Sociopath Community

by OutcastMephisto

"Watching" statistics is no basis for making a conclusion of their intentions. For one thing, studies like that probably have a lot of lurking variables. Is there a selection bias? Did they select women across all economic denominations? Did they compare other studies which explore other factors, like a comparative study of income of the sexes? You're citing the daily mail and a blog post which cites a fucking HYPOTHESIS. 

 It is ABSOLUTELY... I am stating that women donate less than men. The Daily mail is backing it up with scientific research, and I am staring at statistics that show men are the predominant ones donating. There are like no women to be found at all.

You are an absolute idiot.

Yes, there is a class of human beings called men. It really does exist.

Any men have anything intelligent to say? This broad is dumb as a brick.

Anyways, I watch statistics on donations, and it is clear as day that women will not open their pockets at all when compared to men. It is truly disgusting. Absolutely greed. Sometimes I felt shameful for thinking that women are greedy, however they prove it time and time again. They are the greedier of the two sexes.

I thought until very recently it had to do with sexual tastes and preferences that changed the way women donate compared to men, however it is not true. Women are tight asses. They are the poorest and most vile petty people on the earth when it comes to money. They are material girls. There is nothing that compares in male culture.

Groupthinking is always groupthought, and that is always fucking pathetic. You're groupthinking as a part of "Men", with your assumptions being "Guys are a different breed altogether" and "We just don't feel the need to hate on women". For one thing, there is no "We". You're not a member of an imaginary collective called "Men" and you can't speak for what all men intend or think. There have been quite a few womenhaters on this website in particular, and although this is anecdotal, I've personally met quite a few on the internet. Starting your argument with "This is a truth" is also blatantly fallacious and fucking stupid.

Plus, the Daily Mail is a shitty newspaper, has been since before it was widespread on the internet. It's a fucking sensationalist tabloid, not a reliable source for anything more than half-assed bullshit, which this post is. 

Well then you are an idiot. Fuck off...

1) Yes, there exist men, however, that's aside the point. You're ONE man. Incapable of speaking for other men. Which you did. Which was fucking stupid.

2) I'm a man. You're just fucking stupid.

"Watching" statistics is no basis for making a conclusion of their intentions. For one thing, studies like that probably have a lot of lurking variables. Is there a selection bias? Did they select women across all economic denominations? Did they compare other studies which explore other factors, like a comparative study of income of the sexes? You're citing the daily mail and a blog post which cites a fucking HYPOTHESIS. 

Another thing, you're appending a quality to an entire demographic with such tenuous evidence as the daily mail and blogposts cited. You're also incapable of speaking for women, too, because you're not a member of the collective "Women" and can't really speak for their intentions.

Plus, if you were to make a conclusion based upon statistics, you'd have to actually perform statistics. Instead of being all amateur-like with your thumb up your ass with half-baked tard opinions, you might want to read up on how to do something like a regression plot or a comparative test of multiple samples using p-values. 

False on most accounts specifically related to the statistics I am looking at.

Attractive women may make men donate more often, yes.

Older women are not donating.

Guy do you see your source? "Women's Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University." They most probably chose a single campaign run for womens bladder incontience research, something that has NO interest to men at all and was probably not even marketed to men.

Another example of callous and greedy women distorting the truth.

You said... "My point of view on all this matter is not to trust too much on statistics. "

No really, they are publically available for anyone to see...

Go to Patreon, anmd search ASMR, and you will see the donors. I dare you to step outside of ASMR and choose ANY other profiles to find an instance where women are donating to the arts more.

Anywhere... go ANYWHERE on the web where they publish the donors names in a social crowdsourcing network. Women are not donating at all. Find me ONE.

Really it is not my problem. It is the nature of the internet, they are revealing gender information, probably for the first time ever, in any significant measurable way, this is something that is going to hit the wall eventually...

.

.