They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.
I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
Prove it if you can. Try not to suck Nazi cock on your way to that, though.
Well, then you’re welcome to prove that. I await your evidence to support your assertion.
I’ll warn you ahead of time: arguing against facts usually ends poorly. Beware.
I’m gonna sleep great tonight because I didn’t defend Nazi IDF soldiers.
Nah, I’m not going to argue science and statistics with someone who clearly understands neither.
Going through these comments you’ve not presented one scientific or statistical argument. You’re basically going on vibes.
They haven’t made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone’s methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying “Facebook research don’t count”. I don’t know what statistical evidence you need for “Facebook research don’t count”.
I’ve only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn’t be arguing with someone who didn’t understand the core concepts of the conversation.
The vibes thing is quite the projection, though.
Considering this is the first time you’ve responded to me at all I think maybe I don’t trust your ability to judge Core Concepts of a conversation.