Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
Fri Mar 31, 2017, 01:27 PM Mar 2017

Oddly worded NY Post article designed to malign LGBT teen girls...

... ends up making the reporter look silly instead.

Check out this odd sentence in the below NY Post article designed to portray lesbian/bi teenage girls as promiscuous but ends up comically the worst written sentence I have seen in a major print newspaper in a long time:

This “vulnerable population of girls” who engage in same-sex or bisexual activity are twice as likely as heterosexual teens to be sexually active.


http://nypost.com/2017/03/19/nycs-teen-girls-report-more-same-sex-relationships-but-are-being-less-safe/
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oddly worded NY Post article designed to malign LGBT teen girls... (Original Post) stevenleser Mar 2017 OP
rofl!!! so, let's see: unblock Mar 2017 #1
Exactly. I had to reread it a few times to make sure I was seeing what i thought I was seeing stevenleser Mar 2017 #2

unblock

(52,253 posts)
1. rofl!!! so, let's see:
Fri Mar 31, 2017, 01:38 PM
Mar 2017

100% of a sexually active subset of people is sexually active.

that group of 100% sexually active people is twice as likely to be sexually active than heterosexual teens.

therefore, heterosexual teens are 50% likely to be sexually active.


oh, and, at least one same-sex or bisexual person is sexually active (needed to ensure that there exists a non-trivial subset of people who engage in same-sex or bisexual activity).


i think that covers it.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
2. Exactly. I had to reread it a few times to make sure I was seeing what i thought I was seeing
Fri Mar 31, 2017, 01:46 PM
Mar 2017

I guess they don't have any top editing going on over at the Post?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oddly worded NY Post arti...