This seems like an indisputably good thing.
considering that many people who vote really only know who the presidential candidates are and randomly fill in the names for representatives, I'm sure that really here support is lower than people think and also...
What asking for proof isn't scientific now?
If it's not a representative sample and if it isn't replicated it's not proof.
I'm really sorry if that isn't convenient for you, but it is what it is.
We have to keep what works and take the positives out of everything otherwise we won't evolve.
Some traditions have endured since the dawn of time, like men and women having families together. I see no reason to change that. You can argue that it is changing already, but I don't see men impregnating other men.
Do you?
No I meant it's not proven. What part of not proven don't you understand? Again, I am sorry if this conflicts with your worldview, but belief alone isn't going to make something real.
I'm glad we agree. I don't like bullies no matter what form they take.
Feel free. I'm still waiting.
Yes it is. Everyone can contribute something to the discussion or at least learn from it. All we see here is one point of view being forced on everyone else.
That's what we call fascism.
So instead of having a friendly discussion where people can agree to disagree, all discussions have to result in belittling people and marginalizing opposing points of view.
Welcome to the new left.
No you are weak if you can't or won't stand up for yourself.
Oh God, you are not one of those people are you?
You don't actually have capitalism in the states. You have controlled markets for other people's benefit. You have monopolies owned by wannabe dynastic plutocrats.
Competition always drives down costs. Recessions can be healthy because they force people to reinvent themselves.
Without that, we'd still be living in caves. It's far from perfect, but unless resources become infinite somehow, there is no other alternative. If you decided to become a nation of hippies another country would simply take what it wants from you.
Governments need to invest in people and actual growth industries with all the credit they are borrowing. Instead they are wasting it on whatever makes them more powerful.
My point is a lot of people in the states were already open minded without needing to elect a poster child.
Yeah and she was elected because of her sexuality and looks or because she's a good politician? Seriously, which would you prefer?
Taking pride from being different is divisive by default. People are forgetting that they are all Americans.
You're being naive.
Civil rights and sexuality are two different topics.
There's a difference between social engineering and simply doing the right thing. You want to force people to change sometimes into something they are not. I want them to open their eyes and change themselves. Intellectual fascism is not the way to do that. It will just make people even more defensive and cling to traditions to preserve their identity.
You got me there. It's still not true. Most people don't fall between the extremes, and you haven't proven it.
The sample wasn't impartial and broad enough.
If I asked 1000 cocaine addicts if they thought that cocaine should be legal, their opinion doesn't speak for the rest of us.
So prove to me that most people fall between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. Otherwise don't state it as a fact.
No. It's science.
What part of I want proof don't you understand?
That's where you are wrong. Replicating results is the foundation of science. It's just not convenient for you in this one case, so you find other ways to win the argument without it.
You have built a fortress on sand.
Large, broad samples that don't focus on specific people but everyone are why they are called representative.
We have to be thorough when it comes to things like this. There's always the risk of cultural bias etc contaminating the study. It simply needs to be large and repeated to verify the veracity of it.
What you have done, is taken a small sample and compared to the 6+ billion people on the planet, then used it as the foundation of your argument. You have even convinced yourself that it's the truth.
That's where we disagree. You're blinded by your own fantacism. That doesn't help your cause.
Between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. What else does it mean then? That they are just a bit bi? That's more or less the same thing; it's bisexuality only to a degree.
And yeah, you said most people. Forgive the typo!
You don't know anything about me. Also, it is a biased unrepresentative sample. You are more than welcome to show me an unbiased representative study. The people who fund these studies usually have a political axe to grind so they can't always be trusted.
Straight, gay, mostly straight but a bit bi. Sexually bi but emotionally straight. The last two still qualify as bisexual.
Edit: Even though sexuality is a spectrum, you don't want to accept that the majority of people are pure heterosexuals.
I accept different sexualities. I just don't see any compelling reason why you'd want to believe that most people fall between the extremes. I am betting that it just happens to fit your world view and is good in winning arguments against uninformed people.
Oh believe me, if I were even a bit gay it would make life a hell of a lot easier. I've met a lot of great guys who are passionate and smart etc, but they just aren't my type.
I encourage individuality. I don't want people to be mindless drones who just agree with the rest of the herd like you seem to want.
Last edited by mmoc614a3ed308; 2012-11-27 at 03:12 AM.
A large study is one in the thousands. A sample of hundreds of thousands like you insist on having is frankly beyond ridiculous and belays either 1) a complete lack of understanding of science and statistics in general, or 2) ad hoc reasoning to rejrect offered scientific evidence. Or probably both.
Repeatedly asserting a statmeent without providng any evidence, doesn't make it true.Also, it is a biased unrepresentative sample.
Only because you shoehorned it in as such. I wouldn't consider being mostly attracted to a single gender only as being bisexual, and that's why I do not call most people bisexual - regardless of how much you want to pretend I did. To say "a bit bi" is the same as saying "a bit straight" or "a bit gay".Between the extremes of heterosexual and homosexual. What else does it mean then? That they are just a bit bi? <...> Straight, gay, mostly straight but a bit bi. Sexually bi but emotionally straight. The last two still qualify as bisexual.
Prove it. You have supplied zero evidence for this claim so far. Stupidly transparent logical fallacies like "well you have a father and mother!?" doesn't count as evidence.that the majority of people are pure heterosexuals.
I don't particularly want to believe it. I simply have no vested interest in disbelieving it, and thus the scientific evidence lead me to believe this is probably the case. Frankly, given any sort of understanding of human nature (or just nature in general), the idea that anything would stand at the extremes rather than some degrees in between is always rather baffling. It is not at all the reasonable assumption to make if it weren't for the long standing hostility towards homosexuality in western culture (which is thankfully dying out).I just don't see any compelling reason why you'd want to believe that most people fall between the extremes.
I'll take that bet. I don't even know how you think my understanding of sexuality "fit" my world view, because it sure as hell looks completely unrelated to me.I am betting that it just happens to fit your world view
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-27 at 05:25 AM.
No Semaphore, asking for proof through repetition is science.
A small sample of a thousand people does not and cannot speak for 6 billion people.
It is simply unfair to generalize.
I am stating a fact. It's an unrepresentative sample. It's biased on my opinion. You are certainly biased because you state it as a fact and use it as the foundation of your argument.
In your mind, the debate is over.
That's not science Semaphore. You are being an ideological fascist.
But such a person would be bisexual, just to a limited degree.
You said that most people fall between the extremes. That's where you are wrong. You are not seeing things from my point of view, that's the problem here.
If you accept that most people are straight, which you refuse to do, then you will see what I mean.
I have absolutely nothing against people with different sexualities as long as they aren't hurting others. Go wild. I've known people who have experimented only to reach the conclusion that they were straight. I just don't see why you have to convince yourself and make others believe that most people fall between the extremes. It doesn't help your cause.
It's unnecessary.
It actually does Semaphore. It proves that we are a two gendered species for a reason. It works. That's what works. In a 100 years time men and women will still be having children together, and not just because they don't have a choice.
Let me know when men start impregnating other men.
All I wanted was for you to not state something as a fact when it wasn't proven. By all means, you can believe whatever you want, but don't force it on everyone else as if it is the truth.
So how about this Semaphore: I'll state that I *believe* that most people or at least many many people are 100% straight, and you state that you *believe* that they are not. Until we have proof one way or the other that is. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. There is a huge difference between emotional attraction and physical attraction (those two things tend to coincide or sometimes conflict) and the desire to simply screw anything.
If you assume that people started as straight it makes more sense. Usually biology becomes whatever is most efficient and whatever the environment permits it to be. I do not rule that out, but it's better to accept differences than turn them into a competition.
It's called projection. Everyone sees things from a unique point of view. Sooner or later you will find things that support your point of view, but at the same time, you risk not seeing things from everyone else's perspective. I would find whatever ideas oppose my ideological enemies too, but I'd rather set a good example for others to follow and make friends instead.
Wouldn't you?
For example, if you entered the world of religion, you'd quickly realise that you were an outsider. They can be quite stubborn too, but there are many people who are drawn to that world.
The key here is choice. Make things a choice and we will quickly see where people stand in the ensuing chaos of people finding where they belong.
Last edited by mmoc614a3ed308; 2012-11-27 at 07:13 PM.
It's not generalizing though. It's making valid assumptions based on a valid sample size according to statistics... you know, a science. It's used by sociologists, psychologists, and pretty much any other science that requires experimentation (as in polling and similar) to be done on people, and it's NEVER done on more than 10 000 people, and there's a reason for that; the maximal error of measurement becomes irrelevant and miniscule.
Again, by your own standards (which are frankly ridiculous), you'd have to poll the entire Earth to prove your point. You don't have to do that, though. Taking 5 000 people of both genders and reasonable age ranges and asking them the same question will give you valid evidence about a claim. Samples represent whole populations.
Also, if scientists did what you demand, half of the sciences wouldn't exist and we'd still be in stone age.
If they really did that then they're not straight. Trust me, I'm fully gay, and I would never, ever, out of curiosity, experiment with that simply because I'm 100% gay. If those people that you knew did indeed experiment, then it means that there was a spark of curiosity in them, no matter how small it may have been, and it means they were slightly bisexual to a degree (we can't know exactly). If they were fully straight, the thought of such experimentation would bear absolutely no curiosity for them.
They just decided after experimenting or something that they'd rather lead a fully straight life and never, ever, experiment again, and made sure it goes that way by actually deceiving themselves they're fully straight. They're not, they once had a potential to do homosexual stuff, and they will always have it, sexuality doesn't change (which doesn't mean they actually will do it again, obviously). The fact they call themselves straight doesn't mean they really are.
This is of course, reliant on the assumption that one cannot be more or less straight than any other straight person, i.e., that straight is a full extreme. For example, I'm on the other end, the full extreme of gay, and if you assume that that's the only kind of gays, and that everything else is actually bisexual (besides the straight equivalent), it means the people you knew were bisexual. Just slightly, and they stayed that way, and they will, forever, unless they're still going through puberty.
What are you trying to argue? That homosexuality/bisexuality doesn't have a biological purpose? Well, news flash, it does.
It's not your place to decide what they can identify as, nor to decide what their standards are for experimentation. I've tried plenty of stuff (not speaking sexually, just in general) that I have decided wasn't for me. There's no reason different types of sex can't be the same if that's how I choose to explore and set my boundaries.
She's hot. Not that that has anything to do with her ability as a politician. Just an observation.
If it was a bisexual guy, then he wouldn't have been elected.
As soon as it involves penises people put their foot down.
haha.
Personally, I am more into the Asian persuasion myself I have noticed. But I won't lie, have found myself attracted to whites (blondes, brunets and a few redheads), blacks, asians, and indians. If they look good, they look good. Friends say my standards are too high though,lol.
On the topic of her. Yes she looks good but when it comes to politics or any job really. I don't care if she looks like the fat girl from the Ren and Stimpy cartoons with a voice like Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer, 3 legs and a hump. If she can do her job, that is all that matters for the job.
Assumptions based on a small sample.
It is impossible for such a small sample to speak for 6 billion+ people, and therefore it's not representative.
For it to be truly scientific we would need to repeat these studies with larger broader more impartial samples.
That is not asking too much.
Repeat the study a few thousand times at least. 10 000 people still can't speak for 6+ billion from all different backgrounds.
Otherwise all those people who disliked the Mists of Pandaria trailer were right, and MOP hardly sold at all.
Right?
No my standards are just thorough, and for good reason; they *need* to be.
There are areas of study where assumptions are dangerous and unacceptable.
That or, say, a million people several hundred times. I'd actually take that seriously then.
No. People come from different backgrounds and have been shaped differently. Everyone is biased. 5000 people is too small still even if you could ensure that people came from different backgrounds.
If I asked 5000 atheists whether they thought God existed or not, they wouldn't speak for everyone.
So if you asked 5000 people in a liberal university a question, I expect biased answers.
It's ironic you say that, because this is exactly what science is doing: it's being too thorough.
But that's the way it needs to be so that people don't jump to conclusions.
The peer review process is brutal. But like I said, everyone is biased. Some people stand to gain from their opinions, and that is most certainly not science. Some people don't like the nuclear family being seen as the ideal, for example.
Not everyone is like that. Many people have to find themselves and they do it by experimenting. Growth comes from human contact, and when someone is deprived of that contact, you can usually see the difference. A lot of people are simply ignorant about others and themselves. Time and experience usually solve that problem.
I literally became a different person after meeting new people. I saw genuine differences that I may not have accepted before because I was ignorant.
Experience doesn't necessarily equate to desire. Lots of men rape other men in prison and they aren't gay. They just want that release.
That's where we disagree. Sometimes you won't know if you like something until you have tried it. I am fairly open minded. I could kiss another man but I already know that I wouldn't like it. There's no attraction. It's just a visceral experience and some people even enjoy that and confuse it with the real thing, but it's not the same.
I'm sure it's true for some people. I'm sure they don't explore that side of themselves, but I very much doubt it's the majority.
But really, why does it matter anyway? Let them decide who they want to love. Just don't try to tell them what they are or are apparently supposed to be. Such as the claim that most people fall between the extremes.
If you want to believe that, then you are more than welcome to do so, but it's not proven science. Most men would love all women to be bi, trust me. The pressure to conform to that standard is immense.
No, I am arguing that biology does whatever it takes to survive. If a one gendered species could survive better then we might see it. That doesn't mean that we will change into it all of a sudden or even over billions of years. Humankind has survived for a long time like this, and will continue survive in the future. Evolution keeps what works especially as the environment changes. The difference between human beings and the rest of nature is we adapt through technology. In nature, anything not cut out for it simply dies.
---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 10:37 PM ----------
Indeed.
Last edited by mmoc614a3ed308; 2012-11-27 at 10:42 PM.
Don't have enough time at the moment to reply to your entire post, just wanted to reply to this particular part though. What makes a million several hundred times acceptable and 5 000 not? 5 000 has a margin of error of 0,3%. Is that not acceptable? You've just picked a number (funnily, used to be 100 000 earlier in the thread) that you know couldn't be polled just so you can dismiss any evidence. At this point, I'm honestly not far from thinking you're trolling me with the "million people several hundred times".
As long as she didn't use her bisexual as a reason to vote for her... I hate it... HATE IT, when people vote for reasons other than what political views the person has. It doesn't matter what gender, age, disability or sexuality that the politician is... what matters is there views. Still pisses me off that Obama gets votes just because he's black "har har har, I'm soo cool, I'm making history by voting in a black president" Well do you agree with his ideas? "Idk, all that matters is that I'm going to help make history"
Most likely the wisest Enhancement Shaman.
So Hot. Cool isn't it.
<Infracted>
Post constructively, don't spam.
Last edited by Anakso; 2012-12-03 at 12:31 AM.