Aziz was rapey as fuck on that date. I still maintain Id have to beat someones ass if that girl was a family member.
Aziz was rapey as fuck on that date. I still maintain Id have to beat someones ass if that girl was a family member.
Whew, three peer reviewed studies, ya got me. Here are 24 peer reviewed studies stating that vaccines cause autism, so it must be true then?
http://avoiceforchoice.org/issues/ph...es/24-studies/
No, i didnt waste my time actually reading them, because even IF there is a fraction of a fractions chance of getting autism from vaccines, its not fatal (although there is an increased risk of fatality from autism, so a fraction of a fraction of a fraction), whereas the viruses vaccines prevent have a low to mid risk of fatality.
That's great and all, and it took approximately 12 seconds searching the author of the very first paper listed to discover hundreds of other papers discrediting every paper you linked, but you purposely picked something stupid instead of trying to find something that uses the scientific method to argue the point we're talking about here.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I mean holy shit Nynja it's not that hard to admit you're wrong on the internet.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
What is Nynja even arguing? That sometimes women lie about rape? Idgi
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
...do you know what peer reviewing is? Peer reviewing is the process that confirms or discredits papers, which is exactly how every paper regarding vaccines and autism has been torn apart.
Comparatively every study on the incidence rate of sexual assault turns up the 20% statistic (or greater). And if you go and use the data to control only for "extreme" cases (attempted rape and rape, defined by penetration) then you still get either 10% to 16% -- with a fair amount of the cases excluded being "severe" sexual assault (i.e. touching that was not penetration) and not just "minor" sexual assaults that you try to dismiss. That's peer review confirming the number accuracy.
I didnt spend time looking up peer reviewed articles for my gotcha moment. I spent 2 minutes on my break finding a list of peer reviewed articles supporting the idea that vaccines cause autism, thats all. Maybe when i get home ill look up the authors of the greds articles and see what i can find about them and their biases.
You spent all god damn day trying to defend yourself, but when someone spends less time to prove you wrong you suddenly cry "why you trying so hard?" You don't even know what the fuck peer reviewed is, but now you claim you're gonna go home and spend more time finding peer reviewed papers that prove his claims wrong? Son, that's not how research papers work. Have you even read a research paper before, and not just the headline to a news article referencing one? Get educated boi.
Shit son, it's not like he even needs to try that hard when you make it so easy. Nevermind the fact that there is nothing wrong with spending some free time to educate yourself on a topic, especially one that affects half the population. The fact that you think it's a waste of time speaks volumes.
"MEN'S Prison? They knew who they were putting in there before they even built it!"
I didn't spend all that time looking up the literature. I already knew it.
Believe it or not, I used to think this number was bullshit too. When I first heard the 20% statistic, I didn't believe it. I thought of all the women I knew in my life and thought there was no way that 1 in 5 of them had been sexually assaulted. But since I don't approach feminism with hostility I kept an open mind instead of defending my preconceived notions. So I sought out the sources of the statistic, rather than assuming that women must have been lying to the researchers or that they were reporting incidents that weren't "real" sexual assault or that the research was biased propaganda from SJWs propping up the matriarchy. And I changed my beliefs based on science.
I don't know what to tell you NynJa. You've proved exactly what I said about how no one who is arguing against this actually reads the science. You're just reaching for whatever you can think of that would discredit the statistic, even though analysis of the original data and the study methods, plus data from all subsequent studies, address these made-up flaws.
You're doing it to defend your pre-existing view of the world rather than confront the uncomfortable reality that, just maybe, women deal with a lot more sexism than you thought. That maybe there are some implicit sexist ideas in society that compose the so-called "rape culture." That all those women who said #MeToo weren't all lying.
P.S. your papers didn't pass peer review; they were published and then swiftly discredited by peer review. That's the very reason we can conclusively say that there is no science behind vaccines causing autism.
Ok, now y'all are just dancing to his music.