(08-20-2013 09:27 PM)jh Wrote:  Aw man, now I have to fix your formatting errors too? I want to make sure you get credit for all of your brilliance.

(08-20-2013 12:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:37 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:59 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 12:49 AM)jh Wrote:  Wait, what? Seriously? Your explanation is that the White and Asian populations had a much lower total fertility rate than Hispanics? Seriously? Do you want to maybe look at the numbers I posted and try again? I'll even bold it for you. And repeat it, just to make it easy for you.
Non-Hispanic (total): 1.95
How about you try again. And at least put a little effort into it.

You've already lost the argument dude. There is no dependency in the numbers. Your source equals the same outcome as my source. I don't know how your source broke down its categories. I can tell you how my source broke down the numbers by demographics. Including legal and illegal births.

No, your sources (you provided the links to both of them, remember) are completely at odds with one another. I'm guessing that the CDC's numbers are a little better than Craigg639's, but, if you want to go the other way you have to pick a different number for 2011.
But wait, there's more.
When talking about the 2011 total fertility rate, you said:

(08-19-2013 01:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The overall fertility rate is 1.89. . . . Illegal immigrants having babies is not only not added into that rate, but adding to the problem of diluting our established culture.

Quote:Now, somehow, in 2006 illegal immigrants having babies is enough to drop the total fertility rate from 2.11 to 1.6. You do realize that both the 2006 (2.11) and 2011 (1.89) total fertility numbers came from the same chart, right? Did illegals simply stop having babies in the meantime.

again, the video clearly states that the fertility rate was 2.11 in 2006. It only touched upon the rate being 1.6 before the influx of Latino babies born from people coming through our southern border was factored in

Now the video only touched on the 1.6 number? I suppose if I go back through the thread I won't see you constantly stating that the total fertility number was 1.6 in 1988 or 1986?

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It was 1.6 in 2008.

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011. . . .
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Nope, you never said anything like that.

Now, moving on, please explain to me how a non-Hispanic total fertility rate of 1.95 for 2006 somehow converts to a non-Hispanic total fertility rate of 1.6 for 2006.

And, just one more time, I would like to point out that most of the Hispanic babies born in America are not born to illegal immigrants. They can be real Americans too. It's true, I've seen it happen.

(08-20-2013 12:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

jh Wrote:You need to stop changing your story. Pick something and go with it. Man up and show some conviction. If you can't be right, and you've certainly demonstrated that point, be certain.

The story has never changed. The fertility rates have remained constant throughout this conversation. Whether you want the breakdown in the video or the chart you provided, the rates are the same. The video never stated that the overall fertility rate was 1.6 in 2006. The fact of the matter is that our fertility rate is too low to maintain a native population. Your constant argument that the video was somehow false or wrong is not only false, but meaningless to the argument.
I think you are just stalling because you cannot get around the fact that we must rely on immigration for demographic stability. So man up and and admit the premise is correct.

I was about ready to give up on you, but you've made another tiny little bit of progress. You've now admitted that the 2.11 total fertility rate refers to demographic stability, as I've pointed out since the beginning of the conversation. You have been the one trying to pretend it was something else, not me.

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it).

(08-15-2013 09:41 PM)jh Wrote:  "The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming no net immigration)."

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

I admire your chutzpah. Not many people can pretend they've been arguing something entirely different all along with quite the same aplomb.

Now that we are starting to settle on the terms, if you would pick a coherent set of total fertility rates perhaps there could be a productive conversation.

You said 2008. I am the one and went back to discover it was 2006. and yes I believe anchor babies and births from newly arrived immigrants accounted for the 1.6 to 2.11 jump in 2006. I was in AZ in 2006. The Home Depot right outside my house would have at least 1000 illegal aliens swarming the parking lot each morning when I left for work. It would spill over into the post office and shopping center parking lot. It was not uncommon to see 20 ICE vans descend on the scene and watch a crowd so large scatter into the neighborhoods that you would think you were watching the running of the bulls in Spain.

The rates are the same as they have always been. I don't know what grand lie you think you have caught me in. You have taken us on a long journey of liberal idiocy.

The video(using 2006 data) states that the fertility rate was 2.11. That never wavered. The latest figures have us at 1.89(which has probably dropped in the last two years) and that to has never wavered.

The premise remains. That rate is too low for us to maintain our cultural identity. Are you now ready to come to terms with that, or are you still caught up on whether we are using birth rates or fertility rates that equal the same premise?

(08-20-2013 01:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  But they're still Hispanic.

Ask my buddy from Puerto Rico if he's black or Hispanic.. He'll tell you he's Hispanic. Actually he'll say I'm Puerto Rican.

They are Hispanic because they all come from a Spanish speaking country or Spanish cultural background. That has nothing to do with race.
There are black Hispanics in places like El Salvador and Cuba as well.

Races are Caucasian or European. Indian, Asian or Black(African)

Most of the illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are of Aztec or Indian decent. There is also a huge population in Mexico with blonde hair and blue eyes. They are Caucasion Hispanics. Eva Longoria was startled to find out she is more European than Aztec.

Correct, many don't get that.
Also European immigration to Mexico and South American countries happened every bit as much as it did in North America.

Everyone loves the Native Americans until they come back here speaking spanish.

(08-20-2013 09:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 01:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  But they're still Hispanic.

Ask my buddy from Puerto Rico if he's black or Hispanic.. He'll tell you he's Hispanic. Actually he'll say I'm Puerto Rican.

They are Hispanic because they all come from a Spanish speaking country or Spanish cultural background. That has nothing to do with race.
There are black Hispanics in places like El Salvador and Cuba as well.

Races are Caucasian or European. Indian, Asian or Black(African)

Most of the illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are of Aztec or Indian decent. There is also a huge population in Mexico with blonde hair and blue eyes. They are Caucasion Hispanics. Eva Longoria was startled to find out she is more European than Aztec.

Correct, many don't get that.
Also European immigration to Mexico and South American countries happened every bit as much as it did in North America.

Everyone loves the Native Americans until they come back here speaking spanish.

Actually the ones coming here were never from here. The native Americans in my state really don't want them here. I don't blame them.

(08-20-2013 09:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You said 2008. I am the one and went back to discover it was 2006.

Wait, I said 2008?

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89.

Seriously, do you pay attention to anything you write?

Quote:and yes I believe anchor babies and births from newly arrived immigrants accounted for the 1.6 to 2.11 jump in 2006. I was in AZ in 2006. The Home Depot right outside my house would have at least 1000 illegal aliens swarming the parking lot each morning when I left for work. It would spill over into the post office and shopping center parking lot. It was not uncommon to see 20 ICE vans descend on the scene and watch a crowd so large scatter into the neighborhoods that you would think you were watching the running of the bulls in Spain.
The rates are the same as they have always been.

Cool story bro. Was it a bunch of non-Hispanic white guys out there? Because otherwise I'm not sure what the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona has to do with the fact that the non-Hispanic total fertility rate in 2006 was 1.95. But still, cool story.

Quote:I don't know what grand lie you think you have caught me in. You have taken us on a long journey of liberal idiocy.

Grand lie? Nah. I don't give you that much credit. Some wise old dude once said that you should never attribute malice what can be as easily explained by incompetence. I'm just trying to help you understand what you are attempting to talk about.

Quote:The video(using 2006 data) states that the fertility rate was 2.11. That never wavered. The latest figures have us at 1.89(which has probably dropped in the last two years) and that to has never wavered.

And the video was wrong, because it was the total fertility rate which was 2.11 (shifting sands make for a bad foundation). And the total fertility rate for citizens was not 1.6. And Hispanics can be citizens too. Craigg639 really isn't very good at the internets.

Quote:The premise remains. That rate is too low for us to maintain our cultural identity. Are you now ready to come to terms with that, or are you still caught up on whether we are using birth rates or fertility rates that equal the same premise?

Awww, and here I thought we had made some progress. Your premise is completely unsupported. You are back to assuming that demographic stability is the same thing as cultural stability. It is not.

(08-20-2013 10:13 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 09:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You said 2008. I am the one and went back to discover it was 2006.

Wait, I said 2008?

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89.

Seriously, do you pay attention to anything you write?

Quote:and yes I believe anchor babies and births from newly arrived immigrants accounted for the 1.6 to 2.11 jump in 2006. I was in AZ in 2006. The Home Depot right outside my house would have at least 1000 illegal aliens swarming the parking lot each morning when I left for work. It would spill over into the post office and shopping center parking lot. It was not uncommon to see 20 ICE vans descend on the scene and watch a crowd so large scatter into the neighborhoods that you would think you were watching the running of the bulls in Spain.
The rates are the same as they have always been.

Cool story bro. Was it a bunch of non-Hispanic white guys out there? Because otherwise I'm not sure what the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona has to do with the fact that the non-Hispanic total fertility rate in 2006 was 1.95. But still, cool story.

Quote:I don't know what grand lie you think you have caught me in. You have taken us on a long journey of liberal idiocy.

Grand lie? Nah. I don't give you that much credit. Some wise old dude once said that you should never attribute malice what can be as easily explained by incompetence. I'm just trying to help you understand what you are attempting to talk about.

Quote:The video(using 2006 data) states that the fertility rate was 2.11. That never wavered. The latest figures have us at 1.89(which has probably dropped in the last two years) and that to has never wavered.

And the video was wrong, because it was the total fertility rate which was 2.11 (shifting sands make for a bad foundation). And the total fertility rate for citizens was not 1.6. And Hispanics can be citizens too. Craigg639 really isn't very good at the internets.

Quote:The premise remains. That rate is too low for us to maintain our cultural identity. Are you now ready to come to terms with that, or are you still caught up on whether we are using birth rates or fertility rates that equal the same premise?

Awww, and here I thought we had made some progress. Your premise is completely unsupported. You are back to assuming that demographic stability is the same thing as cultural stability. It is not.

I think this will be the tenth time I have pointed out the video said the fertility rate was 2.11 in 2006. It was 2.11 after you factored in total births. Not just ones from native born mothers.

I also think this will be the 20th time I have tried to drill it into your head that if we cannot maintain our demographic stability, we cannot maintain our cultural identity.

(08-20-2013 10:28 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I think this will be the tenth time I have pointed out the video said the fertility rate was 2.11 in 2006. It was 2.11 after you factored in total births. Not just ones from native born mothers.

No. Still grasping at straws. Still trying to pretend you have been arguing something different than you have. Still wrong.

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

Quote:I also think this will be the 20th time I have tried to drill it into your head that if we cannot maintain our demographic stability, we cannot maintain our cultural identity.

But you are wrong, as is so often the case, so it doesn't matter how many times you try, it won't work.

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:28 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I think this will be the tenth time I have pointed out the video said the fertility rate was 2.11 in 2006. It was 2.11 after you factored in total births. Not just ones from native born mothers.

No. Still grasping at straws. Still trying to pretend you have been arguing something different than you have. Still wrong.

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

Quote:I also think this will be the 20th time I have tried to drill it into your head that if we cannot maintain our demographic stability, we cannot maintain our cultural identity.

But you are wrong, as is so often the case, so it doesn't matter how many times you try, it won't work.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

Quote:But you are wrong, as is so often the case, so it doesn't matter how many times you try, it won't work.

No, I'm not. If you have to rely on immigration to replenish your demographic stability because of demographic stochasticity, or low fertility rates(in our case), you are losing your host culture.

(08-20-2013 11:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

(08-20-2013 11:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

(08-20-2013 11:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

(08-21-2013 12:03 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

What you are saying is that you don't want to acknowledge the fertility rates as being what I said they were. That keeps you from acknowledging the actual premise - which is true btw.

(08-21-2013 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:03 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 10:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-19-2013 11:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The video clearly states that the current fertility rate is 1.6, with the addition of the current. "Latino Immigration" (or if we are being honest), illegal immigration, the number jumps to 2.11.

Once again, the 2006 non-Hispanic total fertility rate was 1.95. I know you have a hard time with numbers, but 1.95 is not the same thing as 1.6.

and what percentage of the total population do Hispanics make up? Just because their rate was 1.95, they are still a smaller portion of the population. Was the 1.95 figure caculated to include to births from illegal immigrants? The 1.6 figure was used before the total fertility.

I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

What you are saying is that you don't want to acknowledge the fertility rates as being what I said they were. That keeps you from acknowledging the actual premise - which is true btw.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you really go back and compare what we wrote? Really?

I know it's better for you if I teach you to fish, instead of just giving it to you, but I'm going to give you a little hint. Rewrite your post (the one in italics) without pronouns. Put an actual noun in everywhere you have a pronoun. And don't forget to take another look at what you said about the video.

In case you are confused, this link explains what pronouns are.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm

(08-21-2013 09:07 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:03 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:38 PM)jh Wrote:  I want you to reread what I wrote, then reread what you wrote, then try again.

LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

What you are saying is that you don't want to acknowledge the fertility rates as being what I said they were. That keeps you from acknowledging the actual premise - which is true btw.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you really go back and compare what we wrote? Really?

I know it's better for you if I teach you to fish, instead of just giving it to you, but I'm going to give you a little hint. Rewrite your post (the one in italics) without pronouns. Put an actual noun in everywhere you have a pronoun. And don't forget to take another look at what you said about the video.

In case you are confused, this link explains what pronouns are.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm

So instead of facing the reality of our "point of no return" fertility rate, you want to lecture me on grammar?

(08-21-2013 09:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:07 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:03 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 11:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  LOL I did and you are accusing me of saying the 1.6 figure is what I claimed was the Hispanic fertility rate. I never made any such claim.

No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

What you are saying is that you don't want to acknowledge the fertility rates as being what I said they were. That keeps you from acknowledging the actual premise - which is true btw.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you really go back and compare what we wrote? Really?
I know it's better for you if I teach you to fish, instead of just giving it to you, but I'm going to give you a little hint. Rewrite your post (the one in italics) without pronouns. Put an actual noun in everywhere you have a pronoun. And don't forget to take another look at what you said about the video.
In case you are confused, this link explains what pronouns are.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm

So instead of facing the reality of our "point of no return" fertility rate, you want to lecture me on grammar?

No, just trying to be helpful. Given your difficulties with math I wasn't sure how much attention you paid in elementary school.

But if we were going to have a discussion about the total fertility rate, you would have had to understand what it is, what it means, and what its numerical values were. This all seems to be above your head, making any further discussion pointless.

I guess it's true what they say about leading a horse to water.

(08-21-2013 09:45 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 09:07 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 12:03 AM)jh Wrote:  No, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying at all. give it another go.

What you are saying is that you don't want to acknowledge the fertility rates as being what I said they were. That keeps you from acknowledging the actual premise - which is true btw.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Did you really go back and compare what we wrote? Really?
I know it's better for you if I teach you to fish, instead of just giving it to you, but I'm going to give you a little hint. Rewrite your post (the one in italics) without pronouns. Put an actual noun in everywhere you have a pronoun. And don't forget to take another look at what you said about the video.
In case you are confused, this link explains what pronouns are.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm

So instead of facing the reality of our "point of no return" fertility rate, you want to lecture me on grammar?

No, just trying to be helpful. Given your difficulties with math I wasn't sure how much attention you paid in elementary school.

But if we were going to have a discussion about the total fertility rate, you would have had to understand what it is, what it means, and what its numerical values were. This all seems to be above your head, making any further discussion pointless.

I guess it's true what they say about leading a horse to water.

The math is accurate and the rates are correct. They have been throughout this discussion. Whether we are talking about number of births per 1000 people or how many babies each woman is having on average. I think the premise is above your head

Mods...Please!!!

(08-21-2013 10:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Mods...Please!!!

Don't like? Don't click.