Are you a prepper?

[Firecross]

Link? No offense but with your track record for examples, no chance I'm going to take you at your word.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo...95-22.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/25-fewer...nt-america
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/is-this...ns-lounge/
Women in Science and Engineering | University Housing at UW-Madison

Herbivore men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/pove...female.htm

 

[MLU]

I'm sitting on five cases of MREs left over from Gustav. In the event of impending weather I stock back up on water and booze and then make sure everything is charged. If the world ends, I'm just going to outsmart someone and then steal their hoard.

 

[RazorOye]

Quite frankly, most people alive today are bluepillers and are completely oblivious and have 0 critical thinking skills. If you do your own research, you'll see it for yourself.

I don't know that what you're posting qualifies as "research." The process at which you're declaring validity and then drawing conclusions are incongruous.

All you are doing is linking some cherry picked stats (which aren't really contextualized or vetted beyond flat numbers), which is problematic, by itself, in the uncritical nature in which you're looking at them. But you aren't stopping there. You then double down on that lack of criticality by issuing these broad, sweeping generalizations that you think are (or have been or will be) the results of (past, present, and future) these "statistics"

Finally, the audacity of saying others lack critical thinking skills gives this circus its third ring.

You've got the process backwards. You don't start with declaring a conclusion and then making a bit of evidence fit here and there.

That's what "bluepillers" did when Roger Goodell levied the allegations against the Saints and assembled a weak cast of cherry-picked, de-contextualized "evidence" to prop up a specious narrative.

Your crusade is misdirected. There might be some aspects of your argument worth talking about, but sifting through the rhetoric and generalizations and doomsday alarmism makes that tedious.

In the end, you end up marginalizing your own perspective through your own posts more than anyone else who is responding to them. You're typing a lot and linking to a lot, but really saying little that's substantive and coherent.

edit:

as an illustrative example -

you link to this:

Women in Science and Engineering | University Housing at UW-Madison

What's wrong with that in the first place? You just link to it and then expect us to (1) assume whatever point you're getting at, and (2) assume that you're right. That's not "research." What's your objection to programs driven to attract women to math and science? It happens at levels below postsecondary, too. I've seen them work very well. I've had female students in them. I've also seen boys-only programs for literacy and the arts. I've seen funding for increasing engagement with literature for boys and have written curriculum geared toward male student engagement (e.g. through the canonical inclusion of graphic novels in the curriculum) because their interest and participation lags, generally, behind girls (and, interestingly enough, there's concern the impact that lack of engagement has on critical thinking and critical literacy... is that a full circle?). Is that somehow objectionable, too? If this is one of the Avengers that appears when you "Assemble!" your argument, you've got a pretty weak squad. I wouldn't want a 98lb weakling in my superhero corps, but ymmv

 

[Goatman Saint]

Of course he's arguing both sides of a point. On one hand he's saying that women are poor, unable to get a good job and stuck on the government ***, yet in the next phrase talks about how the majority of people in college are women. Pick your battle, because there are two different outcomes in that argument.

 

[Yeti]

I came here for a preppers thread. Can the mods please delete this ******** hijack.

 

[Zack Lee]

no, just rename it "Salt and Prepper". We can do both; some people are having fun.

 

[V Chip]

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo...95-22.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/25-fewer...nt-america
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/is-this...ns-lounge/
Women in Science and Engineering | University Housing at UW-Madison

Herbivore men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/pove...female.htm

Linkbomb!

But seriously, which one of those links says "40% of the 'Breadwinner' women in the USA earn between 17-23,000$ a year and bank on the state assistance?" I checked each one quickly and found nothing of the sort listed. And there are lots of problems with each one...

For example your first link is from 1995, nearly 20 years ago, before welfare reform, and it is about mothers who receive food stamps, not breadwinner moms. The word "breadwinner" does not appear in that link. In fact, "breadwinner" appears in none of the links you provided but the last link at least talks about female-headed households (different than "breadwinner" -- ["About 12 percent of women over age 18 were the heads of their households, meaning that they have children or other family members, but no spouse, living with them."]). That last link is from 1996. The 2007 Census I linked to shows the percentage of female HOH (NOT breadwinner, but HOH) earners between 15K and 25K (closest to the 17-23K you said) is actually 17.2%, not 40%, and there is no mention of how many of them are "banking on state assistance" (using loaded words like "banking on" is not very scientific, either).

The rest of your links show nothing but opinion pieces (from CNS News? Really?) and stats that do nothing that shows they lead to the conclusion you are making. In short, you just read things and decide "well that means X!" without one bit of corroborating evidence.