaginative mind knows that many questions not worth answering are merely evaded instead of for example rudely pointing out someone asked a stupid question not worth answering. If I recall correctly, your theme was repeatedly stating I lied. A statement is not a question in any manner or form. Conversations are often non-linear. Your belief that linearity is a requirement to information exchange is incorrect and is in itself an indication of clinical issues I have alluded to earlier. I note also now that you again ape a debate technique. Which is in itself interesting, though you did so poorly of course. Mirroring the way others discuss things so readily is a significant to my overall theme on your neurological processing limitations. You should entertain the thought that you may be a diagnosis short of a full deck Cam. At least accept that if that is in fact true, then there is no way your parents would ever have had you diagnosed professionally as a child. A cultural thing in part, compounded by frequent relocation that would stop the school system from catching it.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Oct 09 13:14:42 >>Yes, issues with modulation and intonation would typically give an "unusual accent". Though again we are back to causation and correlation. Moving frequently in impressionable years does not generally cause an "unusual accent". Normally a person would adopt one or more dialect variations and either stick with one, or happily change between several depending on social context. The inability to do either is rather singular and should be seen within the context of possible clinical afflictions. I have however no doubt there is a correlation. Yes, you have an "unusual accent" and yes, you have moved frequently during your younger years. There seems no grounds to dispute those two facts. << That's a lot of words for something that has no effect on what I type. If it does have an effect on my literacy, please explain why - with sources, so that I can check them for any misinterpretations or misunderstandings you might have. >>Now back to my example. According to you, if I say "I think you are a gift to this forum and a credit to your family" and I know this to be untrue, then I am lying. Is that a fair assessment of what you said lies are, and a fair assessment of how you understand languages to function? << If you don't believe that to be true, yet go ahead and say it, then it would be a lie. >>I am glad you realized that language has more functions than to convey information (not here that comprehend is actually a part of conveying information, so need not be mentioned as doing so would be a redundancy). << I never said it didn't. What I said was that these were the primary purposes of language. But nice attempted strawman. And conveyance is output. Comprehension is understanding what reaches you. 2. to communicate; impart; make known: to convey a wish. 3. to lead or conduct, as a channel or medium; transmit. >>If I recall correctly, your theme was repeatedly stating I lied. A statement is not a question in any manner or form. << It was an accusation, and it was one you felt worth responding to when you asked me to supply you with an example of it. It's only after you've been furnished with examples that you've attempted to divert focus from this. You also had no problems with coming up a response when the first example (which I'll happily admit turned out to be a problem with your comprehension skills) was presented. >>Conversations are often non-linear. Your belief that linearity is a requirement to information exchange is incorrect and is in itself an indication of clinical issues I have alluded to earlier. << Details of this have been given in my previous post. >>I note also now that you again ape a debate technique. Which is in itself interesting, though you did so poorly of course. << And yet, you've got no answer. >>Mirroring the way others discuss things so readily is a significant to my overall theme on your neurological processing limitations. You should entertain the thought that you may be a diagnosis short of a full deck Cam. At least accept that if that is in fact true, then there is no way your parents would ever have had you diagnosed professionally as a child. A cultural thing in part, compounded by frequent relocation that would stop the school system from catching it. << I would suggest that you get someone with an education in psychology to this to explain why you've misunderstood to you. Going from your recent track record in particular, it's a very safe bet that you'll misunderstand almost anything. No matter how simple.
jergul Member	Tue Oct 09 13:45:08 Cam I take it you feel more secure communicating in text form due to your reluctance in understanding that issues with modulation and intonation are symptomatic with how you process and express yourself independent of fora. Typing may seem safer to you, but can be condemning due to the more durable nature of written text. Now in the example I mentioned I would be using sarcasm. Which is not typically considered a lie despite it being literally untrue. Now given that the only reasonable interpretation would be my using sarcasm, it is interesting that you would consider it an example of me lying. I will chalk this down as further evidence of an outstanding clinical diagnosis your parents failed to care for. As is your statement that the primary purpose of language is to convey information. Which is also so inexact as to be considered generally untrue. For example this thread. Would you say the purpose of our exchange is to convey information to each other? That would be an incorrect observation, though one consistent with my general understanding of the way you must understand contexts. I fear you would be looking for a clinical psychiatrist, not a psychologist to help clarify you diagnostic status.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 09 14:06:28 Your sister is a whore Jergul.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 05:33:30 >>Cam I take it you feel more secure communicating in text form due to your reluctance in understanding that issues with modulation and intonation are symptomatic with how you process and express yourself independent of fora. Typing may seem safer to you, but can be condemning due to the more durable nature of written text. << Unfortunately I'm not in a position to prevent you from assuming whatever strange thing you like. All I can point out is that what goes on in your head doesn't necessarily correspond with reality. >>Now in the example I mentioned I would be using sarcasm. Which is not typically considered a lie despite it being literally untrue. Now given that the only reasonable interpretation would be my using sarcasm, it is interesting that you would consider it an example of me lying. I will chalk this down as further evidence of an outstanding clinical diagnosis your parents failed to care for. << They're not mutually exclusive. >>As is your statement that the primary purpose of language is to convey information. Which is also so inexact as to be considered generally untrue. For example this thread. Would you say the purpose of our exchange is to convey information to each other? That would be an incorrect observation, though one consistent with my general understanding of the way you must understand contexts. << Firstly, yes. That you are working hard to avoid comprehending the information given to you and to avoid conveying any on-topic response is simply your failure. Secondly, I'd ask why you assume this thread is in any way the standard. Thirdly, in the last two threads alone, you have displayed a frequent inability to understand simple things. Examples have previously been given.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 05:53:50 I think you will note that I was the last poster to provide an on-topic contribution to this series of threads. I provided a link to underlying statistics and noted that any decrease in the number of non-graduates in the population is simply due to non-graduate die-off at rates higher than for the population overall. Which in turn points to your infatuation with circular arguments: None-graduates are dying faster than graduates because non-graduates are dying faster than graduates. I of course accept that you did not want to follow that path of discussion, as I can happily discuss what flows from any topic. But it does undermine you claim that you seek to convey information when you avoid opportunities to do so. Your statement that sarcasm and lies are not mutually exclusive tends to indicate you are on very uncertain ground when trying to fathom what sarcasm is. Which is hardly surprising. Even normal humans do not grasp sarcasm properly before the age of 10-12. Given my suspicions regarding your clinical status, I have to say jolly good show for trying to grasp it at all. Its important to work hard, even if to little avail as I am sure you very well know. You are right that you have very little control in regards to the way this thread is developing, but I will continue to suggest that seeking medical clarification on a suspected condition may benefit you in the long run. Several TV shows have supporting characters that seem to manage quite well in similar circumstance. No, I am not suggesting that tv shows are the same thing as real life, but rather that content in popular series tend to both reflect and form public opinion. Your employer may be quite understanding of a formal diagnosis and it would certainly bring a greater degree of order to your universe, even without considering access to support a diagnosis might very well trigger.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 07:23:25 >>I think you will note that I was the last poster to provide an on-topic contribution to this series of threads. I provided a link to underlying statistics and noted that any decrease in the number of non-graduates in the population is simply due to non-graduate die-off at rates higher than for the population overall.<< First, I've looked, and you're not the last poster to do this. My explanation of what was wrong with your interpretation of that data comes after anything else you've written on the subject. It was the post you attempted to delete. If this is incorrect, please provide the timestamp of the post you're referring to. Second, this was nothing new and based off you simply not understanding the conversation. The basics of what you said (That non-graduates have shorter lifespans than graduates) is something that had been mentioned many times. Third, It's also wrong. For it to be correct, the graduation rates would have had to have remained more or less static. They didn't, as your own source showed. They have remained static for a bit, but not for nearly long enough to "simply" explain it. >>Which in turn points to your infatuation with circular arguments: None-graduates are dying faster than graduates because non-graduates are dying faster than graduates. << Which interpretation of what I said is another lie of yours that has previously been refuted. >>I of course accept that you did not want to follow that path of discussion, as I can happily discuss what flows from any topic. But it does undermine you claim that you seek to convey information when you avoid opportunities to do so. << You dropped that line of discussion. Not me :-) You deleted my response, which is the first pos >>Your statement that sarcasm and lies are not mutually exclusive tends to indicate you are on very uncertain ground when trying to fathom what sarcasm is. Which is hardly surprising. Even normal humans do not grasp sarcasm properly before the age of 10-12. Given my suspicions regarding your clinical status, I have to say jolly good show for trying to grasp it at all. Its important to work hard, even if to little avail as I am sure you very well know. << No, it means I understand that words have definitions, and what these definitions mean. >>You are right that you have very little control in regards to the way this thread is developing, but I will continue to suggest that seeking medical clarification on a suspected condition may benefit you in the long run. Several TV shows have supporting characters that seem to manage quite well in similar circumstance. No, I am not suggesting that tv shows are the same thing as real life, but rather that content in popular series tend to both reflect and form public opinion. Your employer may be quite understanding of a formal diagnosis and it would certainly bring a greater degree of order to your universe, even without considering access to support a diagnosis might very well trigger. << Given your tendency to misunderstand even simple things (Right down to Occam's razor, re-read what you said, then look it up) you'll forgive me for attaching no weight to what you've said here.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 08:20:21 Cam If this thread is about anything, then it is about my encouraging everyone to be as forgiving of you as your circumstances dictate we should. Yes, I know you think I don't comprehend things. That perspective is a natural extension of you feeling I don't understand you. To that I say that perhaps the issue is more that you do not understand yourself and the clinical expertise could prove helpful in a general quest to create order in what to you is obviously an unruly universe. You are a bit wrong in your understanding of how dictionaries are built up, though obviously it is comforting to think that words have precise and absolute meanings attached to them. That is even the case sometime. Let me give an example: The word "charge" What is its definition? You see the problem? It means many things depending on context, which is indeed how dictionaries also explain the words. You will recall my "context is king making you a knave" as illustration of how poorly I find your grasp on context to be. Everything not true is not a lie even if knowingly not true. My son is for example not the apple of my eye no matter how many times I might call him that. Yet...I am not lying. How could that be possible? Using sarcasm is similarly not an act of lying. Sarcasm is the use of a positive description to denote you mean the opposite of what you said of someone or something. You are the greatest Cam! You see? Graduation rates are static for the age groups up to 54. Which I think we can say means its been static for a while. Changes in graduation rates for the entire population as a whole simply means that non-graduates are dying faster than graduates. Which we knew as that was the basis of the thread in the first place. Hence my saying you are using circular logic. Yes, you are right. I did miss the first post. The one I deleted successfully (now if I wanted to delete thing permanently, then there is a way that makes it very hard to restore posts. But that was never my intention. I was going for the stab of irritation before you got to thinking "ha, I will show him". Why? Because it amused me). I did not use the graph, I referred to the text that gave a number similar to that you were citing. Valid as the changes in graduation rates by cohort is what is academically interesting. The overall rate simply is a way of verifying if indeed non-graduates are dying faster than graduates as the article claimed. Competent, good faith, a solid academic approach etc. I do understand that you wish to continue discussing your use of circular logic, we can do that until the cows come home. And ty for mentioning myself and Sir Humphrey in the same sentence. I am honoured. I would have never drawn the association myself, even though you seem to have some misplaced misgivings in your qualifiers.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 08:47:19 >>Cam If this thread is about anything, then it is about my encouraging everyone to be as forgiving of you as your circumstances dictate we should. Yes, I know you think I don't comprehend things. That perspective is a natural extension of you feeling I don't understand you. To that I say that perhaps the issue is more that you do not understand yourself and the clinical expertise could prove helpful in a general quest to create order in what to you is obviously an unruly universe. << No, it's that you don't comprehend simple things. >>You are a bit wrong in your understanding of how dictionaries are built up, though obviously it is comforting to think that words have precise and absolute meanings attached to them. That is even the case sometime. Let me give an example: The word "charge" What is its definition? You see the problem? It means many things depending on context, which is indeed how dictionaries also explain the words. You will recall my "context is king making you a knave" as illustration of how poorly I find your grasp on context to be. << I never said "precise and absolute" - That's your invention. Definition 3 of "lie" an inaccurate or false statement. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t to express what is false; convey a false impression. Yes, there are other definitions. The existence of multiple definitions doesn't prevent a particular definition from applying. Otherwise the only words that had any meaning would be those with one definition only. >>Everything not true is not a lie even if knowingly not true. My son is for example not the apple of my eye no matter how many times I might call him that. Yet...I am not lying. How could that be possible? << "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. " From what you've said, you're lying to your son. >>Using sarcasm is similarly not an act of lying. Sarcasm is the use of a positive description to denote you mean the opposite of what you said of someone or something. You are the greatest Cam! You see? << If the sarcasm contains an untrue statement, it's a lie as well as sarcasm. >>Graduation rates are static for the age groups up to 54. << I wasn't discussing rates. >>Which I think we can say means its been static for a while.<< It has. But I was discussing the population as a whole, which has been pointed out many times. Starting with my original post: "Overall US life expectancy is increasing and has been steadily increasing since the 60's up until 2010 at least. What's decreasing is the lifespan of people without a high school diploma, which now encompasses the bottom 13% of people rather than the bottom 20% or so it used to. " Nothing to do with anything except total population there. >>Changes in graduation rates for the entire population as a whole simply means that non-graduates are dying faster than graduates. Which we knew as that was the basis of the thread in the first place. Hence my saying you are using circular logic. << Again, never talking about rates. Don't know how many times this has to be repeated before you understand. >>Yes, you are right. I did miss the first post. The one I deleted successfully (now if I wanted to delete thing permanently, then there is a way that makes it very hard to restore posts. But that was never my intention. I was going for the stab of irritation before you got to thinking "ha, I will show him". Why? Because it amused me). << Hard for you to restore posts. Fairly trivial for me. And more taken as you attempting to divert the thread away from areas you found uncomfortable. >>I did not use the graph, I referred to the text that gave a number similar to that you were citing.<< I'm afraid I can't help it if you don't read and understand both the statement you're replying to and the source you use. >>Valid as the changes in graduation rates by cohort is what is academically interesting. The overall rate simply is a way of verifying if indeed non-graduates are dying faster than graduates as the article claimed. Competent, good faith, a solid academic approach etc. I do understand that you wish to continue discussing your use of circular logic, we can do that until the cows come home. << No-one talking about rates. No-one claiming that the only reason they died later was that they hadn't graduated. All that was a figment of your imagination. >>And ty for mentioning myself and Sir Humphrey in the same sentence. I am honoured. I would have never drawn the association myself, even though you seem to have some misplaced misgivings in your qualifiers. << You seem to be imagining things again. In a manner that makes me think of how Sir Humphrey ended his life.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 09:05:46 Cam I am glad to see you want a fresh start. Here then is what we know: 1. Non-graduates are dying increasingly faster than graduates are. 2. This explains why non-graduates are decreasing as an overall fraction of the population. 3. The general common denominator for non-graduates is poverty. 4. Single income households with dependants are the main household group living in poverty. 5. Dependants outnumber income earners in such households. The point then is a moral one. I find it hard to blame children for failing to graduate when it is very clear that poverty generates poor graduation rates. It is likewise hard to blame an adult for failing to graduate as a child. You can disagree with this if you like, as it simply is a moral position and you are free to live by any moral code you wish to live by.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 09:23:56 1. Never in dispute. In fact, it's what the article was about, as is explicitly stated in my second post. 2. Incorrect. It's merely part of the reason. The other (major) reason being that a higher percentage of people are graduating. 3. Never in dispute. 4. Never in dispute. 5. Never in dispute. 6+ The moral issue and blame was never raised. I have no idea why you bring it up now. I don't know what discussion you think these points are relevant to, but it bears no resemblance to the one started in the first URL linked in the OP.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 09:42:52 2 is indisputable. The only other possible explanation is higher graduation rates, but given that 10.8% non-graduates 19-34, compared to 11% non-graduation 35-54 shows no increase in graduation rates, then we are left with 2. The points are relevant to a discussion about the URL in the OP. Including the moral position that you have no idea why was brought up.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 09:50:40 2 is is only part of the reason. At most it's a catalyst. It contributes, but even if it wasn't the case, the amount of people in society who hadn't graduated would be declining. Because everyone dies and the graduation rates have increased. >>The points are relevant to a discussion about the URL in the OP. Including the moral position that you have no idea why was brought up. << What I said was "I have no idea why you bring it up now. " You missed "now" If I missed where morality was discussed, please quote it.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 10:07:00 Cam No. Its not a catalyst or a partial explanation. The only reason non-graduates are decreasing as a fraction of the total population is because they are dying increasingly faster than graduates are. Given that non-graduation rates remain stable. Now is as good a time as any. I refer you to this thread's title for details. While moral issues were raised under the blanket of "poor life choices", I merely thought I would be clear on my moral standpoint at this time. That of course does not oblige you to comment or provide a moral position of your own.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 10:21:34 >>Cam No. Its not a catalyst or a partial explanation. The only reason non-graduates are decreasing as a fraction of the total population is because they are dying increasingly faster than graduates are. Given that non-graduation rates remain stable. << I'm guessing you haven't realised that this thread was discussing lifespans rather than simply the fact that due to increasing graduation rates, the average non-graduate age would be older than the average graduate age. >>Now is as good a time as any. I refer you to this thread's title for details. While moral issues were raised under the blanket of "poor life choices", I merely thought I would be clear on my moral standpoint at this time. That of course does not oblige you to comment or provide a moral position of your own. << No moral position required. This has only been a discussion of facts. The moral/blame issue is something that only you have bought up. Given that poor life choices aren't necessarily immoral, you've still only bought up morality now.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 10:29:46 Cam Given that poor life choices are not necessarily immoral, then I may not necessarily be the only one who has brought up morality you mean. The reasonable implicit understanding is of course that non-graduates only have themselves to blame. Which is a moral position. I am glad you seem to see point 2 is the only reason now that you have reviewed the issue.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 10:40:25 >>Cam Given that poor life choices are not necessarily immoral, then I may not necessarily be the only one who has brought up morality you mean. << No, you were the only one who bought it up. >>The reasonable implicit understanding is of course that non-graduates only have themselves to blame. Which is a moral position. << This is another case of your definition of reasonable having little or nothing to do with reality. But please, feel free to quote me where I say they only have themselves to blame. As far as I can find, I've only been dealing with facts. >>I am glad you seem to see point 2 is the only reason now that you have reviewed the issue. << So from this you're saying that point 2 had nothing to do with what was being discussed in this or the previous thread? Because unless you were talking about lifespans, rather than that people who haven't graduated high school are likely to older on average, and therefore closer to death, that has no connection to this topic.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 10:47:37 I corrected a flaw in your logic. If something is not necessarily the case, then it follows that something that follows may not necessarily be true. But both could be the case. It is generally a reasonable assumption. Say I smoke. That is a life choice. Is it then my fault if I get lung cancer? Do I deserve life prolonging and costly intervention? Non-graduates are likely to be younger than graduates. Not older. My point from the last thread and this one is that discussing this in terms of the population as a whole is meaningless. We know non-graduates are increasingly dying faster than graduates are.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 10:48:30 die younger*
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 10:58:46 >>I corrected a flaw in your logic. If something is not necessarily the case, then it follows that something that follows may not necessarily be true. But both could be the case. << WHich is why I stated it's merely part of the reason/a catalyst. >>It is generally a reasonable assumption. Say I smoke. That is a life choice. Is it then my fault if I get lung cancer? Do I deserve life prolonging and costly intervention? << It would have been a reasonable assumption if the thread was about whose fault it was. It wasn't, so it wasn't. You should stop assuming things. For someone obsessed with context, your understanding of context is far too limited to make assumptions safe. >>Non-graduates are likely to be younger than graduates. Not older. << Your wiki source says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_attainment.jpg >>My point from the last thread and this one is that discussing this in terms of the population as a whole is meaningless. << I doubt you have any idea of what your point is. But re-read my second post in the first thread to see when/why it came up. >>We know non-graduates are increasingly dying faster than graduates are. << We do. Re-read my second post in the first thread to remind yourself of exactly what was said when the difference was bought up.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 11:02:33 >>Non-graduates are likely to be younger than graduates. Not older. << Your wiki source says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_attainment.jpg ********* Obviously with this, we're not talking about people who are too young to have actually graduated.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 11:15:16 Non-graduates are likely to die younger than graduates. Not older. the "die younger*" post referred to that. You do not get to define what these threads are about Cam. For example this one is mostly about what syndrome you are likely to be suffering from.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 11:16:16 Anyways, I am bored. You at least get paid to write your posts.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 11:22:18 >>Non-graduates are likely to die younger than graduates. Not older. the "die younger*" post referred to that. << Ah, I thought you were correcting the ambiguous English in your last sentence. Yes, that was never up for debate. >>You do not get to define what these threads are about Cam. For example this one is mostly about what syndrome you are likely to be suffering from. << No, it's about your comprehension issues and your penchant from activities that range from outright lying to misleading and misdirecting. >>Anyways, I am bored. You at least get paid to write your posts. << Run away, liar :-)
Dukhat Member	Wed Oct 10 11:23:07 America is becoming more and more full of hispanics. Dumber pop, worse genes, what do you expect?
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 12:36:40 I think we will save your use of emoticons for a future thread. Though topical to this one. I think even the most casual of readers would consider boredom to be a quite credible emotion at this point Cam. If we kept this up, I fear I would have to derail the conversation and talk instead about the arch-whore of Scandinavia. Though by all means, I will cease sabotaging your desire to have the final post.
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 12:43:40 >>I think we will save your use of emoticons for a future thread. Though topical to this one. I think even the most casual of readers would consider boredom to be a quite credible emotion at this point Cam. If we kept this up, I fear I would have to derail the conversation and talk instead about the arch-whore of Scandinavia. Though by all means, I will cease sabotaging your desire to have the final post. << Yes, after having every point you made refuted to the point you abandoned it, then after you abandoned everything else to have a "fresh start", I'm sure it was "boredom" that made you decide to give up. ;-)
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 12:44:45 Just so we're clear: Everything after the last comma was both sarcasm and a lie.
jergul Member	Wed Oct 10 12:49:04 I think we will let the readers be the judge of that Cam. You for some reason may not be entirely objective ;) (note the appropriate use of an emoticon and compare it to yours) And do you see a blatant lie in the last post I wrote? Or what chronological and contextual factor would normally be considered to negate what you should by pattern displayed be a outragous lie I told?
Camaban The Overseer	Wed Oct 10 12:56:18 >>I think we will let the readers be the judge of that Cam. You for some reason may not be entirely objective ;) (note the appropriate use of an emoticon and compare it to yours) << First, faces generally have noses. That you're one among many who are too lazy to press one extra key doesn't change this. Second, they can judge what they like: Objective facts are: You asked to be shown a lie. You were shown one. You were unable to refuse that accusation. >>And do you see a blatant lie in the last post I wrote? Or what chronological and contextual factor would normally be considered to negate what you should by pattern displayed be a outragous lie I told? << You mean where you couldn't keep up this "Though by all means, I will cease sabotaging your desire to have the final post. " for even ten minutes?
Camaban The Overseer	Thu Oct 11 12:33:49 "I feel it important to highlight the use of sarcasm in this forum. Lest it otherwise be misinterpreted. " http://www...hread=57633&time=1349976666490 For someone who's bored of this topic, you don't mind revisiting it. Although if you bring it up outside of this thread, at least you don't have to look at the long list of arguments you've used that have been refuted.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 25 13:51:31 That was in regards to jergul deleting your OP, which you subsequently restored. I never read the first thread.
Rugian Member	Thu Oct 25 13:51:43 Motherfucker, wrong thread
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: