Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Hot.

    And the only thing that's surprising is that she's the first. Then again you've never had a President who doesn't believe in God. Or been a woman. Kind of shows how out of date your political offices are I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Cool, I guess. The sexuality of a person doesn't really matter to mean unless they're using it as some kind of shield against criticism or a platform against others.
    Or if they are the victim of discrimination, as long as we're throwing in comments that have no bearing on the actual topic at hand. Except to maybe give an impression of our ideological biases and the chips on our shoulders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    Where are you getting this "most people" thing?
    The fact that sexual orientation is no longer considered a dichotomy but rather a spectrum where very few people actually falls exactly at the extreme ends?

    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.
    Where did you get yours?

    Also this would fall in to the largely dismissed and outdated dichotomous view of sexuality.

  3. #43
    Scarab Lord Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Medellín, Colombia
    Posts
    4,703
    Yeah, Atheism still remains called the political suicide on the states, as far as I know.
    pro-gun liberal

  4. #44
    Stood in the Fire Saladin456's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Englandland
    Posts
    344
    Just to jump in after the main discussion about this bit has ended, I think the reason elected officials don't represent the country's demographics as a whole is because people can't elect just anyone the see. People have to actually run for election, and it's very probable that some demographics tend to run for election more than others. Another thing to factor in is education, for example black people tending to live in worse neighbourhoods and therefore going to worse schools, and also their families not having enough money to pay for college etc.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFurry View Post
    People have to actually run for election, and it's very probable that some demographics tend to run for election more than others.
    Yeah because some demographics have a harder time or think they will have a harder time winning than others, be it from lack of experience, support, financing, whatever. That's not really different to the point those of us talking about skewed representatives were making though.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    My point was that if if we aren't assuming that skin color has any bearing on someone's merit for office then our elected officials should mirror our national demographics more closely.

    Not sure if should is right. It is statistics, which means there is a chance for all of those elected officials to be gay man for example.
    I'm not American and I don't know how many people exactly are elected, but the smaller the sample size is the more room for error and diffrences from the overall demographic.

    My point here is that you can't expect a sample that small to represent the demographics properly.

  7. #47
    The fact this stuff has to be announce kind of undermines the idea that it's not supposed to be important in the first place if you ask me.
    One cannot simply quit wow his way into Mordor.

  8. #48
    Kinsey research is debatable at best and nonsense at worst.

    While I support gay rights and think they should have equal rights as everyone else, this whole sliding sexuality scale seems like a crusade to somehow brand everyone as gay. I agree with the modern psychologists that say sexuality can only be self-defined. You can't tell people they are one thing, the next, or in the middle.

    You can be asexual, bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, autosexual etc. But only YOU can determine that. I agree that it can't be determined for you, and definitely not by an artificial scale.

    Problems with the Kinsey Scale
    These days, the Kinsey Scale is under fire for being accurate only in a broadly illusionary sense. It's certainly interesting how people interpret the scale differently. Is somebody who is a 5 on the scale homosexual or bisexual? What about a person who ranks a 1? Are they bisexual or heterosexual? Interestingly, many people harbour double standards for gay-leaning versus straight-leaning persons. Arguably, this fact may say more about a society's double standards than it does about gay or straight people.

    Bisexuality is sometimes misunderstood as being a perfect 3 on the Kinsey scale, but very few people could then rightly be called bisexual. Clearly, keeping up perfect gender symmetry over a lifetime would be taxing and would furthermore require an accountant's accuracy. There are even people who define most of humanity as bisexual, leaving only the perfect 6s and perfect 0s as straight or gay. Again, this isn't particularly fair since it is entirely common to experiment in one's youth until one's orientation is entirely understood. And anyway, there should be at least a little wiggle room for everyone to try unusual experiences a time or two in their life.

    Another problem with Kinsey's use of his own scale was that his studies used past sexual behaviour as the only criteria. A virgin would have no rating at all according to Kinsey because they have had no sexual experiences. Also, a person with only one sexual experience would be automatically placed in the 0 or 6 column. If that person then goes on to primarily have relations with the gender opposite their first encounter, the initial designation would seem to be a misreading in retrospect.

    Also, Kinsey's assumption was that all sexual experiences are undertaken for pleasure and therefore have a direct bearing on sexual orientation. In reality, we know that sexual experiences are undertaken for other reasons. For instance, a lesbian might have an opposite-gender experience in order to procreate. A prostitute might have sex with someone for money whom they would not ordinarily pair up with. People are also sometimes coerced into sex while inebriated or under the influence of drugs that they might refuse while sober. The most distressing violation of Kinsey's assumption are cases of rape and paedophilia. Clearly, Kinsey's methods are only valuable over the course of a lifetime, with a few practical modifications, or with a reasonably large sample of people.

    The alternative usually suggested is to include other factors besides past sexual behaviour. These might include sexual fantasies, feelings of romantic love, past relationships and/or dating experiences, and even one's self-identification on the sexual orientation front. The problem is that researchers tend to disagree on which factors should be included and which should not. Some suggested factors require subjective interpretation, which opens the study to personal bias. Furthermore, the factors selected have a huge sway on the researchers' results.

    Kinsey's Findings
    Kinsey's studies found that about 10% of people (13% of men and 7% of women) in his American studies were homosexual. This was a big change in understanding, since most psychologists and researchers before Kinsey's time assumed that much less than 1% of humans had ever engaged in homosexual experiences. Same-gender sexual experiences had been taboo in Western society since the Middle Ages, and the relatively recent Victorian era rendered almost all sexual topics taboo. While psychologists occasionally spoke to clients who admitted to same-gender acts within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, other people tended to avoid such discussions for fear of social condemnation. After Kinsey's studies caused widespread discussion on many previously taboo subjects, it became clear that many socially and mentally healthy people have also had same-gender sex experiences.

    However, due to the logicistical problems outlined above, other estimations on the percentage of homosexual people have ranged everywhere from 2% to 30% in seemingly valid studies. Meanwhile, estimations of bisexuality are even more variable to the point where the studies can only be cynically diagnosed as completely unreliable. Further complicating things, studies conducted in the same manner with the same variables have shown shifting results as American society has become more accepting of same-sex relationships. It is safe to say that nobody knows for sure what percentage of people or gay, bisexual, or straight.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lanc.../plain/A570098

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    Kinsey research is debatable at best and nonsense at worst.
    Kinsey's 70 years ago. Attacking the modern concept of a sliding scale of sexuality based on Kinsey's pioneering but ultimately very much dated research is silly.

    While I support gay rights and think they should have equal rights as everyone else, this whole sliding sexuality scale seems like a crusade to somehow brand everyone as gay.
    I think you are reading too much into it.

    I agree with the modern psychologists that say sexuality can only be self-defined.
    Seems irrelevant to whether sexuality is a scale or a multibox choice.

  10. #50
    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!
    They're attracted to both, they can't choose not to be attracted to a specific type in the same way a guy doesn't stop liking girls when he marry's one.
    One cannot simply quit wow his way into Mordor.

  11. #51
    The Lightbringer Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    3,750
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    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.
    Assuming all demographic groups are equally capable is not realistic. There are not 50% women running nor 50% of other orientations. You can't use a 50/50 unbiased coin as an example and be that a fair representation, so there is a reason to expect it to be dominated.

  12. #52
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    While I support gay rights and think they should have equal rights as everyone else, this whole sliding sexuality scale seems like a crusade to somehow brand everyone as gay. I agree with the modern psychologists that say sexuality can only be self-defined. You can't tell people they are one thing, the next, or in the middle.
    It's nothing like that, and this is the bomb I talked about going off in people's heads. If it makes you feel any better, I referred to a sliding scale without any knowledge of a study, it's just what I've observed. I've even had a discussion with my religious mother and she feels the same way (mentioned only as an example of someone you might not expect to hold that view, not as definitive proof). There's no giant conspiracy at work here.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    Assuming all demographic groups are equally capable is not realistic. There are not 50% women running nor 50% of other orientations. You can't use a 50/50 unbiased coin as an example and be that a fair representation, so there is a reason to expect it to be dominated.
    50/50? Probably not, but it should realistically be far closer than it is if there is no discrimination at play.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  14. #54
    Its a hot woman, meaning no one cares.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by someotherguy View Post
    she even dodged the "Do you believe in G-d?" question.
    Who's G-d?

    G dash D sounds like a name I came up with for a blood elf pally when I was drunk.
    Quote Originally Posted by cptaylor38 View Post
    Hope everyone is prepared for the 16 month wait for the expansion after this one.
    Date Posted: 20/8/14
    Review: 20/8/16

    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Hi Turtle. According to your account records an authenticator was not attached to the account until after the compromise.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Politicians are there to represent ideals, not races, genders, or sexual orientations. I really couldn't care less if the entire Congress was made up of black lesbians.

    As long as the ideologies I support are getting a voice, and there is a diversity to ideology, then great.
    Actually they don't need to represent anything, they need to make/improve/fix real economic/social problems of that community. In some countrys (out of US) they are not even required to be registered or have lived in that district they are running for. It's all about the end result, but yes I do see how that is hard on the first therm when you can't point of any results and how if they are not from that community it might affect the votes.
    Last edited by naturestorm; 2012-11-24 at 11:36 AM.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    No it wouldn't actually. Its basic statistics. We assume skin color and sexual preference has no basis in someone's merits for office.
    Your hidden assumptions are that merits for office and the desire to participate in elections do not correlate with demographics in any way.

    Those are not automatically given.

  18. #58
    Over 9000! Snowraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    9,038
    Good for her, it's nice that USA is finally understanding that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with what they do in life.

  19. #59
    Stood in the Fire Kesolovac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    383
    As long as people are good at what they do, what does it matter what genitals they prefer...
    Mindless...

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Seems irrelevant to whether sexuality is a scale or a multibox choice.
    It is relevant. If someone describes themself as merely straight or merely homosexual then there is no sliding scale. If someone says they're bisexual then a sliding scale becomes relevant to determine how gay or straight they are. But for those (the majority of people), that only identify with one sexuality, then the sliding scale is both irrelevant and inapplicable.

    You can't force people to be considered bisexual because of an arbitrary set of "factors". Sexuality is something that is completely self-identified.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I think you are reading too much into it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    There's no giant conspiracy at work here.
    I may have overreacted but I still don't buy the whole sliding-scale thing unless you're bisexual.

Posting Permissions

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