Just thought you mightg want to hear the other siide of the story
Wes
Printable View
Just thought you mightg want to hear the other siide of the story
Wes
Well, Wes, minds far greater than mine are still unable to decide on the "correct" definition, and as I do not have the egotism to describe the authors/editors of such works as WordNet 2.0, Merriam-Webster's various dictionaries, the Encarta Dictionary, Blackwells' various Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, etc as "тАж..incorrectтАж..sophmoricтАж..ridiculo us .тАж. just wrong" I, at least, fully agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes
As I have said before, and at least some have agreed, I really cannot see why calling a recognised and legal gay partnership "marriage" is so important - and, personally, I think that "marriage", at least technically, can only be between a man and a woman: there are simply some things that physically only a man can do and others that only a woman can, and marriage involves some of these (or at least the option for them). Whether the homophilics like it or not this will always be the case and there is nothing that can be done to change that. I had actually never come across the terms homophilia and homophilic before but, dare I say it, some of the homophilics here appear just as bigoted as some of the homophobes elsewhere!
Art, how very true - the definitions appear to be as varied as they are many, as clearly stated by The International Encyclopedia of Communication: "тАж.. There are innumerable definitions of norms in the social science literature.....".Quote:
Originally Posted by Art
Even Blackwell contradicts itself: "..... Norms are the distributions of scores (means, standard deviations, etc.) for a test's various reference groups ....." vs "..... Norms are the unwritten rules that provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors by members of a group....." and even " .....the тАЬnormalтАЭ course of action .....".
I imagine that one's preferred definition very much depends on whether you are right or left brain dominant - I have always been very strongly "left brain", which is probably why I always go for the more rational/logical choice rather than the more imaginative/holistic one. It is clearly "the subject of continuous theoretical debate " but as I prefer to deal in practicalities rather than theory such debate will have to be done without me!
Cat got your tongue on this part, Pissyboy, or were you so busy deciding whether you were "a college professor who does research in this area (gays and lesbians in the workplace)" (28 May - 0341hrs) or "in the school of business - the management department. I teach organizational behavior and gender and diversity in organizations" (28 May - 0811hrs) that you missed it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pissyboy
I have already given my reasons for my maintenance of my anonymity elsewhere, at length ( anonymity-t15161.html ), the primary one being that I prefer my posts to be able to stand on their own merits without relying on any claims of expertise if at all possible, so there is little point in my sending you my CV in return for one you have found while taking out the trash.
While you are doing your research on what I have claimed to be an expert in, maybe you can also check on those quotes(*) you refer to where you say I have been "adding or subtracting words to suit my tastes.....When you change other people's words then quote them it is really very very dishonest." and give some specific examples of those too (before and after, and a link) to back up your accusations and to show just who is being "very very dishonest". Or maybe you are too busy .....
*: "quotes", just to help you out as your Use of English skills appear limited, are identified by being put in quotation marks (" ") and usually italicised. The example you have previously given, concerning a technical training course, was not a quote but a not unreasonable assumption which made no material difference to the post, whether correct or not, and which when the point was raised I made very clear was only an assumption which, according to information subsequently given by the OP, I stated was incorrect.
Well, Wes, minds far greater than mine are still unable to decide on the "correct" definition, and as I do not have the egotism to describe the authors/editors of such works as WordNet 2.0, Merriam-Webster's various dictionaries, the Encarta Dictionary, Blackwells' various Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, etc as "тАж..incorrectтАж..sophmoricтАж..ridiculo us .тАж. just wrong" I, at least, fully agree with you.
As I have said before, and at least some have agreed, I really cannot see why calling a recognised and legal gay partnership "marriage" is so important - and, personally, I think that "marriage", at least technically, can only be between a man and a woman: there are simply some things that physically only a man can do and others that only a woman can, and marriage involves some of these (or at least the option for them). Whether the homophilics like it or not this will always be the case and there is nothing that can be done to change that. I had actually never come across the terms homophilia and homophilic before but, dare I say it, some of the homophilics here appear just as bigoted as some of the homophobes elsewhere!
Art, how very true - the definitions appear to be as varied as they are many, as clearly stated by The International Encyclopedia of Communication: "тАж.. There are innumerable definitions of norms in the social science literature.....".Quote:
Originally Posted by Art
Even Blackwell contradicts itself: "..... Norms are the distributions of scores (means, standard deviations, etc.) for a test's various reference groups ....." vs "..... Norms are the unwritten rules that provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors by members of a group....." and even " .....the тАЬnormalтАЭ course of action .....".
I imagine that one's preferred definition very much depends on whether you are right or left brain dominant - I have always been very strongly "left brain", which is probably why I always go for the more rational/logical choice rather than the more imaginative/holistic one. It is clearly "the subject of continuous theoretical debate " but as I prefer to deal in practicalities rather than theory such debate will have to be done without me!
Cat got your tongue on this part, Pissyboy, or were you so busy deciding whether you were "a college professor who does research in this area (gays and lesbians in the workplace)" (28 May - 0341hrs) or "in the school of business - the management department. I teach organizational behavior and gender and diversity in organizations" (28 May - 0811hrs) that you missed it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pissyboy
I have already given my reasons for my maintenance of my anonymity elsewhere, at length ( anonymity-t15161.html ), the primary one being that I prefer my posts to be able to stand on their own merits without relying on any claims of expertise if at all possible, so there is little point in my sending you my CV in return for one you have found while taking out the trash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong Again Go Fuckyourself - Still very sophomoric. My students do better Google searches and have better excuses for handing me bullshit for research papers. You lying skills are good but need imporvement.
The definitions posted by Art of social norms in the sociology and psychology literature are very clear. Social and sexual norms are behaviors acceptable by society - the definition I gave.
Admitting you are no expert in the area is a good start.
However, trying to define the term 'norms' to fit your needs when applied to sociological and psychological processes makes you plain stupid. They have clear definitions accepted by the disciplines.
You may not like the accepted definitions but it is stupidity defining them to your liking.
Also, you used the word 'homophilics' тАУ You are using it in the negative sense - refer to your posing above - almost as a substitute for homophobes. It has the exact opposite meaning of how you are using the word. It is the opposite of homophobic.
I am a college professor; I do research in the area of gays and lesbians in the workplace. I teach in the school of business, specifically the management department and yes I do teach organizational behavior and gender and diversity in organizations.
No inconsistencies тАУ sorry to disappoint.
I assume the reason you do not want to swap CVs is because your self-importance is not supported by your accomplishments.
LetтАЩs see your self-reported expertise.
When you claimed to be able to interpret Bayesian statistics, which requires training and expertise - were you implying that you knew what you were talking about?
I guess I should have assumed you were full of shit and not expertise.
Sorry, my mistake.
Ah, at last a reason for being simple minded, I see no need to write such long dissertations on what words are real and what is not nor who is wrong or who is right. Opinions are like assholes, we all have one. Dictionaries are for a reason and If I type a work that spell check will not correct, I assume I need to reword my sentence to accommodate the lack of intellect as to use a word that does not Yet exist,
So it is true the difference between our culture and that of heterosexuals is much more flagrant and produces no children of our own and continues to produce new gay people to carry on our cause. I suspect sooner or later we will see a marriage of some sort between man and man. However, it will be short term and likely increase the statistical increase of divorce should they decide to include us in that category as well. I suspect they will give two statical arguments , how bad it was with divorce before gays had the right to marry and how much worse, by percentage it is now that they are included. Personally, I would hate to be bound by the laws that pertain to marriage. The legal consequences of sleeping with the boy next door and the resulting divorce could become expensive. So far, I have been though three 8 year relationships, all of which I was able to keep all my possessions, including the Volkswagen.
Wes
The late great Homintern believed the same as I recall. If I search hard enough there may be an old post, I think of his, where he quotes the Episcopalian liturgy giving reasons for marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
You really think he's dead? I know exactly where he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious
Locked up with George?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Bunny
Ah my dear Curious one, let us leave the suffering of individuals to their suffering. In as much as they have made a bed they must now sleep in. Homiturns bed is eternal As said in the movie The Day earth stood still " nothing ever dies, the universe wastes nothing, everything is simply transformed" I hope. If not then dust to dust. But for the Living at least let them alone in their misery as best we can. After Our PM I would have hoped George would not have been mentioned again
All the best my dear Curios one. You should try the Philippines again the men are wonderful. And pretty much free. Not costing more than rearing your own son.
Wesley
Well, at least I am in good company, along with The International Encyclopedia of Communication ("тАж.. There are innumerable definitions of norms in the social science literature.....") and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
That is exactly, and obviously, how I intended to use it: "some of the homophilics here appear just as bigoted as some of the homophobes elsewhere!". I could alternatively have used the term "homophile" ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =Homophile ).Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
Such an assumption, regardless of whether it is correct or not, has no foundation - the "norm" for your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
I have never made such a claim. "Bayesian" has been used 4 times on this Forum: three times by you and once (surprise, surprise) by Homintern.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy
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.
Try again.
"I guess I should have" known you would be totally unable to back up anything you have said. Surprising that a "researcher" is unable to find anything from a single source (this forum), with a simple to use search engine, to support his repeated claims/accusations; statistically, of course, that would indicate that the "researcher" is either wrong or not a "researcher" at all.
No-one will ever know until they try, Wes, and things may be very different "over there" (in the US), where the divorce rate is apparently between 40 and 50 % ( http://www.aboutdivorce.org/us_divorce_rates.html ) , but in the UK where Civil Partnerships and Marriage have identical divorce laws the married (straight) divorce rate is around 12%, while the civil partnership (gay) rate is below 1% ( http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch= ... =&id=78650 ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley
In Holland gay and straight divorce rates were much the same at around 1% ( http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News ... 59,00.html ), while in Sweden, however, the reverse to the UK is true ( http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html ) and gay rates are much higher.
It is difficult to compare directly, as there are so many variables: in some countries common law marriage/partnerships hold much the same rights as formal marriage/partnership so there is little reason for a formal marriage or divorce, in others divorce rates are low due to the influence of the church and couples just "separate", etc.
Lies, damned lies and statistics (and damned statisticians, real or imaginary!)