GirlChat #721861
Your thought error in terms of variables
Posted by rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 07:07:38 EST, Friday
In reply to More BS posted by rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 00:58:03 EST, Friday
Dependent variable: number of little girls being raped by pedophile rapists
Independent variable: number of pedophile rapists
Mediating variable: posited conditions (legalization of consensual intergen sexual conduct)
Outcome: decrease in number of little girls being raped by pedophile rapists (my prediction).
The way you think it:
Dependent variable: number of little girls being raped by pedophile rapists
Independent variable: posited conditions (legalization of intergen sexual conduct)
Mediating variable: *?!*posited conditions (legalization of intergen sexual conduct - "reframed" as proof of non-consent required)*?!*
Outcome: increase in number of little girls being raped by pedophile rapists (your prediction).
Why you think that way:
- Unexplained interchangeable usage of "man", "pedophile rapist", and "pro-contact girl-lover" in thought process.
I.e. man = pedophile rapist; ∴ pedophile rapist = pro-contact girl-lover.
(I'm assuming of course that the default active pedophile is obviously a pro-contact girl-lover.)
.... Is what I think is going on here.
~ RBL
__________
*why you can't provide a logically sound explanation for your predicted outcome
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- Henny, is dat you? nt - Lil'Grundoon on 2017-December-08 13:04:27 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Oops - the first section should look like this: - rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 07:15:22 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- And switch the dependent and independent - rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 07:17:55 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Nevermind - rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 07:20:21 EST, Friday - (2 / 0 / 0)
- And switch the dependent and independent - rainbowloom on 2017-December-08 07:17:55 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 1)