Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    Oh, I didn't know that, thanks for clearing it out. I thought it was the other way around, censoring it, seems I was wrong.
    I have a Jewish friend and he spells God like that when speaking about it, either G/d or G-D. At first I didn't undersatnd.

  2. #82
    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!
    Pretty much how I feel about it.

  3. #83
    Honestly Tammy Baldwin would get a hug and a handshake from me (even if shes a democrat :P) over what honestly a lot of people see as "high school confusion".
    Quote Originally Posted by ccsabathia View Post
    heat ≠ light
    it...i....what?

    "They was WATERING them. They was trying to GROW WHEELBARROWS."

  4. #84
    Pandaren Monk
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by someotherguy View Post
    In the cnn's video, she even dodged the "Do you believe in G-d?" question..
    This honestly is the more surprising element. While the U.S. has a history of some GLBT representation in politics, it's almost unheard of for a candidate to not express a belief in some variation of God.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 12:59 PM ----------

    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!
    What is there to "understand" about it? It's the state of having the capacity to find either men or women sexually attractive. Some bisexuals have a strong preference over one gender or another, but some don't. I had a roommate back in my university days, for example, who seemed like a 50/50 bisexual to me. He dated men and women almost equally, and it seemed like a complete roll of the dice as far as who would catch his eye when we'd go out to the bar.

  5. #85
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    Ever met an openly bisexual man? Probably not. Because the LGBT community treats them like shit.
    Huh? And where did you find that out?

  6. #86
    Pandaren Monk
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Huh? And where did you find that out?
    Speaking as a gay man myself, I'd agree with Gheld's general comment. In the early stages of coming out, many gay men go through a phase where they identified as bisexual. It's an easier pill to swallow for one's self, originally.

    Eventually the facade fades with time, but this unfortunately causes many gay men to immediately assume that any bisexual man is just a closeted gay man. And as far as the straight community goes, straight women tend not to be that drawn to bisexual men for the same reason. It's almost seen as a hit on the guy's masculinity, and they often can't shake the paranoia that he might be gay.

    Bisexual women, on the other hand, don't really seem to struggle that much. A woman can claim she's bisexual without it affecting her femininity, and straight guys tend not to get paranoid over whether the woman might really be a lesbian.

  7. #87
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Politicians are there to represent people. Look at it this way. You have a pool of 100,000 blocks. Half of them are blue. A quarter are red and the last quarter are yellow. Now if you select them on their merits for building and assume their color has no basis on said merit wouldn't you expect the 100 you selected to be more or less the same make up as the full pool? Its the same with who we elect. When the people who are in charge don't match up with national demographics to the extent we see now that's a sign there is some serious bias having an effect.
    No, be because RNG is RNG. It's entirely possible for all the red and none of the blue to be highly meritorious. Further, merit is not limited to RNG. Sure, some level of quality may be randomly determined to be higher in some case than others, but from that point onward, merit is earned.

    There is no functional correlation between merit and population diversity. And as I already pointed out, leadership is elected on the basis of ideological lines, not objective merit, only subjective ideological alignments. And there is simply no guarantee that ideology is evenly distributed among the population segments.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Taiphon View Post
    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.
    Yeah sorry for not thinking that white men are so much more qualified for office, you see we generally call that racism.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Yeah sorry for not thinking that white men are so much more qualified for office, you see we generally call that racism.
    So when there are more male engineers than female engineers, that means it's clearly sexism...right?

  10. #90
    It's entirely possible for all the red and none of the blue to be highly meritorious.
    Except the odds are stupidly high against that. There are thousands of elected officials and they're overwhelmingly white men.
    Sure, some level of quality may be randomly determined to be higher in some case than others, but from that point onward, merit is earned.
    And if we assume that skin color or gender don't determine merit then there has to be something in effect causing the discrepancy we see.
    There is no functional correlation between merit and population diversity. And as I already pointed out, leadership is elected on the basis of ideological lines, not objective merit, only subjective ideological alignments. And there is simply no guarantee that ideology is evenly distributed among the population segments.
    I'm honestly a little confused how you're not getting this. If skin color has no bearing on ideological merit yet we still select almost nothing but white men (an incredibly privileged class) how is it not blindly clear we're still laboring under systemic bias?

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 08:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    So when there are more male engineers than female engineers, that means it's clearly sexism...right?
    Actually yes. That's a great example of systemic sexism. Women are routinely turned away from and discouraged from the kinds of games and likes that would send them towards engineering.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Actually yes. That's a great example of systemic sexism. Women are routinely turned away from and discouraged from the kinds of games and likes that would send them towards engineering.
    Bullshit. As an engineer myself I can tell you it's because none of them went to school for it.

    In my 400-500 level classes, maybe two women were present in the entire class. Two.

  12. #92
    Bullshit. As an engineer myself I can tell you it's because none of them went to school for it.
    And why do you think that is? Is it because all the boys were given legos and told they had to build things while the girls were given dolls and told their roll in society was the take care of people?

    Because that's a large part of it.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    And why do you think that is? Is it because all the boys were given legos and told they had to build things while the girls were given dolls and told their roll in society was the take care of people?

    Because that's a large part of it.
    We're diverting into something else entirely at this point, but it's pretty obvious it's not sexism as we know it.

  14. #94
    That's pretty cool. Hopefully, this does indicate true progress.

  15. #95
    Scarab Lord Puck's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    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.

    You do of course realize that you can be attracted to the same gender while still finding the thought of sexual interaction with that gender repulsive? When people say "Everyone is to some degree bisexual" They aren't saying "everyone has the tendency to engage in gay sex!"

  16. #96
    Normally a politician dodging a question makes my skin crawl but the way she dodged the "god" question was beautiful. Kudos to her!!

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by The EagleOwl Mage View Post
    When people say "Everyone is to some degree bisexual"
    They are making a false assumption that everyone is sexual.

  18. #98
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by FathomFear View Post
    Speaking as a gay man myself, I'd agree with Gheld's general comment. In the early stages of coming out, many gay men go through a phase where they identified as bisexual. It's an easier pill to swallow for one's self, originally.

    Eventually the facade fades with time, but this unfortunately causes many gay men to immediately assume that any bisexual man is just a closeted gay man.
    Well, as a gay person, and a part of the LGBT community, i don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't happen in my country, at least.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    Well, as a gay person, and a part of the LGBT community, i don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't happen in my country, at least.
    Its not unheard of in the community. Kind of tragic.

  20. #100
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Except the odds are stupidly high against that. There are thousands of elected officials and they're overwhelmingly white men.
    Okay, first you were talking about in a hypothetical society, and now you're talking about the real world. Since the real world society isn't a perfectly numerically-balanced system, there's no way to expect numerically-balanced results.

    There are thousands of white people and in particular white males in political position mostly for the reason that the system has traditionally established them as the group of people who should rule. They got power, money, connections, more money, influence, and so on. In many places they are still running on that. That aside, the USA is still overwhelmingly white. So, if the USA is overwhelmingly white, and white males overwhelmingly have the money, power and influence, I think it's pretty obvious WHY there are so many white males in power.

    And if we assume that skin color or gender don't determine merit then there has to be something in effect causing the discrepancy we see.
    Historical social privilege. Gee golly batman, you mean the real world doesn't function like a hypothetical? I never would have guessed....

    I'm honestly a little confused how you're not getting this. If skin color has no bearing on ideological merit yet we still select almost nothing but white men (an incredibly privileged class) how is it not blindly clear we're still laboring under systemic bias?
    I never argued we weren't. I argued that even in a "perfect" setting where racial diversity was maximized, there is no guarantee that the politicians will reflect that racial diversity. Because racial diversity has NOTHING to do with what qualifies a candidate. Nor does merit, either inherent or earned. A lot of meritorious people will NEVER become politicians because they simply don't want to. And as I continue to attempt to impress upon you, ideology is not stratified by race. White people vote for black candidates, black people vote for white candidates. Women vote for men, men vote for women.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

Posting Permissions

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