Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Where are you getting your 10% from???

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 10, 2014

Antarius_sl said:
But yes, again, the first article showed, among people that share a name, ie: Married prior to birth, the rate is around 3%. I have never disputed that.

Unfortunately, in some places here in the u.s. 75% of children are being born out of wedlock (example: shithole places like Cleveland). The average rate nationwide is 40%

Latest Statistics on Out-of-Wedlock Births | National Review Online

So great, if you're married, and the woman tags you as the father of the child, 3% chance she's wrong. That doesn't mean 3% of women are cheating, it means 3% of women are getting pregnant with another man because they aren't even using birth control or protection, while married.

If you're not married, and the woman tags you as the father of the child, 10% chance says she's wrong. Again, that doesn't mean 10% of women are having sex with men other than their boyfriends, it means that 10% of the time, if she is rawdogging another man and HE gets her pregnant but not you, even though you were doing it also. The actual number of women that are having unprotected sex with multiple men is FAR higher than 10%.

If you're not married and the woman doesn't know who the father of the child is, 30% of the time she'll get it wrong.\\

Out of that 30%, 80% are ghetto blacks.

Firewater Burns_sl · Sep 10, 2014

Abefroman_sl said:
...living in a fucking cabin by themselves.

You gotta problem with cabins? Sometimes, living in a cabin alone, sounds pretty damn good!

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Where are you getting your 10% from???

FROM YOUR FUCKING LINK, I READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!!!

It cites several random medical studies which showed anywhere between 11% to 17% as the minimum possible numbers for incorrectly attributed paternity... And then he draws the wrong conclusion in his summary. Did you not even read what I wrote?

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
SHOW YOUR SOURCE

Rampant misattributed paternity: the creation of an urban myth | Monash University ARROW Repository

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

The urban legend is that 10% of men are raising someone else's baby. The fact is, it's only 3% of married men... and then creates a sensationalism pro-feminism headline, despite acknowledging that ... in a random test of the population, it's anywhere between 11-17% of the time... not the father.

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Antarius_sl said:
FROM YOUR FUCKING LINK, I READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!!!

It cites several random medical studies which showed anywhere between 11% to 17% as the minimum possible numbers for incorrectly attributed paternity... And then he draws the wrong conclusion in his summary. Did you not even read what I wrote?

Those numbers were never verified and the study was never published, you fucking mook

Draegan_sl · Sep 10, 2014

Is that study published in any way? Or did you just link the first pdf from a university?

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Antarius_sl said:
Rampant misattributed paternity: the creation of an urban myth | Monash University ARROW Repository

Antarius_sl said:
The urban legend is that 10% of men are raising someone else's baby. The fact is, it's only 3% of married men... and then creates a sensationalism pro-feminism headline, despite acknowledging that ... in a random test of the population, it's anywhere between 11-17% of the time... not the father.

Are you dense?

"It is not clear precisely how many tests Philipp applied, so the actual non-paternity rate is uncertain. Unfortunately we just do not know. Nor do we know anything about the women who were tested. There is a passage in the transcript (immediately following the one quoted above) which suggests that the families tested might have been ones where births occurred outside of marriage. Certainly another medical participant in the symposium thought that the sample was 'highly biased'.9 Again, we can only speculate. Philipp's work was never published, which meant that it could not be independently evaluated, in terms of serological techniques or population sample."

So you'd happily accept the word of an unpublished, possibly biased study in the face of a published, reviewed one? Fuck sake

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Medical studies provide one of the
best sources of evidence in relation to the
incidence of non-paternity in the general
population, given that they often derive
their subjects on the basis of medical
conditions that are unrelated to paternity
issues. Such studies provide evidence of
substantial variation in the extent of
misattributed paternity on the basis of
culture and socioeconomic status. Even
so, it is striking that since the advent of
DNA analysis, not one medical study in
a Western country indicates a
non-paternity rate of more than three per
cent.

Literally one line prior, he cites the mexican study from 1999 that showed the random sampling of close to 400 babies that the rate was 11.8%

So here is the problem... he only calls it "non-paternity" if the couple is MARRIED and the husband is raising someone else's baby. If the couple merely "HAS" a baby and the man thinks it is his, but they weren't married, he dismisses that because it doesn't fit his "legal" definition of "non-paternity"... despite the legal ramifications, such as in the u.s. where child support can literally cripple a man... which is the whole reason that paternity testing organizations show a 30% rate... when the men has a financial reason to doubt the woman... 30% of the time he'll win.

Draegan_sl · Sep 10, 2014

Also is that study proving that the woman cheated? Or did they take into account the hospital fucking up? (I'm not reading that thing)

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Are you dense?

"It is not clear precisely how many tests Philipp applied, so the actual non-paternity rate is uncertain. Unfortunately we just do not know. Nor do we know anything about the women who were tested. There is a passage in the transcript (immediately following the one quoted above) which suggests that the families tested might have been ones where births occurred outside of marriage. Certainly another medical participant in the symposium thought that the sample was 'highly biased'.9 Again, we can only speculate. Philipp's work was never published, which meant that it could not be independently evaluated, in terms of serological techniques or population sample."

So you'd happily accept the word of an unpublished, possibly biased study in the face of a published, reviewed one? Fuck sake

I'm talking about the mexican study that found 11.8%

Phillipp study showed that 17% was the minimum.

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Draegan_sl said:
Is that study published in any way? Or did you just link the first pdf from a university?

I also linked one from a journal, so take your pick, but the part of it that Antarius keeps referencing is only being referenced in the study as an unpublished, unverified number that they then refute

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Draegan_sl said:
Also is that study proving that the woman cheated? Or did they take into account the hospital fucking up? (I'm not reading that thing)

It's only 4 pages, I've read fucking Jive Turkey being a retard for longer than his "research paper" which was probably just some fucking undergrad's class requirement or something.

Draegan_sl · Sep 10, 2014

Can you stop holding up that shitty study as proof that you should treat women like shit and they are all evil so therefore you need to get them before they get you?

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Antarius_sl said:
It's only 4 pages, I've read fucking Jive Turkey being a retard for longer than his "research paper" which was probably just some fucking undergrad's class requirement or something.

Here's another one you didn't read that takes into account random medical testing, has nothing to do with wedlock, and STILL says your 10% is an overestimate. You're wrong.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Look, you can get the original paper from one of the lead researcher's website..

http://www.toddkshackelford.com/down...elford-ASB.pdf

The determination of paternity is important due to the possibility of cuckoldry and the subsequent
squandering of male reproductive effort. Men may be attuned to prevalence rates of cuckoldry in
the local environment to assess risk. However, women may have an enhanced ability to assess
paternity and may have superior insight into women's sexual infidelity. Accordingly, this study
examined subjective estimates of human non-paternity (HNP), the discrepancy between
social/legal versus genetic paternity. The hypothesis was that women would provide higher
estimates of HNP than men. A sex difference in the hypothesized direction was observed across
four community samples of Austrian adults (totalling 763 men and 795 women), with women
overall providing higher HNP estimates than men (14.5% versus 9.1%). Furthermore, key
demographic variables impacted HNP estimates for both sexes: individuals who were unmarried,
childless, currently unpartnered, or currently in a romantic relationship of a shorter duration
provided higher HNP estimates than their counterparts, thus suggesting that such estimates might
be attuned to mating effort and strategies, as well as relationship quality and investment.

Here is the money quote:

The genetic transmission of blood type was examined by typing
newborns, mothers, and fathers in the Blood Grouping Laboratory near Boston's Children
Medical Center. This research revealed an incidental finding of a HNP of approximately 10%.

Jive Turkey · Sep 10, 2014

Antarius_sl said:
It's only 4 pages, I've read fucking Jive Turkey being a retard for longer than his "research paper" which was probably just some fucking undergrad's class requirement or something.

I've cited 3 now. Every one says you're wrong. You've cited.... fuck all?

Antarius · Sep 10, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Here's another one you didn't read that takes into account random medical testing, has nothing to do with wedlock, and STILL says your 10% is an overestimate. You're wrong.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long

Modern genetic techniques continue to open a Pandora's box on hitherto hidden aspects of human sexual behaviour. No clear population measures of PD are currently available. However, recent trends in sexual health suggest unprotected sex and multiple sexual partners (two key requirements for PD) are comparatively common occurrences21,22 with a large proportion of conceptions still unplanned (around a third in the UK61).

I can't fucking link the table, but Yes, there are MANY studies that show 10% to 30% rates... and the ONLY ones less than that are the ones where the patients were informed about the genetic testing prior, so that they could exclude themselves from participation (ie: they don't want the fathers to find out)

Arbitrary · Sep 10, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
I've cited 3 now. Every one says you're wrong. You've cited.... fuck all?

That's just a literature review.

This paper examines published evidence on levels of PD and its public health consequences. Rates vary between studies from 0.8% to 30%

Well that's a gigantic fucking span of numbers. It's far more useful to find out which studies were performed with good research methods and repeatable independently testable results than taking the median between a bunch. It's literally averaging in outliers.

Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

Karen

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

shitlord

Lord Nagafen Raider

Lord Nagafen Raider

Lord Nagafen Raider

Karen

2 Minutes Hate

Karen

Lord Nagafen Raider

2 Minutes Hate

Lord Nagafen Raider

Karen

Lord Nagafen Raider

2 Minutes Hate

Karen

Lord Nagafen Raider

Karen

Lord Nagafen Raider

Tranny Chaser