(December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:(December 30, 2017 at 8:30 pm)SaStrike Wrote: @tizh, it does alter the overall point. taking the optimal set of data to push the article's bias is ridiculous. the sample chosen was "cases where women work more than men". with this set, the result was 50-50.
what about the rest of the data? where men work more than women, where there is unemployment, where one parent is unempliyed, where there are equal working hours etc.
most likely was not 50-50 so was left out. in fact, the article actually PROVES discrimination against men in child custody cases. since the parent which works the most working hours usually LOSES the case. so how is it 50-50 lol
(yes i know it can be argued that time spent and working hours shouldnt play a role but it does)
Sigh no it dose not . And the rest of the data is a moot point . And no it does not prove male discrimination .
(December 30, 2017 at 8:48 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why not? I’m the one getting shit for it, obviously.
Still does not mean you need do it back
...
if there are 10 cases. 2 of these cases meet the criteria of women working more hours than men and this has a 50-50 split. that means 1 case of 2. not 5 of 10. i give up on trying to explain this to you now. the article tricked you. nothing more i can do.
