Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 13 of 20

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Secondly this number does not include childern.

So noted.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You have incurred enormous error by just these things as you are diluting your numbers ie 4/60 is more than 4/100, seriously.

God you’re dumb. It makes no difference, because children are equally represented in both samples. You would have known that if you had bothered to recalculate the statistics.

Incidentally I have recalculated them, removing children and using the corrected figure for the diagnosed cases for homosexual contact. Accordingly, a homosexual male was 32.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS in 2003 then a heterosexual, based on CDC estimates.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?

So the gay population is 37% of the total population? That doesn’t make sense. Most gay rights organizations have been fighting to keep the illusion of the 10% figure (known as the Kinsey population) in order to inflate their numbers. Why would they insist on this number, if there were any basis for 37%? Aside from the absurdity of the notion that over 1 in 3 people in the country are gay. Furthermore, many recent studies cast serious doubt on the Kinsey number, and in fact, place the number of gays in the country at around 4%. Some studies have placed them as low as 1.1%. Here is an article summarizing recent studies: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html

4% is a perfectly reasonable estimate for the number of homosexuals in the US. You’d know that if you did any measure of research on the subject.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
No, it's a source of error because people aren't being counted. It has nothing to do with bias. A greater source of error is incurred simply because the sample size is limited.

No bias, no error.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You are clearly involved in such poor statistical practices, that you'r numbers say nothing. You are just taking the numbers that support your conjecture instead of doing good statistics.

You really need to learn something about math/stats.

Really? I find this rather amusing coming from someone who apparently can’t even do the arithmetic here.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If there is a greater number of people (%) in a population that is infected then an uninfected person will have a greater chance of getting it. Thus, since the gay population is smaller and suffered the first losses while the docs where still trying to figure this all out in the 80's, there infection numbers will be higher (%) and as such a greater chance of getting HIV for those not infected.

True.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Actually I did cite my source, you clearly decided to not read that. If you wanted a link, ask for it, but don't tell me that I didn't cite my source when it was clearly visible. Quoting myself, "Source Sue Johanson" (also retained from your quote of me above). What did you think this meant?

No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source. You need to learn to cite your sources, if you are going to make arrogant speeches like this.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
ReeQueen, you're bang on! Here's the revalent part of what Sue has to say about it for our discussion here.

Finally you actually cited a source. And now that I know what you’re talking about, I can tell you that your argument is wrong. While it is true that anal sex is more risky then vaginal sex in terms of contracting HIV, this cannot explain why AIDS is so much more common in the gay community, since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so. So the increased risk factor of anal sex is shared by both the homosexu

REEQUEEN

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:51 PM

SigmaNunki:

Quote:

I think that this is a natural reaction to something that we really don't know much about. I after all, only know these things because I have a gay cousin and as such have had motivation to think things out and do the research.

No, I don't know much about numbers, but that's mostly because numbers'll fool ya (unlike words, which would never do such a thing!), and I managed to score high enough on my ACTs that I didn't need to take any math in college.

Quote:
I'm also am finishing off a math degree this year, so I can see the large mistakes that are being made here (I would guess) more readily.

I just used cynicism, which is slightly less of a basis to say "bullshit" about stats. Hah. But I have seen stats to prove opposite things at the same time, usually by two warring factions each trying to hold their ground. I think that's pretty much all I need, although somewhat less scientifically correct.

Quote:
I also watch an "abnormal" amount of educational programming.

Don't we all? If I didn't have the History Channel I'd not know about a torture instrument called the Pear. Ew.

Quote:
The important thing is that we think about these things, talk about them and don't let our prejudice get in the way, but to do these things with a "clean slate" if you will. It seems as though you and your husband are some of the rare few that still do this these days.

I think we're all prejudiced, just that some of us are prejudiced in a good way. Heh. I think another important part of this, though, is that we not only talk, we read up. I like to learn stuff, all the time, about anything that takes my interest. I don't want to fossilize, set my opinions in stone, then live the rest of my life that way (especially given my whole issue with immortality). I would be bored, and that's one of my biggest fears.

I think, besides loving to argue, that's one of the reasons I engage people like Finn ("I didn't say that!") - I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong.

It's fascinating.

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:37 PM

Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.

I'll quote myself from my last post.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:01 PM

@ReeQueen:
It's true that we're all prejudiced, but it's when that gets in the way of doing good research that's when it becomes a problem. ie If you think something and go to prove it and ignore the data that suggests otherwise. That is letting it get in the way, which I believe Finn is doing, which I've stated before, which he didn't comment on, which I'm not surprised by.

ReeQueen wrote:
"I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong. It's fascinating."

Isn't it though

Getting back to the gay marriage thing, I'll quote Voltaire:
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

Which is the way I think people should view gay marriage if they disagree with it. Otherwise, what's all that "freedom" thing I keep hearing them talk about? Or is it, I have the "freedom" to suppress whoever is in the minority?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I think, besides loving to argue, that's one of the reasons I engage people like Finn ("I didn't say that!") - I can't understand why they don't want to learn anything new, why they let themselves fossilize into one type of thinking pattern, and why they don't want to see where they're so obviously wrong. It's fascinating.

You want to learn something ‘new,’ as long as it doesn’t contradict the old thinking? You accuse me of being closed minded, but have you seriously considered anything I’ve said in this thread?

You have insisted from your first post that my position is necessarily wrong. Not because there is evidence or critical analysis to disprove me; by and large, the arguments put forth against me in the thread, have been strawman fallacies, but simply because my criticism of the gay rights movement is deemed heretical. “Thou shalt not criticize gay rights activists.” But why shouldn’t we criticize the gay rights movement? If we can’t criticize the gay rights movement then we necessarily sanction it. It ceases then to be a movement based on reason, grounded in critical analysis, and becomes one based on dogma, as a religion.

This is often the reason why people who criticize the gay rights movement are labeled bigots. It’s not because they necessarily are bigots, but rather because many pro-gay rights people don’t want to hear what they have to say, so they use ad homenem arguments to protect their own preconceptions. Like the stereotypical fundamentalists preacher who proclaims that anyone who doesn’t follow his interpretation is going to hell. They aren’t interested in learning why or what traditionalists believe. They are interested in protecting their own dogma. The pro-gay marriage argument is, then, as sectarian as the anti-gay marriage argument.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Finn, I find it interesting that you tell us that we're immature, name call, etc and now you call me "dumb." That's called being a hypocrite.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.

I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 13, 2005 6:01 AM

@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 13, 2005 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.

I refer you to your previous posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?

You mean, other then the half-dozen or so times I’ve already answered this question? Once again I refer you to previous discussion. Half this thread has been in response to that issue. If you have something original to add, that hasn’t already been run into the ground, then by all means present it.

REEQUEEN

Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:40 PM

Sigma - do you mind if I call you Sigma?

Quote:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?

Good question. Fair. I think the answer depends on what kind of answer we should expect. Should we expect a straight, but disingenous answer? Or should we expect a disingenuos, but straight answer? I think our Finn ("I didn't say that!") will answer, at some point, but the answer ("Out of context!") will be pretty much the same....stuff.

Hard to know. heh.....

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

You again state something without proof. I stated an example of you being a hypocrite. Perhaps you should do the same.

I refer you to your previous posts.

This answer is unresponsive. Provide a quote.

You did notice those "'s in my post, right? So, if you want to prove your point, you must do the same.

You said that we are immature and name call, etc.
"their use of adhomenem and insults"
"I’m trying to point out how immature the pro-gay marriage argument has become."
"rather I think it is the gay rights activists, who are operating on immature arguments"
"or an immature attitude which needs revising? "

Then you said,
"God you’re dumb."

Hypocritical.

To say that I'm the same way, you must show that I've made some claim not to be immature or not insult you or others, AND, you must quote what I've done that contradicts this.

I've done this to back up my claim, how about you?

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

@ReeQueen:
How many times do you think I'll have to ask before I get an answer?... Or will I?

You mean, other then the half-dozen or so times I’ve already answered this question? Once again I refer you to previous discussion. Half this thread has been in response to that issue. If you have something original to add, that hasn’t already been run into the ground, then by all means present it.

Again, an unresponsive post.

All I've gotten from you in this thread is that part of your reason for not wanting gays to marry is that they are promiscuous, or so you say, this particular point remains unproven.

So, provide a quote from yourself that is an answer to my question. That is that, why being promiscuous somehow makes gays not eligible for marriage.

But, if you've said this before, it'll be quite easy for you to do this. So, why not do it? It'd be rather painless... wouldn't it?

NOTE: Stating that gays are promiscuous is not stating why that matters. Provide an answer please.

I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that... at least.

Now, since I've become dragged into some side note that I don't care to waste my time on, I'll return to ask a question that must be answered before I continue this current discussion (I've also asked it before).

How does this gays being promiscuous argument, have anything to do whether gays are allowed to marry or not? That is assuming that they are promiscuous, which is far from proven.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE