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