On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:27:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/16/2017 2:56 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>> I never saw a black student in my elementary school. Does that
>>>> mean that no black children went to school?
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>> Now you're picking at nits. I went to school in many different states.
>>
>> It was an analogy. An example. I was trying for a non-numeric
>> example for the point I was trying to make.
>>
>>> You're the one who thinks this discussion needs to be reduced to numbers.
>>
>> It's not about numbers. It's about proportion. We were
>> talking about the seeming increase in allergies from "then"
>> until "now". Although it's probable that the number of
>> allergy sufferers has increased, it doesn't make a lick
>> of sense to say "when I was young I didn't know anybody
>> who had allergies, therefore the number of people with
>> allergies has increased".
>>
>> The proportion of "people someone knew as a kid" to
>> "all people who might have suffered allergies when I was a kid"
>> is so small that no conclusion can be drawn from it.
>>
>> Well, I think I'm done for now. In the face of insurmountable
>> innumeracy, I have to concede.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Don't concede yet. There were no black kids in my school either. I'm
>pretty sure we have proof they did not go to school. We had no peanut
>allergies either!

There were plenty of black kids in my Brooklyn schools, but I didn't
think any were attractive except for the well endowed 14+ year old
gals. However I don't think any newborn human baby is attractive, in
fact I don't think any creature is more ugli... any newborn mammal
critter is more attractive than any newborn human. A newborn goat is
far more attractive than any newborn human.