Single Men It's Time to Step Up!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
I feel like I've created a monster.
You did not create it! It was before we both were born. Just ask you this thing: What would you do if any man, here or outside, ask you to be married...


If I ask you, marry me, you would be afraid of me or I´d be rejected, by whatever reason you or your family thinks it fits, because it isn´t easy to step up, even to simply love each person as she or he is.


So you are not guilty, it is our fears, our decisions, those we fear to go any farther to surely love, risking our life to keep the person we chose to love.
 

Roh_Chris

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2014
4,728
58
48
Unfortunately, when the minimum wage is increased, the cost of living automatically goes up to cover the increase. So it doesn't do any good in the long run. :-(

I wish there was a permanent answer to poverty....
I admit that I am not familiar with the American economy but I agree with Grace's point of view. I can explain why increasing min. wage is not going to help, from a global perspective.

Increasing min. wage would drive up the costs for companies. The Cost of Production would increase because the salary of factory labourers is increased. The Cost of Goods Sold will also increase when the salaries of salesmen, technicians, logistics, waiters, etc. are increased. The only way companies can work this out is by passing the costs to the customer. But there are three adverse effects because of this -
1. The goods/services continue to be as expensive as before - the company increased the min. wage but it also increased the price. The purchasing power parity does not change.
2. It leaves the company vulnerable to competition. This is an era when there is massive pressure on companies to be competitive in their prices. Not even luxury goods can enjoy the premium they enjoyed before (earlier it used to be as high as 600% for some luxury goods - it is called brand equity). With globalisation, there is always an alternate. So it will prove detrimental to companies UNLESS trade barriers are put in place to restrict the entry of competition from other countries. But that is a violation of the WTO norms.
3. Costlier goods/services may render them unaffordable to the unemployed/pensioners.

I don't know whether all these points apply to the U.S. I have just listed a few reasons why it is not easy to raise the minimum wage. It is not impossible, but it is extremely difficult to do. We can only hope and pray for a better economic situation.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest


Source: http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-13.pdf


Liberals are proposing a way around this problem; however, they're proposing that the federal government simply stop collecting marriage data. If there's no data collected, then there's no way to chart the results their policies are having on our society with respect to marriage.

Conservatives, and interestingly, social liberals are opposed to doing this given the great importance such data has for social scientists. Christians are too as marriage/nuclear families are God's building block for humanity and the societies He want's them to create.

Hi AOK.
In reference to your first graph measuring the decline in female marriages.
Did you notice it includes females aged 15-17 as part of the sample set?

graph1.jpg

Don't you think the fact that 15-17-year-olds are for the most part no longer considered within the realm of marriage, might in fact skew that graph a bit? Of course marriage is going to have a sharp decline if culturally a more than nominal segment of that sample is no longer within the accepted age range for marriage. Also there is a higher population of 15-17 year old females now than back then too. Hence more around not to get married and yada yada yada.
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
This generation, at that gap of short age, will not be motivated to get married seen their own families broken or having the actual sex freedom they actually have for "free" (which is not free) and receiving govermental "encouragemnet" to it, just by being trained to use preservatives ("shields") and whatever means that served to enjoy that pleasure without the risk of being pregnant.

Besides, Who wants to be married at that age when hormones and those tender likes tend to move so quickly from one partner to other?
 
Last edited:
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
1Still_Waters, there are primary and secondary sources. If I share a Psychology Today article, that's a secondary source. Look deeper and you'll see that the article itself is citing primary sources. For example, in that article I shared, the secondary source names the following primary sources in support of their piece:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census
3. a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law
4. a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior
5. a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
6. Center for Disease Control
7. study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
8. a Congressional Research Service Report

What you've done is make the mistake of ignoring all of the primary scholarly sources used by secondary sources. Furthermore, you're not recognizing that national and even regional publications have editorial staffs that check every article for errors submitted to them for publication. This isn't to say that errors don't sometimes get through but these articles are checked by editors for accuracy who maintain a list of contracted reputable experts that they call to verify information with. Of course; this wouldn't apply to blogs, personal websites, etc...

You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.
Actually I described the scope of what I was giving based on your posts.
Below is an index of your posts within this thread until the user questioned your sources. The index shows posts you made up to that point which link to an outside source.
I searched the posts you made up until the point the person called you into question.
I referenced those posts which gave direct URLs to other sources.
I didn't find any posts within that range that link referenced anything from Pew.
 

Rachel20

Senior Member
May 7, 2013
1,639
105
63
1Still_Waters, there are primary and secondary sources. If I share a Psychology Today article, that's a secondary source. Look deeper and you'll see that the article itself is citing primary sources. For example, in that article I shared, the secondary source names the following primary sources in support of their piece:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census
3. a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law
4. a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior
5. a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
6. Center for Disease Control
7. study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
8. a Congressional Research Service Report

What you've done is make the mistake of ignoring all of the primary scholarly sources used by secondary sources. Furthermore, you're not recognizing that national and even regional publications have editorial staffs that check every article for errors submitted to them for publication. This isn't to say that errors don't sometimes get through but these articles are checked by editors for accuracy who maintain a list of contracted reputable experts that they call to verify information with. Of course; this wouldn't apply to blogs, personal websites, etc...

You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.


You know AoK, even if that article did research credible resources, it had nothing to do with your premise about men opting out of marriage and a big underground movement of such which has led to the decline of marriage among adults.


As quoted from Pew Research this does not even come across as a factor.


The onus is upon YOU, the writer to state the academic credentials and represent the data and not on the reader who reads it prima facie.



Misrepresentation of data to prove a totally unrelated point is at the end of the day--- lying.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
1Still_Waters, there are primary and secondary sources. If I share a Psychology Today article, that's a secondary source. Look deeper and you'll see that the article itself is citing primary sources. For example, in that article I shared, the secondary source names the following primary sources in support of their piece:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census
3. a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law
4. a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior
5. a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
6. Center for Disease Control
7. study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
8. a Congressional Research Service Report

What you've done is make the mistake of ignoring all of the primary scholarly sources used by secondary sources. Furthermore, you're not recognizing that national and even regional publications have editorial staffs that check every article for errors submitted to them for publication. This isn't to say that errors don't sometimes get through but these articles are checked by editors for accuracy who maintain a list of contracted reputable experts that they call to verify information with. Of course; this wouldn't apply to blogs, personal websites, etc...

You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.
You present this idea that all the references you posted up until the point the user called your sources into question, have all of this weighty scholarly heft behind them.

Yet one of the posts in that range uses a highly non-academic cred source.
You give this as a source.
https://www.nolanchart.com/article2...al-abuse-allegations-in-custody-disputes-html

The author of that is Jake Morphonios.
According to his own Linkdin profile he has two years of education at a community college, then two years at some online university.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/morphonios

Education



Western Governors University

2005 – 2007



Caldwell Community College

1999 – 2001




Yes he may reference scholarly works.
That doesn't mean the conclusions he reaches from those works are legit.
Certainly you can't claim his conclusions carry the heft of someone in academia.
Yet that is the aura you give to all these sources you cite to establish your assertions and conclusions.

Also this Jake Morphonios, he's a raging 911 truther and conspiracy theorist.
The End Times News Report

911.jpg
So I'm sorry, but your sources do not carry much academic heft.
Anyone can source a scholarly article, it doesn't mean they reach the correct conclusions.
What you have are under qualified people like Jake, referencing sources, then giving their own highly under qualified conclusions.

jake1.jpg

There is nothing wrong with citing these types, but please don't act like they're a source of strong academic heft.
 
Last edited:

Rachel20

Senior Member
May 7, 2013
1,639
105
63
1Still_Waters, there are primary and secondary sources. If I share a Psychology Today article, that's a secondary source. Look deeper and you'll see that the article itself is citing primary sources. For example, in that article I shared, the secondary source names the following primary sources in support of their piece:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census
3. a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law
4. a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior
5. a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation
6. Center for Disease Control
7. study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
8. a Congressional Research Service Report

What you've done is make the mistake of ignoring all of the primary scholarly sources used by secondary sources. Furthermore, you're not recognizing that national and even regional publications have editorial staffs that check every article for errors submitted to them for publication. This isn't to say that errors don't sometimes get through but these articles are checked by editors for accuracy who maintain a list of contracted reputable experts that they call to verify information with. Of course; this wouldn't apply to blogs, personal websites, etc...

You also omitted scholarly primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.


Also, the statistics that you mentioned here, were used to document single parent/mother families. The data findings presented had to do with a wide spectrum, but none of it had to do with the youth and why young men would not consider marriage.


The author primarily talks about masculinity and the issue of fatherhood in modern society. I suppose it would be fitting to talk about this issue in a thread topic which dealt with that, rather than "single men step up!"


Also an article talking about the psychology of fatherhood does not translate to a social, scientific response of society.



By the way, Psychology Today, which you consider a very credible source, considers ex gay therapy and other homosexual reparative initiatives launched by Christians as "Stalinist" and "blinkered" thinking.

Noting, how you've presented views contrary to that, it surprises me that you stand staunch on this.

Link here : "Curing" Homosexuality | Psychology Today

Is It Possible to Pray the Gay Away? | Psychology Today

Didn't someone mention cherry picking prior in this thread?
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Yes. I agree with you. The 15 and over is a full macro view statisticians refer to. That said, we can pull any age group of women in the census and find the never married rate grew over the same period and continues to increase in every age category.


Hi AOK.
In reference to your first graph measuring the decline in female marriages.
Did you notice it includes females aged 15-17 as part of the sample set?
Don't you think the fact that 15-17-year-olds are for the most part no longer considered within the realm of marriage, might in fact skew that graph a bit? Of course marriage is going to have a sharp decline if culturally a more than nominal segment of that sample is no longer within the accepted age range for marriage. Also there is a higher population of 15-17 year old females now than back then too. Hence more around not to get married and yada yada yada.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
primary sources and studies that I linked directly to and pulled information directly from in your response such as Pew Research and universities.

Yes, you're post is wildly off track. But it was right of you to ask.
Below is a list of all your posts in this thread you made until the point a user called your sources into question. You don’t give any direct URL links to a Pew Research source. So if you do quote them, it’s totally relying on you quoting them accurately, and not on something linkable or referenced. I did comment on all linked to sources in that range.


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-2.html#post1811480


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-2.html#post1811534


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-5.html#post1811678


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-5.html#post1811687


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-6.html#post1811764




http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1811906


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1812645


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1813160


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1813244


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1813258


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1813271


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-8.html#post1813351




http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-8.html#post1813353


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-8.html#post1813656


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-9.html#post1814098




http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-9.html#post1814098


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-9.html#post1814440




http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-9.html#post1814444


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-9.html#post1814742


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-10.html#post1815067


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-11.html#post1815946


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-11.html#post1815946


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-11.html#post1816146


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-11.html#post1816226


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-11.html#post1816272


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-12.html#post1819202


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-13.html#post1819963


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-13.html#post1820118


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-13.html#post1820285


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-14.html#post1820349


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-14.html#post1821171


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-14.html#post1821201


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-14.html#post1821204


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821620


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821633


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821688


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821697


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821705


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821713


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-15.html#post1821736


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822062


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822111


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822119


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822145


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822147


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822181


http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-17.html#post1822290
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
No Rachel, you've made a false assertion. I certainly did provide sources from Pew Research, for example, that looked at young men's withdrawal from marriage.

The problem; however, is that many studies come to the wrong primary conclusion. Steeped in political correctness, and often prepared by feminists, one will conclude that porn is the primary driver while another concludes that the economy is the primary driver of why young men are increasingly withdrawing from marriage.

The truth is that those factors matter and contribute to the problem but they are not the primary driver of why men are forgoing traditional courtship and marriage in increasing numbers.

Also, the statistics that you mentioned here, were used to document single parent/mother families. The data findings presented had to do with a wide spectrum, but none of it had to do with the youth and why young men would not consider marriage.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Traffic patterns have a profound effect on feminism. As traffic congestion increases, the sexist guys who stare at women as they walk by are in increasing danger of wrecking. This reduces the number of sexist men, in a very Darwinian manner allowing feminism to further propagate as the resistance to feminism is weeded out.

In fact, one might theorize women develop provocative mannerisms for just such a reason, to distract sexist guys so they will crash in heavy traffic.

Then, having developed such a theory, one should proceed to the nearest bucket of ice water and stick his head in it. :rolleyes:
Lol funny enough there might be some truth to this in a light-hearted manner. Years a go my friend and I were driving through town and when stopped in traffic there were some girls in the car next to us and we were looking at them and they looking at us just being juvenile and silly. My friend in his distraction must have taken his foot off the brake and we accidentally fender-bendered the guy in front of us. Wasn't a serious fender-bender, just ruined the paint really, but it was a funny story, we still share a laugh about it from time to time.
 

Rachel20

Senior Member
May 7, 2013
1,639
105
63
No Rachel, you've made a false assertion. I certainly did provide sources from Pew Research, for example, that looked at young men's withdrawal from marriage.

The problem; however, is that many studies come to the wrong primary conclusion. Steeped in political correctness, and often prepared by feminists, one will conclude that porn is the primary driver while another concludes that the economy is the primary driver of why young men are increasingly withdrawing from marriage.

The truth is that those factors matter and contribute to the problem but they are not the primary driver of why men are forgoing traditional courtship and marriage in increasing numbers.


AoK. I did note down resources such as the Pew Research findings which I considered valid, and none of it had to do with the premise that you were presenting.

I addressed that in a previous post. As for the post you are quoting, I was commenting on the article by Psychology Today, that you brought up with 1still_waters as an example of a credible secondary source
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
And somehow missed everything relevant in the process except the credentials of some article authors that were painfully incomplete which I'm trying to walk you through but it's just not sinking in.

Actually I described the scope of what I was giving based on your posts.

I searched the posts you made up until the point the person called you into question.
I referenced those posts which gave direct URLs to other sources.
I didn't find any posts within that range that link referenced anything from Pew.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Incorrect, as usual, Rachel. They certainly did too. You're missing the relevancy which I already explained more than once even listing them more than once in numerical order.

AoK. I did note down resources such as the Pew Research findings which I considered valid, and none of it had to do with the premise that you were presenting.

I addressed that in a previous post. As for the post you are quoting, I was commenting on the article by Psychology Today, that you brought up with 1still_waters as an example of a credible secondary source
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
The culture has shifted and young men will no longer be bullied into taking on the liability of what amounts to a bad legal contract for their lives.

Certainly other factors are at work in this complicated issue [many of which I've addressed in previous posts], but at the core of the rapid decline of marriage in an increasingly immoral Western Civilization are three things:

1. Our culture is increasingly post-Christian and anti-male.
2. The length of courtship today is far longer than in past generations requiring far greater amounts of time, energy, and money to be risked by males on what often ends up being a futile attempt.
3. The legal contract of marriage has been fundamentally altered to such an extent that men are materially disempowered on the one hand yet forced on the other to assume enormous liabilities that carry serious civil and criminal charges which can render them poor and incarcerated.

You guys continue knocking yourselves out attempting to find every conceivable way you can that these three things are untrue and support doesn't exist to show that they are, in fact, true while I go back to work lolol. Bye.
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
here is a question - what are the women here doing to encourage men in their lives to pursue Godliness?
 

seoulsearch

OutWrite Trouble
May 23, 2009
15,524
4,775
113
here is a question - what are the women here doing to encourage men in their lives to pursue Godliness?
1. I have a good friend who has been incarcerated for some time. When I was within a 2-hour driving distance from him, I visited him on a regular basis, including holidays, during which we would talk about our independent Bible studies. At his request, I also sent him copies of the notes and materials from every Bible class I took during that time.

The prison does not allow for pamphlets and books to be sent "as is" so I have to either photocopy EVERYTHING and sent it a few pages at a time or dismantle reading materials and send them bit by bit, which sometimes gets through to him and sometimes does not.

2. My father is an ordained minister. When I am able, I work as an assistant under his ministry.

3. I've had the blessing of various guy friends over the years, and we have regular conversations about spiritual issues, lessons, ministry work, etc. I write a lot of emails, send a lot of letters, cards, and sometimes small donations to their personal ministries. I've also spent hundreds of hours on the phone over the years engaging in such conversations.

4. When I've had the chance to get to know someone well enough in a social setting, usually work, I invite them to church or a church event, etc.

5. Over the years I've had several guys talk to me about the struggles they are having, whether drugs, alcohol, sexual issues, or all of the above. I know over time and experience that I can't save them, but I can encourage them to seek wiser, more experienced male mentors that can really make a different in the fight. Sometimes what people need most is a nudge of encouragement to seek help.

It's not anything I could take credit for personally. First of all, I was raised in a Godly home with a Godly father as the head of household and a stay-at-home mother who always told me it's a privilege to submit to your husband. Second, the guys I have been able to talk to over the years bless me a lot more through what they share than I'm probably blessing them.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
And somehow missed everything relevant in the process except the credentials of some article authors that were painfully incomplete which I'm trying to walk you through but it's just not sinking in.
It's just that you've presented things as if the rigors of academia, research, and presentation of substantive data is so familiar it comes without trying.
I forget at times that people don't always know what a scholarly study or empirical data set is and who produces them (e.g. government, academia, reputable private policy and research organizations, etc...).

My familiarity with who they are is so second nature now to me that I forget most other people don't automatically know who they are.

So we see that, and expect your sources to be from weighty, serious minded, purely high grade academic sources.

But then a resource you present is clicked on, and we discover like in this instance.
Link-->http://christianchat.com/christian-...ngle-men-its-time-step-up-16.html#post1822111
Which links to this-->https://www.nolanchart.com/article2...al-abuse-allegations-in-custody-disputes-html

The source is written by Jake Morphonios, a man with a two year community college education, two years at some online university Link, a raging 911 Truther, and the author of a far out there conspiracy theory blog Link.

I don't know if writers with two years of community college, two years at an online university, with a passion for 911 Truth, qualify as scholarly, or empirical sources of truth in academia. So when I saw someone with your credentials....ie..

I forget at times that people don't always know what a scholarly study or empirical data set is and who produces them (e.g. government, academia, reputable private policy and research organizations, etc...).

My familiarity with who they are is so second nature now to me that I forget most other people don't automatically know who they are.
Well I was surprised to see that type of source referenced. I was expecting something weightier.

Then there was further surprise in this post from you.
http://christianchat.com/christian-...ingle-men-its-time-step-up-7.html#post1812645

You referenced these two sources.
The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society - Breitbart
The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality In Crisis - Breitbart

The author? Milo Yiannopoulos, a college dropout who founded a tabloid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

So I noticed your familiarity with academia, scholarly work, etc., then contrasted that with your use of a 911 Truther with two years community college, two years online college, and thought you would use something with more academic heft. I'm sure this source wouldn't fly in academia. College dropout Milo and his tabloid probably wouldn't fly either.