No, I sourced things for you as asked. I even sourced research papers, not merely shoddy journalism. You disagreeing with the sources because you've read other pro-degeneracy elsewhere (or apparently because some of them were "too old" and no longer have standing) isn't worth my time and is beyond the scope of your original claim of lack of sources.
I'm going to ask you a couple questions, whether you can answer them or not is going to determine whether I think you're someone with a reasonable level of intelligence or like the retards upvoting your "data". In your first source, Why is only asking gay people these questions a problem when making your argument? With your second source, Why is having no sources for their information a problem? And it being from over 40 years ago? The third source was more convincing honestly, but why is it a problem that the people who wrote that, say that 34 percent and 60 percent is a similar statistic?
whether you can answer them or not is going to determine whether I think you're someone with a reasonable level of intelligence
Wow. I haven't seen this much emotional manipulation attempted on the .win in a while. Kudos to you for thinking I give a rats ass about your opinion of my intelligence.
I guess there will be some quip about how not answering them is proof of something? Just an FYI I have already rated your level of intelligence without proffering a test, and it shat the bed right there in the quoted text.
Or you could have just answered the questions...I'm just trying to determine if you have the innate ability to understand what the data actually means, and why those sources are so flawed. Anyone can google and paste, which is what you've done. I award you a D, maybe a C- if you lick my taint...
No, I sourced things for you as asked. I even sourced research papers, not merely shoddy journalism. You disagreeing with the sources because you've read other pro-degeneracy elsewhere (or apparently because some of them were "too old" and no longer have standing) isn't worth my time and is beyond the scope of your original claim of lack of sources.
I'm going to ask you a couple questions, whether you can answer them or not is going to determine whether I think you're someone with a reasonable level of intelligence or like the retards upvoting your "data". In your first source, Why is only asking gay people these questions a problem when making your argument? With your second source, Why is having no sources for their information a problem? And it being from over 40 years ago? The third source was more convincing honestly, but why is it a problem that the people who wrote that, say that 34 percent and 60 percent is a similar statistic?
Wow. I haven't seen this much emotional manipulation attempted on the .win in a while. Kudos to you for thinking I give a rats ass about your opinion of my intelligence.
I guess there will be some quip about how not answering them is proof of something? Just an FYI I have already rated your level of intelligence without proffering a test, and it shat the bed right there in the quoted text.
Also, you do realize you lost the argument right?
Or you could have just answered the questions...I'm just trying to determine if you have the innate ability to understand what the data actually means, and why those sources are so flawed. Anyone can google and paste, which is what you've done. I award you a D, maybe a C- if you lick my taint...