Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nadeeshaF" data-source="post: 3012065" data-attributes="member: 119936">>.< watchout saharaz has gone apeshit again <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/P.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":P" title=":P    :P" data-shortname=":P" />    I was hoping you'd pull out this one again, because I dug around that link you provided yesterday and caught something you missed, which I am about to share with you. Now I hate to burst your bubble, but your claim about the US bureau of statistics being unreliable due to inconsistent figures is WRONG. Here's why: - As you said, these are estimated time series data (if you want concensus statistics you can refer to the base year 2000, when the last concensus took place, and you will see that the young male population is still greater than the young female population).  - Time series data is subject to change, and the bureau does so once a year in July. During which time, the population time series is revised, including figures of past years to arrive at a more accurate estimate for the present year. You can read about it here>>><a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2007-nat-meth.html" target="_blank">http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2007-nat-meth.html</a> - "These postcensal estimates from April 1, 2000 through July 1, 2007 supersede all previous estimates produced since Census 2000" states the statistics bureau.  - Therefore the statistics bureau is NOT posting erroneous data as you stated, but revising figures for the entire population time series starting from 2000, to include the present year. This is why the data on my link didn't tally with yours'. The table you provided was the 2006 adjustments, and outdated as acknowledged on the website.  - All this only attests the fact that, as mentioned ealier, the most accurate as of date is the most recent set of data, which is from July 2007. This is the set I took my figures from.  So once again you  FAIL<img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/D.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" /> <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/D.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" /> <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/D.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" />  You fail for being delusional enough to think that a US government website would be dumb enough to make such errors. Seriously, what are you smoking? <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/yes.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yes:" title="Yes    :yes:" data-shortname=":yes:" />  You fail, because the data I presented to you is not wrong as you implied, and continue to be proof of there being more younger men than women. Even if you don't want to consider estimated data you can refer the concensus statistics from 2000, and you'll still see there were more young men than women. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/yes.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yes:" title="Yes    :yes:" data-shortname=":yes:" />  You fail, because you conveniently ignore wal bada's figures that indicate there are more men than women in most countries, and in this world. This alone refutes your entire argument on polygamy. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/yes.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yes:" title="Yes    :yes:" data-shortname=":yes:" />         </blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom