Could Hugh Hefner & Donald Trump Be Homosexual?

[Town Heretic]

You simply presume too much from statistics is all.

Nope. I just set out the plain fact and note that wherever you dredged yours it was either errant or unqualified in a way that would make it a) meaningful and b) something other than a misleading distortion.

Statistics don't take into account anything other than numbers

lain:

That is not something 'anecdotal', it is rare to see a woman homeless period

Rather, it's rare among the poor to be homeless, though half a million is a significant number. Among those that unfortunate, you see roughly six men for every four women. Not five percent.

- the 1 and 20 figure (5%) is correct, deal with it.

It isn't correct and I've cited to authority, which you apparently can't handle.

It's not much more women than men to suppose it's due to anything of them being women.

Whazzit? Seriously, that's a convoluted mess of a sentence. Try it again in bits.

The fact that you all demonstrably care more about, and do more about, the women

It's only an either/or with you and your mindset. There's nothing inherently dismissive (in relation to men and problems facing them) about addressing women's problems or defending flawed and misinformed attacks upon them.

while calling other people misogynists for pointing it out

I call some people misogynistic for evidencing it. And I point out the particular in the why.

is enough for me to *drumroll* not care.

I suspect it's a defense mechanism to protect the irrationality at the core of your protest.

Why should I care about a society that quacks morals but kicks according to what makes itself appear holy?

I don't think your complaint is real, to begin with, so your solution isn't really either. You decide others are trying to appear holy because you can then dismiss them out of hand, but you don't establish the fact (a common problem with much of what you appear to believe). You need a rational approach to the subject that your bias doesn't appear to invite.

I think you're all equally absurd, so unless you're a woman than guess what? I'm not 'sexist'

Sexist? Settle on a term. You're rhetoric is misogynistic. Your hostility toward women is as palpable as it remains factually without much support. You appear to confuse an anecdote and personal bruising with the world and how it is or works. Investing yourself in a solid education, into a development of serious critical, analytical skills could rid you of much of that, along with the anger that fuels it. But that's up to you.

 

[MrDante]

It's not a number I made up, you're just terrible at deducing statistics. You choose to see whatever fits into your feminism, despite what the most accurate consensus actually is.

Not that a person would even need a statistic to know yours as complete nonsense.
Go to any city and see how many homeless women you see on the street. 1 in every 4 is plain laughable, you self deluded moron. 1 and 20 is right on the mark :wave2:

Is going to inner cities and counting women your idea of a holiday? No wonder you make things up.

 

[glassjester]

Is going to inner cities and counting women your idea of a holiday? No wonder you make things up.

I lived and worked in the "inner city" for a long time.

There are lots of homeless women.

More men, for sure. But it's definitely more woman than Crucible's estimate of five percent.
It's probably more like 20 percent.

 

[Crucible]

I lived and worked in the "inner city" for a long time.

There are lots of homeless women.

More men, for sure. But it's definitely more woman than Crucible's estimate of five percent.
It's probably more like 20 percent.

The unsheltered homeless comes out to nearly a quarter million for men, and 12,000 for women. That is because there are over 500 gender specific women's shelters, and a lot of those women are only in a temporary situation, who have jobs, and will eventually attain enough resources through the feminist/affirmative action grapevine to be on their way.

Most of the women on the street are young, and most of the homeless men are old- there's a reason for that. There's also a reason why only 1 in 20 of them are those young women.

This is why these people, when they continue to labor under these misleading statistics, don't do anything but perpetuate the issue- they don't actually care, it's all about the image.


You, for example, claim to work in the inner city, but have you paid attention to the detrimental effect of feminism in the black community? They vote Democrat hoping that it will enrich their community, but the only thing that happened was women being on the receiving end and making black fathers obsolete.

That's straight up what has happened over the past eight years, and then these same people want to defend black men by saying 'they can't get to a DMV' or 'identification means they can't vote or get a job'.
I mean, are these people the one's calling everyone else racist and sexist? REALLY :AMR:

It's a joke that I've gotten tired of.

 

[glassjester]

The unsheltered homeless comes out to nearly a quarter million for men, and 12,000 for women.

Source?

You, for example, claim to work in the inner city,

Haha, claim?

but have you paid attention to the detrimental effect of feminism in the black community? They vote Democrat hoping that it will enrich their community, but the only thing that happened was women being on the receiving end and making black fathers obsolete.

Oh yes, I have noticed.
Although I don't see how feminism ultimately benefits women, either.

 

[Crucible]

Source?

There is no 'source' on the matter of male vs female unsheltered homeless because it is not something easily observed or documented.
The estimate of 'chronic homelessness'- homelessness lasting more than a year- places women at 5%.

210,000 of the homeless (over 1/3) are 'homeless with families', which nearly all consists of women because they do not admit men, and only 13,000 of them are 'chronically homeless'.

Figure that into sheltered statistics, do some math
and then

keep your eyes peeled next time you are in the city for homeless people- your 1 in 5 figure is frankly one of many reasons why I despise feminism in this society because it warps reality at everything it happens by.

I used to be one of those homeless men and know what what it is out there, and looking at bald statistics isn't going to give you any insight :wave:

 

[glassjester]

keep your eyes peeled next time you are in the city for homeless people-

I will do so.
Today, in fact.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is no 'source' on the matter of male vs female unsheltered homeless because it is not something easily observed or documented.

Not true.

The estimate of 'chronic homelessness'- homelessness lasting more than a year- places women at 5%.

Cite to source?

keep your eyes peeled next time you are in the city for homeless people- your 1 in 5 figure is frankly one of many reasons why I despise feminism in this society because it warps reality at everything it happens by.

Anecdotal evidence can be used to illustrate objective data, but otherwise it's useless.

Source?

He likes to make up stories and facts, but you won't get him to support most of it.

But the facts are out there. Most of the poor aren't homeless, but where they are:

No idea where you're getting your 5%. According to the Alliance, the sheltered homeless broke down by gender: 62.3% male to 37.7% female.

In 2015 there were around 41 million living below the poverty line, by census. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there were around a half million homeless. Meaning that roughly 40.5 of all people living in poverty are still sheltered, either in government housing or by some other arrangement.

12.2% of men and 14.8% of women lived in poverty in 2015. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Income and Poverty in the United States, p. 13)

 

[Crucible]

Not true.

Then why is it lost on you :chuckle:

Cite to source?

Unlike you, I took several sources from several different factors and did the math.

You see, because statistics are inherently misleading, and that is why society can never fix anything by them.

Anecdotal evidence can be used to illustrate objective data, but otherwise it's useless.

The conclusion matches my observation- and my experience with being in such a situation- but you all can't even seem to admit that in you're lives you've seen about 1 homeless women for every 20 men.

It's sad that feminism has you all denying that the sky is blue, seriously.

Most of the poor aren't homeless, but where they are:

Most women who are poor got that way out of an expectation that they can just live on the benefits you so gleefully defend. You're talking to somebody who lives in the inner suburbs, dude, they are half of neighbors

 

[Town Heretic]

Then why is it lost on you

What you're up to isn't lost on anyone who pays attention.

Unlike you, I took several sources from several different factors and did the math.

For those playing at home, he's making it up. The numbers, the actual numbers aren't hard to find. There are advocacy groups geared to provide and argue for the homeless and there's federal data at hand. I've noted it some of it in my last post.

You see, because statistics are inherently misleading, and that is why society can never fix anything by them.

Translation: when facts won't support you declare the facts suspect.

It's sad that feminism has you all denying that the sky is blue, seriously.

It's sad that factually deficient, hostile and irrational people like you get taken seriously by some.

Most women who are poor got that way out of an expectation that they can just live on the benefits you so gleefully defend.

That was Cruc assuming and asserting to match his contempt for women. Gleefully defending unspecified benefits is merely par for his methodology.

You're talking to somebody who lives in the inner suburbs, dude, they are half of neighbors

Yeah, I've noticed the sudden "It's me" attempt to invent a narrative that can supply some sense of authority you can't get to by reason or data. It's r-e-a-l-l-y compelling stuff, dude [/sarcastic disbelief].

 

[ok doser]

I never said I believed women shouldn't vote ...

most women shouldn't be allowed to vote

most blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote

most people shouldn't be allowed to vote

 

[Crucible]

For those playing at home, he's making it up. The numbers, the actual numbers aren't hard to find. There are advocacy groups geared to provide and argue for the homeless and there's federal data at hand. I've noted it some of it in my last post.

Those statistics you provided are broad and do not reveal factors and circumstances- you're just trying to bull rush the entire matter and basically be guilty of the same exact thing you tried to accuse me of on the matter of 'why rapists rape'. I cross examined demographics on homelessness and did the math, and have brought up a few factors that you won't even speak on- I'm not going to do it for you :wave2:

Anyone who lives in the city could tell you that that your '1 in 4' or whatever is complete hogwash dude- none of you live in the city, it's apparent every time I bring up black people :chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

most women shouldn't be allowed to vote

most blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote

most people shouldn't be allowed to vote

The Founding Fathers were a bit afraid of pure democracy, knowing that society, collectively, can grow fanatical and make bad decisions. That's why the Electoral College was put in place, and it is why the Trump victory is so great- it reflects what the Founders intended.

 

[ok doser]

they have something similar in canada - their senate is appointed, much like our EC

from wiki:

...the majority of government bills originate in the House of Commons with the Senate acting as the chamber of "sober second thought"

that "sober second thought" part has been a bit of a joke lately :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Those statistics you provided are broad and do not reveal factors and circumstances

That's nonsense. They're directly on the point. Yours on the other hand are unnoted, uncited and summed by some mysterious process you won't set out within your feverish noggin.

Or, you're making it up. Which is what you do.

- you're just trying to bull rush the entire matter and basically be guilty of the same exact thing you tried to accuse me of on the matter of 'why rapists rape'. I cross examined demographics on homelessness and did the math, and have brought up a few factors that you won't even speak on- I'm not going to do it for you

The lie in that involves foundation. I've cited my sources and authority. I never consider that doing someone else's work, because it's my obligation to establish the validity of a claim I make.

You're trying to conflate that with your imaginary source and work because then you can give the appearance of authority to an unsupported declaration.

Anyone who lives in the city could tell you that that your '1 in 4' or whatever is complete hogwash dude

You don't even appear to know what I noted by authority in your rejection. So that's funny.

- none of you live in the city, it's apparent every time I bring up black people :chuckle:

Let's reserve your racial trolling for another thread.

 

[Crucible]

That's nonsense. They're directly on the point. Yours on the other hand are unnoted, uncited and summed by some mysterious process you won't set out within your feverish noggin.

I figured it out in fifteen minutes. I might've sourced everything and put the math out before this discussion got to where it is- I'm not going to do it now. If you want to deny reality, be my guest- you can't concede to anything anyway.

Let's reserve your racial trolling for another thread.

You know what I find ironic?
The fact that I hear the word 'racist' come from people like yourself, but have never heard it firsthand from a minority ever.
Here's a big kicker for you- most of anything I've claimed on here of black people began with a black person telling me about it. If that doesn't clarify you a bit on why I so amply use the label 'stockholm syndrome', then I suppose nothing will

 

[Town Heretic]

I figured it out in fifteen minutes. I might've sourced everything and put the math out before this discussion got to where it is- I'm not going to do it now.

You haven't done it ever. And until you do it's just a variation of your usual declaration, signifying nothing. And I've offered established, Census statistics and the numbers of Homeless advocates along with straight forward logical examination of claims and answers to challenge and inquiry on your part.

If you want to deny reality, be my guest- you can't concede to anything anyway.

It's easy to deny what hasn't been offered and to rest on facts that have.

You know what I find ironic?

Given how you define all sorts of things, not even Webster can be sure.

The fact that I hear the word 'racist' come from people like yourself,but have never heard it firsthand from a minority ever.

No idea why you'd find that ironic, but in my experience most racists who aren't parading in sheets look like pretty much anyone else. And until they talk about race, which they don't tend to in public and within arm's reach, no one has any reason to call them by something other than their given name.

Here's a big kicker for you- most of anything I've claimed on here of black people began with a black person telling me about it.

Most of what I've noted about your rhetoric that begs the question isn't something you'd hear a black person say, unless they were terribly confused, or Dave Chappelle. It was the rhetoric I've noted prior, the willingness to celebrate someone running down a BLM member, the use of rhetoric coined by racists, the "white culture" bits you've interjected.

So no, that's not where you got it.

If that doesn't clarify you a bit on why I so amply use the label 'stockholm syndrome', then I suppose nothing will

I believe you have a few catch phrases you toss out to sound substantive and to cow, but they're mostly popular culture distortions and you don't anchor them in anything like substantive argument or rationale that make them more than sounds. As with any declaration, absent proof, it's not much.

 

[glassjester]

Anyone who lives in the city could tell you that that your '1 in 4' or whatever is complete hogwash dude- none of you live in the city, it's apparent every time I bring up black people :chuckle:

I saw 2 homeless men today.
I saw 0 homeless women.

Pretty inconclusive, I guess.

 

[Town Heretic]

I saw 2 homeless men today.
I saw 0 homeless women.

Pretty inconclusive, I guess.

It would have been inconclusive if you'd seen fifty women and ten men. Anecdotal evidence is only evidence of anecdote, absent a larger, objective methodology.

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

It would have been inconclusive if you'd seen fifty women and ten men. Anecdotal evidence is only evidence of anecdote, absent a larger, objective methodology.

lain:

Not to mention validity. Impossible to generalize that across people, place and time.

By the way, I looked up homeless statistics for San Diego. We have one of the highest homeless populations in the country.

In 2014 we had 8506 people who were homeless, and 25.4% of them were female.