Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    I guess I could be missing something but wasn't Tammy Baldwin the first openly gay woman in congress? She is hardly attractive, and did win based on her views and stance rather than sexual orientation.

    That kinda throws out the "Sexy young" argument imho.

  2. #22
    Stood in the Fire Kirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    418
    Good for her!

    Also, I'm a girl and I'd hit it
    "Healing is a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. All the healers try to gobble all the marbles up. Disc priests take the marbles off the board."

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by oplawlz View Post
    I see what you're saying, but that's just not how the numbers work. There is a huge pool of people from whom a tiny pool of elected officials are drawn, assuming purely mathematical random selection the chances of getting anything remotely resembling correlation are very, very small.
    Actually, that's how it works. There is no reason mathematically to expect the pool of elected officials to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the demographic group it is now. You just don't see it because you're looking at it wrong; you look at it as the chance of getting a specific pattern randomly, when it's the exact opposite.

    To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 05:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    I don't think we are there yet. By there I mean where we can all celebrate how far our society has advanced.
    I agree. We haven't advanced very far at all if a woman can't be elected without people saying "well she's only elected because men are hot for her", rather than recognising an electoral victory for what it is, an electoral victory. You know, like when people say things like:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    If she was not a young, atractive single lady declaring herself Bi-sexual but rather if she was an openly Lesbian, would have she still carried all the votes she did right now?
    I know you're just playing the devil's advocate, but when people say things like this they are invariably trying to put down someone's achievements, by implying that a candidate won not on her own merits. There really isn't much merit to the argument at all. Moreover, there's enough bigots who do that already, we don't need to help them.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-24 at 05:41 AM.

  4. #24
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    22,753
    It still pisses me off that people feel the need to make these kind of distinctions. We're all different, stop making a big fucking deal and get on with life.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?
    Assuming a binomial distribution:
    P(x = 100 women) = 5.517 x 10 ^-77 (Very small number)

    Here's how out of whack the numbers are with the expected as shown by Wells earlier
    P(x<200 women) = 9.6904 x 10 ^-24

    Basically, things are so biased in politics it's beyond funny.

    OT:
    Great to hear. I'am not from America and most of the time when I hear something it seems to be negative so this is refreshing. Equality and all that. Just based on how well she spoke and avoided questions in the CNN video I think she'll fit into politics rather well.

  6. #26
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    I really couldn't care less if the entire Congress was made up of black lesbians.
    I'd probably watch more C-SPAN if this was true.

    OT: Grats to her. I'm glad we're making progress on accepting differing sexual orientations in more areas of society.

  7. #27
    To all the people saying "what does her sexual orientation have to do with it"... when you're running against a bunch of fundamentalists whose very existence is to deny the rights of gays, it's kind of a big deal.
    Climate Change denialism in a nutshell.
    Ezekiel 23:20, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Mark 10:25, James 5:1-6, Luke 16:19-31, Matthew 19:21, Numbers 5:11-31

  8. #28
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    22,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    To all the people saying "what does her sexual orientation have to do with it"... when you're running against a bunch of fundamentalists whose very existence is to deny the rights of gays, it's kind of a big deal.
    To be fair, those "fundamentalists" tend to be focused on one gender of homosexuals more than the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by someotherguy View Post
    .
    This goes in the, 'she earned enough votes of her district to win the election' group. Personally, it doesn't and shouldn't matter about her sexual orientation, nor should it matter about gender, race or her choice of pizza places or toppings.

  10. #30
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

    And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  11. #31
    Immortal Dezerte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,468
    I'm happy for Arizona, I feel some progress has been made.
    To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
    I’m not that arrogant.

    The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.

  12. #32
    Scarab Lord Puck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Williams Lake, BC, Canada
    Posts
    4,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

    And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!
    It is becoming more and more apparent that almost everyone is too some degree Bisexual.

  13. #33
    The Lightbringer Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Actually, that's how it works. There is no reason mathematically to expect the pool of elected officials to be so overwhelmingly dominated by the demographic group it is now. You just don't see it because you're looking at it wrong; you look at it as the chance of getting a specific pattern randomly, when it's the exact opposite.

    To use an easier example, about 51% of the population is female. There's I think 78 women in the House and 20 in the Senate, out of a total of 535+100. For simplicity's sake we can model this as an unbiased coin. What's the chance of randomly flipping 635 coins, and only getting 100 heads?
    Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?

  14. #34
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by The EagleOwl Mage View Post
    It is becoming more and more apparent that almost everyone is too some degree Bisexual.
    I've viewed sexuality as a sliding scale as well, but I think from his point of view heterosexuals are on one extreme where as homosexuals are on another. Both gay and straight people have enough interest in the same or opposite sex to actually have sex, which kind of leaves bisexual people in the "????" zone that don't fit into either extreme.

    Some may see your statement and have a bomb go off in their head, but I think it's pretty accurate. I think you can be impressed by the same sex's looks without automatically arriving at "I want to have sex with them" or anything even remotely close. I admit I'm not sure what to make of bisexuals either, but I do not judge them as inferior or morally wrong. I simply don't understand.
    Last edited by Letmesleep; 2012-11-24 at 08:11 AM.

  15. #35
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice? It's kind of like saying, yeah I'm gay, but hey this is fun too! Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe you can be born bisexual?

    And of course the obligatory...Not that there's anything wrong with it!
    sexuality is best viewed as a spectrum, ive heard.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    To be honest, I have never understood bisexuality. I understand that for whatever reason people are born gay, but if that's true, isn't bisexuality a choice?
    No. That's a complete non sequitor. Beiing born gay doesn't preclude being born bi.

    And anyway most people are attracted to both genders. Sexuality is a sliding scale, not a black and white (and grey) multi choice.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 08:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?
    Did I say the election process is? No.

    Whether the demography of elected officials reflects the population from whence they are supposedly drawn, assuming that all demographic groups are equally capable of reaching electoral office, is however a matter that can be viewed through statistics.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Why would the election process have anything to do with probability?
    On the first page of the thread there was a discussion about how the politicians of an area represent that area so logically, if there wasn't any bias the politicians should be a pretty good representation of that area in terms of gender and racial background. The probability was to prove that there is significant bias in the process towards other things such as sexuality as discussed in this thread.

  18. #38
    Clearly she only won because she's bangable. If she was ugly she would've lost and if you can't see that then you're thick.

    She could get the D though.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    And anyway most people are attracted to both genders.
    Firstly 20% isn't "most people". And secondly it's pop-science at best.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    Firstly 20% isn't "most people". And secondly it's pop-science at best.
    Most people can find sexual attractions in both genders at some level. 20% is just the number of people who are roughly equally attracted to both.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Most people can find sexual attractions in both genders at some level. 20% is just the number of people who are roughly equally attracted to both.
    Where are you getting this "most people" thing?

    17% of females and 20% of males admit to having been sexually attracted to and/or sexually involved with someone of the same gender at some point throughout their lives.

    I still don't see how that is most people. Not to mention that there is essentially no science or valid surveys to back any of this up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •