Jesus, Mary and Joseph... the fag lost. Get the fuck over it already.
Printable View
Jesus, Mary and Joseph... the fag lost. Get the fuck over it already.
The post you are probably referring to is one where I questioned the validity of a study on homosexuality as an inherited trait being based on a limited study of only one generation; nothing to do with being "able to interpret Bayesian statistics", simply the logical reasoning that any study of an inherited trait has to be made over a number of generations. You (surprise, surprise) claimed superior expertise and personal knowledge and said the study was valid but beyond the understanding of those lacking your training and ability (the rest of us). Had I known the term "homophile" at the time I would probably have used it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many definitions of the word norms. However, the word norms has specific meaning in specific context. You are trying to use the word as it is used in terms of measurement. However, if you go deeper and look up the words 'sexual norms' it has a specific meaning. Sexuall norms are the behaviors deemed acceptable by society. So you are either plain stupid or willfully ignorant when you imply that 'sexual norms' are about the average sexual behaviors of people. Sexual norms are the sexual behaviors along a continuum of behaviors that society finds acceptable. The reason it is important is that as straight people interact with gays, they have less hostility toward gays and lesbians and come to see homosexuals and homosexual sex as within the acceptable sexual norm. To say that the тАШsexual normтАЩ is some sort of statistical measure is to not understand stats and to not understand how the phrase тАШsexual normтАЩ is used in the social sciences.
You wrote this in a previous thread.
KT, I was aware that Pissyboy wrote it, but I thought that there was at least some chance of a rational explanation from you of just why you agreed that control and power formed the basis of all relationships,
You added words and emphasis to my original post to suit your own needs. What I detect is that you have a pattern of changing words and selective cut and pasting to bolster your opinions. When you change my words and add your own emphasis then you become a lying sack of shit who is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
I do refer to that article about gayness and heredity. You give a strong critique of the paper offering up your 'expert' (my words - again you should use me as your role model as I do not change other people's post) views on the paper, however, you acknowledge that you know shit about the methods (Baysean) they used, you have admitted you donтАЩt know shit about the area of gay and lesbian research, and as seems to be typical you misrepresent the elements of the paper to fit your own agenda. Again I would say that the overall pattern makes you a lying sack of shit who is intellectually dishonest so your OPINIONS about the validity of the paper are shit. As I have said I would be happy to swap CVs but of course you are such a lying sack of shit that you run away and hide from the offer.
The only PM I got from Homi was a note basically agreeing with me that you were an asshole and he encouraged me to keep giving you grief.
Beach BunnyтАж solve the mysteryтАж What did happen to that loveable old cunt Homi?
Finally, I don't give a rat's backside about who won American Idol but I would fuck the gushingly handsome winner, his wife could watch if they wanted to do a three way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUmzGl0z ... re=popular
No question that the best singer lost because the crazy nutters of middle America etc could not stand for someone who may be gay to be the winner.
Looks like the UK public are biased against fat old biddies who look like the back end of horses.
I leave it to The International Encyclopedia of Communication, again, to give their view: "тАж.. There are innumerable definitions of norms in the social science literature.....". You, of course, may be more expert then they (I emphasise "may").Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
What words? As I requested before, and as you have never been able to do "give some specific examples of those too (before and after, and a link) to back up your accusations".Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
Untrue, yet again. I have never made any such acknowledgement or admission (if I have, again please quote me with a link).Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
Again, please quote me and give a link to the misrepresentation - my primary criticism of it (although there were several others) was that inherited traits cannot be validated by a study of a single generation, which was all that their findings were based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
So what? You don't. My second reason for using this board (the first, as mentioned elsewhere, being its soporific value) is that it is excellent for anger management. I am not the most patient person, so by pointing out the shortcomings and stupidity of those such as you I expend any temper/irritation/irritability etc which I may otherwise vent on those who I actually care about, which I would subsequently regret - a win-win situation, even for you as you appear to thrive on the attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
You appear to have a fixation either about my CV or about sending me yours. Bizarre. I have no interest in your CV, as I am not interested in taking the time and effort it would require to validate it; similarly, you would have no means of validating mine (my name, for example, never appears on the internet except on confidential sites which you do not have access to, such as government tax records). I have, as I have said, given my primary reasons for my anonymity elsewhere, however I have had no hesitation in giving my personal details to those on this board who have corresponded with me where it served a purpose, whom I respected as posters (irrespective of whether I agreed with their views or not), and whose confidentiality I consider I could rely on ( I have yet to be let down). You do not meet any of those requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
I look forward hopefully, but not expectantly, to reading any of the "specific examples" of my transgressions "(before and after, and a link) to back up your accusations", which it is not unreasonable to ask you to provide if such accusations are valid. I would have expected better from a "college professor", but your responses have been quite up to my expectations.
Well, she still managed second place which is a lot more than I would have done. What amazed me was seeing both her and the winning dance troupe making the headlines on Thai News (Channel 7, I think) last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Bunny
Which is exactly what Adam the Fag managed. One would think if there was such a strong anti-gay (or perceived gay) bias, he would not have even made it into the top ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
I leave it to The International Encyclopedia of Communication, again, to give their view: "тАж.. There are innumerable definitions of norms in the social science literature.....". You, of course, may be more expert then they (I emphasise "may").
Again you are just being willfully ignorant тАУ the word norm has specific meaning in specific context, which you ignore. The problem is you ignore the context of word and seem to think you can apply any definition of the word in any context...Uuuuhhhh.... that is just plain wrong.
Sexual norms, which are specific categories of social norms are acceptable behaviors not statistical measures as you have insisted.
тАЬSocial norms entail learned expectations of behavior or categorization that are deemed desirable, or at least appear as unproblematic (Sherif 1936) for a specific social group in a given situation (тЖТ Social Norms).тАЭ The quote is direct from The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Sorry you definition of a sexual norm as some statistical average is just plain wrong. I assume you have no training in the social sciences, no training in methods or statistics, and you insist that a sexual norm is a statistical average. You really are the most ignornat poster of this board... well there may be a few others more ignorant..
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology
"Norms are informal rules that guide social interaction. They are, as Cristina Bicchieri (2006) calls them, тАЬthe rules we live by.тАЭ As such, norms constitute a critical component in the makeup of human cultures and therefore play a highly significant role in determining what it means to be human. When codified, norms are rendered laws or other types of institutionalized regulatory strictures. When conceived without moral consequence, the term can also refer to mere behavioral regularities, even though adherence or lack thereof to these can and often does result in significant consequences (e.g., it would be highly unusual as well as probably harmful to name an American child Adolf Osama or, depending on one's constructed gender, Sue). Variously defined even by sociologists themselves, there is perhaps no other sociological concept more regularly and widely deployed in everyday talk, nor one about which more has been written and discussed. It is therefore not surprising that a concept as equally vague as it is elemental to the sociological enterprise is also one that is the subject of continuous theoretical debate. Typically considered the founder of modern sociology, ├Йmile Durkheim famously theorized society as both a system of integration involving social bonds and institutions and, even more importantly, as a normative order sui generis"
You definition of norms was about statistical averages. (I think I have to repeat myself so that you finally get the message) The definitions I have posted from your own source and the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology clearly indicate that norms are about the rules of social interaction (the context of how I am using sexual norms) and not measuring some average -- so you think that your definition superceeds the definition of the founder of modern sociology --- well gee you must think you are an expert in sociology? I suspect that you will seize upon the phrase that it 'is the subject of continous theoretical debate', and try to argue from there that you are correct... sorry wrong - the meaning of the word societal norms is not in flux it is what are and are not societal norms or what behaviors are social norms are in flux. Exactly what I have been stating and a society norm et is not about statistical averages as you insist.
So again, using the word 'norm' and applying in an incorrect way is just plain ignorant.
No repeat after me...I gf am ignorant of how to use the word 'norm'. Write that on the blackboard 100 times and show me when you are done.
What words? As I requested before, and as you have never been able to do "give some specific examples of those too (before and after, and a link) to back up your accusations".
Your quote -
KT, I was aware that Pissyboy wrote it, but I thought that there was at least some chance of a rational explanation from you of just why you agreed that control and power formed the basis of all relationships,
I did not write that тАШcontrol and power formed the basis of all relationships.тАЩ. This is an example of adding words and emphasis to my post to bolster your own opinion. And again I think it makes you a lying piece of shit. I expect you to offer up some bullshit that you were not refering to my post and that you really did not ...blah balh balh.. lying shit.
As for the paper in question тАУ I admit I am incorrect. I had assumed that someone who made such forceful posts about a subject must think they know something about the subject at hand. I do apologize for mistaking postings based on pure ignorance for statements about some underlying expterise - my mistake. And do try to keep that anger issue under control. As I recall, though I could be wrong, I read something about the 'statistical norm' (notice the careful use of the word 'statistical norm' not just norm but statistical norm which has a very specific meaning -- again you should use me as your role model when using that word) for people who need anger management. As I recall they tended to be angry (of course), bitter, humorless, and self-important. I will try and find the link. I know you will be intersted in the proper used of the word statistical norm :)
So I again will say, because as you know this is my area of expertise. Sexual norms do change over time. As heteros get to know homos, their opinions change and homosexuality can and (IMHO) will become a sexual norm. That is clearly happening in the US and Europe. Gay marriage (which I have to agree with you I don't see why people bother - but it seems to be important to the lesbians) is becoming more and more accepted in the US and Europe. I would call that homosexuality becoming more of a norm... (used in the proper way of acceptable social behavior).
(used in the proper way of acceptable social behavior).
_________________
It is Better stated, put up with rather than Accepted, the most likely scenario is that people will eventually get tired of voting it down. Christianity will never accept it but, Christianity as well seems to be on the way out. There will always be dissent the most likely problem is with your closet Queen masquerading as a heterosexual and trying to hide their particular proclivity... your argument over such a small definition is getting old, why not exchange emails and or write a dissertation on the issue and exchange term papers...
Wes
What about Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious
In Islamic countries the frequency of male-male sex is in all likelihood traditionally higher than in Western countries, where male-male sex is now increasingly limited to males with a gay identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Cate
The ┬╗gay liberation┬л was an exclusively ┬╗gay liberation┬л, not a ┬╗male liberation┬л from the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. It was very short-sighted not to proselytize the ┬╗heterosexual┬л world, because small minorities are time and again endangered. The border that separates male-female and male-male sex has become even more impenetrable.
Male-male sex of partners without a gay identity is decreasing in Western countries and will decrease in other countries as well with the advancing ┬╗gay liberation┬л or ┬╗gay colonisation┬л. On balance, there will be less male-male sex in the near future. Sexual revolution, freedom of choice? No chance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
Version 1.01 All that counts is the ┬╗forceless force of the better argument┬л. Why not quote the devil?Quote:
Originally Posted by In ┬╗Sexual Behavior in the Human Male┬л (1948), Alfred C. Kinsey
Version 1.1Quote:
Originally Posted by In ┬╗Colonialism and Homosexuality┬л (London: Routledge, 2003:100), Robert Aldrich
You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in quoting Henry Cate.
[quote=Beach Bunny]Which is exactly what Adam the Fag managed. One would think if there was such a strong anti-gay (or perceived gay) bias, he would not have even made it into the top ten.[/quote:utdpfcpn]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Gone Fishing":utdpfcpn
Unless one were one of the many homophilics on this board (I am beginning to like that word, in cas you had not noticed!)
Another unfounded assumption,as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Wrong again. Try something specific, that stands or falls on its own merits here(such as your baseless accusations) instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Wrong again. I was referring specifically to your post, and that is exactly what I meant. I never said that those were your exact words (a quote), but unless you are trying to find a substantial difference between "in charge" and "in control" it is an accurate and objective summary of your post. The full post is at is-it-really-lying-t17586-45.html?hilit=control (page 3), as you need to refresh your memory, but your critical sentences (unedited beween full stops) are as follows (I quote):Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
"All relationships are about power - and who has power in what domain and in what situation........."Who is in charge" in a partner type relationship? That question should always arise. ...How those questions are answered IMHO is the basis of a partnership... It is foolish to believe that those type of questions about power can be ignored."
Feel free to try again.
Wrong again; both your original assumption and your conclusion are, as usual, unfounded. I have never claimed any expertise in this area, neither have I said that I am ignorant in it. Your comprehension skills are letting you down again - being uninterested in a subject does not necessarily mean being ignorant of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
The only true thing you have said so far (although it was taken out of context).Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Try harder - at least it will make you feel important for a little while, alhough I doubt anyone else is reading this.
Ah...it is childish to get into pissing contests about the meaning of words..but for me it is summer break and I need the diversion..All the cute boys have gone away for summer vacation.
Wrong again. I was referring specifically to your post, and that is exactly what I meant. I never said that those were your exact words (a quote), but unless you are trying to find a substantial difference between "in charge" and "in control" it is an accurate and objective summary of your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this in the nicest way - DonтАЩt tell me what I meant you stupid fuck. It is clearly not an accurate and objective summary of my post тАУ If you are claiming that you are an objective observer of my posts then you need to go back to the dictionary and not only look up the phrase тАШsexual normтАЩ but you need to get a clear understanding of the meaning of the word objective тАУ tsk tsk. Changing words and meaning is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
If you were my student I would give you a failing grade.
Now write 100 times on the black board тАУ I gf am a lying piece of shit.
Well at least you have stopped trying to claim that you used the phrase тАШsexual normтАЩ correctly тАУ LetтАЩs see those posting which clearly showed you had used the word incorrectly must have done the trick. Good job GF is detect progress in your intelectual development. You get a gold star.
My area of research is gays and lesbians in the workplace and I read extensively other literature on the general topic of gays and lesbians. It is clear from your posting that you have no understanding of the research or in general how social science research is conducted. It is also clear to me that you have no training or background in statistics. So your comments on these matters are purely uninformed opinion. Sure you donтАЩt want to swap CVs? I would be happy to prove my expertiseтАжdo I detect a bit of fear on your part that you will be shown to be a big fat liar? Liar Liar Liar - (if we are being childish lets go all the way)
I will go back to why IMHO this is an important topic. We as gays and lesbians have the ability to shape the perceptions of many of the heteros that we interact with. Interacting with them tends to lessen their negative feelings of homosexuality and homosexuals. IMHO тАУ that is an important idea and an important strategy for gaining greater acceptance.
Well, I lived in a Muslim country for ten years; I found this to be trueтАж They have as many or more gays, but very few that are openly gay. Obviously, they like to keep both of their heads where they are. I would say that Islam in general is much more anti gay than Christian and western thought. But, what can I say I had a 6 year lover there but as far as I know no one knew we were lovers, men living with men is accepted because of the economics there are few that can afford to live like I lived on their own and it often takes more than one to pay the bills. If you get out of the city, it really gets serious and anything that might happen would bring immediate and aggressive rebuke, they would be thrown out of the family encouraged to marry to cover their proclivity and as well have children, so the family can maintain its standing among other Muslims.
The USA is changing slowly but changing, I was there when it was cool to be gay just before the HIV problem came along. Then everything changed and we were set back 20 or 30 years. Now things seem to be changing since we have learned about safe sex and now the straight people are still going bareback. I do not mean to belittle those who bareback, I do like my porn bareback but engaging enough to realize I need to play safe.
As to the question, it was really an open question that brought with it a lot of room to wiggle. Exactly waht were you asking if I did not hit it with my rabbit trails.
All the best my dear Curious,
Wes
THE PROLIFIC MR CATEQuote:
Originally Posted by Curious
'Henry Cate' is now posting voraciously on Ting Tong Board under the handle 'Jaafar'(possible sp?). Whenever an innocuous reference to Sawatdee comes up he jumps in with all four feet and slangs it off just as voraciously. 'Jaafar' has issues ... but we all knew that.
'Jaafar' is a shortened version of his original handle on Sawatdee a few years ago (which he also took a powder from, in a very similar dramatic fashion). He first appeared on the very very early original Dreaded Ned board under the handle of 'Tex'.
AMERICAN IDOLICITY
But, to the original topic: that American Idol show is the most bloated, mediocre, over-hyped piece of unwatchable trash I've come to expect from Fox . . . i.e. the variety show version of a Glenn Beck right wing rant . . . . wherein (also being an i.e.) I can easily assume a generalized homophobia to be a socially acceptable stance.
But, the Gay Guy's voice sucked as well.
I didn't - merely what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
If I were your student I would deserve one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pissyboy
What is this fixation with my CV? I have made my reasons for not giving you mine or making it public very clear. If you would be so happy to "prove" your expertise then why not do so here? If you do not, after all this rhetoric, anyone bored enough to still be reading this thread may "detect a bit of fear on your part that you will be shown to be a big fat liar? Liar Liar Liar" !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Wes and Smiles, I am surprised to see the two of you here. My excuse is that we are in the middle of a thunderstorm - what are yours? Surely you must have something (or someone) better to do? Maybe you should try reading "In his Majesty's Footsteps" by Police General Vasit Dejkunjorn, the most boring book I have ever read - or, to be strictly accurate, half read - only for the most desperate of insomniacs and the most bored of the bored.
Well, I'm slumming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
Not sure about Wes . . . but then, I'm never sure about Wes, his every turn of phrase and regular deviations from the previous posts, topic, and general direction leave me head-scratchin' every time. Kind of charming really.
If I were your student I would deserve one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
---------------------------------------------------
Yes you would fail my class. It is a positive sign in personal development that you recognize your limitations. However, I do have a soft spot for my special needs students (the slow ones who do not quite get it). I would sit you down and in the nicest way possible explain that you do not have a facility for factual analysis but more for creative fiction. I would then encourage you to switch to the English department where putting your fantasy to paper would be more appropriate.
So you are not going to present us with "your" CV after all?
A wise, but hardly a surprising decision.
╪г╪н┘Т┘Е┘О┘В ╪о╪п╪з ╪н╪з┘Б
And you international man of mystery - What about you? The aura of a secret agent hangs over you. Could you be Austin Powers iligitimate child? Your past is shrouded in mystery...Send your CV at anytime and I will be happy to swap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
I am a mildly successful college professor at a large midwestern university with a very modest publishing record who loves his job, and I am very proud of my accomplishments. And I am the first to admit my accomplishments are very modest.
It actually takes effort to skip over this never-ending thread when I'm online. I hope it dies soon given that the two main protagonists have provided more than ample proof that there's a substantial difference between respectful debate and moronic name-calling.
so whats the consensus..are the american people who watch American Idol homophobes?
They may be - but I see no evidence to support that. The country-western singer has been favored in prior seasons and, frankly, regardless of how good his voice is, the runner-up's style (makeup, hairdo, and clothing) probably made the winner look all the more "all-American."Quote:
Originally Posted by giggsy
As you are an expert on the latter and have no experience whatsoever of the former I will leave this thread, to which you appear to be strangely drawn, to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob
Thank you, sir, and I hereby donate it to the Colonel wherever he may be.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone Fishing
...he's closer than you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob
Back to the original topic (American Idol Homophobia). I was surprised to see on CNN News today that Clay Aiken (the skinny white geek), who was beaten into second place in American Idol 2 by Ruben Studdard (the fat black slob), was also gay. Maybe there is a conspiracy after all.....
He lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Bunny
IMHO - Because of the persistent racism in the US, I am surprised that Ruben Studdard won the contest. Maybe (big maybe) when it came down to a black guy or a rumored fag -- In the minds of many Americans it was the lesser of two evils. It could be that homophobia is more potent than racism in the US.
I have read quite a bit of the scholarly literature on racism in the US but it is not my area of expertise.
There is a very famous set of experiments by a guy called Dovidio (and others) that looked at unconscious racism in the US. They labeled it aversive racism. The basic idea is that the white majority in the US has negative feelings toward people of color. It is the basic us versus them phenomenon that you see in many social interactions. Given the opportunity, the majority white population (us) will, in very subtle ways, discriminate against people of color (them). There are always exceptions and it may be that in the area of sports and entertainment black American have made such progress that aversive racism is not an issue.
With the American idol contest between a possible gay guy who was white, and a black guy тАУ It is possible that the general negative feelings toward blacks were overwhelmed by homophobia - just a thought. The alternative is that racism and homophobia had nothing to do with the outcome and it is all a bunch of hand wringing.
I would be happy to supply reading material to anyone who would like to read up on the issue of aversive racism.
GF please do read up on the issue of aversive racism before you post more idiot comments about an area in which you have no knowledge.
Same way Obama did, maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Ouch.. Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Bunny
I voted for the guy but I am also surprised that Obama won the election.
Maybe race is becoming less of an issue in the US. I don't see it but it may be happening. I have a job offer at a university in the US south. When I went down for interviews I was surprised at the latent racism that still exists. (in the local community not the faculty)
The aversive racism literature points out that if a person is extremely well qualified race generally is not an issue. However, given two equally but moderately qualified candidates for a job the white candidate will often be rated higher than the black candidate by white raters.
Maybe Prez Obama was so well qualified or appeared to be that race was not an issue.
And IMHO - american idol is about the triumph of mediocore talent. Let me qualify that by saying my singing is about as melodic as the sound of cats being strangled.
Are there that many racist Democrats? When the Republicans finally put a woman or person of color in office, then perhaps one could make a statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Like Condi Rice, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by mlomker
...and Colin Powell?
Racism is not my area of expertise but I am sure there are lots and lots of racist democrats. Whether it is more prominent in one party of another I do not know. However, the Democratic Party in the US appears to be more open and inviting to black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mlomker
Blacks are about 13% of the US population whites are about 75%.
My understanding is that about 10% of black voters in the US votes republican and they represent about 1% or 2% of the Republican Party. Rice and Powell were appointed not elected, the republicans do not have a very good record or attracting or electing public officials of color.
This is getting a bit outside of my area of expertise but one explanation for people of color that become prominent in the Republican Party is tokenism. A well known sociologist named Kanter studied the idea of tokenism in the workplace. Again this is a very basic explanation of the topic, but tokenism is pretty much what it sounds like, it is policies or practices of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, creating a false appearance of inclusive practices. A few people of a particular underrepresented demographic are given prominent positions and trotted out as examples of inclusiveness. For the Republican Party in the US, Rice and Powell would be their tokens. If you looked at the overall numbers the Republican Party is overwhelmingly white.