|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2011 : 18:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
I would rather be accused by you of sloppy and limited access than obfuscation. It is a matter of integrity and even when my sources are weak I do not hesitate to reveal them. But I believe ardently in
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise." |
|
I very much appreciate that, but you're going to need to better support your claims before you assert that you're "using plain old statistics and deductive reasoning." After all, for deductive reasoning to provide a sound result, the premises must be true.
|
oh shit ! that creates a real problem for jit. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 22:24:45 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | 1. 10% of Americans are gay...mainly white men |
That is just not true. My gosh, your provided link explains why the 10% figure is not true. Kinsey who came up with the figure himself wasn't gay or straight - he was bisexual. Kinsey's studies overall revealed that so many people have at least some bisexual tendencies that there is a scale that ranges from gay to straight (with the middle being equally attracted to both sexes) that is named after him! What are you claiming when you claim that 10% of the population is "gay"? Certainly there is evidence that at least 10% (probably a lot higher in fact) has some bisexual tendencies. However, there is NO evidence that a whopping 10% of the population identifies as gay and is living an exclusively gay lifestyle. If you are going to make all kinds of speculation and projections, can you at least start with information that is detailed and accurate?
| 2. White men are least attracted to black women so they should naturally be attracted to white women. |
Okaaaay, and what does that have to do with who they are willing to fuck? The fact that most African Americans who are descended from slaves today have at least some Caucasian genes proves that white slave owners at least were perfectly happy to have sex with black women.
3. But a good 10% of white men prefer men
Which suggest they are not attracted to white women. |
No study done anywhere, including the Kinsey study that produced the 10% number in the first place reveals that anywhere close to a full 10% of white men prefer men to women. I've been a gay rights activist for 12 years. The gay community would be ecstatic and flaunting such a percentage if it were real.
| 4. The majority of white gays find white male partners(more to choose from) so it is a rejection of white females given it is a conscious choice they make. |
First of all, do you mean just sex partners or relationships? Rejection of white females? What do you base that on? Are you seriously suggesting that white men are turning gay because many of them don't find women pretty enough to have sex with them?
| 5. If it just a sexual preference to be gay. Natural selection must have a lot to do with it. But that is a contradiction because how can homosexuality be a reproductive advantage thereby becoming more common in the population. |
You clearly don't know much about the evolution of social animals if you think sexual attractive to the same sex has no reproductive advantages. It just kills me that in these conversations bisexuality is never even brought up, when (if you consider bisexuality to be the potential for being sexually attracted to people of both sexes, even if one is strongly preferred) clearly there are all sorts of social uses for sex that go way beyond making babies. If sex was just about making babies, why don't human women show signs of being in estrus as most other primates do? Why do men and women have the desire to have sex even when women aren't fertile? Sexual activities that range from just flirting to out-and-out intercourse has been used for emotional bonding, flattery, trade, and many other thing which can give a person more status and resources. Increased status and resources increases the chances of survival for one's own offspring and the offspring of close relatives. There are so many reasons why a genetic predisposition for being attracted sexually to the same sex could enter the gene pool and be preserved over generations, and much has been written about it. Try reading some.
| 6. If culture affects genes and vice versa. Then what is the causal factor that turned white men away from white women to chose men instead? It had to be a diminishing in attraction or something similar. |
This is so ass backward. And again I have to repeat myself. Women tend to be the gate keepers with regards to heterosexual copulation because they take on greater risks. You seem to be suggesting that white men are increasingly finding white women ugly, and then deciding to not even try to have sex with the women and instead have sex with the men, whom they find more attractive. The more likely scenario is that they can't find women who will sleep with them (the extreme of that is in prison where they have no access to women period. And indeed we do see more gay sex take place in prison.) But more importantly, that isn't even how sexual orientation works! Most of the guys in prison having sex with other guys would much rather screw women, even ugly women. A lot of guys doing gay porn or prostitution would rather be screwing women, even ugly women - but they aren't doing it for enjoyment, they are doing it for money. Also, a lot of forced sex such as takes places in prison is about power, not sexual attraction, so rape really shouldn't be factored in.
You still haven't make a good case that there are more white gay men than black gay men. You haven't made a good case for any of your bizarre arguments. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/24/2011 22:25:28 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 22:36:36 [Permalink]
|
| This Christian Research Institute article that justintime linked to is, ironically, pretty much what I've heard directly from the mouths of gay rights activists. While in undergrad I was a member of the GBLT group, and one meeting was devoted to the discussion of what percentage of the population is gay. They brought up Kinsey and the 10% estimate, and openly admitted how inaccurate it was and admitted that many gay activists continue to use such inflated estimates because they think it will help the cause. We talked about the difficulty of getting accurate estimates since many surveys only present the binary option of gay or straight, and many if not most people who have some attraction to the same sex and have maybe even had sexual experiences with the same sex will still identify as straight because they are living a straight lifestyle. At that meeting, the presenters suggested that the most accurate data suggests that at best about 2-4% of the population has an orientation that prefers the same sex, and that is pretty close to this article's conclusions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 23:18:03 [Permalink]
|
WoW Marfknox. I have to apologize for the late response. My numbers may be a bit exaggerated because I tried to stay ahead of the curb and included the closet gays as well. But as common knowledge there is a stigma on blacks who turn gay and often face threats of violence. This should explain why their numbers are much lower. In fact churches are using blacks to discourage whites from turning gay(by example).
I tried to explain white men turn gay and choose men over white women quite simply because they are not attracted to women and even less black women. That does not imply white women are ugly. It is a sexual preference with the gay man to be gay.
Churches believe being gay is a choice. Science has stopped seeing it as a disease and explains it as a behavioral or genetic predisposition. In the general scheme of things gays would be disadvantaged in societ. But with society accepting gay rights and unions. The situation is drastically changing. They can even have children through surrogates etc.
I did not post to win an argument. It was more in response to the topic black women are ugly......if so then why should that affect white men who are least attracted to them........but now wait.......these men are also not attracted to white women because they chose men instead...choose to be gay....so what is wrong with this picture and how can one explain this parody which goes contrary to Evolution....Natural Selection....and then to satisfy some request..... produced statistical number which are hard to come by.......
What would be an interesting study. Some of the most gifted, talented and high achievers have been gay men. Was that because they had to be creative, worked harder to prove themselves and the repressed desires to express themselves found more innovative ways to do so. Will the acceptance of gays today as mainstream have an effect on those unique creative talents and cause them to lose it and be just another person in a crowd.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2011 : 00:45:17 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
I tried to explain white men turn gay and choose men over white women quite simply because they are not attracted to women and even less black women. |
Listen. Here's the thing. Men don't "turn" gay. It's not a choice. Some men discover that they are gay. Social constructs being what they are, that's probably often the case. Some might hide it, which is a cultural failing, again due to a social construct, but they're still gay. So it wouldn't matter if the woman was... Ummm... I assume you didn't mean "woman and even less black woman" as if you can say "woman" designating white and only have to say "black" if she's a black woman. But I digress. A gay man will invariably be an equal opportunity rejector of any woman as a sexual partner. Because you know why? Gay men are attracted to men, not woman.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 01:47:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
I did not post to win an argument. It was more in response to the topic black women are ugly.... |
Way to miss the point.
Bill scott took a blog-post (which was promptly taken down once the editor realised he'd been screwed) and presented it as a scientific report in order to use it for a straw-man attack on evolutionary psychology. Possibly as a means to attack evolution by association.
(edited spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/25/2011 10:30:56 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 07:27:19 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | My numbers may be a bit exaggerated because I tried to stay ahead of the curb and included the closet gays as well. |
You still have provided no evidence that there are more gay white men than gay black men. Yet you keep going on as if it were an established fact.
| But as common knowledge there is a stigma on blacks who turn gay and often face threats of violence. This should explain why their numbers are much lower. |
Do you understand what homosexual orientation is? Homosexual orientation is having a dominant sexual attraction to the same sex. A person can be a homosexual and never have any sexual encounter their whole life. A persona can be a homosexual and only have heterosexual sex. As I said before, and Kil repeated, people don't turn gay. The evidence points at homosexual orientation being something set from either birth or extremely young age, not a choice. Who we have sex with is a choice. Who we are sexually attracted to is not a choice.
| I tried to explain white men turn gay and choose men over white women quite simply because they are not attracted to women and even less black women. That does not imply white women are ugly. It is a sexual preference with the gay man to be gay. |
Since this thread is about how pretty women of different races are generally perceived to be, what does what you are saying have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing. Some people having a homosexual orientation has nothing to do with how pretty or ugly they perceive people to be. This would be why HH and SS reacted to your initial comments the way they did. Because your comments are incredibl disjointed and ill-informed.
| Churches believe being gay is a choice. |
No. Many established sects of Christianity acknowledge that homosexuality is NOT a choice, including the largest unified sect: Catholicism. The official Catholic stance on homosexuality is that it is not a choice, but that homosexuals should refrain from ever acting on their orientation, and instead should choose a life of celibacy. Many other sects and local communities of Christians go even farther and are outright supportive of the homosexual lifestyle, some even employing clergy who are in gay partnerships. Christian Unitarians were in fact blessing gay unions starting back in the 20's, and today they are some of the biggest religious-based advocates of gay rights. Again, try educating yourself before shooting off your ridiculous musings.
| Science has stopped seeing it as a disease and explains it as a behavioral or genetic predisposition. In the general scheme of things gays would be disadvantaged in societ. But with society accepting gay rights and unions. The situation is drastically changing. They can even have children through surrogates etc. |
Gee, thanks for all that info that I obviously already know since, as I mentioned, I've been active in gay rights for 12 years. *rolls eyes*
| I did not post to win an argument. |
I never said you did. I have a problem with a lot of the crap you stated with no evidence to back it up.
| It was more in response to the topic black women are ugly......if so then why should that affect white men who are least attracted to them........but now wait.......these men are also not attracted to white women because they chose men instead...choose to be gay.... |
A bunch of conservative religious bigots insisting that gays choose to be gay is not evidence. Studies of homosexual orientation provide plenty of evidence that nobody chooses to be gay. And again, you have yet to prove there are more white gay men than black gay men.
| so what is wrong with this picture and how can one explain this parody which goes contrary to Evolution....Natural Selection.... |
For fuck's sake, did you even read my last post???? Here, let me quote myself: | You clearly don't know much about the evolution of social animals if you think sexual attractive to the same sex has no reproductive advantages. It just kills me that in these conversations bisexuality is never even brought up, when (if you consider bisexuality to be the potential for being sexually attracted to people of both sexes, even if one is strongly preferred) clearly there are all sorts of social uses for sex that go way beyond making babies. If sex was just about making babies, why don't human women show signs of being in estrus as most other primates do? Why do men and women have the desire to have sex even when women aren't fertile? Sexual activities that range from just flirting to out-and-out intercourse has been used for emotional bonding, flattery, trade, and many other thing which can give a person more status and resources. Increased status and resources increases the chances of survival for one's own offspring and the offspring of close relatives. There are so many reasons why a genetic predisposition for being attracted sexually to the same sex could enter the gene pool and be preserved over generations, and much has been written about it. Try reading some. |
| Some of the most gifted, talented and high achievers have been gay men. Was that because they had to be creative, worked harder to prove themselves and the repressed desires to express themselves found more innovative ways to do so. |
What!? If they "repressed desires to express themselves" then how the hell would we know they were gay in the first place? More importantly, are you suggesting that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among high achievers? If so, you wanna back that up with some evidence?
| Will the acceptance of gays today as mainstream have an effect on those unique creative talents and cause them to lose it and be just another person in a crowd. |
I certainly don't know how acceptance of homosexuality would impact the levels of success of gay overachievers. I do know that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality has reduced the number of suicides, beatings, job losses, and general misery of thousands of people. Total acceptance would mean that the girl I taught a couple years ago wouldn't have been beaten up by two other girls just for having two moms. Total acceptance would reduce the number of homeless teens and teen suicides. But I guess your totally unfounded, armchair speculation that eliminating homophobia will result in less Oscar Wilds in the world is more important that dead, homeless, beaten, and miserable people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 07:32:33 [Permalink]
|
There are several ways to look at homosexuality. Not all cultures and race have fully embraced it acceptance. Even in countries where they have. You still find a divide between those who have and those who have not.
1. Christianity finds it an abomination to god. evil, misguided. The trend is changing and there are some gay pastors.
2. Behaviorist see homosexuality as an adjustment problem like any against the norm behavior. Even here there is retreat from this position. Now it is viewed or labeled as the individuals sexual preference.
3. Is homosexuality in their genes and what percent of that mature to become homosexuals.
The obvious starting point are identical twins. Many studies later, some biased and others flawed. Conclusion. There are many contributing factors genetics, parenting, environment, early experiences, health. In short it is still very complex and no clear path to homosexuality . Now that can be interpreted as Natural Selection does not favor homosexuality.
If you take the religion, behaviorist and the science out of the equation. What we are left is social policy. Our humanity. There is no visible signs that gays are any less or more normal than normal people except for their sexual preference. Since we do not discriminate against race, color, religion, age. We cannot morally justify discriminating against gays.
Is it important for those who are gay to know why they are? That is an individuals choice. Some wear it well others don't.
If you ask me. We have bigger problem to deal with and gays are the least of our problems.
Some statistics.
1. More sexual crimes are committed by heterosexuals.
2. More genocides are committed by heterosexual leaders
3. More unwanted babies are brought into this world by heterosexuals.
4. More families are broken by heterosexuals (divorce etc.)
5. More wars have been waged my heterosexual leaders
When seen through a homosexuals viewpoint. Heterosexuals don't have much going for them either. In fact these statistics might even convert a few. |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/25/2011 13:43:49 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 09:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Justintime:
When seen through a homosexuals viewpoint. Heterosexuals don't have much going for them either. In fact these statistics might even convert a few. |
Convert heterosexuals to homosexuality? Or make them more tolerant of gays? Once again you imply that being gay is a choice.
It's nice that you don't want to discriminate against gays. But as long as you present being gay as a choice, you are, even if it's not intentional, agreeing with those religious groups and homophobes who think that homosexuality can be "cured."
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 11:12:02 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: Some statistics.
1. More sexual crimes are committed by heterosexuals.
2. More genocides are committed by heterosexual leaders
3. More unwanted babies are brought into this world by heterosexuals.
4. More families are broken by heterosexuals (divorce etc.)
5. More wars have been waged my heterosexual leaders |
Where are you getting these statistics? And how is this not an example of false comparison - comparing apples to oranges? Of course there are more divorces among heterosexuals - in most places gays can't get married in the first place! Of course more unwanted pregnancies happen among heterosexuals. What is your point? Given that we don't even have accurate stats on what percentage of people are gay (much less somewhere on the scale of bisexual) and that homosexual identity and more gay people coming out of the closet is a relatively modern tend, how could we possibly figure out whether straight leaders are more likely to wage wars and commit genocides than gay leaders? Or whether straight people are more likely to commit sex crimes than gay leaders?
| When seen through a homosexuals viewpoint. Heterosexuals don't have much going for them either. In fact these statistics might even convert a few. |
What!? These statistics that you apparently pulled out of your ass might convince some straight people to decide to be gay? I second Kil question. Are you suggesting that someone might decide to be gay because they think it will make them less likely to rape or commit genocide?
Seriously, are you trolling us?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 12:08:06 [Permalink]
|
Nobody keeps these stats. The information is gathered from historical records, war journals, criminal records, divorce stats. It is also hard to refute the stats based on commonsense. If only 10% of the adult population is gay. They cannot be committing 90 percent of the crimes or trouble. How many world leaders do you know who committed genocide turned out gay?
I noticed there is a lot of the use of the word ass here. I would have to be a magician to pull stuff like this out of my posterior. A troll would need help to achieve that feat as well. So for skeptics. If you are looking for some sort of irrefutable data. What do you do when you have both sides presenting contrary positions. You take what you can believe, accept.
I am a skeptic too and that is why I am here. I don't believe everything I read, hear, research. It is hard to even believe what you happen to believe at that moment because those beliefs can change as new evidence becomes available.
Does it look like I am trolling? I am very consistent with my beliefs, opinions and critical thinking which I lay on the table and when asked I will respond even at the risk of being ridiculed. Because I am a skeptic and not a cynic. I still believe people mean well even when they appear adversarial. But I could grow skeptical of that too.
Now do you know yourself as well as I know me. |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/25/2011 13:43:06 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:02:04 [Permalink]
|
justintime wrote: | Nobody keeps these stats. The information is gathered from historical records, war journals, criminal records, divorce stats. It is also hard to refute the stats based on commonsense. |
Even of the stats which are true, how does that get around the false comparison problem? What is your point?
| If only 10% of the adult population is gay. They cannot be committing 90 percent of the crimes or trouble. |
Did you mean to state something else here? Because a minority certainly can commit a majority of certain actions. For instance, men are 49% of the population, and yet they commit much higher than 49% of violent crimes.
| How many world leaders do you know who committed genocide turned out gay? |
Again, thanks for ignoring what I wrote. I see it is pretty much pointless to respond to you since you apparently don't see much of what I say or choose to ignore it. How would we know how many genocidal leaders in history are gay? I mean, first of all, the establish that gay people are less likely to become genocidal leaders, we must first establish how many people in the population are gay (which I will point out FOR THE THIRD TIME we don't know.) For the sake of argument, let's take the middle ground estimate of 4%. Then we have to figure out what percentage of genocidal leaders in history were gay. I guess for the sake of argument we're not counting bisexuality, which further muddles things, but gee, let's just ignore that problem and proceed with this ridiculous thought experiment anyway! So once we figure out what percentage of genocidal leaders were gay, if that percentage is higher than 4% that suggests that for whatever reason gay people are more likely than straight people to become genocidal leaders, and if that percentage is lower than 4% that suggests that for whatever reason gay people are less likely than straight people to become genocidal leaders. Of course figuring out whether genocidal leaders in all of history were gay is one hell of a daunting (even impossible) task since homosexuality has been taboo in most civilized cultures and thus there is always the possibility that certain genocidal leaders had a homosexual orientation and kept it a secret. You see how stupid this whole line of thought is? You have to make all kinds of assumptions based on little or zero evidence to come up with a conclusion that has such a huge margin of error it is totally useless. And again, to make what point?
| I noticed there is a lot of the use of the word ass here. I would have to be a magician to pull stuff like this out of my posterior. A troll would need help to achieve that feat as well. So for skeptics. |
Yeah, this forum is rather casual and the moderators allow cursing. Do you have a problem? I live in a rowhouse with paper think walls in a working class, urban neighborhood; I couldn't go a day without hearing someone say a curse word if I tried. I find it rather silly and prudish when people make a big deal out of such language.
| If you are looking for some sort of irrefutable data. |
Irrefutable would be even better, but what people here are looking for is any reasonably reliable and accurate data - which you have failed to provide.
| What do you do when you have both sides presenting contrary positions. You take what you can believe, accept. |
No. If there really isn't enough data, a skeptic would be left with uncertainty. They might tend toward one position or another based on which argument seems to be stronger given the limited data, but anyone who accepts something as fact without sufficient data is not being skeptical. You are just making wild speculations based on hardly any data what-so-ever.
| I am a skeptic too and that is why I am here. I don't believe everything I read, hear, research. It is hard to even believe what you happen to believe at that moment because those beliefs can change as new evidence becomes available. |
If you are talking about facts about objective reality, belief shouldn't even enter into play. Conclusions, theories, even guesses, but not beliefs.
Does it look like I am trolling? I am very consistent with my beliefs, opinions and critical thinking which I lay on the table and when asked I will respond even at the risk of being ridiculed. Because I am a skeptic and not a cynic. I still believe people mean well even when they appear adversarial. But I could grow skeptical of that too.
Now do you know yourself as well as I know me. |
So you change the subject going on yet another vague tangent. Yeah, it is pointless responding to you. Maybe you don't understand the points I made that you never responded to. Or maybe you have some sort of weird blinders on and didn't realize they needed to be responded to. But I'm not going to further waste my time responding point by point to ridiculous ideas if my responses are going to be ignored and then you change the subject. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:54:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
It is also hard to refute the stats based on commonsense. |
Common sense isn't.
There are no stats "based on" common sense, because common sense is only what you think everyone knows, but nobody really does. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:52:01 [Permalink]
|
| Someone who takes what they can believe, accept is a very poor skeptic. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:59:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcatsomebody said: Someone who takes what they can believe, accept is a very poor skeptic.
|
|
Yes, indeed. Inarticulate Speech of the Heart, you might say ! [chortle]One hard-fried zero.
CRUX...when it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 21:03:14 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An evolutionary psychologist said
