Lpsg Perpetuates Average Isn't Good Enough

[deleted1138933]

Are they not entitled to have their own opinions?

What a schmuck.

Yes, but then why try to mask it with vague answers that contradict truth

 

[deleted1138933]

They don't have to state things in your words, Lloyd...I mean, harry.

But they can at least be truthful and direct

 

[deleted1138933]

And nobody ever said they were. Yours, for instance are as minor as a "challenge" can possibly get. You're just afraid of women.

But it is a much bigger challenge than yours and you still bitch about it

 

[Llbaker]

Do you fantasize about being a statistician?

Actually, had to use statistics frequently in my profession.

 

[Llbaker]

You la la la a lot at LPSG?

Nope. I listen as carefully as possible to all.

 

[Llbaker]

Pizza is a food. Lots of organisms are food. Depends how food is defined.

See? Anyone can string words into a sentence that appears to be valid. With no other evidence, they are just words.

And you still haven't addressed the evidence I posted (multiple online dictionaries) that equivocation has no current definition remotely like:


What you wrote there doesn't even make sense. Using a synonymous or even a different word isn't "assigning a different definition". It's using a different term to restate YOUR argument. You can argue whether the different term is synonymous with yours, but that still isn't equivocation.

Equivocation is using vague words to deceive. Nobody here has done that. They disagree with you, and restating your argument SO WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE SUBJECT IS has nothing to do with an attempt to deceive.

When I first started noting equivocations in my opponents, I quoted both definitions. Maybe I will go back and find where I did that.

 

[Llbaker]

That isn't how confidence works or why it is significant. You are talking about a population of 3.5 billion, which means that your +- 10 would discount that actual value of how 350,000,000 members of that population respond.

I showed you that you don't understand how statistics work a few posts ago, and you've only rebutted by proving that you don't understand statistics. So since you can't back your argument up with statistics please provide the sources of evidence that you "looked at" when coming up with your idea. I asked you to do that pages ago after your claim that you had sources of evidence that back up your idea, so share them because your tactic of being obstinate isn't convincing anyone to consider your argument.

No. If you choose a ridiculously small interval, as you did, you get a ridiculously large sample requirement.

But, yes, of course, if you want 99% confidence level instead of 95% you need a somewhat larger sample size. However, for the purposes of knowing that a ridiculously high % of men think they are too small, you don't need neither a 99% confidence level nor a small interval. +/= 10% AND 95% confidence level should be fine.

 

[Llbaker]

I actually don’t have many physical preferences at all. I’ve dated thin, fat, short, tall, good-looking, plain - all kinds of men. I’m attracted to intelligent, funny, quirky men. Although, I do like good hands. I suppose now you’re going to make a big deal out of that. But not all men I’ve date have had good hands.

Penis is irrelevant. Completely. Until I got to this site, I had never given the penis of any guy I slept with a much thought. I mean I treated it really well. But when it was over, I never thought about it again. It’s just a piece a skin. By far, not even remotely the most important part of him. I might long for his arms, to look in his eyes again, to hear him laugh again, but his penis? No.

So you can ascribe all the thoughts you want to women. Don’t listen to us. I don’t care. I know what I want in a man. And penis size doesn’t even make any list I have.

I generally don't agree much with Harry, but I do think most men want of woman that finds their penis attractive.

No, doubt some men don't care and would be happy with your attitude. Many wouldn't, I think.

 

[IntactMale]

No. If you choose a ridiculously small interval, as you did, you get a ridiculously large sample requirement.

But, yes, of course, if you want 99% confidence level instead of 95% you need a somewhat larger sample size. However, for the purposes of knowing that a ridiculously high % of men think they are too small, you don't need neither a 99% confidence level nor a small interval. +/= 10% AND 95% confidence level should be fine.

You are missing the whole point of confidence. Yes, you can use a low level of confidence and high confidence interval if you don't want to have confidence in your results. Apparently you don't care about having confidence in your results. Even going with your incredibly low standards for confidence in the results, a sample size of 96 would be needed for a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of 10. That is more than three times the sample size you quoted, and has a level of confidence so low that no statistician or student of statistics would ever put any value on the findings. You only put value on it because you have to bend reality to justify your opinions when they are so easily shown to have no foundation.

.5 is not a ridiculously small interval, it is appropriate when you are talking about a population as large as 3.5 billion, but you don't know what you're talking about so there's no surprise that you don't understand.

There's no point in discussing statistics with you, you clearly don't have a grasp on the theory and methodology.


I'll ask again, you referenced looking at evidence to come to your conclusions. I've asked you at least three times now to cite the sources of the evidence that you used, and you still haven't done it. Why not share the information that brought you to your conclusion so that we can all share it and understand your point of view? My guess is that you have no evidence.

 

[green26]

In my experience, it's not the size of your dick that turns a woman on (well at least not all woman)it's the size of your attitude that counts.

 

[rtg]

1- I do not live in a basement

2- of every woman who has responded, they do not clearly state they want, or prefer small, merely that they can conform and are willing to make due if they can compensate. That is not the same thing as desire.

Who ever said anything about compromising. That’s equivocation!!!! Stop equivocating.

Did any of us say we even desire or idealise a large peen? No. So maybe we are “compromising” if we get a big peen? No one said they want or prefer large either so.... great argument *slow clap*

 

[Llbaker]

You are missing the whole point of confidence. Yes, you can use a low level of confidence and high confidence interval if you don't want to have confidence in your results. Apparently you don't care about having confidence in your results. Even going with your incredibly low standards for confidence in the results, a sample size of 96 would be needed for a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of 10. That is more than three times the sample size you quoted, and has a level of confidence so low that no statistician or student of statistics would ever put any value on the findings. You only put value on it because you have to bend reality to justify your opinions when they are so easily shown to have no foundation.

.5 is not a ridiculously small interval, it is appropriate when you are talking about a population as large as 3.5 billion, but you don't know what you're talking about so there's no surprise that you don't understand.

There's no point in discussing statistics with you, you clearly don't have a grasp on the theory and methodology.


I'll ask again, you referenced looking at evidence to come to your conclusions. I've asked you at least three times now to cite the sources of the evidence that you used, and you still haven't done it. Why not share the information that brought you to your conclusion so that we can all share it and understand your point of view? My guess is that you have no evidence.

Confidence level is different from the interval selected.

To understand male obsession about being "too small" we don't need to know the % within .5% You can have a high confidence with a small sample if you select a reasonable interval which still shows the obsession.

 

[Llbaker]

To state if differently, we don't need to know "exactly" what percent think they are too small. We are trying to show there is a very large %. Only a small sample size is required to show the % is between 40 and 60%, In many applications that is why the practical standard is 30 or so. . .

 

[rtg]

To state if differently, we don't need to know "exactly" what percent think they are too small. I am trying to show there is a very large %. Only a small sample size is required to show the % is between 40 and 60%, In many applications that is why the practical standard is 30 or so. . .

Fixed it for you.

I've never seen any reputable research with a sample size of 30.

 

[Llbaker]

Fixed it for you.

I've never seen any reputable research with a sample size of 30.

Often, the exact % is important. Then a smaller interval and large sample size is required. I guess this is rocket science.

 

[someperson]

No, you seemed to miss that part where I said you didn't offend my titties in the least. It's still up there in the original post for reference. But I know what it is like to see women struggle feeling like shit for their body parts (big and small) and your candor suggests you give zero shits how you might further perpetuate insecurities and self loathing in women who are insecure. But rest assured, you arent speaking to one of them. But I do acknowledge that those people do exist and making them feel like garbage for what they may naturally have or unnaturally have just makes you look like an asshole.....and you also might be making her hate herself more than she might already.

Oh and my big ol saggy left titty says hi.

What i think about the most is how good of a kisser she is...
that is what matters to me .. I would not want to date a bird type kisser

But it is a much bigger challenge than yours and you still bitch about it

stick with your toys then

 

[rtg]

Often, the exact % is important. Then a smaller interval and large sample size is required. I guess this is rocket science.

Seems like it is for you.

 

[rtg]

I would not want to date a bird type kisser

Haha this made me giggle and gave me a funny visual in my mind

 

[deleted1138933]

Who ever said anything about compromising. That’s equivocation!!!! Stop equivocating.

Did any of us say we even desire or idealise a large peen? No. So maybe we are “compromising” if we get a big peen? No one said they want or prefer large either so.... great argument *slow clap*

No one has said you dont

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Yeah this is coming from the coward that whines and bitches about being well-endowed?

How, exactly, am I a coward? Cowardice is failure to face what scares you. I have had decades of long-term relationships. Been married, faced and was defeated by some issues and overcame others. Been divorced (with now adult children). Fell in love again, and am married again.

You haven't even dated anyone.

And your claim that I whine and bitch about being well-endowed is hilarious. I've responded to a thread asking men to describe problems associated with endowment. I've mentioned that anal sex and deep-throat have been out of the question. I've mentioned being rejected as too big.

And I've challenged you more than once...because you've made this accusation several times...
to quote me in any instance where you thought my posts were "whining and bitching". Because they aren't. You know this, and you being a coward AND a liar won't either admit you were wrong OR actually post what I wrote so others can see you're fabricating it.