Lykes Fuzzy Math
So yes, I'm listening to Tom Lykes again - I know, please don't give me crap. I'm turning it off right now and turning on my itunes. Wow! I have four users connected to my iTunes! That makes me feel like a rock star! I just wish I knew what they were listening too.
OK, so topic on today's Lykes peice of crap misogynistic show - pregnancy and trickery. He begins by quoting some study that sayd that a certain percentage and number of pregnancies in the country is "unplanned" according to the child bearer. At the same time that 90% of women claim to use some sort of birth control which is greater than 90% effective. He then goes to say that this makes no sense, and that I being a woman would probably have to ask my bf to help me with the math, but that leaves not enough women who aren't on birth control for them to be accidentally getting pregnant.
So these hateful wenches are obviously lying because they're embarassed to have forced pregnancies on guys. I mean, who doesn't want to be with a guy that's there because he was trapped???! It's so dreamy and romantic......
Now I know he's too much of a hateful son of a fucking bitch to get a woman on there that will say this, so I wouldn't bother calling in....but he clearly doesn't understand these stats. What the effectiveness of birth control is saying is that 90% of the time it is used, it is effective. So if a woman has sex 100 times, there's a chance that she WILL get pregnant. It DOES NOT mean that only 9 out of 10 women on birth control can GET pregnant. So with all the sex that I hope is going on out there, it is not I that need help, it is you, King Shit of Crap Mountain.
I'm ok, really.
I have to start turning off the stream feed at 4pm.
posted by chinchilla @ 3:06 PM
3 Comments:
His mathematical prowess is indeed strong. Your point on the meaning of bc being 90% effective is indeed pertinent and one dimension of his mystifying intellect. The other thing is that he's not even comparing apples to oranges - he's comparing apples and the air speed of an unladen African Swallow.
Allow me to draw a Venn diagram (diagram not to scale), because this asshole has one coming, and behold my dark reasonings. [it's too bad I can't actually post the image here] So, my diagram contains two sets, A and B, and their intersection, C. It's pretty straightforward, I hope.
A = women on birth control
B = women who got pregnant
C = women who got pregnant on bc**
When someone says "20% of pregnant women did not intend to get pregnant" (assuming that all women who didn't intend to get pregnant were on bc**), that means area C is 20% of area B. Good so far? Now, does that mean that area C should also be 20% of area A? Fuck no. You cannot tell, from the above assertion, how many women are on bc or what percentage of them got pregnant. To use that assertion to claim that the apparent failure rate of bc is much higher than the expected failure rate (i.e. women doing something shady) is not even disingenuous - it's downright moronic.
** There should be a third set on there to complete the picture, and that is women not on birth control, because I think it's possible to not be on bc and not intend to get pregnant, but that would reaaally complicate things.
My brain hurts.
Sorry, I know it's too close to Cinco De Mayo for such things...
Post a Comment
<< Home