First open bisexual congresswoman elected

[Bigbamboozal]

Kudos. It's a good thing to have a legislature more reflective of the demographic reality it's supposed to represent.

Again! shocked you didn't take "who cares as long as she's capable ect".
That's my official stance here, You havin an off day Semaphore?
My only concern is a small wonder if it's being used rather then just a simple truth, if you follow.
I don't mind lesbians/bi ect, but gratuitous fake bisexuality for attention, profit, or votes, kind of makes me feel ill.

[Rukentuts]

If this was 1960, I might agree with you. I find it hard to believe that most people (Americans, anyway) really have racist beliefs or opinions. It's not something I can post a graph or a chart of, but in my personal opinion, I would say most Americans are middle of the road on most subjects, and are not fervently opinionated. I'm sure there are people who have those beliefs, but I would be shocked if they were not in an extreme minority.

First woman US President is still one I would celebrate. Provided, of course, it's not Sarah Palin or the like.

[Themius]

If this was 1960, I might agree with you. I find it hard to believe that most people (Americans, anyway) really have racist beliefs or opinions. It's not something I can post a graph or a chart of, but in my personal opinion, I would say most Americans are middle of the road on most subjects, and are not fervently opinionated. I'm sure there are people who have those beliefs, but I would be shocked if they were not in an extreme minority.

My friends family is extremely racist. It depends on where your travel to.

[Tinykong]

My friends family is extremely racist. It depends on where your travel to.

Oh, I'm sure there are people out there that are racist, I just don't think that is that common.

[meathead]

this is a load of shit-why cant you people "sheep" think outside of the dam box.this so called congress women is doing nothing more then acting her way up the political food chain.she is doing the same thing lady gaga is doing.this congress women says she is bi so she can get the votes of other bi's/gays the same as lady gaga does with record sales.

2nd -why does she feel the need to come out and state shes bi?"read what i wrote above"i have never walked in to a job interview and said,o by the way i like to bang women.keep your private life private,thats why its called work/home life.it makes me sics seeing all these people come out and say they are gay/bi to get attention for themselves,like its cool to be gay or something.the whole american governemnet is one big joke and it only getting worse.keep your private life out of the work place.really any one straight/gay/or bi that brings there personal/sex life into the workout place should be fired. thats the only way to make it fair for everyone.there should be no reason at all why gays are the only ones allowed to talk about there sex life in the work place.

[poser765]

They aren't my standards. It's just science. You are happy when it fits your worldview but dodge it and twist it to fit your argument when it doesn't.



.

So much irony. It actually makes my flesh burn. I'm not going to get into this argument. Mainly because anything Semaphore says will be far better and more accurate than anything I can say. I just want you to know you are NOT in fact winning this argument. You are not even keeping up.

I'll give you a gift though. Learn it. Please.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[Garian]

So much irony. It actually makes my flesh burn. I'm not going to get into this argument. Mainly because anything Semaphore says will be far better and more accurate than anything I can say. I just want you to know you are NOT in fact winning this argument. You are not even keeping up.

I'll give you a gift though. Learn it. Please.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

All I want is proof before you state something as a fact. Everything else is irrelevant.

[Themius]

Oh, I'm sure there are people out there that are racist, I just don't think that is that common.

It's common in some areas.

[FathomFear]

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.

It's entirely possible that it's a North American hang-up that's not as present in Europe, for example. Dan Savage talks about the double-standard quite a bit in his column.

[Tinykong]

It's common in some areas.

I think you're missing my point: it's not an opinion held by a majority of people on a national level like it has been in previous times.

[poser765]

All I want is proof before you state something as a fact. Everything else is irrelevant.

There is no proof. You have, however, been supplied with evidence that you have discounted...in my opinion because it simply countered your argument. Again, there is no PROOF. Even for something like gravity, which you have given as an example of proof...actually has NO proof but plenty of evidence. Evidence which is used to model a theory.

[TidesOfBlood]

Congrats to her.

In my opinion, I don't care whether the person running/incumbent is bisexual, lesbian, black, Mormon, gay, prison convict for 20 years just released, if that person can get this country out of the economic crisis we are facing, I support that person.

[FathomFear]

I've never understood why any of it mattered, the woman in this case should succeed or fail based on her merits and effort, her gender preferences have no business being quanitified or discussed in regards to her holding elected office.

I think you can thank the media for that. Non-heterosexual orientations tend to get lots of media coverage. Even when someone just casually mentions it in direct manner, it becomes headline news. Just look at what happened when Zachary Quinto or Anderson Cooper came out.

I think it's important also to understand why it makes the news. It makes the news not because it's directly relevant to someone's actions or capability. It makes the news because it's historically been very taboo, so a major TV personality or politician who comes out is essentially seen as chipping away at a glass ceiling.

I think it also depends on where you live. For example, here in Canada I don't find that most gay guys continuously harp about their sexuality or go on about being discriminated against. Because for the most part, we have full equal rights here. Marriage, adoption, you name it. But I have a friend who now lives in Montana definitely does more of this kind of harping. Same-sex marriage isn't legal where he is (it's actually banned) and the general environment is more hostile and not as friendly.

The age of the person also seems to have an impact. Guys I know who went through the BS of the 80s/early 90s tend to have a much bigger chip on their shoulder than those who did not. Many of the rifts within the gay community often can be traced to what they've had to live through. Sometimes it be can be difficult to relate to each other based on that.

[Kurioxan]

Hmmm... silly society, since when does anyones sexuality matter at all *sighs*

[Garian]

There is no proof. You have, however, been supplied with evidence that you have discounted...in my opinion because it simply countered your argument. Again, there is no PROOF. Even for something like gravity, which you have given as an example of proof...actually has NO proof but plenty of evidence. Evidence which is used to model a theory.

Evidence is not proof.

Try again.

And trying to equate the idea that everyone is bisexual to the existence of gravity? That's weak. You'd have to be insane to deny that gravity exists, but clearly everyone isn't bisexual.

Don't state something as a fact when it isn't.

[Cattaclysmic]

I have no idea what the religion or sexual orientation of my governments elected officials are...

[Kasierith]

All I want is proof before you state something as a fact. Everything else is irrelevant.

Engaging in intellectual nihilism is in no way a means to maintain a coherent argument. It is very distinctly counter-science.

[Bergtau]

They aren't my standards. It's just science. You are happy when it fits your worldview but dodge it and twist it to fit your argument when it doesn't.

That's called bias. I assure you that I am quite neutral. You, however, are easily provoked.

Asking for something that goes beyond all necessary standards in science doesn't make your argument based on science, it means you don't believe what's in front of you.

Evidence is not proof.

Learn the difference.

I will not accept a biased unrepresentative study as proof, because it's simply not. You believe what you want. That doesn't mean it's true.

Inductive vs. deductive.

I want you to answer this very simple question: do you have a mother and a father?

Now here's a better one: do you believe that children should have both a mother and a father? Ideally. Not everyone are good parents but assuming they are, children not only have both a mother and a father, but should have both in their lives too.

Those are traditional values.

I am sorry if you don't like them.

Being traditional doesn't mean anything other than it is traditional. Some traditions are stupid, some are not.

You've not proven that. It's just political cannon fodder designed to shut down the debate.

So you want him to prove that it is provable? Use some logic and you'll come to the conclusion that it is provable yourself.

Yes she is. She is incredibly vicious. It is quite telling when a Conservative is more civil than someone on the left.

Yeah, she sure is vicious. Watch out, she might prove you wrong or beat you in an internet debate!

Now I am used to debating with worse, so it doesn't bother me at all. But people like her will discourage people from joining the debate, and that my friend, is wrong.

Ever hear the phrase "too many cooks"? Discouraging people from joining a debate isn't inherently bad. Discouraging people who can add something to the debate might be, but that isn't what I see going on. I see people who have poor argument being discouraged from joining the debate. I think that's a rather good thing as it prevents time from being wasted on them as well as prevents them from humiliating themselves.

You stick together though. Left wingers have a Borg mentality anyway so this doesn't surprise me.

It's amusing that you try to claim the side of science when you generalize in such a way. In my experience, everybody argues with everybody on here depending on the topic. It's also not like there are only two sides in an argument.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are weak.

Not bothering to argue something because you know that you can't represent it as well as somebody else isn't being weak.

Then you are a fool. Where do you think the computer you are reading this on came from? It came from someone's desire to make a better life for themselves. Nothing in life is free. It seems that you haven't fully escaped your country's past. I know how hard escaping a drained uninspired collectivist mentality can be, but if people truly want to escape that cycle, then it has to be broken.

I see you are one of the people that refuse to accept any flaws that capitalism has? Being the best so far doesn't make you the best that will ever be.

Because the left wing has been taken over by big government control freaks who won't listen to us. They will happily use a tyranny of the masses to force their worldview on us. It's called a soft tyranny where instead of killing people they kill your ideas instead.

Good thing you're viewing the world without any biases or anything.

The U.S. was the land of pornography but electing a bisexual politician is considered progress.

What the fuck does pornography have to do with a bisexual politician? Logic, meet window, you are about to be thrown out of it.

You are missing the point again. All that matters is who can get the job done. You don't have to be X, Y, Z in order to push for equality. It's just a blatant PR move and you've bought it.

You are missing the point. It's not that a bisexual politician will be better, it's the fact that they were able to get elected is a sign of progress.

All that will happen now thanks to these divisive politics is people of different political stripes will consolidate elsewhere. That person you just elected won't represent everyone.

You have made sexuality an issue when it simply should not matter. No one cares except for you.

I want to solve problems that effect us all.

Putting ideology ahead of the country is not progress. Just remember this if she turns out to be a terrible politician.

It isn't divisive to fight for the acceptance of different peoples into a subgroup, it is the opposite. No politician represents everyone in their actions, that is impossible. The other point being made here is that politicians fight to protect themselves more than anything.

That shows how naive you are then. Left wingers (the new left I should say) are pro-uncontrolled immigration because it builds up their voter base. They are playing this game to win just like the other side.

Who in the fuck is for uncontrolled immigration? Not the left, not the right, not anybody.

No I think you are blind.

Calling others blind when you refuse to see what is in front of you is amusing. Probably related to a disorder that people can get where they are unable to move their arm, but will deny being unable to move it and make up excuses for not moving it if you ask them to move it.

I don't remember oppressing you. You can't blame whole groups for the actions of individuals.

Foot, meet mouth.

Civil rights are another story. You are creating a false equivalency. Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican.

Did you just say 'false equivalency' while simultaneously saying that Lincoln was a Republican to support your argument?

You said that everyone falls between the extremes. Do you want me to quote you again?

Most people is everyone?

You have a biased unrepresentative sample.

That's not science.

How is it biased?

Now you're just hiding behind nuance.

If everyone isn't exclusively straight or exclusively gay (like you said in your own words) then that would make them bi to a certain extent.

You're not very good at arguing semantics.

If you're going to speak in absolute terms and try to make being 10% gay into 100% gay, you shouldn't call other people bad at arguing semantics.

This won't work on me Semaphore. I know that you people will do anything to win an argument, but I am happy to let others decide who is right and who is wrong. All I am doing is letting the facts do the talking.

You haven't presented any facts, you have just started arguments without backing them up to any logical degree.

[semaphore]

They aren't my standards. It's just science.

It's your standards, and yours only. No one else in actual science demands that. Because, unlike you, we understand statistics. Obscenely large sizes are not necessary to have an representative sample.

You said that everyone falls between the extremes. Do you want me to quote you again?

Do I have to tell you again that you're strawmaning? Because "most people" doesn't mean "everyone" to anyone with a gradeschool grasp of English, and "between the extremes" of sexual attraction doesn't at all mean one's bisexual. Stop feigning outrage at being called a bisexual when it's all in your head.

You have a biased unrepresentative sample.

That's not science.

Burden of proof is on you to show it is biased and unrepresentative. Baseless and meaninglessly vague attacks are not science, but we all know you don't know anything about science.

Now you're just hiding behind nuance.

No, I openly claimed that sexuality is nuanced right from the very start. You're the one arguing that it is three distinct groups only.

If everyone isn't exclusively straight or exclusively gay (like you said in your own words) then that would make them bi to a certain extent.

And it also makes them straight/gay to a certain extent, so what's your point? The fact remains that sexuality is not three discrete dichotomous groups. Something you yourself unwittingly agreed is real even as you steadfastedly refuse to acknowledge it. Afraid of certain tendencies much?

[Wells]

I think you're missing my point: it's not an opinion held by a majority of people on a national level like it has been in previous times.

Active racism? Nope, that's pretty rare now. But systemic and subconscious bias is still rampant.