On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 2:09:25 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/1/2015 12:57 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 1:22:45 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
people are closer to my standard than yours.
Statistics are never an indicator of being right or wrong. It's just the
current trend.
Another example of the sad state of education in America. I give you
factual numbers on the rapid decline of lions and this is what you
have to say? Statistics are an indicator of being right or wrong.
No they aren't. I deal with statistics every day, and how they are
interpreted is totally dependent upon the most current agenda and goals.
Right vs. wrong generally has no bearing with statistics.
Stop lying. You're obviously too stupid deal with statistics every day.
It's just an unbelievable rat hole to even attempt to go down. Stop wasting
our time. If you say that the sun rises in the west and I say it rises
in the east, having statistics that show that in the 300 days of observation
it rose in the east 300 times and zero times in the west, clearly has
direct bearing on who's right and who's wrong. How's that for a lesson in statistics?
The dwindling numbers of lions might be an indicator of climate change
causing habitat change, which results in the lions dying off. None of
that has anything to do with right vs. wrong.
Again with the right vs wrong. Idiot, if the lions are down to
16,000 from 400,000 just fifty years ago, everyone else here reading
this knows that it shows that they are in trouble and it's not
smart killing off more of them. And again, only a true fool would
try to interject the cause of why the lion population is down,
because everyone here knows it's because of man. Not that it matters.
If it was due to a virus, it would still be remarkably stupid to
go around shooting them to further the decline.
How you interpret the
numbers has to be done accurately, and simply quoting a statistic in
order to support your argument won't fly and can come across as
deliberately being deceptive.
Here, from Scientific American:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ct-protection/
"African Lions Face Extinction by 2050, Could Gain Endangered Species Act Protection "
The African lion (Panthera leo leo) faces the threat of extinction by the year 2050, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe warned today. The sobering news came as part of the agency's announcement that it has officially proposed that African lions receive much-needed protection under the Endangered Species Act.
The decision to list the big cats as threatened--one level below endangered--would allow the U.S. government to provide some level of training and assistance for on-the-ground conservation efforts and restrict the sale of lion parts or hunting trophies into the country or across state lines.
Is suppose Scientific American also doesn't know statistics, right?
BTW, where the are your sources that say lions are doing just
peachy keen and should be hunted and hung on walls?
I said the numbers of lions has decreased 95% in the last 50 years,
the numbers show exactly that, they show that I'm right. And you're
right it's a trend, a very bad one. Even a child could figure that out..
A trend still isn't an indicator statistically of right vs. wrong. A
trend simply is a collection of data. The cause of the trend may or may
not be attributed to good or bad, but still is dependent upon individual
interpretation. If statistics are to be taken seriously, then they must
be interpreted without any agenda.
Again with the fetish about right vs wrong. Why don't you harp
about hot vs cold, or up vs down for a while? It makes as much
sense. Everyone here knows that lions numbers are down drastically,
they need to be protected, not shot. WTF is all this about "right"
vs "wrong"?
The reasons of the trend could be anything from A to Z,
some being valid data, others being a stumped toe.
Now you want to segue into another diversion that's largely
irrelevant.
If you're going to talk about statistics in order to support your
argument, then there must be clarification on how those numbers are
interpreted. If you want to use them to support your argument, then you
should be prepared to discuss them.
--
Maggie
I have used them and once again shown that you are indeed the true
village idiot. In fact, you're the dumbest poster I've ever seen
here. Why don't you end it by saying that if a
species is meant to survive, it will somehow survive? That gets
my vote for the most ignorant, stupid post I've ever seen here.
Congratulations.