The link in the article goes directly to the data used in the study, for some reason. My link is the paper the article is about. CTRL + F the quote paragraph by Throwaway if you don't believe me. It clearly talks about testosterone.
Lookin4GoodArgs
joined 11 months ago
Found the scientific paper based (PDF) on that study.
I won't even comment on it other than to say, as usual, the headline is wrong.
How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens?
By reading the study and not relying on someone's interpretation of it.
You called all watchers of Fox News brain damaged, a mod said don't characterize a whole group of people as such, and you said no.
At the time, we had a rule against bad faith arguments, and stereotyping a whole group as textbook bad faith arguing.
BUT!
We've new rules for you to dance around. Read them for the love of being a contrarian in a community that isn't particularly welcome to your views, and...idk...tango away!
Rule 3 violation.
What makes Fox News so bad? Make the argument.
Rule 3 violation.
Next time, just make whatever argument you're trying to make, like...why are news stories from white nationalist publications bad? Tedious, I know...but do it.
Child poverty more than doubles β a year after hitting record low, Census data shows
Of course that happened. (Just throwing out numbers to make a point) If child poverty started at 100,000 kids in poverty, dropped to 30,000 kids, caused by American Rescue Plan, and then it rose to 60,000 when the rescue plan expired, then the above article headline is true.
Still, fewer kids in poverty, which is what matters.
It's extremely biased, but not garbage. I say this as someone that has watched and read right wing news for years. Heritage Foundation is garbage. Cato is ideologically consistent and actually has good arguments. AEI is also good for extremely biased arguments.
Warning for violation of rule #1.
Simmer down...