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: 31189
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:However, according to AVERT (an international AIDS charity) 55% of all diagnosed cases of AIDS in the USA were the result of Male homosexual activity, while only 16% of the cases were the result of heterosexual activity. AIDS may be down among gay people, as you claim; nevertheless, it is over three times what it is in heterosexual people. And all those other factors that you claim I ignored, actually constitute only 29% of the diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US. It is not a stereotype that I buy into, rather it is the facts.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Actually, you're quite wrong about this. AIDS is actually down among gay people …
Buying into a stereotype like the one you, Finn, just presented, ignores the people who were poisoned by a tainted blood supply before all blood was tested for HIV (hepatitis was also a big problem), as well as drug users, and heterosexual people who passed the virus amongst themselves and others. And this is without mentioning the current epidemic of AIDS in the African subcontinent, where it is spread mainly by heterosexual sex.
Promiscuity has little to do with the spread of disease. A good little sexual connoisseur (and I am one, so I know whereof I rant) is aware of risk factors, and always practices safe sex. Naturally, there are exceptions, as there always will be, but blaming a disease on the presumed promiscuity of a certain group of people, or using it as proof of the promiscuity of a certain group of people, is as stupid as it is ignorant. It's a lack of knowledge that prevents someone from practicing safe sex, not the number of partners with whom one boinks.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm
So basically, you're the one who's wrong. The facts are clear. AIDS is predominately spread through the activity of Male homosexuality. While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.
Quote:Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
People can marry each other, without the marriage being recognized by the state.
Quote:First of all, why do you care?
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Why does this even bother you? Why do you care? It's not like it's any of your business who marries whom, even in multiples. How is the marriage of two men to each other, or two women, or even two men and two women, going to affect you in any way, shape, or form? Just because you "disapprove," for whatever reason (and I think the guesses as to your reason are perfectly reasonable), doesn't mean you're affected in any meaningful way.
Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.
Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
From the same page:
"
The term "male-to-male sexual contact" includes gay men, bisexual men and some men who consider themselves to be neither gay nor bisexual.
"
This would include all the many people in marriages that practice homosexual sex "on the side" or what have you. It would also include those that "experiment" in college, etc who need not be gay.
Also, it seems to me that this stat is from the total since the beginning of all this. Therefore those stats wouldn't reflect the current situation. I get this opinion from the same page, this:
"
The total number of people diagnosed with AIDS in the USA is fast approaching one million. This total increases by more than 40,000 each year.
"
and this:
"
since the beginning of the epidemic
"
From the paragraph preceeding and within the same paragraph as from what you quoted from, respectively.
Again, from the same page for the 2003 stats:
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532
Heterosexual contact 10,983
These numbers are quite close.
Also, doctors highly recommend to there gay patients that they get tested regularly. So, it would be more likely that a gay man/woman would test positive since heteros are more irresponsible in this regard. Especially since HIV can lay dormant in the system for what, 10 years or so. So, since most people need a reason to get tested, how would they be diagnosed and reflected in this study?
The funny thing is that stats can say a lot of things as long as you read all the notes and know where the numbers are coming from, time frame, etc.
Did you read the notes at the end and fully read the text? Because from where I sit, you haven't. You've just read quickly picking up what supported your way of thinking, ignoring the rest.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm
You are aware that one minority cannot reflect the whole of society right? So, why did you post data that only reflects Hispanics?
This just futher supports my conjecture above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.
This does not prove anything. All it suggests is that in the beginning of all this, gays had a certain mentality.
What decade are you living in?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.
No, what it means is that people can marry unofficially. The discussion here is not about that, it's about official recognition of a fundamental right of a people that is currently being denied.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all, why do you care?
Continuing to be evasive aren't we? Why can't you just answer a question that is put to you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.
How?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.
You say one thing and argue and support another. This is logically inconsistent.
And it does appear that your knowledge of HIV epidemiology is accurate for knowledge gained in the 80's. Care
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really sorry I brought up AIDS.
But yes, it remains factualy even if there are a higher propertion of homosexuals with AIDS in America than heterosexuals that's certianly not true in a world scale. In Africa the people most likely to die from AIDS are married women, and their children.
Why did I bring up christian thought? well because some of the people that are against gay marriage here have been alluding to it but not actually using it to back up their arguments of what the ideal of marriage is actually about.
Since the argument that marriage is meant to promote procreation is a valid one if not one I necessarily agree with I thought it was worth bringing up.
I think religion does have something to say on moral issues, and will remain to have some as long as people believe in religions - i mean, i realise the pope is practically dead but i think we ought to get some actual yay or nay opinions from him sometimes, and i think that a lot of preachers twist the bible to suit their own ends and that this has happened *a lot* in reference to homosexuality.
the point is, I'm not a christian, I can assure you I don't hate christians either, believe it or not I find religion (and their consideration or moral issues) really interesting.
I'm not intolerant, most of the bible makes perfect sense, I'm just not afraid of saying something in scripture is a bit stupid, or has blatantly been interpreted wrong. As all but one of my christian friends do as well. Scripture was written down by humans - so even if it was 'word of God' originally there's no doubt it's been messed around with since then. You have to take it with a pinch of salt.
Anyway that's my opinion on ALL religions, not just christianity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.
I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
Statistics were taken from the CDC and an upper bound of 10% was used for the total number of homosexuals in the US. The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.
Weasy: I don’t believe you’ve said anything that I would construe as intolerant towards Christians.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.
I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can’t speak for people in general; I can simply say that I don’t see you as either.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.
Quote:The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
Quote:
First of all, why do you care?
Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.
I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.
As for your statistics - all I know is what I've experienced. I'm very leery of stats because they tend to be gathered and used for the particular reasons of the group gathering and/or using the information. Statistics can be skewed to provide any kind of answer wanted, no matter what the numbers actually may be.
For AIDS organizations, the motivation would be to make the disease look more widespread than it is, to make people afraid and take better precautions. I'm not saying that's a bad motivation, but it is bad science. I'm not saying they would all do this, either, but the possibility is there.
As for yourself, you clearly want the statistics to prove your point. You may do so, I don't really give a rat's ass. Because what you do when you do what you do do, is show everybody where you're really coming from, what you're personally afraid of, and what you really believe, despite what you say and keep reminding us that you said.
But, please, keep up the entertainment. You're funny!
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s not obvious. In fact, at times it has appeared as if I were the only one in this discussion that actually did care. All I see from many of you is a desire to attack people who disagree with you, not to argue in favor of an institutionalized gay marriage. Unfortunately for the gay community, many gay rights activists seem to have usurped the issue of gay marriage as a platform from which to attack the Right, not to promote gay rights. It has been argued by me (and further demonstrated by you) that such ideals represent a lack of maturity in the gay rights activists’ arguments.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Finn:Quote:
First of all, why do you care?
Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.
I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.
But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right. Now, even though the Declaration of Independence is not a legally enforceable document it still defines the ‘spirit’ of how our legal system should seek to interpret itself. While I believe in the tradition of marriage and precedent of its historical and cultural definition as existing between a man and woman, I also believe in the tradition of Pursuit of Happiness and therefore contend that gay marriage, in some form, should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.
Quote:That's not what I'm arguing.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That's not what I'm arguing.
then what ARE you arguing?
'cos we're all clearly not hearing it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you scroll up to my first post, you'll see my argument.
Originally posted by Weasy:Quote:
That's not what I'm arguing.
then what ARE you arguing?
'cos we're all clearly not hearing it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.
I never said that this wasn't fact. I just mentioned that you are using it out of context (which you still are). There is a difference.
And you still ignore the time frame-referenced in these numbers. You also don't seem to see that significant word in that sentence "probably."
The male gay community surely in the beginning of all this practice permiscuous sex (but then again, so did a lot of heteros as well). And why wouldn't they? There was no disease that needed to be kept in check, etc nor pregnancy to worry about. And after all, men are men.
This would account for the increased number on the whole time-line with repects with the larger number of gays being infected with HIV.
But what you keep ignoring is that these numbers do not reflect the current situation in the US.
You may be referencing fact, but you are using it in a way that it cannot be used. Therefore you conclusions are false.
It's one of the dangers of statistics. People see what they want to see instead of seeing what's really there. If you would look to where the numbers are coming from (it is on that page you referenced after all) you'd see that this conclusion is unsupportable given the data you reference.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
OK, fine let's go through your numbers.
What age group(s) are you refering to in your numbers? Are you using total population and are getting the numbers from percentages off that? That'd be one hell of a mistake.
If you are so convinced of your numbers, present them and let us know where they come from. Give us your math. After all, if this is so rock solid, then it would be able to stand a little peer review, now wouldn't it?
Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.
And where are you getting this "fact."
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right.
[ snip ]
should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.
Wasn't this Declaration of Independence democraticly created? So, then how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration? Don't gays have a right to be happy? At least by this declaration they do.
And even if this document wasn't democratically created, again, how do you justify not putting certain laws in accordance with this declaration since it seems to be the foundation of you democracy?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And how is promiscuous gay men/women or the AIDS problem even relevant to gay marriage?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to the CDC, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US in 2003 as a result of male homosexual contact, not including injection drug use, was 17696 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
OK, fine let's go through your numbers.
. . .
Basically my conjecture is that you are using these "numbers" to reflect you own opinions instead of trying to find out what is actually said in them. Prove me wrong.
In the same year, the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS due to heterosexual contact is estimated at 13260 cases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
According to the US Census Bureau, the total population of the US in 2003 was 290788976 people. http://www.census.gov/
The only problem is the number of gay people in the US. Many pro-gay organization assume 10%, even though this is probably too large. Some studies have found percentages as low as 1.1%. I’ll use 4%. http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the male homosexual community in 2003 was 0.1521%
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS in the heterosexual community in 2003 was 0.0048%.
The number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of the male homosexual community, in this case, is 31.7 times larger then the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS per member of heterosexual community. Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Finn mac Cumhal:
Thank you. But I have a couple of questions.
What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm:
"
The HIV statistics presented on this page include only the 33 areas with a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, as listed in our USA AIDS Summary.
"
I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?
How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"
Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.
Given these large uncertainties and large discrepancies, how do you claim to be able to come to your conclusion that gays are promiscuous?
I've also asked other questions in other posts that have gone unanswered. Please do so.
EDIT:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.
So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since children are represented in both the samples and normalized by population, it has no effect. Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error. However, the contribution from children is negligible.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about children? They don't claim to be gay nor straight yet your use of these numbers assumes them to be straight. Given that children comprise a large percentage of the US's total population this would skew the numbers significantly.
Quote:A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program
Quote:I cited my source.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I've also heard of numbers of the gay population that range from 4-15%, never as low as 1.1%. So, how do you claim to have anything regarding reliable stats given these admissions?
Quote:Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound. In order for the rate of AIDS diagnoses to be equal, homosexuals would have to be over 56% of the population.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How is it even possible to gain reliable stats regarding the gay population in the US, when gays will probably lie to pollers given the homophobic nature of the society in the US in general (note: I'm not saying you are, I'm only stating what I get from the media, talking to people from the US, etc).
Quote:Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Quote:The statistics are sound. The discrepancy lies in how I interpreted the percent of gay population. In the first case, I assumed a total homosexual population of 4% of the US population and an even split between male and female, which gives 2% male homosexual population. I also used an estimate for the 2003 US population, based on the 2005 estimate. In the second case, I used 4% (as cited) as male homosexual population and I looked up the 2003 US census. Halfling the gay population will double the outcome. If you don’t believe me, just do the math. You’ll see readily that the numbers fall out as I’ve said.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you said before:
"
(If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
"
but now:
"
Roughly, this means that a male homosexual is 31.7 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then a heterosexual.
"
Which is it? I asked for where you got your numbers and it's obvious that you've changed them. Your being rather inconsistent.
Quote:I find this unlikely, but if you cite a source, I’ll consider it.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Given the nature of sexual contact in male-to-male relations, it is far more likely that an infection will occur. Source Sue Johanson.
So, given any same number of sexual contacts the gays will recieve more infections than heteros.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki. I'm not going to do the quote'n'rebut thing with Finny-Finn-Finn-Finn again, because....boring. 
Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me. Which was wrong and dumb, but there ya go. What we came up with was this: anal sex is (theoretically) the most risky sexual practice, re: spreading disease. The tissues of the rectum are not as stretchy or as thick as those of the vagina, and more prone to tears. Thus, it is conceivably easier for disease vectors to percolate into the system more easily. So, we can see that homosexuals practicing anal sex may be more at risk to spread HIV.
Also, men do tend to be men with regards to having a perceivably higher tendency to have more than one sexual partner at a time, or more partners over time. When two men are together, well, the little heads may do the thinking for the big heads, who knows? (Naturally, it's riskier if they aren't using condoms, but what isn't?)
Of course, the above caters to all kinds of stereotypes regarding both straight and gay males, but perhaps it somewhat explains why what's-his-name thinks the way he does on the issue of gays and AIDS. Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Furthermore, the diagnosed cases of AIDS include children, so removing them from the total population would introduce error.
Actually, the figure was 17,969 for Male-to-male sexual contact not 17696 as you stated above. Be more careful.
Secondly this number does not include childern. I quote from the site you cited http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure:
"
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category.
"
Which http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm states specifically before the numbers in the charts "children under 13 years" and these tables are for "adult and adolescent"s. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure echos this by stating that "The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 at the time of diagnosis." Which is under a different table entirely.
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2003-as.html which puts the exstimate of children ages 0 - 14 at ~60,000,000.
You have incurred enormous error by just these things as you are diluting your numbers ie 4/60 is more than 4/100, seriously.
You use http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm to get a figure of 4% for estimated gay population in the US, where this page actually says - for males:
"
37% reported some homosexual contact;
13% reported more homosexual than heterosexual contact;
* 4% reported exclusively homosexual contact.
"
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What about those numbers that aren't counted? Those numbers being from areas that don't have an amonymous testing program
A source of error, only if you assume that the number of diagnosed cases are reported with some bias. An assumption for which I know of no bases. In the absence of such a bias, the ratios are accurate. The CDC numbers are statistical estimates based on 33 samples.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Which is why I originally used 10% as an upper bound.
Then tell me why you decided to use 4% again? Especially because of the quoted facts above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, you might note that given that the gay population started with an increased percentage of HIV+ people, even if they practiced as safe sex as heteros at this point, even if they had sex in the same proportion as heteros as well, they would still have increased infection given that more of them would be infected. Basically, different initial conditions.
Since I used cases diagnosed in 2003, this has no effect.
You really need to learn something about math/stats.
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.
And if you still don't think that initial conditions matter, disease propagation is a non-linear system (chaotic if you will). From http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521476852/qid%3D1105501891/701-
9084938-5583543 page 1:
"
The unique character of chaotic dynmaics may be seen most clearly by imagining the system to be starte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Very nicely posted, thanks, SigmaNunki.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Anyway. I discussed this whole thing with my husband yesterday, because I let the statistical thing disturb me.
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.
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 also watch an "abnormal" amount of educational programming.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
[snip]
Dunno for sure, because Finn, to be quite frank, isn't very good at saying what he might mean, or being clear even when he says he is saying what he means (which he will then say he didn't mean, don't take his words out of context! or assume something he didn't say!).....
LOL, I think you just hit the nail on the head!!!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So noted.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Secondly this number does not include childern.
Quote: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.
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.
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: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
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, are these 33% of men you don't count somehow immune to HIV through homosexual contact?
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:No bias, no error.
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.
Quote:Really? I find this rather amusing coming from someone who apparently can’t even do the arithmetic here.
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.
Quote:True.
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.
Quote: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.
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?
Quote: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
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pot. Kettle. Black.
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.
Quote: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?
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I refer you to your previous posts.
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.
Quote: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.
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?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Sigma - do you mind if I call you Sigma?
Not at all
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen: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.
[snip]
Hard to know. heh.....
Well, the first response was... unresponsive. So, to me, the probability of getting an answer is getting lower.
I don't understand why answering a straight question with a straight answer is so difficult.
It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good morning, Sigma, Finn. 
Sigma:
Quote:
Well, the first response was... unresponsive. So, to me, the probability of getting an answer is getting lower.
Clearly. I was being over-optimistic. Giving the benefit of the doubt to my fellow Finn ("Pink thong! Pink thong!"). I was weak.
Quote:
I don't understand why answering a straight question with a straight answer is so difficult.
Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this: because that would mean Finn ("If you're gay you're promiscuous!") would have to actually think about what he's saying. He'd have to ask himself a hard question or two, examine his assumptions, and justify his conclusions. Mental gymnastics can be exhausting, especially when you're unused to self-examination in the first place.
Quote:
It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him
This way is probably more humane if somewhat more irritating.
"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"You two are the two who are the two. I'm the other one."
Originally posted by ReeQueen:Quote:
It makes me want to do what Riley suggested and put him in a cage and do experiments on him
This way is probably more humane if somewhat more irritating.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"You two are the two who are the two. I'm the other one."
1) What?!?!?
2) There was a
= joke... at least mostly 3) I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This has already been answered.
You're obsessed. You need to let it go and move on with your life.
Incidentally, the quote in my previous post was said by Willow from Buffy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Clearly. I was being over-optimistic. Giving the benefit of the doubt to my fellow Finn ("Pink thong! Pink thong!"). I was weak.
Giving the benifit of the doubt and second chances is what makes up accepting and it gives our selves a chance to learn. If Finn would step back for a second and give a "second chance" to the gay community, I have no doubt that given what facts and logic that have been brought up here, he'd change his mind. But that is given that he is open to that, which it doesn't seem that he is.
I know this guy that was in my Quantum class and he was telling us about this religion class he was taking. It was titled, "Science and Religion" or something like that.
He told us that everybody has some swing with regards to what they believe. For some, what they are willing to accept, that isn't what they believe, given proof to the contrary, is greater than others. The part of someones belief that they won't change even given a mountain of proof is what the prof. called everyones "black box."
I will conjecture that we've stepped into Finn's black box. I really think, that no matter how many holes I/we put into his stats. How many times I/we logically, etc counter his arguments that there'll even be a chance at changing his mind.
Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."
If my conjecture is true, I pitty him.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this: because that would mean Finn ("If you're gay you're promiscuous!") would have to actually think about what he's saying. He'd have to ask himself a hard question or two, examine his assumptions, and justify his conclusions. Mental gymnastics can be exhausting, especially when you're unused to self-examination in the first place.
Well said!
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Good morning, Sigma, Finn.
It's night time right now here, so, good night
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@Finn:
Actually, NO you haven't. To do so, you would have to cite yourself and not just refer me to "earlier posts."
You do remember berating me about not citing my sources properly, right? Oooo, another example of you being a hypocrite.
So, please, cite your sources. Give me quotes, because it does seem as though you are not able to do so. Prove me wrong.
And, are you aware that context were the meaning comes from in many quotes? This would seem to be the case in the one you stated. So, again, what?
Also, this isn't obsession. What I am doing is forcing you to actually answer the question. One which was posed to you on a number of occassions, but never answered. You may think you've addressed this issue but you haven't.
You must realize that just because you are thinking about something when you type, and you're "inner voice" explains everything clearly, we aren't listening to your inner most thoughts while you are typing your posts.
We only read the end post, which it is clear that they have enough missing information so as to not answer the question.
I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have answered it. Half the posts in this thread deal with that exact issue. If you can’t grasp that simple thing, then citing specific posts isn’t going to help you.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, this isn't obsession. What I am doing is forcing you to actually answer the question. One which was posed to you on a number of occassions, but never answered. You may think you've addressed this issue but you haven't.
If you had spent more time actually reading my posts instead of inventing strawman reasons to call me a bigot, you would already have your answer. I’m not to blame for your inability to objectively examine an issue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I have answered it. Half the posts in this thread deal with that exact issue. If you can’t grasp that simple thing, then citing specific posts isn’t going to help you.
If you had spent more time actually reading my posts instead of inventing strawman reasons to call me a bigot, you would already have your answer. I’m not to blame for your inability to objectively examine an issue.
Listen.
I've already explained that although I fully believe that you think you've answered this question all that matters is what the people who actually read your posts in this regard.
All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.
Provide the reason why.
And even if you've stated this before, then a copy/paste would be easy for you now wouldn't it? And I don't know anyone that'll go through 100+ posts to find just one statement by anyone, so to ask that is unreasonable.
So, instead of prattling on about how the answer is there, why not provide it? Instead of continuing this pointless exercise. You have the power to end this with (apparently) one copy/paste.
I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and before that and 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because I’ve never said this. I’ve never said anything like this. This is apparently a figment of your imagination. Until you are willing to set aside these ridiculous strawman arguments, it’s a waste of my time to continue giving you information that you won’t listen to.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.
Quote:There’s nothing stupid about it. But I supposed it you can’t do arithmetic you might find it hard to figure out. Save your pitty, though. I stand completely behind everything I’ve said in this thread. I think I've made my case well.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."
If my conjecture is true, I pitty him.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
Big, long epistle
Ok, I want you to bear in mind that I am a very intelligent, sensible individual. I also, unlike most "so-called" christians, have actually read the Bible cover-to-cover (lot of time in the army), as well as the Quran, and yes for those thaty don't get it, the Torah, since it's part of the Bible (LOL :P).
I have studied (extensively) Eastern and Western Philosophy and religions. Also, governmental policies, precedents, etc etc.
So, on to my personal opinion that is firmylo ground in that background, as well as stone-cold-in-your-face-don't-give-a-shit-what-your-stupid-inbred-ass-has-to-say LOGIC.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think stem cell research can possibly help mankind more than harm. Genetic engineering on the other hand......(Such as recombinant DNA for those that want to find loopholes in my logic, or human cloning.
As for Janet Jackson, I could care less. Granted, children saw that, but then again, it didn't show anything. It's nothing mroe than can be found in typical primetime television, or hell....even the cheerleaders in the background.
But then again, that's what happens when your country is founded by a bunch of religous fanatics.
And gay marriage. This is the funniest crap I have ever heard "Faggots can't marry" Let me ask you inbreds out there a question. Would you want to marry a gay man (ladies) or a lesbian (men). The answer would of course be no, so why worry about it? Or is the fact that someone out there gets a little happiness a little hard for you schmucks to swallow? And as a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, simply about sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys. The BIBLE makes a bigger crime to not love than to love a member of the same sex.
Thus, my epistle is done.
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
...sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys.
I think you mean "sodomize".
And no I don't. I think you mean "pedophilia".
Oh, and the Bible also says nothing of marrying a yak. You ought not pretend you don't understand the actual definition of marriage just to press an argument.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
...sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys.
I think you mean "sodomize".
And no I don't. I think you mean "pedophilia".
Oh, and the Bible also says nothing of marrying a yak. You ought not pretend you don't understand the actual definition of marriage just to press an argument.
sodomize = to perform sodomy
sodomization = the action(s) of sodomy, to perform sodomy i.e. realization = the act of realizing something
Sodomy also refers to any, or all, twisted sex acts, such as sex with boys (pedophilia is sex with children, idiot, boy sex is specifically reffered to as sodomy, sex with animals, including your yaks, shoving a turkey baster up your wazoo, etc etc)
and btw, in trying to disprove my eloquent point about marriage, you just so happened to back it up with your reference to "marrying a yak", though the Bible DOES refer to "sexual congress with animals". SO BITE ME.
I define marriage as any other does, *ahem*
"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."
If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
sodomize = to perform sodomy
sodomization = the action(s) of sodomy, to perform sodomy i.e. realization = the act of realizing something
Sodomy also refers to any, or all, twisted sex acts, such as sex with boys (pedophilia is sex with children, idiot, boy sex is specifically reffered to as sodomy, sex with animals, including your yaks, shoving a turkey baster up your wazoo, etc etc)
and btw, in trying to disprove my eloquent point about marriage, you just so happened to back it up with your reference to "marrying a yak", though the Bible DOES refer to "sexual congress with animals". SO BITE ME.
I define marriage as any other does, *ahem*
"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."
If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.
Oh, dear. I do not want to believe an adult can be this ignorant, so I'll assume it's an adolescent trolling. I'm such an easy mark
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LMMFAO!!!!!!
Who's the ignorant one here?
Almost 30 years old, veteran non-commisioned officer in the army, an IT major in college, AND OOPS a THEOLOGY Minor. Of course, college educated, and highly intelligient.
So, go insult someone else, and don't belittle this board with your narrow-mindedness.
oh, and btw my wife of four years seems to see nothing wrong with how I view marriage, which might explain why I have been married for twice the norm for the first (and only) marriage, by statistics (18 months).
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Thread That Just Won't Die
Good.
Quote:
Giving the benifit of the doubt and second chances is what makes up accepting and it gives our selves a chance to learn.
Learning is something I need. I need to learn, I need to observe things and make my own hyptheses, and I also need to be proven wrong, or merely mistaken, on occasion.
Of course, the last bit rarely happens. While that fact often makes me condescending, supercilious, and disdainful - parts of my personality which aren't so nice, but integral so I've adjusted - I'm also capable of realizing that having my mind, ideas, opinions, conjectures, or whatever, set in stone, is not only unattractive but counter-productive to any growth I strive for.
I need to grow and change. Mostly because I'm afraid of turning into my mother, but I digress.
I'd like all people to want to grow and change, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Ossification seems to be comfortable for a lot of people, happy in their rigidity, and unable to view the world with new eyes every day.
Quote:
He told us that everybody has some swing with regards to what they believe. For some, what they are willing to accept, that isn't what they believe, given proof to the contrary, is greater than others. The part of someones belief that they won't change even given a mountain of proof is what the prof. called everyones "black box."
I will conjecture that we've stepped into Finn's black box. I really think, that no matter how many holes I/we put into his stats. How many times I/we logically, etc counter his arguments that there'll even be a chance at changing his mind.
The black box must be comfy, because a lot of people reside in their own. It makes me sad and tired to think about, really.
Quote:
Especially since he says such silly things like, "since there are as many (or possibly more) heterosexuals who practice anal sex as there are homosexual males doing so."
Wow. See, I'm to the point where I'm totally skipping Finn's posts. Repetitive, and yet uninteresting. So I didn't see that....wow.
Quote:
It's night time right now here, so, good night
I'm a bit of a time-zone chauvinist.
Right now it's Sunday morning, and I'm entering the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Just about to go see how many baths I can usefully take..../Hitchhiker's Guide reference.
"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All you've said in this thread is that gays shouldn't marry because they are promiscusous. But you have not given any reason why.
Because I’ve never said this. I’ve never said anything like this. This is apparently a figment of your imagination. Until you are willing to set aside these ridiculous strawman arguments, it’s a waste of my time to continue giving you information that you won’t listen to.
We are in a thread talking about certain things. One of them being gay marriage. So, when you say and make certain statements they take on meaning in that context. You can't get around this, it's called speaking English.
A quick search through this thread shows that you said:
"Traditionalists don't like sexual promiscuity among heterosexuals anymore then they like it under homosexuals, particularly the ones who have teen-age daughters."
And I quote you:
Quote:
Originally posted by FINN MAC CUMHAL:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you never said that gays are promiscuous? Wait a minute, you did.
Some gays are.
So, you have said that gays are promiscuous, or at least have used it in your agruments towards the end that you seek. This coupled with your "statistics" is quite telling.
If you don't want people to come to wrong conclusions then don't say such things or be clear! Because it is clear that you haven't been clear throughout this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There’s nothing stupid about it.
You remember our conversation about the biology of male-male sex and initial conditions, right?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But I supposed it you can’t do arithmetic you might find it hard to figure out.
LOL, you have no clue!
I never said that your math was wrong, I said your statistics were (and still are) wrong. There is a difference. This is something that you should look up.
Oh, and this would be another example of yourself being rude and insulting. Being a hypocrite again, eh?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I stand completely behind everything I’ve said in this thread. I think I've made my case well.
I've no doubt that you stand behind what you've said in this thread. You actually seem to believe it, which is rather sad.
But no, you haven't made your case well. Given the mass amounts of misunderstanding that you claim that is involved here, contradict this entirely. You really are self contradictory, and the sad thing is that you don't seem to realize it
Since this discussion has everything to do with gay marriage, and I've at least never strayed from that discussion, you'll have to inform me and others, how any of this (HIV, promiscuous behavour, etc) has anything to do with if gays are allowed to marry or not. Or if the HIV thing wasn't to produce the result that gays are promiscuous, please tell us what your point actually is, because it is rather elusive.
It'd also be good if you could go back and answer the landslide of questions that you've completely ignored along the way.
I'll quote myself from my last post and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that and before that and before that and 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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Learning is something I need. I need to learn, I need to observe things and make my own hyptheses, and I also need to be proven wrong, or merely mistaken, on occasion.
I'm pretty much the same.
Finn doesn't like to do this. He thinks that his stats are good but doesn't seem to realize that if you are trying to come to a real life conclusion then you numbers must reflect that reality.
ie
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?
He also doesn't include any stats for bisexuals and experimenters (spelling?). They will have an increased chance of getting HIV because of involvment with a community that has increased numbers of HIV+ people.
Finn doesn't seem to realize that people having male-male sex are not just going to be gay. The percentages that I've quoted from his cites proves that there is a significant percentage of bi/straight people have gay male sex. Yet it isn't reflected in his stats? = problem.
I point out things that are problems and he ignores them saying things like the numbers are normalized, etc. Fine, that may well be, I haven't done the calculations myself as I have a busy life right now. But that all this means is that by chance, the numbers at the end are the same (if he is doing things right, which is have doubts about given the "logic" he's shown here). This doesn't mean that the stats are correct for the above reasons and more.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
The black box must be comfy, because a lot of people reside in their own. It makes me sad and tired to think about, really.
To a certain extent we all have one. I for instance will never wish to go around killing people for no good reason. This is something that I won't change for anyone or anything (save effects from nerve gas, etc
). But aside from these things that I would think they are quite common "beliefs". I gather that I'm pretty open to new not killing indiscriminantly ideas, and I assume that you're the same way. Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Wow. See, I'm to the point where I'm totally skipping Finn's posts. Repetitive, and yet uninteresting. So I didn't see that....wow.
Fasinating isn't it?
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I'm a bit of a time-zone chauvinist.
/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.
Which book is that from? Is it actually the first one? If so I don't remember that. I've just started the second.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
"THE JOINING OF TWO PEOPLE OF ANY RACE, CREED, RELIGION, OR BACKGROUND (insert sex), COMING TOGETHER TO PLEDGE THEIR LIVES AND LOVE TO EACH OTHER , AND TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR MATE FOR THE REST OF SAID LIVES."
For what it's worth, I actually really like this definition
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
If you don't define marriage that way, then I truly feel sorry for your spouse, nor should you marry if you are not.
Agreed!!!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
oh, and btw my wife of four years seems to see nothing wrong with how I view marriage, which might explain why I have been married for twice the norm for the first (and only) marriage, by statistics (18 months).
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
Boo-Yah!!!
And your sig is rather appropriate right now, don't you think?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Indeed. And considering the frequency with which you have misinterpreted my comments, one is left with the conclusion that you are either intentionally inventing strawman fallacies or you are having trouble with the language. I don’t know which, and I don’t care. I’ll leave that up to you.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
We are in a thread talking about certain things. One of them being gay marriage. So, when you say and make certain statements they take on meaning in that context. You can't get around this, it's called speaking English.
Quote:I never said that I didn’t say that, and you can’t show where I did. I’ve been very clear. Some gays are promiscuous. Are you going to deny this? This is, once again, yet another strawman.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you have said that gays are promiscuous, or at least have used it in your agruments towards the end that you seek. This coupled with your "statistics" is quite telling.
If you don't want people to come to wrong conclusions then don't say such things or be clear! Because it is clear that you haven't been clear throughout this thread.
Quote:So I’m responsible for your intentional misrepresentation of my arguments? I think not. I have made my case well; you have failed to produce a substantive argument against my points. Instead you have restated my argument to something that I didn’t say and then claimed that invented argument is wrong, but that was never my argument to begin with. Time after time, you have taken my words out of context, misrepresented my argument or simply ignored anything that I’ve said that didn’t support your preconceptions. That’s got nothing to do with the clarity of my words; that’s decision you make. Personally, I think you are a victim of your own insincerity. I think you have been misrepresenting my argument for so long now, that you’ve confused yourself. At this point, I’m not completely sure that you even know what you’re arguing. I don’t think that you know what my point is, and now you find yourself in the position of trying to invent a new strawman for an argue that you can’t remember, so you keep asking the same question over and over again, hoping that I’ll give you a hint of what you’re supposed to be arguing against.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But no, you haven't made your case well. Given the mass amounts of misunderstanding that you claim that is involved here, contradict this entirely. You really are self contradictory, and the sad thing is that you don't seem to realize it
And it’s starting to get ridiculous, Vizzini.
Quote:The HIV angle was a tangent. I didn’t bring it up. That has nothing to do with my initial argument.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since this discussion has everything to do with gay marriage, and I've at least never strayed from that discussion, you'll have to inform me and others, how any of this (HIV, promiscuous behavour, etc) has anything to do with if gays are allowed to marry or not. Or if the HIV thing wasn't to produce the result that gays are promiscuous, please tell us what your point actually is, because it is rather elusive.
The promiscuity issue has already been explained; many times. I don’t feel the need to go over it again, because you’ve confused yourself with your own strawman arguments. You should go back and reread my posts, and this time, do so fairly and sincerely.
Quote:I answer pertinent question posed in an intelligent manner, but I reserve the right not to respond to strawman attempts.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
It'd also be good if you could go back and answer the landslide of questions that you've completely ignored along the way.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think the bible is pretty clear on each of those issues. But Jefferson is wrong. Common law goes back centuries and often finds its origins is the very Christianity Jefferson is talking about. Even throwing the bible aside the pre-1800 common law that Jefferson is talking about would specifically prohibit abortion, medical experimentation at the expense of life, homosexuality, and lewd conduct.
although the common laws of every country i can think of are based on one religion or another (mainly anglo-christian in the western world)there is one solid and enswerving belief that the majority of these laws are standing upon... it is the moral belief that man is superior (regardless of sex, age race creed or religion) to all the beasts of the world.
the theory that common law and religion should not be seen in the same house eg polititians preaching religion and/or pastors/ reverands/ padres/ etc delivering sermons of politics is one upheld by many good and intelegent people.
werent you ever told you should not discuss religion sex or politics at a dinner party?
by the constitution of the united states of america people are guaranteed religios freedom, to worship or not worship as they each see fit. when you bring in a law that contravenes this constitutional right you are in effect marrying politics and religion.
here is a purely fictional example...
mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?
in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.
the law does not state "you must not kill" because you will go to hell, or it is against the religion of the founding fathers, it states that "you must not kill" because then if someone tries to kill you you cant do anything about it. and if everyone went around killing everyone else then there would be no-one left.
thus common law becomes "common sense"
if you take the whole legal system and melt it down, yes most laws are based on biblical precept (can be found in the ten commandments) however, it is not illegal (as far as i know) to commit adultery. it gives grounds for divorce but is not in itself an illegal action.
and while we are talking of laws, murder and all that jazz, why dont you grab the Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word "TERRORIST" and the phrase "TERRORIST ACTIONS" most all the dictionaries i have looked in have said the same thing. that a terrorist(s) is defined as 'a person or group of people who seek to hold down others using threats of terror or terrifying actions.' does this sound like the same person that declared a "war on terror"???
in some states of AUSTRALIA it is still illegal to :walk on the right side of a sidewalk ;spit in public;attempt to commit suicide (a successfull suicide however can not be charged with the offence)
and now for the truth about WHY the law and religion should not interact.
Several Years ago a young girl in Irland was abducted, gang raped, beaten and left for dead. when her parents found out she was prgnant, they applied for a special licence to have an abortion performed on their daughter. the courts not only rejected the application but took out an injunction AGAINST the parents to prevent them from taking their daughter to England to have the abortion performed legaly.
the worst part about this case is that the girl was only 14 years old, and mentaly handicapped (she has downs syndrome) prior to the beating. she was FORCED BY THE LAW to not only undergo the cruelty of an unplanned and very unwanted pregnancy, but also deliver the baby (which i believe was stillborn). the laws in Ireland regarding Abortions HAVE NOT CHANGED . they were written at a time when Catholocism was at its peak, and although many have tried to have them changed, there is little or no hope for even a small a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, Sigma. Read this yesterday, but had already spent too much time arguing about copyright issues with someone on the Prospero board. But you did give me lots to think about, so thank you.
Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?
Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.
Quote:
To a certain extent we all have one. I for instance will never wish to go around killing people for no good reason. This is something that I won't change for anyone or anything (save effects from nerve gas, etc
Well, I like to think of my "black box" as an intricately carved ebony chest, lined in purple velvet, because that's just the kind of girl I am. The stuff I keep in there: I won't kill or fight, unless my life or the lives of other people (most importantly my family) are at stake; every single person is precious, no matter how stupid I think one is, or how idiotic one behaves - that's just entertainment value; evolutionary theory will always beat out creationism, no matter how many permutations the theory undergoes; rumour-mongering is an art-form; nobody has the right to dictate the actions of other people - if it's not hurting anyone, it's no one's business; Napoleon Dynamite and Shaun of the Dead are brilliant movies.
There's more, but I want to stop before boredom ensues.
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.
Quote:
Which book is that from? Is it actually the first one? If so I don't remember that. I've just started the second.
It may be the second one, but I am not entirely sure (it's been a while since I've read them. Salmon of Doubt really put me off Douglas Adams for a while). All I know is that the Long Dark Teatime of the Soul encapsulates all I feel about Sundays. Have always felt about Sundays, really. And Tuesdays, incidentally.
"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1. Actually I’m assuming that a certain number of individuals out of the population of gay people will contract AIDS in a given year. The number of children is irrelevant unless you are interested in a specific probability for gay adults. Because I’m only interested in comparing this to the probably of the heterosexual community to contract AIDS, I’m not interested in the specific probably of gay adults (which would be LARGER because of the smaller population.) Since the number of children can be assumed to be equally represented in both populations, they fall out of the ratio. And have no effect on the final number. Sigma should know this if he knew as much about mathematics as he claims. I challenge you to do the math.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?
Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.
2. Gay sex is the principal means by which AIDS is spread. That is a fact. I’m sorry if that impinges on your preconceptions, but if you don’t like that, you need to complain to the CDC. It’s their numbers, not mine, that bare this out. I'm just the messenger.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’d like to know how you arrive at this conclusion.
Originally posted by glowyrm:
mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?
in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
by the constitution of the united states of america people are guaranteed religios freedom, to worship or not worship as they each see fit. when you bring in a law that contravenes this constitutional right you are in effect marrying politics and religion.
This is not true. The Supreme Court has interpreted many restrictions on religious freedom. A good example is ritual animal sacrifice. Its fundamental to an otherwise legitimate and recognized religion, yet illegal. There is also poligamy, that Atlanta child spanking church, and so on. The issue is whether a compelling govt interest is served by the law, whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive possible, and where there is no viable alternative.
Quote:
here is a purely fictional example...
mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?
in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.
The state's interest in maintaining order and protecting the lives of its citizens in the interest. Banning religious killings is the only alternative. The law is narrowly tailored to apply to all homicides, yet let other forms of religious expression remain.
Quote:
"TERRORIST" and the phrase "TERRORIST ACTIONS" most all the dictionaries i have looked in have said the same thing. that a terrorist(s) is defined as 'a person or group of people who seek to hold down others using threats of terror or terrifying actions.' does this sound like the same person that declared a "war on terror"???
Try looking up "WAR":
• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.
That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference, unless you hate Bush. A lot of people hate Bush. They prefer terrorists, oil kickbacks, and French cooking. I'm not going to say they are wrong to think that way, I do however think they should be killed by the terrorists, political corruption, and old European indifferance and self-interest they seem to prefer. But don't worry. Bush wont let that happen. When a terrorist blows up your building or a giant wave comes calling, America will be there, faster and with a whole lot more then the rest of the world...combined.
Quote:
in some states of AUSTRALIA it is still illegal to :walk on the right side of a sidewalk ;spit in public;attempt to commit suicide (a successfull suicide however can not be charged with the offence)
In Pennsylvania you can't fish from horseback. They're called "blue laws" and every now and then a whole bunch of them get tossed out.
Quote:
and now for the truth about WHY the law and religion should not interact.
Blah, blah, blah gang raped, blah, blah pregnant, blah, blah abortion, blah, blah she was FORCED BY THE LAW to not only undergo the cruelty of an unplanned and very unwanted pregnancy, but also deliver the baby (which i believe was stillborn).
Is this really a religious issue? Yes. Can this issue be divorced from religion? No. The question boils down to the fundamental question of when life begins. We don't need to argue that. Some say conception, some say birth, most seem to say its somewhere in between.
In the US, Roe v. Wade adopted the third option and argued that the rights of the state to intercede and protect the child mature at viability, which they base on the best science of the time. While I do not ag
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Try looking up "WAR":
• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.
That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference...
here is the clincher on the word 'war' "armed conflict". since when are unarmed children, newborn babies, bed ridden seniors etc considdered to be combattants in "armed conflict"? or indeed "in armed groups". since when is a child, a mother or grandparent who does not own or have access to firearms a threat to anyone? the war is against those who are armed, but exactly WHO instigated this war? i dont hate GWB, i couldnt give a stuff about oil kickbacks and i dislike french cooking yet fundamentaly, i still assert that by definition GWB is a terrorist.
show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view. after all NOBODY has all the evidence, NOBODY has all the factsand sadly there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to war.
"glowyrm is getting old"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fundamentally, I assert that you are by definition ignorant. At least your post would seem to suggest that.
The US is not waging war against "unarmed children, newborn babies, [ and ] bed ridden(sic) seniors." This is a figment of your imagination and a chronic example of extreme ignorance and anti-American ideology. It is complete lunacy to claim that the US is waging war against "newborn babies" and "bed ridden(sic) seniors," regardless of one's opinion of the current conflict in Iraq. When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"
That started with "Roe v. Wade". The liberals oppose the death of babies in war. I agree. They condone the death of babies in the womb. I disagree.
Still its funny to think of a HummVee mounted NOW missles sitting outside Planned Parenthood centers out to kill unwanted babies. Funny in that tragic vaccum cleaner approach to contraception sort of way.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view.
August, 1990- Iraq invades Kuwait
January, 1991- US Coalition attacks Iraq to liberate Kuwait
Febuary, 1991- Iraq agrees to cease fire. Terms, we stop kicking Iraqi ass. Iraq returns Kuwaiti civilian prisoners (not done), returns Kuwaiti property (not done), agrees to a UN monitored no-fly zone (not done), agrees to destroy and account for all WMDs (not done, destroy...maybe, account for...no), etc, etc.
So argument 1, the original Gulf War cease fire is null and void due to failure of Iraq to abide by agreement. In other words...game on.
June, 1993- Iraqi plot to kill former President Bush.
December, 1998-2003- Iraq fires on US and British planes in no-fly-zone on almost daily basis.
So argument 2, acts of war committed against the United States justify the military conflict. In other words...they took a couple swings at us.
April 14, 1995- Oil for food program begins.
So argument 3, Iraq uses largest financial scandal in history to funnel money into its efforts to spilt the western alliance with bribes to Russian, German, and French diplomats including high ranking members of the governments of those nations. They also succeeded in introducing an unprecedented amount of political corruption into the world's premire international organization, the UN. So in other words, they messed with our friends, corrupted our allies, and spoiled our alliances.
That leaves terror:
1. Muhammad Atta, a Sept 11 leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officers prior to the 2001 attack. While Saddam likely had no knowledge of the details or planning of the attack, Iraqi intelligence likely played a supporting role to Al Queda efforts to infiltrate the US and Europe. This was most likely limited to financial support, intelligence, and assistence in securing documentation and transportation into the US.
2. Abu Musab Zarqawi, a high ranking member of Al Queda was known to be in Iraq prior to the war. He is well known as a central figure in the terrorist's efforts there in the last two years. Prior to 2002 he killed American diplomats in Jordan, coordinated with Iraqi intellegence officials, and set up a chemical weapons training camp in Iraq for terrorists.
3. Ansar al-Islam, an Al Queda subsidiary, was based in northern Iraq and partially supported by Saddam's government.
4. Iraq provided cash payments to the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Isreal.
5. Iraq funded a Kurdish terrorist group (the Kurdish Workers Party) in Turkey.
6. Iraq funded the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, an Iranian dissident group in Iran (although I'm not sure they qualify as terrorists, since anyone opposing the Iranian govt can't be all bad).
7. Iraq supported and provided a haven for Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Abu Nidal Organization (whose leader died in Baghdad in 2002).
So, argument 4, Iraq was actively supporting terrorism and harboring terrorist groups. Iraq was put on notice in 2002 that US policy had changed. We would fight not only the terrorists, but also those who shelter and support them.
All of these things together (and others which I'm sure I'm forgetting) make the case for war. But war did not come. Instead the US resorted to months of intense diplomatic activity. Our goal was first to neutralizw the threat posed by Saddam and second to build a coalition to eliminate his threat if diplomacy failed. Saddam's goals were to use his own diplomatic efforts to forstall military action against him and prevent a new coalition. He was partially successful. He subverted the UN and turned France, Germany, and Russia against us. However, Bush countered by courting the new Europe (Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania) and the ignored Europe (Spain and Italy). This gave him the foundation of multilatural support to join staunch US allies Britain and Australia with Asian partners like
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.
Seriously.
So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.
Just wanted folks to know.
"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The thread is really too long for this site. Maybe someone should think about breaking these threads up into pages for faster loading. (?) The gay marriage discussion has really run its course. I made my point a long time ago, so I was just responding to criticism which was becoming more and more frantic. There really isn’t anything left to discuss. So perhaps it is time to shoot this horse and move on to another thread and another topic.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.
Seriously.
So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.
Just wanted folks to know.
"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114
Quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Hero:
That started with "Roe v. Wade". The liberals oppose the death of babies in war. I agree. They condone the death of babies in the womb. I disagree.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.
Seriously.
So, I started a new thread, to which I'm hoping some of the bad feelings and antagonism can be transferred from this thread. My fingers are crossed, and my dander is up.
Just wanted folks to know.
Well, Finn keeps ignoring the initial conditions arguement that I put forth and he agree to, which makes most of his arguments fall apart. If he knew as much about math as he thinks, he would've rememebered that.
He also doesn't seem to realize that the numbers from the CDC are for only adolesents and adults. NO children, NO seniors. Also, the gay community is more than just gay people as shown by the stats that he himself cites. This has really gotten pathetic on his part.
He also somehow thinks that it's my responsibility to go throught more that 100 posts of this to somehow pick out poorly argued points that he apparently made some time ago. This is rather unacceptable.
Also, since he flatly refused to even give a summary of his points, that tells me just how weak his position really is.
I've even have gone so far as accepting his conjectures as assumptions and asking, even then, what does this have anything to do with gay marriage. All I get is an unresponsive answer.
< sarcasm >
But of course, it can't be his fault, right? Because he's him, right? It must be all of us that are somehow sooo far below him that our puny little minds just can't comprehend the greatness of his thoughts.
< /sarcasm >
All I have to say to Finn at this point is
I'm leaving this discussion for reasons of unresponsive answers and lack of time. I have nothing more to say to this fool on regarding this topic.
All parting remarks will be ignored.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So long, Vizzini. It’s been real. Come back by when you figure things out.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
All I have to say to Finn at this point is
I'm leaving this discussion for reasons of unresponsive answers and lack of time. I have nothing more to say to this fool on regarding this topic.
All parting remarks will be ignored.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
All parting remarks will be ignored.
But...but....but....Sigma! I need you in the new thread!
"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@ReeQueen:
I've been falling behind in my work for the past little while. Even though I've spend all but a few hours of my waking time on my work 
Complex Analysis, Number Theory and Networks and It's Applications have to take precedence over this thread especially given the nature of Finn (ie I didn't say that! Oh, you quoted me saying that. I think I'll just ignore that then. And the mentality of, I won't answer questions that will inevitably lead me to conclusions that I don't want to admit.).
Sorry, but you'll have to fight the good fight with others until I can free up some time.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Kay. I don't have to like it (and it's not like I don't see where you're coming from, either), but 'kay.
"He has a gorm horizon. All gorm that falls past it is lost forever." UserFriendly http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050114
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
Big, long epistle
Ok, I want you to bear in mind that I am a very intelligent, sensible individual. I also, unlike most "so-called" christians, have actually read the Bible cover-to-cover (lot of time in the army), as well as the Quran, and yes for those thaty don't get it, the Torah, since it's part of the Bible (LOL :P).
I have studied (extensively) Eastern and Western Philosophy and religions. Also, governmental policies, precedents, etc etc.
So, on to my personal opinion that is firmylo ground in that background, as well as stone-cold-in-your-face-don't-give-a-shit-what-your-stupid-inbred-ass-has-to-say LOGIC.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think stem cell research can possibly help mankind more than harm. Genetic engineering on the other hand......(Such as recombinant DNA for those that want to find loopholes in my logic, or human cloning.
As for Janet Jackson, I could care less. Granted, children saw that, but then again, it didn't show anything. It's nothing mroe than can be found in typical primetime television, or hell....even the cheerleaders in the background.
But then again, that's what happens when your country is founded by a bunch of religous fanatics.
And gay marriage. This is the funniest crap I have ever heard "Faggots can't marry" Let me ask you inbreds out there a question. Would you want to marry a gay man (ladies) or a lesbian (men). The answer would of course be no, so why worry about it? Or is the fact that someone out there gets a little happiness a little hard for you schmucks to swallow? And as a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, simply about sadomizitation, which is having sex with young boys. The BIBLE makes a bigger crime to not love than to love a member of the same sex.
Thus, my epistle is done.
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
good points there
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
so some of you think killing unborn children is ok, that the woman has the higher vote, well what about the childs vote or choice. did anyone ever think of adoption ????? there are many people out there that want that unborn child. to me there
are many different women out there
that have different circomstances
but that doesn't mean that gives them the right to kill the child.
as for gay rights well I think to hate the sin but love the sinner. They deserve rights just as everyone else does, but to me marriage was made for man and woman I don't want to bemean but thats what I think it doesn't make me right in any way.
cell stem .
no more taking pices of unborn children or cells or what ever if we are to die then we are to die as well as age.
janet jackson
I say publicity stunt.
men are in lust women are in passion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"so some of you think killing unborn children is ok"
You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.
You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet.
Not being able to distinguish your feelings from reality, and thinking that if you want something badly enough you will make it real, are both unhealthy ways of thinking. I'm sure you are old enough to realize you can't fly with pixie dust and happy thoughts, so perhaps you could bring some of that same reality-based learning to this topic.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm sure you are old enough to realize you can't fly with pixie dust and happy thoughts, so perhaps you could bring some of that same reality-based learning to this topic.
LOL, I'm writting this one down!!!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
I love this discussion, I want it to continue. I just can't bear trying to load the thread anymore. It is a pain in my ass.
Seriously.
the thread is way too big now
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How low can you go, Rush?
http://www.microenterprisejournal.com/JournalBlog/2006/10/25/how-low-c
an-you-go-rush/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stem cells are about Merck and money. I keep saying it, eventually someone will look it up. Nancy Reagan became a whore when she accepted the cash/political pressure to speak out against stem cell research. This has nothing to do with christianity. It was a republican bill Bush vetoed. If Nancy wanted to back the GOP she could have backed the GOP senators forwarding the bill, not the GOP poser president.
Gays are democrats. If gays are allowed to marry, they will adopt children. 90% of all political positions in this country are inherited, ie. people vote for the party their parents voted for 90% of the time. If gays adopt children, they make more democrats.
Janet Jackson is a democrat, she was on an MTV presentation, MTV is a democrat, and it was running on a CBS halftime show, CBS is a democrat. Govt. loves censorship powers. A republican govt. would love to censor democrats, or at least make them pay it money.
Abortion is wrong. It's killing. Don't kill people, places, things, plants, etc. It's a simple rule.
None of these things have anything to do with christianity. I'm not a christian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.
Rue,
that's not a reality, it's an opinion. One with which I respectfully disagree.
It's also a terrible argument. If I were on the other side of this issue, which I'm most empahtically not, I would make an argument based on something like "if abortion were illegal it would happen anyway and more people would die" or something like that.
"Abortion is okay" is just a terrible argument, and its dangerously close to dread scott. If you say "it's not a person so I can do what I want" - that is not a fact, and it's not a sound argument - it's a rationalization.
The goons who torture Iraqis for fun, be they Americans, Brits, or Israelis, or be they Saddam Husseins goons torturing Kurds, are essentially basing their argument on the same position "it's not a person, so it's okay" - that's just extremely shakey moral ground.
You're free to believe that, sure, but it's not an argument which is going to wing the hearts and minds of the people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
I know he pays your bills, but have the guts to just stand up and say the president is wrong about something. When you make excuses for him you look like his bitch.
I'm not not at all convinced this is an issue with any moralistic component to it at all, but more than that, if you support it, support it, say the president is wrong. A large portion of the GOP supports it, it's not exactly a fringe issue. Look in Jan '07 for a veto override on this by a good number of republican senators.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except they're objectifying a person, you're 'personfying' a cell, then saying the opponents argument is similar.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The goons who torture Iraqis for fun, be they Americans, Brits, or Israelis, or be they Saddam Husseins goons torturing Kurds, are essentially basing their argument on the same position "it's not a person, so it's okay" - that's just extremely shakey moral ground.
You're free to believe that, sure, but it's not an argument which is going to wing the hearts and minds of the people.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If gays adopt children, they make more democrats.
Gays have/adopt children anyway. Why illegalize the protection that they would get if they were being raised by "real, good" parents? Same-sex couples will raise children no matter what, and, by giving the couple almost no rights gives that child no rights.
"Does that seem right to you?"
Besides, that whole "Gays are Democrats" argument is total crap. There are gay Republicans; just because the extremist Republicans (or the pedophiles) get all the media attention, doesn't mean there aren't ::gasps:: tolerant Republicans in the world. And, trying to fit people into these idiotic bi-partisan stereotypes is much like what people did (still do, in fact, although to some lesser extent) with women and men.
Not everyone cares about/pays attention to politics - or conversely, follows the herd and votes because "they live in a red state" - and, there are a hell of a lot more people that live outside the United States (China, India, the United Kingdom, Australia, etc.).
I'm not quite sure if you were actually serious or not (no offense intended), but, if you were, then that's what I have to say about it.
---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The irony with that Janet Jackson episode was that there were no complaints about the other tit that was in full view during the entire performance.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Secondly, when I think the president is wrong I’ll say that I think he’s wrong, and I have, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to slander him. He’s still the president and he deserves a respect that you and some others evidently don’t really understand.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,
I know he pays your bills, but have the guts to just stand up and say the president is wrong about something. When you make excuses for him you look like his bitch.
I’m no one’s bitch. Well except for that one time, but she was really hot. She sort of looked like Vanessa Carlton.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
it's all subjective of course, such as what a person is. But the argument i was making was about the strength of the argument, which was weak,
Yinyang,
I'm not going to debate gay marriage, I think it's a pointless wedge issue. I was just explaining why it was a partisan issue.
Most partisan issues aren't about 'deep felt beliefs' they are totally mercenary, and about numbers. Legalizing gay marriage would ultimately be more likely to increase the number of democrats, which is maybe why the republican leadership wants it done. They then tell the christians that they want it done, and presto wedge issue o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Late term abortion...The unborn screams and kicks in pain as he/she is cut into easily removed pieces.... can be heard through the fluttering vulva(music to kaneman's ears...I wish they would amplify the screams) .....enough said....
maybe not,
"If I were on the other side of this issue"
As opposed to what?..The other side of the tissue?
Send me your butchered babies, I will feed them to my children..Shit , it will cut down on my grocery bills....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
First of all, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
My apologies. I didn't realize what a monster this thread had become. I should have quoted, sorry. Actually, I agree with a great deal of what you've posted here. It was one particular point which annoyed me.
The issue was stem cell research. The president has taken a really indefensible position. Why bother to make up rationalizations for why it's okay? it's not okay. It's appallingly bad. It's endlessly corrupt. If we take this sort of position, it makes us look like Bush's lapdogs.
When it comes to RTL I think I'm probably one of the most avid RTLers of the board. it's one of ten reasons the democrats can't get my vote.
But stem cells don't cross rtl,. i don't think that's an honest position. embryonic stem cells can be grown without destroyingthe embryo, and even if they couldn't these are discarded emryos. Also, this debate isn't about that, it's about merck wanting to control stem cells.
I think you basically agree, but your post was sort of "i support stem cell research, but i support the president more"
Bush isn't just a weak republican, he's a disaster. He's like no republican I've ever seen. He's like... Clinton. When you support him, especially when he's wrong, it's like supporting viche france.
it's like people on the pay roll (Your depts. funding is dependent on budgetary concerns, you said as much, which was the reference of bitch but i was being crude,) always seem to sound like that, never seem to say "the president is wrong" like Bill O'Reilly., who is losing all of his mod creds by not calling it when it's clear.
Quote:
Secondly, when I think the president is wrong I’ll say that I think he’s wrong, and I have, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to slander him. He’s still the president and he deserves a respect that you and some others evidently don’t really understand.
No one deserves any respect. Respect is earned. There are too many apologists for the president's meaningless and endlessly corrupt positions.
sorry for ragging on you about this, just I see so much of this weakness on the right, kind of gives me a sick feeling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.
You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."
Kaneman's response,
You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A dying shaking, convulsing blob of "has been" is not a dad.
You may care deeply for the past dad you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'old age' is only an alluded to past. In your life. To bad.. It was wasted on the likes of you.
I would love to hear your opinion on when life starts or ends. Also, about late term abortion. or why you can get a legal abortion, but if you kill a pregnant women you can be charged with 2 murders? Oh, the more I listen to your hate filled bullshit(in the name of liberalism) makes me glad your dad died shaking...Fucking coward.....shake shake shake...shake shake shake...shake your booty.....(in the name of the children you belittle) may Ruse's dad burn in hell for putting that baby killer on this earth...DAMN RUSE's DAD.....Burn dildo....
Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Gay Rights:
The problem with gay marriage is that the American people were basically given an ultimatum. Give up traditional marriage or else.
Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
I would like to know too! Personally, I think remarriage goes against traditional marriage. Til death do us part and all that. So lets just go ahead and ban subsequent marriages except in the case of death of a spouse.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.
You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."
Kaneman's response,
Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:
Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Ruse,
"You need to learn to distinguish your emotions from reality. A blob of cells is not a child yet.
You might care deeply for the future child you imagine, but the bedrock of your emotion is that 'childhood' is only a potential future. It hasn't happened yet."
Kaneman's response,
Read what I just wrote...Again.....Again...slowly....once more...Well, it's true........
:
Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My views on the topics of discussion:
Stem Cells: The embryos used for stem cell research would have been tossed out anyway, and to my limited knowledge, the embyos used for research are not allowed to grow past the stage of a simple multi-celled organism, nowhere near human(I'm deffining "human" as an organism with the ability for abstract thought). So, why not use them if we just throw them away anyway?
The "Gay" community: I've possibly got more homosexual friends than I do hetero friends. Does that make me "Gay?" Nope! About half of the "gay" people I know are Republicans, who voted Bush Jr. in for his first term, then decided they didn't want him for a second. My point is this, the gay community deserves the same rights and oppertunities as the straight community.
Abortion: I'm neither for or against it. What I am against is having some politician in Washington decide what a woman should do with her own body.
Janet Jackson: Big Whoop! I can find better stuff on the "Coretex!"
Religion: I like to keep mine seperated from my political affairs.
Well, there you have it!
Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Abortion: I'm neither for or against it. What I am against is having some politician in Washington decide what a woman should do with her own body."
Define it first you freak. Call it what it is. The murder of an unborn baby. What does that have to do with Washington? I love that it is usually the same people that want us to save the twin horned frog and the rain forest, that are the first to chop up a fetus and feed it to a barn owl...all in the name of Women's rights...What a joke......Well, it's true.......
FMF,
"Really Kaneman. That is a bit much even for you. Shame."
I do it for the unborn and their soon to be ripped off appendages... Shame on me
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Define it first you freak. Call it what it is. The murder of an unborn baby. What does that have to do with Washington? I love that it is usually the same people that want us to save the twin horned frog and the rain forest, that are the first to chop up a fetus and feed it to a barn owl...all in the name of Women's rights...What a joke......Well, it's true.......
Learn how to push the button that says "reply with quote" nimrod! It will make snide remarks MUCH easier to label!
Okay, you want me to define abortion, if the pregnancy is terminated early in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't had time to develop into little more than a tadpole, within the second and third trimesters the fetus developes a more infant like appearance. However, until the umbilical cord is cut, the baby is more like a parasite (albeit, a cute one.) I'll give you that a late term abortion is more like murder, I still think that it should be the woman, on an individual basis that decides what she does with her body and baby. My comment about abortion having to do with politicians in washington, means that I don't want to have someone else, namely, President Bush, trying to meddle in affairs that have no bearing on a national scale. Bush tried to get an abortion bill passed(banning abortion), thusly, forcing HIS will on the people he is supposed to be serving!
The American people are supposed to tell the President what THEY want him to do, not have him tell THEM what to do! (that's usually how democracy works, the government is "By the people, For the people.")
Fe'nos Tol, Bitch!
Edit: I'm a bad, bad man.
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For god sakes, the president didn’t just blossom out of a bud into the Oval Office. He was elected there by a majority of US states, but long before that he had to become qualified to become a candidate for the presidency. Whether you like it or not, the president has earned an enormous amount of respect before he ever got to the Office, as have most presidents. Now you seem to define respect based on whether someone agrees with you, but that’s not what it means. Just because the president doesn’t say or do what you think he should doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of respect. And frankly, I’m sick of people dragging politics down into the mud because they can’t get what they want, which is precisely what you do. It’s possible to respect the president or a congressman or even an individual on this board, even if you don’t agree with them, but if you can’t respect the presidency then I’m not interested in your criticism of him. Criticism without due respect is just mudslinging.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No one deserves any respect. Respect is earned. There are too many apologists for the president's meaningless and endlessly corrupt positions.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"if the pregnancy is terminated early in the first trimester, the fetus hasn't had time to develop into little more than a tadpole"
Shit, do we not shut down logging operations in the north west for less than this? You can't have it both ways. When we start deciding that a frog's tadpoles or a barn owls eggs are important, but human "tadpoles" are not, we are in big trouble as a species....Read what I just wrote...again....again...once more.......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman, you are obviously missing my point. It's not about the human fetus, or frogs or owls, it's about CHOICE, once that choice is taken out of the American public's hands where does all of our freedom go?
Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGODSelf appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"American people are supposed to tell the President what THEY want him to do, not have him tell THEM what to do! (that's usually how democracy works, the government is "By the people, For the people."
Fine. Put it on a national referendum. Lets debate abortion(not just the feminist[I hate that word, they are a minority amongst women] propaganda), what is life, and the procedure. Then lets watch the same people that say we can kill unborn children... turn around and tell us a highway can't be built because it may disturb the mating habits of Liberian fire ants. What a joke...Really
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or maybe we can watch all those fine moral people who protect the babies that aren't really babies turn around and murder hundreds of thousands in wars for personal gain...
Originally posted by kaneman:
Fine. Put it on a national referendum. Lets debate abortion(not just the feminist[I hate that word, they are a minority amongst women] propaganda), what is life, and the procedure. Then lets watch the same people that say we can kill unborn children... turn around and tell us a highway can't be built because it may disturb the mating habits of Liberian fire ants. What a joke...Really
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nonsense.
Respect is what you get for showing competence. Winning a popularity contest didn't earn respect from me as a teen and it doesn't do it in govt.
Whether you like it or not, the president has earned no respect
Quote:
Now you seem to define respect based on whether someone agrees with you, but that’s not what it means.
I'm really sick of this "i post to be insulting" troll garbage.
Quote:
Just because the president doesn’t say or do what you think he should doesn’t mean he isn’t worthy of respect.
Don't disagree with his ideological position nearly as much as the fact that he's an incompetent shmuck who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground.
An ass which you seem to bend over backwards to kiss, yet pretend that that is not what you are doing.
Quote:
And frankly, I’m sick of people dragging politics down into the mud because they can’t get what they want, which is precisely what you do.
Whatever. You know, this is getting just a little bit creepy. Since when did I say this was about what I wanted?
I was basically just saying "have a backbone" because you posted a rationalization to defend the president's position. that makes you his apologist. It's worse than when a trekkie makes up scientific explanation for why the errors on the show aren't errors.
It makes you look bad, and it makes us look bad, was my point. If we're the mindless zombie army of Bush, then why would anyone listen to our arguments.
Quote:
but if you can’t respect the presidency then I’m not interested in your criticism of him
I think this is a fallacious argument. No one deserves automatic respect. That turns politics into a religion. Your base assertion here gives the president a divine authority, reverence by the sheer fact that he holds the office, regardless of his total lack of demonstrated ability.
The truth is, you don't seem to be interested in any criticism of your religious leader. I followed along for far too long, believing in the faux moderates like Bill O'Reilly. But they never really take an independent position, they just cleverly position themselves on the fence, to try to draw unsuspecting folks like me in.
You pretended to take a pro-stem cell position while defending the president's anti-stem cell position, essentially calling it pro-stem cell, which is almost orwelling doubletalk, it's hypocritical at best, and mamby pamby pandering at worst.
I thought you were an independently minded conservative at one point, but when i read this i was disgusted because i thought, "maybe he's just a clever propagandist"
I'm not saying you or anyone else has to agree with me, nor am i whining for not getting my way. such accusations are petty, lame, and a little bit childish
I've already posted a few times that i'm absolutely certain that I am getting my way on stem cells, i think it's a done deal.
But either the president's position is right, or it's wrong. I think that the president is wrong on stem cells, and I think he's wrong because he's backing the position Merck wants him to, because I think the president has no moral character whatsoever, as in zero, nada, zip, and i know people who know him personally. He's not a strong moral person.
If someone was a strong moral person and bought the rtl argument against embryonic stem cells, then fine, just say so. but what i saw in your post which irritated me was you, making up excuses for the president. that's not a strong position, it's a weak yes-man position. so i called you on it, as a paid yes-man, and you flipped.
nothing personal, just calling it as i see it.
not mudslinging. I was calling you out on your pandering defense of the president even while at least pretending to disagree with him, not attacking the president for his corrupt position.
btw - I'm sorry if this comes across as trollish, i just don't know any better.
I'm not just being bitter about the 2000 primary here., bush is a perpetual disappointment, but i think at least a dozen times i've sided with the prez on t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Part of this thread was about the Defense of Marriage Act and how you claimed it was supposed to restore the 'traditional' marriage. But as I stated, like privacy of pregnancy before quickening, gay couples were in fact legal, and when not legally notarized (commoners often didn't have legal contracts) were also acceptable under 'common law':
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience
/20070827/sc_livescience
/gayunionssanctionedinmedievaleurope;_ylt=AvAs8uDYGwYoz7KUw2NBqcCs0NUE
Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff Writer
Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.
“Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.”
For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.
In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.
The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.
But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships."
The ins-and-outs of the medieval relationships are tricky at best to figure out.
"I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.”
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
an old thread and how life in the West has changed and not changed
Aussie kids are getting plugged out of the Matrix
in the USA Tradition has returned while in other parts greed and degeneracy is everywhere and Tradition has collapsed
The new Democrat party seems lost
2004-2007
While little Bush could not find bin Laden he opened a new front in the 'War on Terror' with a prolonged conflict in Iraq, it would lead to opposition to Republicans and the growth of Obama movement, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and others.
4Chan type sites born out of the original Japan 2channel and other hacker sites is still a web thing
We got to see the power of Nature with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and earthquake
There was a Space Shuttle Columbia disaster relations with Russians were better and they kept the US space program alive and helped truck US Astronauts to the Station, Elon Musk wasn't a thing it was Branson and Burt Rutan and SpaceShipOne and other millionaires and other Billionaire.
Twitter was launched in San Francisco and Pluto lost its planet status.
DVDs were a huge thing, then streaming 5 min clips or downloads of music, finally in recent time a War in Afghanistan came to an end with shocking images from Kabul but somebody had to end that war.
Australian troops stayed for as long as the could and would leave Afghanistan as 20-year mission came to an end, the 'War on Terror'
Back in those days there was talk of Sicko, a documentary on the US healthcare system, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, a comedian and degenerate weirdo Sacha Baron Cohen made fun of everyone and Kazakhstan with 'Borat'. Million Dollar Baby, The Incredibles, King Kong remakes, Memoirs of a Geisha, The Departed, The Aviator, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Little Miss Sunshine they were getting awards. That Iraq Dictator guy Bush wanted dead, Saddam Hussein is executed, but Iraq went into Civil War and later a growth of Iranian terrorists, Al-Qaeda and ISIS. There was an Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in pursuit of Hizbollah or Hezbollah which many consider an Israel stalemate or loss. North Korea after being called part of an Axis of Evil then performed its first nuclear tests. Watch more explosions and Hollyweird blockbusters, the cash flows with Michael Bay’s Transformers.
BigTech started to become a thing as Google purchases YouTube the Stem-Cell ban was probably when the USA stated to lose some of the tech race to people in Asia for example China. Phones would be smart like Japan ones, then Steve Jobs announced Apple’s very first smartphone, the iPhone. The Russians were blagging about NATO and nobody listened and then Russia blocks gas supplies to Ukraine, there were signs of the rise of China, Brazil and India.
then an economic crash started to come and the USA and the World needed a 'Bailout'
to find a trailer online you went to a Sony or Universal site for a movie trailer
social media site 'You Tube' was mostly cat puppy videos or 5 min clips of shows or other 'Crazy Frog' dance then record companies figured it out and you got Katy Perry videos or Maroon 5 or Justin Bieber, clips were still only 10 mins long
A controversial funny nigahiga, the English geriatric1927 Peter Oakley, Smosh imrpov comedy, FilthyWhore, Brookers, a female gamer minecraft ctreamer Aphmau were some of the most watched channels until the media giants of the web the PewDiePie and MrBeast and Joe Rogan came along
Everything looked like Vidlii
'You Know What Really Grinds My Gears - All Official Segments'
https://www.vidlii.com/watch?v=9pylUvB8thk
Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
I think stem cell research can possibly help mankind more than harm.
a comment that makes sense
What doesn't make sense in our current clown world
Transexual Gay Lesbos who supprted the islamic invaders that want to chuck them off high buildings?
maybe all these degenerate street parades was the push back and then transexuals coming for the kid
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME