Once again, I have no idea why you are doing this. But once again, because I don’t go into the fact that scientific data is often manipulated for political purposes (including by the researchers, as well as by others)—something I’ve discussed many times here—does not mean that I (or many other commenters here) am unaware of this fact. I see no reason to re-invent the wheel every time I post.

I point out that correlation is not causation. Any scientist should know that. If scientists try to make people think it is, they are either poor scientists or have a political agenda, or both. Sometimes the problem is within the research itself, but sometimes it arises with the journalists or pundits or politicians who write about and/or use the research for their own purposes, and sometimes it is with all of the above. It happens all the time, and very often from the left.

I know that your Aspberger’s makes it hard for you to perceive communication that is not absolutely explicit. But your misunderstandings are becoming more frequent, and always in the same direction—which is to assume ignorance and naivete on my part and on the part of other commenters here.

One last thing: why do you think I listed feminism first on that list? It is not the only influence, but it is a huge influence, a big part of the whole which is the agenda of the left. That is especially true of those feminists with an anti-family anti-marriage anti-male agenda.

But the history of civilian gun ownership under the Nazis, scholars say, is far more complicated than the rhetoric indicates.
After World War I, Germany signed a peace treaty requiring dismantling of much of its army and limiting weapons import and export. But many of the 1 million soldiers returning home joined armed militias, including a Nazi Party force that saw Communists as the leading threat.
“Technically, they (the militias) were illegal and the guns were illegal, but a lot of government officials didn’t care about right-wingers with guns taking on Communists,” said David Redles, co-author of “Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History,” a popular college text.
By 1928, however, officials decided they had to get a handle on the militias and their weapons and passed a law requiring registration of all guns, said Redles, who teaches at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.

Wait a second… read that again before you read this.
The story they tell is that the world war one troops were returning to an already nazi Germany?
World war I ended November 11 1918. / Hitler wasn’t in power until when? 1933… he had not gotten full control till later… / extermination of the jews came later…
By erasing the years between 1918 and 1933, they effectively make it look like hitler was trying to get rid of the militias that formed how many years earler?
This is farce… completely untrue… its point is to make the history for the left seem like it’s the right that has it wrong (when there is only left, and not left… )
Not only did they erase about 20 years, but they also erased that stalin and hitler were of one mind!!!
Now, they are going to lead you into the idea that it was Weimar that did it all, but they wont let you get that even if Weimar did that, the lists were used to do something else, and todays gun law makers are not making ANY provisions for those lists to be destroyed in an event of a change in government or marshal law!!!!!!!!!!
But wait.. it gets more interesting… as the second generation of Zinn writers talk.

Soon after Hitler was named chancellor in 1933, he used the arson of the Reichstag as an excuse to push through a decree allowing for the arrest of many Communists and the suspension of civil rights including protections from search and seizure. But as the Nazis increasingly targeted Jews and others they considered enemies, they moved in 1938 to loosen gun statutes for the loyal majority, said Bernard Harcourt, a University of Chicago professor of law and political science who has studied gun regulations under Hitler.

So what they are saying is that hitler made history, and didn’t let a manufactured crisis go to waste
Now… reading Cuomo and others who say they were waiting for a newtown event to take advantage of, puts them in whose camp or not letting a crisis go to waste? [which the fear is that they will use a crisis to act again later when the names are collected. What assurances are they giving that the socialists of yesterday, are not the socialists today despite camps, one party, despotism, control to the point of salt and sodas, gun registrations, and more!]
[edited for length]

Note that I wrote “the study describes a situation in which delayed marriage works differently” rather than “the study indicates delayed marriage causes.” Correlation alone is not causation, although it is often erroneously assumed to be.

what a tool…

so you dont get the game that when its bad, its someone elses thing / and when its good, they take credit?

Eve ate of the tree of what? so it takes a real smart person to consistently invent things that make the other persons actions ok. why? because nice people make serial killers nice to them as a process…

so the whole point here is to somehow make their bs and lies and all that real and sound good. its the process by which an academically trained person learns to insert their head up their asses.

why don’t i give you a more blatant example?
because if you cant use history to negate the lie of natural outcomes today which is what they have been pushing… then we are DOOMED by women… (given voting lets us know who is it that went their own way on this against their own)

“hitler joins gun debate: but history is in question”

when i first read this, it came from MyWay

Hitler Joins Gun Debate, but History Is in Dispute – ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hitler-joins-gun-debate-history-dispute-18796823

personally, us guys dont like such tools, as they are used by the other side, and spend all their time pretending theya re not and rationalizing.

which is the point…
so much rationalizing and musing to just avoid saying, they are screwing with you, its bad, and we all should align to stop it.
[edited for length]

When I embarked on marriage 61 years ago, at age 22, I had no idea how hard it would be, or how rewarding. You describe my own experience poetically and truly.

I don’t presume to claim that my path is the only right one; I do hope that others find equal happiness at the end of the paths they have taken.

And yesterday I had read that article in the NY Post by Ophira Eisenberg. I found it to be one of the saddest things I’ve ever read (I was going to write a post about it but it was just too much of a downer). The sex she was having (voluntarily, I might add) before she met her husband-to-be was about as empty, meaningless, unpleasant-sounding, and compulsive as one could imagine voluntary sex to ever be, and she seemed completely clueless as to what she was doing and why, and deeply divorced from her own feelings. I hope that she’s not typical of the mindset out there.

I was also very puzzled by the fact that she mentioned having slept with 40 men and described at as having had sex with almost every man she encountered, and this occurred between the ages of 15 and 40. So 40 men would seem like an awfully low number, considering; I would have thought it would be in the hundreds. Perhaps she lost count. Or perhaps she didn’t get out much. Or perhaps she was more discriminating than she let on.

That is definitely a factor, as I can attest. When I got married it was after moving to NYC to get a Master’s Degree, and I had already lived with my girlfriend in Florida, Arizona, and France over the previous six years. We had to spend a lot of time apart. It was a brutal experience.

Perhaps we can add to grad school simply the increasingly temporary nature of jobs in general, meaning that people just can’t or at any rate don’t get started on a “career” in one place until later. Until then, one has to assume that one will be rootless.

Even today, coming back to the topic of grad school, my attempting to find stability and settle down with a wife and have some children is difficult, not just because I have no job stability, but because even if I could be sure of finding employment in academia, it would be a series of adjunct and one-year positions, or, if I’m lucky, postdocs, that would leave me and my (hypothetical) wife as rootless and wandering as I’d been in grad school. The prospect doesn’t fill me with much joy; it fills women hoping to settle down and raise a family with even less.

I think you raise a good point, in any case. Reflecting on my own case, I definitely did not choose to remain single until today (I’m 32). It was just well-nigh impossible for the stars to align such that I could settle down. I made a go at it eight years ago, but then the divorce dragon spewed his fire all over me.

“Rootlessness” is perhaps the watchword. The destruction of traditional values is a factor, but even people like myself who do their damnedest to live responsibly and, dare I say, virtuously, can’t seem to find the conditions of stability until at least our early 30’s.

But it’s made them God’s gift to publishing houses. Have you noticed the huge Nordic noir boom?