Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think writing Oooooh. I am shaking makes you look cool? I only wrote your post was pathetic as your number was wrong even with your calculations.
As I and others have pointed out, the numbers are not accurate. You stated you reported my posts, you stated my posts are pathetic. That makes you appear to be a bigger tool in this who bit of stupidty that you perpetuate
Wait I didn't calculate anything, you did. The only thing I got wrong was I looked at the wrong table... That being the 6.8 is marriage rate and not divorce rate. May bad. You used that to justify jumping to the 52% conclusion. The point I made and will continue to make is this: you cannot divide the marriage rate by the divorce rate and get an accurate calculation of marriage failure.
The only that that can serve as an indication of marriage failure is the rate per 1000. This rate has leveled off and reduced from the peak in the late 70s. You claim that the rate in California was 75% when they quit providing that data. That is another unsubstantiated claim that YOU made.
As I and others have pointed out, the numbers are not accurate. You stated you reported my posts, you stated my posts are pathetic. That makes you appear to be a bigger tool in this who bit of stupidty that you perpetuate.
I didn't report your posts, and I have never said so hence you are lying. Yes, when you can't even get your own numbers right, then it is pretty pathetic.
You were the first person to start personal attacks, so stop crying that I called your post pathetic.
Quote:
Wait I didn't calculate anything, you did. The only thing I got wrong was I looked at the wrong table... That being the 6.8 is marriage rate and not divorce rate. May bad.
That is not a mistake people knowing about this topic do. You don't accidently confuse marriage rate and divorce rate. When you see the number 6.8 out of 1000 a bell should ring in your head telling you that number is too high to be divorce rate.
Quote:
You used that to justify jumping to the 52% conclusion. The point I made and will continue to make is this: you cannot divide the marriage rate by the divorce rate and get an accurate calculation of marriage failure.
But we certainly can't ignore marriage rates like they don't exist when we are trying to see how many marriages end up in divorce.
Dividing the divorce rate with the marriage rate is the best thing we can do, especially if you do it over the last 60 years like I did. Long term divorce rate divided with the marriage rate is the number of failed marriages.
Quote:
The only that that can serve as an indication of marriage failure is the rate per 1000.
If it is, then why did you choose to not answer my question. I will state it again.
Which place is the chance of a successful marriage the highest?
Place A: 8.0 marriages, 2.0 divorces
Place B: 2.0 marriages, 1.5 divorces
Except I gave a graph of the last 60 years. In the long term a 50% divorce rate leads to 50% failed marriages.
But answer this question. Which place have more failed marriages?
Place A: 8.0 marriages, 2.0 divorces
Place B: 2.0 marriages, 1.5 divorces
That doesn't make a difference. Let me try to explain it to you like this -
Let's say the year is 2012 and in one town, 10 couples got married and 5 got divorced. Let's say that that the 5 couples that got divorced had gotten married in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. And let's say that there were 300 couples that were still married in that town. But only 10 couples got married in that particular year. And let's say 15 couples got married the year before and there were 5 divorces that year, too. So in 2012 - your statistic would say that the town has a 50% divorce rate - which would be completely inaccurate.
The only accurate way to measure the divorce rate would be to keep track of every single married couple from every year and track them.
That doesn't make a difference. Let me try to explain it to you like this
It certainly makes a difference if you don't look at year from year, but trends. If the divorce rate is 50% over 50 years then in that time period 50% of all marriages has failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
Let's say the year is 2012 and in one town, 10 couples got married and 5 got divorced. Let's say that that the 5 couples that got divorced had gotten married in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. And let's say that there were 300 couples that were still married in that town. But only 10 couples got married in that particular year. And let's say 15 couples got married the year before and there were 5 divorces that year, too. So in 2012 - your statistic would say that the town has a 50% divorce rate - which would be completely inaccurate.
Except I had data from 1950, and it has been stable at 50% for 40 years. I am not just using a single outlier.
Also in the US the marriage and divorce rate tend to be pretty stable from year to year.
Quote:
The only accurate way to measure the divorce rate would be to keep track of every single married couple from every year and track them.
That is true, but as long as there is no data then I have to choose the next best thing.
Except I had date from 1950, and it has been stable at 50% for 40 years. I am not just using a single outlier.
Also in the US the marriage and divorce rate tend to be pretty stable from year to year.
That is true, but as long as there is no data then I have to choose the next best thing.
Why? If there is no data - I don't assume anything. Facts - I can work with those. Opinions - well, everyone has them. If there are no facts - then everyone's opinion is just as valid or invalid as the next person's.
And like I said - it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm happily married and I'm not concerned about other people's divorces. Every marriage is different because every person is different. What happens to someone else's marriage doesn't affect mine. I'm curious as to why you seem to WANT the divorce rate to be so high?
I didn't report your posts, and I have never said so hence you are lying. Yes, when you can't even get your own numbers right, then it is pretty pathetic.
So now I am lying? Really? And you categorically miss the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
You were the first person to start personal attacks, so stop crying that I called your post pathetic.
Oh really? go back the point I've made about you missing the point. Actually it is your refusal to listen, and think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
That is not a mistake people knowing about this topic do. You don't accidently confuse marriage rate and divorce rate. When you see the number 6.8 out of 1000 a bell should ring in your head telling you that number is too high to be divorce rate.
YOU are the one forcing an issue where there is no issue. Unlike you, I am able to concede when I am wrong. However, my conclusion and the conclusion of those smarter then you and above my paygrade still stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
But we certainly can't ignore marriage rates like they don't exist when we are trying to see how many marriages end up in divorce.
You can't make mountains out of molehills. You have to look at the total picture. For the 19th time, the rate has never been 50% As I pointed out, you can't divide marriage rate per 1000 divided by divorce rate per 1000 and have an accurate rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Dividing the divorce rate with the marriage rate is the best thing we can do, especially if you do it over the last 60 years like I did. Long term divorce rate divided with the marriage rate is the number of failed marriages.
If it is, then why did you choose to not answer my question. I will state it again.
Which place have more failed marriages?
Place A: 8.0 marriages, 2.0 divorces
Place B: 2.0 marriages, 1.5 divorces
It has already been established. You can't throw out an arbitrarily number to accurately support a conclusion. No, you taking and dividing for the last 60 years to get a rate is far from anything based in reality
You are forcing the numbers to force a conclusion indead of understanding the data provided. The more data you gather the less conclusion jumping there is. However, that would nullify your argument.
If your simple division was an accurate indicator of the state of marriages, the Census Bearu and the CDC would do that. However, it doesn't work that.
Thank you for taking this thread so far off topic.
It seems those who marry later on in life, have higher levels of education are those who tend to have stronger longer lasting marriages. I am not an advocate of jumping into bed with everyone you meet, having an understanding of compatibility before saying "I do" seems prudent.
That doesn't make a difference. Let me try to explain it to you like this -
Let's say the year is 2012 and in one town, 10 couples got married and 5 got divorced. Let's say that that the 5 couples that got divorced had gotten married in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. And let's say that there were 300 couples that were still married in that town. But only 10 couples got married in that particular year. And let's say 15 couples got married the year before and there were 5 divorces that year, too. So in 2012 - your statistic would say that the town has a 50% divorce rate - which would be completely inaccurate.
The only accurate way to measure the divorce rate would be to keep track of every single married couple from every year and track them.
Also when you look at the 10 who marry and the five you divorce, you need to also account for those who remain married.
So now I am lying? Really? And you categorically miss the point.
Oh really? go back the point I've made about you missing the point. Actually it is your refusal to listen, and think.
YOU are the one forcing an issue where there is no issue. Unlike you, I am able to concede when I am wrong. However, my conclusion and the conclusion of those smarter then you and above my paygrade still stand.
You can't make mountains out of molehills. You have to look at the total picture. For the 19th time, the rate has never been 50% As I pointed out, you can't divide marriage rate per 1000 divided by divorce rate per 1000 and have an accurate rate.
What a disgusting mess. Is that the only thing you are capable off, personal attacks?
Quote:
It has already been established. [color=black][font=Verdana]You can't throw out an arbitrarily number to accurately support a conclusion.
If your theory does not fit practice, then it is a faulty theory. I just made the example to show how wrong your numbers can get.
Which place is the chance of a successful marriage the highest?
Place A: 8.0 marriages, 2.0 divorces
Place B: 2.0 marriages, 1.5 divorces
It is quire clear that place A is better if you are looking for a successful marriage. But your way of ignoring marriage rates leads to place B be the best place as the crude divorce rate is lower.
We need to look at how many marriages are successful, not just how many divorces are there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, that makes you look pathetic. Whatever.
