First open bisexual congresswoman elected

[Wikiy]

A sample size can be a few thousand and still be pretty accurate if done right.

Exactly. I don't understand why Garian is demanding an x00,000 sample size.

[Deleted]

Exactly. I don't understand why Garian is demanding an x00,000 sample size.

Because it would be the equivalent of saying that all those people who disliked the Mists of Pandaria trailer spoke for everyone.

They don't.

This is something that I love about politics: you will take something that fits your argument but ignore it if it doesn't, or benefits the other side. You only care about winning an argument.

The truth of the matter is you don't have a representative sample and therefore have no right to state this as a fact. It's just convenient for your worldview to believe that everyone is bisexual. It's an argument that's designed to undermine traditional values. I'm sorry, but you guys all still have both a mother and a father whether you like it or not.

Why does it even matter that this politician is bisexual anyway? Honestly, who cares? Well apparently you guys do. It shouldn't matter but you've made it matter.

I want real science. Replicate these facts to a satisfactory degree otherwise stop claiming that something is a fact when it isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't live in a genderless world.


In 100 years time, assuming that humanity is still here, men and women will still be having children together.

[Deleted]

Garian, I don't remember anyone here saying that EVERYONE is 100% bisexual.

Also, there's a lot of people here that don't care if she's bi or not.

[Deleted]

Garian, I don't remember anyone here saying that EVERYONE is 100% bisexual.

Also, there's a lot of people here that don't care if she's bi or not.

Here:

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?

Semaphore believes that most of us exist between the extremes. Based on a biased unrepresentative study.

I believe that the majority of people exist as extreme heterosexuals while a significant number of people are all over the map or exclusively gay.

History is on my side here. Even as less and less people are having children and sex doesn't revolve around having children, heterosexual couples vastly outnumber everyone else.

So which side of the argument stands up the most?

[Rukentuts]

Here:



Semaphore believes that most of us exist between the extremes. Based on a biased unrepresentative study.

I already linked how about half of men fit "somewhere in that spectrum" and how about the other half fit "at the extreme end". However I was not able to find data for women.

[Wikiy]

Because it would be the equivalent of saying that all those people who disliked the Mists of Pandaria trailer spoke for everyone.

They don't.

Maybe, if you only asked those people that disliked the trailer. If you went to a WoW convention and asked a few thousand people there, you'd get a perfectly fine representative sample. Same as if you asked a few thousand people on the streets or over the phone about their sexual orientation.

The truth of the matter is you don't have a representative sample and therefore have no right to state this as a fact.

No, the truth of the matter is you've fixated on a silly representative sample number and have decided to dismiss anything else as not a big enough sample. Sorry, but that just goes against science. The margin of error in a 1000 sample is, if i remember correctly, plus or minus 3. So why in the heavens would you need a 100 000 sample? You're the one who only cares about winning the argument, and you're doing that by making stuff up and lying.

It's just convenient for your worldview to believe that everyone is bisexual. It's an argument that's designed to undermine traditional values. I'm sorry, but you guys all still have both a mother and a father whether you like it or not.

I don't even believe everyone is bisexual. I'm not. I believe there's the heterosexual extreme and the homosexual extreme, and i believe anyone who is straight and even slightly attracted to their own gender or gay and even slightly attracted to the opposite gender could be defined as bisexual. I believe this is where the spectrum matters.

I believe there are varying degrees of bisexuality, but i also believe there are purely straight people and purely gay people. Hell, I'm the latter, and i wont let anyone online tell me that research was done that somehow makes it impossible for someone like me to exist (which would mean I'm either lying or subconsciously deceiving myself).

Why does it even matter that this politician is bisexual anyway? Honestly, who cares? Well apparently you guys do. It shouldn't matter but you've made it matter.

I care a lot, it shows the world is improving. I'm not happy for her, I'm happy something like this could happen in the first place.

In 100 years time, assuming that humanity is still here, men and women will still be having children together.

I don't think me or Semaphore have said there wont be. What's your point?

[Deleted]

Rukentuts: I don't buy it. If you can prove it beyond all doubt like we can prove that gravity is real then I'll believe it. I'll believe it when I see it.

Maybe, if you only asked those people that disliked the trailer. If you went to a WoW convention and asked a few thousand people there, you'd get a perfectly fine representative sample. Same as if you asked a few thousand people on the streets or over the phone about their sexual orientation.

You know, I argued at the time that the trailer was a representative impression of the game, but the fan boys shot down the argument claiming that it only represented a small minority, and you know what? They weren't wrong. It was a representative sample of a different fanbase (namely real gamers), not the majority.

1000 people is not enough to be representative. If you asked 1000 Creationists whether they believed that God created the Earth in 7 days, just because they'd say yes does not mean that they speak for the rest of us.

No, the truth of the matter is you've fixated on a silly representative sample number and have decided to dismiss anything else as not a big enough sample.

That's right. And sorry, but unless you can replicate the results over and over again, it's not a fact. It's not science. Science finds proof through repetition.

Go outside and jump up and down 100 times. Now ask a million people to do it. Gravity will bring them all back down to Earth.

I don't even believe everyone is bisexual. I'm not. I believe there's the heterosexual extreme and the homosexual extreme, and i believe anyone who is straight and even slightly attracted to their own gender or gay and even slightly attracted to the opposite gender could be defined as bisexual. I believe this is where the spectrum matters.

I believe there are varying degrees of bisexuality, but i also believe there are purely straight people and purely gay people. Hell, I'm the latter, and i wont let anyone online tell me that research was done that somehow makes it impossible for someone like me to exist (which would mean I'm either lying or subconsciously deceiving myself).

If you believe that, then why let someone tell you that we mostly exist between the extremes as a fact (based on an unrepresentative biased study)?

It's not a fact. It's a way to shut down the debate.

Also, I agree. I accept degrees of sexuality, but people need to accept that a lot of people fall into the extreme categories. And that's not going to change.



Now here is my position on politicians: we should elect the best people for the job regardless of their sex, race or sexuality. It simply shouldn't matter. This is being wielded as a weapon in a war of ideas in order to buy votes.

What if it turns out that she is a terrible politician? People overlooked that because of her gender and sexuality. Sorry, but that just won't work.

I don't think me or Semaphore have said there wont be. What's your point?

My point is, we don't live in a genderless world.

[Rukentuts]

Rukentuts: I don't buy it.

Well, that sounds like a personal problem then.

[Deleted]

Well, that sounds like a personal problem then.

No, just prove it to me beyond all doubt.

I can prove to you that micro-evolution is real with fruit flies, so asking for proof isn't asking too much.

[dd614]

Why are democrats so fixated on sexual orientation and race? Who cares? I read this and all I can say is, who gives a crap?

[Rukentuts]

No, just prove it to me beyond all doubt.

That would require a survey of every single human being on Earth. Statistical surveys have a margin of error for a reason. They can be pretty damn confident with a general result.

[Alcsaar]

Why does anyone care?

Anyone who isn't past the stigma of non-straight sexuality is ignorant and their opinion doesn't matter anyway. Everyone else has no reason to give a shit.

[Deleted]

Good for her but honestly what does her sexuality have to do with anything?

[Nekrosislol]

As long as she gets her job done without corruption, idc what she does in the bedroom

[Mandible]

Why are democrats so fixated on sexual orientation and race? Who cares? I read this and all I can say is, who gives a crap?

And you claim your republicans aren't? or did you just need to bring your discontent towards your democratic party?

[Krolikn]

Her sexuality shouldn't matter. She shouldn't be treated better or worse than a hetero person. Did people vote for her based on sexuality? Thats just stupid.

[Wikiy]

1000 people is not enough to be representative. If you asked 1000 Creationists whether they believed that God created the Earth in 7 days, just because they'd say yes does not mean that they speak for the rest of us.

By that logic, you'd need to ask the entire Earth to prove something. Seriously, what kind of an argument is that? You might as well have said: "If you asked 100 000 Creationists whether they believed that God created the Earth in 7 days, just because they'd say yes does not mean they speak for the rest of us." And guess what, you'd have had the magical sample number you approve of. Again, you're just fixating on silly values that no living scientist on Earth uses when conducting research that requires polling people.

That's right. And sorry, but unless you can replicate the results over and over again, it's not a fact. It's not science. Science finds proof through repetition.

Go outside and jump up and down 100 times. Now ask a million people to do it. Gravity will bring them all back down to Earth.

Huh? Find me 1000 people, I'll ask them the same question 100 times and you'll have your proof and your repetition.

If you believe that, then why let someone tell you that we mostly exist between the extremes as a fact (based on an unrepresentative biased study)?

It's not a fact. It's a way to shut down the debate.

I'm not letting Semaphore tell me anything, I'm just too scared of her to debate her.

Now here is my position on politicians: we should elect the best people for the job regardless of their sex, race or sexuality. It simply shouldn't matter. This is being wielded as a weapon in a war of ideas in order to buy votes.

What if it turns out that she is a terrible politician? People overlooked that because of her gender and sexuality. Sorry, but that just won't work.

What makes you think she was voted for because of her sexual orientation or gender? I'd say it was in spite of both.

My point is, we don't live in a genderless world.

If we lived in a genderless world we'd all be hermaphrodites. I still don't get your point.

---------- Post added 2012-11-26 at 01:35 AM ----------

Her sexuality shouldn't matter. She shouldn't be treated better or worse than a hetero person. Did people vote for her based on sexuality? Thats just stupid.

I doubt that. Chances are, there were more people who decided not to vote for her exactly because of her sexual orientation even though she seemed like a viable candidate to them than those that voted for her because she was bi.

[Deleted]

By that logic, you'd need to ask the entire Earth to prove something. Seriously, what kind of an argument is that?

Again, you're just fixating on silly values that no living scientist on Earth uses when conducting research that requires polling people.

It's called science dude. You're suddenly against it when it doesn't fit your point of view.

I want an unbiased representative sample. Then I want it again. And maybe again to truly confirm the veracity of the study.

No bias. No wishful thinking. No social engineering. Just facts.

Someone claiming that most of us fall between the extremes of a spectrum as a fact should in fact be stating it as an opinion. Until it's proven properly.

Like I said, I can prove to you that micro-evolution is real with fruit flies. You can't prove that all people are bisexual, however.

People are simply wielding that idea as a weapon to win a war of ideas in order to undermine traditional values. We don't live in a genderless world. No one can change the fact that a child has and (in my opinion) should have both a mother and a father.

Are you one of those people who believes that gender is a social construct too?

Huh? Find me 1000 people, I'll ask them the same question 100 times and you'll have your proof and your repetition.

You're missing the point. Gravity is a proven fact. It's easy to prove. That was my point.

I'm not letting Semaphore tell me anything, I'm just too scared of her to debate her.

If you don't stand up to ideological fascists like her, then one day people like her will be ruling you.

The far left basically want the state to become God, which is ironic considering that they generally don't believe in God.

You decide what you want. A government that protects your rights or benevolent dictators deciding what's best for everyone.

What makes you think she was voted for because of her sexual orientation or gender? I'd say it was in spite of both.

If that were the case then it wouldn't be a big deal. The left wing want minorities to vote for them so they create these "symbols" of victory over bigotry instead of simply selecting someone who can get the job done.

Which would you prefer?

Why do you think they are so pro-immigration? It builds up their voter base. Socialists did it here in Europe. They will do it there too.

If we lived in a genderless world we'd all be hermaphrodites. I still don't get your point.[COLOR="red"]

Heterosexuals are still the majority despite all the brainwashing.

I am all for gay rights but this social engineering is going too far.

[Wikiy]

It's called science dude. You're suddenly against it when it doesn't fit your point of view.

Yeah, might have something to do with you calling science something that's actually totally useless when it comes to proving ANYTHING by your standards.

Someone claiming that most of us fall between the extremes of a spectrum as a fact should in fact be stating it as an opinion. Until it's proven properly.

I agree.

Like I said, I can prove to you that micro-evolution is real with fruit flies. You can't prove that all people are bisexual, however.

If it were true, i could prove it easily, you've just decided to add another silly argument to somehow boost your position as the true one, namely, telling people that it couldn't ever be proved, and effectively calling their entire argument unscientific when it's actually not. It's testable. It hasn't been tested yet, that's the difference.

People are simply wielding that idea as a weapon to win a war of ideas in order to undermine traditional values. We don't live in a genderless world. No one can change the fact that a child has and (in my opinion) should have both a mother and a father.

Might have something to do with traditional values mostly being shit. Also, no one is trying to show that we live in a genderless world (though, again, i don't even understand what that's supposed to mean or how it relates to sexual orientation). As for children not having both a mother and a father, it's something we aren't allowed to discuss since it would be delving too deep into the sexual orientation debate, which is forbidden as it is. This thread is on the verge of being closed anyways.

Are you one of those people who believes that gender is a social construct too?

No.

You're missing the point. Gravity is a proven fact. It's easy to prove. That was my point.

So would the fact that everyone is bisexual be, if it were true.

If you don't stand up to ideological fascists like her, then one day people like her will be ruling you.

She's not an ideological fascist, she just has far more experience with logical arguments and debates that i do. After all, I only got logics as a subject in school this year. Once I'm finished with that, I'll be able to debate with her properly.

Either way, I'd vote for someone like her to rule me any day.

The far left basically want the state to become God, which is ironic considering that they generally don't believe in God.

Hmm, let me see, do i want a group of capable people ruling me or do i want to be comfy knowing that the people (who are mostly incapable idiots) chose a ruler themselves? Look at my location, i live in a former Communist country. I'm not so brainwashed as the rest of Western society to adore capitalism as the only true way.

You decide what you want. A government that protects your rights or benevolent dictators deciding what's best for everyone.

So let me see, in the previous line you're all against the state, and in the next one you're all for it? You're jumping all over the place in this post, what does government even have to do with anything? Anyways, I'd prefer a government that protects my rights. How does that preclude someone like Semaphore managing to get into it?

If that were the case then it wouldn't be a big deal.

It's a big deal exactly because of it, how can you not see that? Maybe it's not such a big deal for us Europeans, but for the US, it's a huge step forward, and why the hell shouldn't we be happy for them?

The left wing want minorities to vote for them so they create these "symbols" of victory over bigotry instead of simply selecting someone who can get the job done.

Sometimes electing symbols to win over bigotry is more important than electing someone who can get the job done. Also, you're kind of relying on the "job being done" here as only economics and the such, which simply isn't all that a government has to do. People sometimes seem to forget the government has an obligation to protect the social rights of its citizens. Someone like who was just elected is usually more likely to protect the rights of various groups than your random person that's capable of economically improving the county/state/country.

Why do you think they are so pro-immigration? It builds up their voter base. Socialists did it here in Europe. They will do it there too.

Not really, you're calling socialists out on something that isn't true. Socialists like the idea of socialism because that's simply what they like (i should know, I'm one of them). The fact it coincides with what sounds like the best for the people is just a bonus.

Heterosexuals are still the majority despite all the brainwashing.

You're imagining the brainwashing.

I am all for gay rights but this social engineering is going too far.

Blame the heterosexuals that oppressed the rest of us (and still do) before you. Until life becomes properly liveable for the rest of us, you know, how it is for you, you'll just have to deal with it. I'm sure certain people were also sick of all the "social engineering" back when women and blacks started to get rights.

[Magpai]

HUrray, finally someone who will be judged and put down by both the religious right and the gay community!