Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Jan 9th, 2006, 08:20 PM       
People talk about Wikipedia like it's some kind of message board where anyone can write in anything. In theory, yes, you could write whatever you want, but the sheer volume of the traffic Wikipedia gets, coupled with the vast majority of people looking for fair and balanced articles keeps the retards in check. That's why when you look up George W. it doesn't say "FUKC BUSH!!!!!" over and over again.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 10th, 2006, 10:55 AM       
I think they used to have problems with that in the past, so-called "Vandalism". They even warn about it in a few places... I've never seen it before, though.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #28  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Jan 10th, 2006, 04:10 PM       
Quote:
The result is one of the world's most effective combat pistol cartridges, one that combines very good accuracy with ample stopping power for use against human assailants. You can also fit at least five of these in a child's anus, six if the child is asleep or drugged (as it should be). However the .45 ACP has disadvantages as a combat round. It is a low-velocity round, and thus not effective against body armor. The rounds lack accuracy or velocity at long range. Another drawback is the bullets' large size and greater material costs in manufacturing when compared to the 9 mm Luger cartridge.
Quote:
At least two of Chandrasekhars colleagues in the astrophysical community have come forward with evidence that the famous scientist and mathematician was in fact a pig who could talk and solve crimes. Chandrasekhars crime-solving efforts were believed key to the success of the Indian independence movement, finally putting to rest the British colonial practice of dressing up as frightful ghosts and monsters from Hindu and Islamic folklore in order to prevent valuable old farmhouses and amusement parks being purchased or enjoyed by Indian nationals.
Unfortunately these only lasted a couple minutes before they were removed. I had one under "China" that stated the subject was actually a code word used by the Kennedy family to denote an outdoor area suitable for light ass play and chess that lasted about a day.

Does anyone want to start a contest? I'm sure the mock community could come up with some good ones.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 02:48 AM       
(this is the only person who even made a semblance of an argument -- the rest of the people refuse to discuss because they cannot argue against facts from independent studies)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids. "

Yea. I agree entirely, those fucking bastards. They will fuck kids up so bad! I've never met a straight person who does drugs. Obviously the war on drugs is a war on FAGS. I've never met a gay person who wasn't "dependent" on chemicals. I mean, straight people are so awesome. How do they manage to be so great?
I've heard that, in many cases, once a gay man becomes straight he gives up all drugs and stuff.
No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above.

Facts are facts.

Quote:
Also straight people don't drink coca-cola and they only eat organically, no chemicals for them! From what I understand they don't even have seratonin or melatonin in their brains! Those straight people sure are a wonder of evolution, good thing gays weren't having children and fucking up the gene pool eh?
I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit.

Quote:
"Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident"

Yea, because nobody was openly gay in the 80's. Gay people are obviously a creation of the 90's. What were we thinking? HOW DID WE MANAGE TO SCREW THINGS UP SO BAD?
No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises. Now it is a fad to be gay.

Quote:
" I simply express the way I feel."

You're the only free-spirit left in this world of fags and homosexuals.
No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.


Quote:
Seriously though, I've never met a crazy straight person in my entire life, and let me tell you, I've been in alot of mental institutions! They were all gay! You're totally correct on this issue.

Hey did you hear the greek civilization often had sex with men? In fact, that kinds of stuff has been around for ages. No wonder the greek civilization failed, eh? It's leaders were a bunch of crazy queers! God bless america.
First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level (!).

Second, I will make a second post -- I have researched Greek homosexuality and will make the post for you.

Third,

Have a good day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Immortal Goat Immortal Goat is offline
Now with less sodium!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Immortal Goat is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 03:02 AM       
You say that no one has made any other worthwhile posts in your thread, and yet your posts are the most worthless in the whole thing.

Seriously, you think that the chemical dependency is simply a symptom of the GAY Virus? Let me learn ya sumthin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Kulturkampf"
No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.
You said you will never hide your beliefs, and you stand proud in defense of your life choice. What if, however, you were FORCED to hide it, as many homosexuals are? If the country were run by gays, and you were the one having rights taken away left and right, and your family hated you for what you were, I bet you would be a bit more prone to chemical dependency, too.

And for the record, no gay person that I have ever known was addicted to any form of chemical. One really liked to drink, but it wasn't dependence in his case.

As stated before, your entire argument is moot. And also, since this thread was such a collossal disappointment for me, I didn't hold out hope for your new "enlightening" thread. This time, I wasn't disappointed. You delivered exactly what I expected. Drivel.
__________________
I like snow. If winter's going to be cold anyway, at least have it be fun to look at. Probably why I was with my ex for so long...
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 04:09 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immortal Goat
You say that no one has made any other worthwhile posts in your thread, and yet your posts are the most worthless in the whole thing.

Seriously, you think that the chemical dependency is simply a symptom of the GAY Virus? Let me learn ya sumthin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Kulturkampf"
No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual. I will never hide my beliefs, and I will always stand proud and true to the values that I hold.
You said you will never hide your beliefs, and you stand proud in defense of your life choice. What if, however, you were FORCED to hide it, as many homosexuals are? If the country were run by gays, and you were the one having rights taken away left and right, and your family hated you for what you were, I bet you would be a bit more prone to chemical dependency, too.

And for the record, no gay person that I have ever known was addicted to any form of chemical. One really liked to drink, but it wasn't dependence in his case.

As stated before, your entire argument is moot. And also, since this thread was such a collossal disappointment for me, I didn't hold out hope for your new "enlightening" thread. This time, I wasn't disappointed. You delivered exactly what I expected. Drivel.
I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?

My arguments are crap and the most worthless, and this is your big comeback agaisnt me?

Come on, son, didn't anyone ever teach you how to use your brain and make an argument? On other message boards I get far superior responses to this, and you are the one who is being arrogant concerning the facts!

I should post links to debates on other message boards -- there actually are some liberals who know how to add 2 and 2 and make an argument, so maybe you could learn from your friends how a debate is conducted. Would you like that?

For fuck's sake, if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a debate, do not even talk.

But I will give you credit: you are superior to the rest of your cronies and their creative, comprehensive arguments against me (LOL).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Pub Lover Pub Lover is offline
Näyttelijäbotti!
Pub Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mogadishu, Texas
Pub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty ok
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 04:42 AM       
If you know of other forums that actually have people willing to debate you, why are you here watching us shoot ourselves in the foot?

P.S. We have discussed homosexuality before, but I think those threads were just people calling each other cunts as well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
No YouTube embeds in your sigs, poindexter.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 05:16 AM       
Let's not shoot ourselves in the feet.

Let's...

Have discussions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
executioneer executioneer is offline
OH GOD
executioneer's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2001
executioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contest
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 06:05 AM       
Quote:
"Heterosexual people were older and less likely to describe their ethnicity as White than their gay and lesbian counterparts, whereas the latter were more likely to be in employment."
lol gay people are less likely to be lazy layabouts
__________________
[COLOR=purple][COLOR=Magenta]SHAME ON A [COLOR=Pink]NIGGA WHO TRY TO RUN [/COLOR][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGI6mhfJyA"]GAME[/URL] ON A NIGGA[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
executioneer executioneer is offline
OH GOD
executioneer's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2001
executioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contestexecutioneer won the popularity contest
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 06:10 AM       
Quote:
Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.
quoting stuff is fun
__________________
[COLOR=purple][COLOR=Magenta]SHAME ON A [COLOR=Pink]NIGGA WHO TRY TO RUN [/COLOR][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGI6mhfJyA"]GAME[/URL] ON A NIGGA[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Reply With Quote
  #36  
glowbelly glowbelly is offline
my baby's mama
glowbelly's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: cleveland
glowbelly is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 07:59 AM       
i linked to a bulletin by the american psychiatric association.

your sources are from OPENLY ANTI-GAY AND BLATANTLY RELIGIOUS websites. save for maybe one, i think.

and i think it's hysterical that the one person you chose to argue with was being completely facetious with you.

now i'm going to sit back and watch this kahl/krumperbasket thing unfold. i'm sure it will be entertaining.
__________________
porn is just babies as work-in-progress
Reply With Quote
  #37  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 11:56 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?
Your sources were openly biased, and so are you. It amazes me that you expect to be taken seriously.

Do you think I'd be taken seriously if I were to post peace activist foundation funded study results in a thread about why the miltary is wrong?!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 11:59 AM       
It's not that I can't argue against "independant" sources, it's that I won't. Your sources are openly, obviously and heavily biased in your favor. They use misleading statistics in order to portray a picture that's not there. They link correlation with causation, which is wrong. As with the alcoholism, they don't compare the rate of alcoholism among homosexuals to the rate of alcoholism among heterosexuals. (Unless I missed it, but I'll go look again.)

Edit: Okay, yes, it did. However, now that I look at it again, I see another problem.

The study compares hetero and homosexuals as if they're two isolated populations of equal amounts of people. That's simply not true. If I remember correctly, only about 5% of the population of any given country is honest-to-God homosexual. If you take a population of say (to keep it simple) 1,000 people, and 5% of them are gay, how many people does that leave? 50. (I'm gonna continue to use round numbers to keep it simple, and since I suck at math.) Allowing 50% of those 50 to be alcoholics, that means 25 people are alcoholics and gay.

Now, the study also says that 5% of heterosexual women are alcoholics (that's WOMEN ALONE, as compared to the disconcertingly high number of alcoholic men, which is conveniently not mentioned), that leaves 5% of 950, or about 48 people. The number of alcoholic heterosexual women is actually HIGHER than the number of alcoholic homosexuals, men and women together. But look at that! 50% of homosexuals are alcoholics, but only 5% of heterosexual WOMEN ALONE!

And that's only the part you quoted. I'd like to point out that you conveniently ignore the disclaimer just below the statistic you quoted:

It is important not to assume that homosexuality causes drug or alcohol abuse. When gay men, lesbians and bisexuals internalize society's homophobic attitudes and beliefs, the results can be devastating. Society’s hatred becomes self-hatred. As a minority group, gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are victims of systemic and ongoing oppression. It can lead to feelings of alienation, despair, low self-esteem, self-destructive behaviour and substance abuse. Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals resort to substance abuse as a means to numb the feelings of being different, to relieve emotional pain or to reduce inhibitions about their sexual feelings.

Substance abuse often begins in early adolescence when youth first begin to struggle with their sexual orientation. When surrounded by messages telling you that you are wrong and sick for who you are, eventually you may begin to believe it. Having to hide your identity and deal with homophobic comments and attitudes — often made by unknowing family and friends — can have a profound effect on you. Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.


There, it's nice and big so you can read it.

Edit II: Elsewhere on the McGill site you referenced, it says about 10% of the population is estimated to be gay, which seems kind of a liberal estimate to me, but even allowing that the number of gay alcoholics in our imaginary population begins rivalling that of heterosexual women alcoholics alone, which, I'll remind you, doesn't include men, in which the population of alcoholics is considerably greater than that of heterosexual women. Hey, you could argue with those statistics that being male causes alcoholism.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 01:01 PM       
"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Like I said, I've been in mental institutions before and most of the crazy people there weren't gay. Most of them were straight. I don't really think real craziness has anything to do with sexual orientation unless you think thinking about fat cocks can change your chemical makeup or brain structure. The only thing I can imagine coming out of it really wouldn't be craziness so much as a bad growth process mostly attributed to enviromental conditions. AKA, you. In fact, in all truth, most homosexuality could probably be related to enviromental conditions, aka you.
If all you're saying is that they are "Emotionally sensitive" we'll have to take a few paths here. First off, "Real men" have this thing with hiding their feelings (which would almost make them seem more sensitive) , everybody knows that, so who knows how emotionally sensitive they are. Secondly, gay people are generally harassed all the time (Everybody gets emotionally sensitive when they are being harassed) and some of them try to be more "Feminine" or open. Females are typically more emotional than males. This could be because they simply aren't psuedo-desensitized and/or because of hormonal reasons, but regardless the possibility that some gays are "Overly sensitive" compared to normal men is so moot in it's entirety it doesn't really require notice. Thirdly, men are more likely to get angry. Anger is emotional sensitivity.

"I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls"

They weren't scientific polls, the supposed scientificness of the poll you posted was already denied. The organization responsible for it has been ousted from the psychiatric community and none of their papers have been published. I understand, in the begining, you thought they were valid and now you are apparantly laughing at it like it's a joke. Nervous tinges.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

There's some other statistics, I'd post them but some of them have such a long line of VALID referances that I don't want to waste space.

I've known alot of gay people who do drugs, but even more straight people. This could be because i know more straight people than gay people, all i know is EVERYBODY DOES DRUGS. It's not isolated, and you're stupid for thinking so. There's gay bars, and normal bars, and other types of bars.


Let's rip apart your stupid "Sources":

"43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition."

43%, huh? So does that mean the other 57% of bulimic men were straight? Drrrrrp. Jackass. You're so stupid you don't even know how to read, and apparantly neither do the sources you quote.


"Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health," the researchers reported (p. 556)."

Similar levels of social support, eh? Come on, we all know gays and lesbians don't get the same level of social support. For example, gay marriage laws. For example, being made fun of in school and other social situations. Etc. That's funny enough on it's own, but then you add in, "p. 556". Of what? Thanks for the information. You're obviously the copy paste king, same with your other "Sources". In fact, this can't even really be said to be "Your sources" but the sources of whatever source you ripped off.

"63 homosexual men and 14 homosexual women had considered seeking help to change their sexual orientation. Of these, 15 men and 2 women had achieved a change in their sexual orientation."

Geez what a large percentage . Did they try turning straight men gay, too?

"because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted."

Um, actually they did back in the early 1900's when they used EST and other crazy devices to try to turn people straight. Which brings us to you thinking gay people didn't exist before the 90's. Dumbass, here's a link essentially proving that gay people did exist before the 90's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...and_psychology
Some quotes towards the end, maybe.

Here's the quote of you not knowing that gay people existed before the 90's: "Look at the dates on a lot of the sources; in the eighties. These people were probably so far in the closet that no one knew of their behavior and thus persecution was not evident, yet still they lead suicidal lifestyles. "
If you read that page i linked, you'll notice persecution has been going on since studies have begun on it(early 1900's). For example, did you know they did EST(electro static shock therapy) castration, amputation... all kinds of crazy shit. Did you know in some countries they would put you to death? In america you would be imprisoned or incarcerated in a mental institution. In Europe they'd occasionally burn you. Who was it, oscar wilde? Wasn't he exhiled or something from his country for being gay then died shortly after from his over-sensitivity? You just posted an article about how even greece looked down on it. Oh, but wait, persecution wasn't evident.
While you're at it check out, "Reparative therapy".

"But there are a plentiful amount of cases suggesting that it is possible to change your oreitnation sexually and completely, and what we can cnclude from that is up to you. "

Oh really, because i thought you just said, "because I do not think that large studies have ever been conducted." (you know except in the early 1900's) hahahahaha. That's pretty funny. I like how you don't know absolutely anything, maybe you should go find another website to quote, but be careful! All i have to do is type your sources into a search engine and i can find which webpages you copy and pasted from, jackass. Like your other post where like three of the "Sources" were from the same book and you only sourced one of them for some stupid reason, mostly because the one you did source was sourced on the webpage EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

"Their mental health and chemical dependency, regardless of cause, is no good for raising kids."

Hilarious considering you said something like 45% of men and 33% of straight women did drugs:
"as contrasted with 45% and 33% of the straight men and women, respectively."
According to your policy almost half of the population of straight males are, "no good for raising kids" and a third of the population of women. That makes for alot of orphans, eh?

"Some of the sources were Dutch, I remember reading; so I do know it is global"

Wow two countries makes it global. And yea, there's other countries who hate gays too, and some of them were in europe. DOUBLE TAKE.

"No, but they have a higher rate of chemical dependency as per the study above."

Higher percentage rate, right? Because there's probably more straight people, there's probably more straight people doing drugs and beating their children.

"Facts are facts."

Studies and statistics aren't facts, jackass. Don't you know how to think?

"I am not a vegan. So I am not concerned with any of that organic bit. "

What the fuck does that matter? There's still chemicals in coca-cola and nearly every type of refined or processed foods. And yes, they do have palpable bodily effects. That's why people drink caffinated drinks.

"No, they were generally more in the closet minus major metropolises."

Read above study, listen to David bowie or that one lesbian bitch. Gays did in fact exist before then. "Minus the major metropolises" you say. Oh, okay. So because they were in the closet in a place where they were more oppressed(and to this day are still more oppressed because there are lots of stories about people being beaten to death, to this day) it means they didn't exist nor were open. Could that non-openness have anything to do with the oppression? Could the "Fads" that came around after the 70's have anything to do with all the gay movements and the fact that it was removed from the list of mental diseases? Could the even more recent fad of the 90's be because it was recently removed from another list? I don't know. Just speculating.
How old are you? Obviously not very old.

"No, it is not that, it is merely that I feel this way, and I refuse to be a closet anti-homosexual."

Why are you an anti-homosexual? Give me one good reason.

"First, it is simply that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals with these issues -- much higher level"

Untrue. Maybe back in the day when they were molesting them with their instruments trying to turn them straight, but not so much anymore. And even if they do, what chances are there it has anything to do with their sexual orientation? Why can't it just be societal constraints or the way they were born? Where do you draw the correlation, and where's your data supporting it.

All of your data is impartial and biased. it's complete bullshit. You act like gays were never oppressed before, you're so ridiculously stupid. So far everything you've said has been untrue or absolutely retarded in and of itself or even completely contradictory. You accuse others of making a poor argument, but yours was the easiest to pull apart in a long time.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #40  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 01:18 PM       
Before feminization and women's rights and all that women did not exist and were not openly women. They were still closet women, because of this they were not prosecuted. Thought I should throw that in there.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 02:52 PM       
Who cares if homosexuals drink anyways? The entire British population(exaggeration) are alcoholics.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 10:22 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
I am great that you feel your personal experiences can stand in the way of actual, scientific polls (LOL).

My argument is moot when I post sources, and you post a personal anecdote?
Your sources were openly biased, and so are you. It amazes me that you expect to be taken seriously.

Do you think I'd be taken seriously if I were to post peace activist foundation funded study results in a thread about why the miltary is wrong?!
They were openly anti-gay, of course, but they used previous studies in their citations. They were clearly and factually cited from other studies, and documented. Hence the paranthesis and references to other studies throughout many of the reports.

Naturally, activist groups and foundations are the ones inclined to post these studies on the internet and publicize the information. Others aren't. They are scientists doing studies, and they publish them objectively, and then an activist site exploits the information.

That is the modus operandi.

Find me somethhing in the source that talks about how these studies were conducted by non-objective sources.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 10:28 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
It's not that I can't argue against "independant" sources, it's that I won't. Your sources are openly, obviously and heavily biased in your favor. They use misleading statistics in order to portray a picture that's not there. They link correlation with causation, which is wrong. As with the alcoholism, they don't compare the rate of alcoholism among homosexuals to the rate of alcoholism among heterosexuals. (Unless I missed it, but I'll go look again.)
(look at argument above)

Edit: Okay, yes, it did. However, now that I look at it again, I see another problem.

The study compares hetero and homosexuals as if they're two isolated populations of equal amounts of people. That's simply not true. If I remember correctly, only about 5% of the population of any given country is honest-to-God homosexual. If you take a population of say (to keep it simple) 1,000 people, and 5% of them are gay, how many people does that leave? 50. (I'm gonna continue to use round numbers to keep it simple, and since I suck at math.) Allowing 50% of those 50 to be alcoholics, that means 25 people are alcoholics and gay. [/quote]

I understand your point.

But do you know the methodology of the studies, or are you just grasping at straws?

Quote:
It is important not to assume that homosexuality causes drug or alcohol abuse. When gay men, lesbians and bisexuals internalize society's homophobic attitudes and beliefs, the results can be devastating. Society’s hatred becomes self-hatred. As a minority group, gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are victims of systemic and ongoing oppression. It can lead to feelings of alienation, despair, low self-esteem, self-destructive behaviour and substance abuse. Some gay men, lesbians and bisexuals resort to substance abuse as a means to numb the feelings of being different, to relieve emotional pain or to reduce inhibitions about their sexual feelings.

Substance abuse often begins in early adolescence when youth first begin to struggle with their sexual orientation. When surrounded by messages telling you that you are wrong and sick for who you are, eventually you may begin to believe it. Having to hide your identity and deal with homophobic comments and attitudes — often made by unknowing family and friends — can have a profound effect on you. Lesbians and gay men are also 7 times more likely to be the victims of crimes than the average citizen. In response to this overwhelming oppression and homophobia, many lesbian, gays and bisexuals use and alcohol and drugs to cope.
It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature. And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

Quote:
Edit II: Elsewhere on the McGill site you referenced, it says about 10% of the population is estimated to be gay, which seems kind of a liberal estimate to me, but even allowing that the number of gay alcoholics in our imaginary population begins rivalling that of heterosexual women alcoholics alone, which, I'll remind you, doesn't include men, in which the population of alcoholics is considerably greater than that of heterosexual women. Hey, you could argue with those statistics that being male causes alcoholism.
You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 10:47 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.
Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).

What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

Quote:
Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.
People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

Quote:
And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Quote:
Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.
I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

Quote:
You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.
That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.

Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 10:57 PM       
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 11:31 PM       
Kulturkampf: What exactly is so gross about homos fags and gays? My girlfriend sucks cock but I still love her and think she's not disgusting. Do you have a girlfriend? Is she nice?

Many people who actually follow through on homosexual desires and fantasies are hedonists, otherwise they might decide that the risk of social rejection is simply too high a price for momentary pleasure, and sublimate their urges through paraphilias or aversive self-conditioning. Thus we get a larger percentage of honest-to-god cocksuckers who go a little too heavy on the toot and apple martinis, or whatever they drink.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 11th, 2006, 11:38 PM       
You're wasting your time if you're actually attempting to communicate with him. He's already discerned that the false cause and cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies are just liberal slanders for his very factual arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 01:22 AM       
There was an actual argument in that post? I thought he was just sharing his opinion, which he stands by proud and true!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 01:25 AM       
I think I've said this as a joke before to various pissants, but for serious kulturkampf, you might consider the anus.com forums as more appropriate for your wild and contreversial philosophical views.
unless you just want to be a dick, in which case, carry on.
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 12th, 2006, 02:34 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.
Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).
There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found."



Quote:
What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.
That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

Quote:
Quote:
Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.
People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?
No, homosexuals.

Quote:
Quote:
And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.
Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

Quote:
Quote:
Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.
I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?
I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

Quote:
Quote:
You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.
That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.
Men have higher occurrence of alcoholism, and so... They are more likely to be alcoholics. And alcoholics are of course far more likely to be drunk drivers, commit crimes while intoxicated (due to a lack of inhibitions, etc.).

How are men not more inclined to do something if there is a higher occurrence?

Are you so left wing you forgot basic principles of science?

"4 out of 10 black birds swoop down on their pray from above, and only 1 out of 20 red birds are inclined to do this."

Is it wrong to say that black birds are inclined to swoop down on their pray?

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Quote:
Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Yes.

Now tell me, what is the correlation for men to be drinkers and more inclined to alcoholism than women...?

A difference exists, and regardless of the cause, there is a difference.

From the example you provided, we can conclude there'll be more suicides in winter months, because that is where the direct evidence points.

From the example of homosexuals blatantly confessing a higher inclination to drug abuse... we can say that they will abuse drugs more.

What is the cause? We can debate that. I would agree, it is probably due to people not accepting their devious ways, that they turn to drugs alcoholism.

But the fact remains.

Quote:
I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
Correlations do exist, and whatever the cause is irrelevent because the facts have been spelled out and yu refuse to accept them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.