Author Topic: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn  (Read 1986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rubliw

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation: +17/-513
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2011, 02:02:39 PM »
Environmental mechanisms? Like, say, putting your son in a dress? Not allowing him to play with guns? Bats? Footballs, or anything deemed "Too Violent"?

Nope.   This is a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2011, 04:44:53 PM »
Nope.   
Really? Because it worked for my cousin Shawn.
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline rubliw

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation: +17/-513
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2011, 07:02:11 PM »
I'll see that bet, and raise you $100:

http://131.193.153.231/www/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html


You do realize that this study's conclusions are actually positive towards Wikipedia's credibility right (cautiously so, but positive nonetheless)?


... This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.


So Wikipedia has high credibility, though one shouldn't consider it totally reliable... then again, nothing else is.

Either way, I wasnt standing by the linked article in any case, I was just pointing to show Big Don what I meant by "environmental factors".. that I wasnt talking about making boys wear dresses, or forbidding them to play with guns...

Offline true_blood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
  • Reputation: +652/-817
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2011, 07:57:15 PM »
Quote
Have you looked at the health stats for gay men?  It may well be cheaper to treat the behavior than the resulting health problems...
Oh please, bring them on MrsSmith....
Throat cancer.
And no, I'm not being facetious.

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2011, 08:06:44 PM »
You do realize that this study's conclusions are actually positive towards Wikipedia's credibility right (cautiously so, but positive nonetheless)?


... This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.


So Wikipedia has high credibility, though one shouldn't consider it totally reliable... then again, nothing else is.

Either way, I wasnt standing by the linked article in any case, I was just pointing to show Big Don what I meant by "environmental factors".. that I wasnt talking about making boys wear dresses, or forbidding them to play with guns...


Actually, what it says, wilbur, is that wikipedia's credibility is weak - not completely in the shitter, but weak.

The point is, since you're so obtuse you don't get it, is that when you post a link to a wiki article and use it to substantiate your "position" (whatever the hell it is), you come off looking like a 14-year-old who has just written a "term paper."

I'm not talking necessarily about posting a link to a wiki article on superfluous or light-hearted stuff - rather the weighty stuff that you seem to love.

Grow up, wilbur. You can do it - it's been done before.
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline rubliw

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation: +17/-513
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2011, 09:23:33 PM »
Actually, what it says, wilbur, is that wikipedia's credibility is weak - not completely in the shitter, but weak.

The point is, since you're so obtuse you don't get it, is that when you post a link to a wiki article and use it to substantiate your "position" (whatever the hell it is), you come off looking like a 14-year-old who has just written a "term paper."

I'm not talking necessarily about posting a link to a wiki article on superfluous or light-hearted stuff - rather the weighty stuff that you seem to love.

Grow up, wilbur. You can do it - it's been done before.


Good grief man... just what "weighty" point do you think I was trying to make with the wiki cite?  You act like your winning a race... that I'm not even engaged in here.   Whatever argument you are trying to make here seems as pointless as it is incoherent.

But as for the reliability of wikipedia... it does fare pretty well, it generally matches the error rate of print encyclopedias (while containing with much, much more content).

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2011, 08:01:59 AM »
Good grief man... just what "weighty" point do you think I was trying to make with the wiki cite?

Even you're outdoing yourself in the Obtuse Department, which is already considerable.

I've said it before, and since you have a very, very short memory, I'll say it again -- you are a One Trick Pony. Your overriding agenda centers on supporting and defending homosexuality - and should you actually be so slow as to have forgotten your own meme, why don't you chug on over to Reply #25 and check it out yourself?

Quote
You act like your winning a race... that I'm not even engaged in here.   Whatever argument you are trying to make here seems as pointless as it is incoherent.

Am I being incoherent? Or are you being stupid? Or, perhaps more accurately, obtuse?

Like it or not, wilbur, yes, you are engaged. Let me help you understand where and when you've engage others, since you're incapable of figuring that out for yourself:

OP: This is where I referred to a California state law (AB2199) and tossed out some commentary about fudgepackers and rugmunchers "winning". Perhaps I didn't make this abundantly clear enough for you, but the whole point was to ridicule California's insistence that the gay lifestyle is something approximating "normal" to the point that throwing money at the problem somehow "fixes" it. And then the Christian social worker's comments were especially comical. But I digress.

The whole point of the OP was to illustrate the sheer ridiculousness of the entire gay agenda in California. Got it now?

Reply #5 - This is when you go off on your little lawyer bit and profess to pony up the language of the bill, and start spinning like a top. Nice try, but no cigar. The word "strawman" came to mind when I first read this, but as I didn't care that much about your evident interest in the subject, I let it go.

Reply #6 - Mrs. Smith responds to your spin.

Reply #9 - Your response to Mrs. Smith. At this point, your spinning top is whirling along so fast that the bearings are overheating.

Reply #10 - You throw down the gauntlet to Mrs Smith, demanding to see the health stats of gay men.

Reply #11 - Mrs. Smith dutifully responds with CDC data that clearly shows that gay men have all sorts of health issues, above the norm.

Reply #12 - You scoff at these data. Not surprising, coming from somebody who is enamored of gays.

Reply #13 - I was the OP, but hadn't chimed back in until this post. This is the point where I once again remind you of your One Trick Pony status, and stated that I didn't have time to walk down your "I Love Gays" highway - that Mrs Smith might. You conveniently ignored my post.

Reply #14 - MrsSmith responded and declined to engage you again, as she had more valuable and meaningful things to do than do talk to you about gays - it seems your mind is made up, yet you never pass up an opportunity to strut your "I Love Gays" meme.

Reply #19 - You waltz back into the discussion with this post, admitting that gay men have a litany of health problems, but scoff at her reasoning. You actually have the 'nads to point toward the government as being the charter of programs that "attempt to spread awareness" as to these issues.  :whatever:

Reply #20 - That wasn't enough chatter for one post, so you climb back on your soapbox and respond to a post by formerlurker.

Reply #24 - Big Don weighs in with a couple of sarcastic questions regarding your own weighty discourse about "biological and environmental mechanisms."  :rotf:

Reply #25 - This is where you leap in with your own weighty Wikipedia reference and source.  :thatsright:

Reply #26 - I came right back with my own sarcastic comment and posted a link that, among other things, discussed Wikipedia's rather dubious accuracy and evident bias - which, it can be argued, is a palpable thing - but that is a subject for another thread.
 
Reply #28 - Taking the bait, you jump right in there and start preaching about what I had already read. As if you can somehow "illuminate" the issue.  :whatever:

Reply #31 - Now you're whining because you don't follow and accuse me of being "incoherent". I submit to you, wilbur, that you're incapable of understanding sardonic wit and sarcasm because of your own One Trick Pony status. You think that everybody on the planet gives a shit about what you think about gays.

Maybe, just maybe, wilbur, I set you up. And you fell into it, hook line and sinker.

You're a putz, wilbur. A predictable putz who knows nothing else but what is put in front of him.

I've got a dog with better sense than that.  :lmao:

But, have a nice day!

Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline rubliw

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation: +17/-513
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2011, 10:40:18 AM »
Even you're outdoing yourself in the Obtuse Department, which is already considerable.

I've said it before, and since you have a very, very short memory, I'll say it again -- you are a One Trick Pony. Your overriding agenda centers on supporting and defending homosexuality - and should you actually be so slow as to have forgotten your own meme, why don't you chug on over to Reply #25 and check it out yourself?

Oh I remember the post.  My question had nothing to do with my memory...  it had to do with your odd little victory dance because you claimed I was "using Wikipedia to substantiate my position".   First of all, the Wikipedia link *only* pertained to my response to the sarcastic post by Big Don... and nothing else in this thread.  It simply isn't here or there when it comes to the OP or my argument.   Big Don made a sarcastic remark about the types of environmental factors which may play a part in the formation of one's sexual orientation, and the Wiki link was only to show what types of environment factors I was *actually* talking about... but I don't stand by the article's accuracy really, nor is it central to any major point in this thread.   And you call me the obtuse one...

Furthermore, the little study you linked most certainly doesn't support the claim you  are trying to make, AT ALL.  You obviously didn't read it, or if you did, failed to understand its significance.   You also don't seem to realize that this wasn't a rigorous study about the reliability of Wikipedia.   It was a study of the perceived credibility of experts and non-experts on a sampling of articles on Wikipedia.  In the study, the non-experts and experts were given articles to read (experts read articles pertaining to their expertise), and then were asked to rate their cynicism towards the articles.   The study found that experts felt positively towards the articles, but that non-experts displayed more cynicism.  That's it.   I don't know how to make it more clear than that... its quite obvious that you tried a quick google search to find something with which to debunk Wikipedia, found that study, poorly skimmed it (if at all), and mistakenly thought you found a piece that demonstrated the unreliability of Wikipedia.   Or perhaps you just thought I wouldn't read it.  

Either way... you've only demonstrated your own unreliability.

Oh, there was one little bit where they asked the people to catalog any mistakes they ran across while reading, and found that a whopping %13 of the articles had errors:

While perhaps not ‘high’ credibility, this certainly is not ‘low’. In the survey, all respondents under Condition 1 were asked if there were any mistakes in the article they had been asked to read. Only five reported seeing mistakes and one of those five reported spelling mistakes rather than factual errors. This suggests that 13 percent of Wikipedia’s articles have errors.

So if we go by those numbers, then there is a 87% chance that the article I linked is error free... how bout that.    A truly epic fail.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 10:48:47 AM by rubliw »

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2011, 10:44:35 AM »
Oh I remember the post.  My question had nothing to do with my memory...  it had to do with your odd little victory dance because you claimed I was "using Wikipedia to substantiate my position".   First of all, the Wikipedia link *only* pertained to my response to the sarcastic post by Big Don... and nothing else in this thread.  It simply isn't here or there when it comes to the OP or my argument.   Big Don made a sarcastic remark about the types of environmental factors which may play a part in the formation of one's sexual orientation, and the Wiki link was only to show what types of environment factors I was talking about...  I don't stand by the articles accuracy, nor is it central to any major point in this thread.   And you call me the obtuse one...Furthermore, the little study you linked most certainly doesn't support the claim you  are trying to make, AT ALL.  You obviously didn't read it, or if you did, failed to understand its significance.   You also don't seem to realize that this wasn't a rigorous study about the reliability of Wikipedia.   It was a study of the perceived credibility of experts and non-experts on a sampling of articles on Wikipedia.  In the study, the non-experts and experts were given articles to read (experts read articles pertaining to their expertise), and then were asked to rate their cynicism towards the articles.   The study found that experts felt positively towards the articles, but that non-experts displayed more cynicism.  That's it.   I don't know how to make it more clear than that... its quite obvious that you tried a quick google search to find something with which to debunk Wikipedia, found that study, poorly skimmed it (if at all), and mistakenly thought you found a piece that demonstrated the unreliability of Wikipedia.   Or perhaps you just thought I wouldn't read it. 

Either way... you've only demonstrated your own unreliability.

Oh, there was one little bit where they asked the people to catalog any mistakes they ran across while reading, and found that a whopping %13 of the articles had errors:

While perhaps not ‘high’ credibility, this certainly is not ‘low’. In the survey, all respondents under Condition 1 were asked if there were any mistakes in the article they had been asked to read. Only five reported seeing mistakes and one of those five reported spelling mistakes rather than factual errors. This suggests that 13 percent of Wikipedia’s articles have errors.

So if we go by those numbers, then there is a 87% chance that the article I linked is error free... how bout that. 

wilbur's back! yippee!

Reference the bolded section above - thanks for making my point for me.

You deliberately post a source that you know to be uncredible, then throw out the inevitable strawman - pissing great streams of fire - when you're called on it.

Wilbur, you're still a putz.
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline rubliw

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Reputation: +17/-513
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2011, 10:51:49 AM »
wilbur's back! yippee!

Reference the bolded section above - thanks for making my point for me.


Now this is getting sad..  havent I beat you up enough for one day, you come back for more?  :rotf:

The study you linked reported a %13 percent error rate (including spelling)...   %100 - %13 = %87....   you don't consider %87 good?

Do you even understand what the Wikilink was meant to address, and why it isnt relevant to the rest of the thread or my posts, except for one or two?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 10:54:56 AM by rubliw »

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: Calif. Welfare Code: Homosexuality Inborn
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2011, 02:41:23 PM »

Now this is getting sad..  havent I beat you up enough for one day, you come back for more?  :rotf:

The study you linked reported a %13 percent error rate (including spelling)...   %100 - %13 = %87....   you don't consider %87 good?

Do you even understand what the Wikilink was meant to address, and why it isnt relevant to the rest of the thread or my posts, except for one or two?

Sigh. Yes, I agree it's getting sad. As for "beating up", that's an absolute screamer!

You are caught up in your own bullshit - wikipedia is not a reputable source for most arguments, and I would submit that this strawman that you're relentlessly pushing, has demonstrated itself to be not reputable.

Just the mere submission of that cute little gem, wilbur, points toward your hopeless situation. You can't address the argument, so you throw a strawman in there.

I've seen it before and here it is again.

But tell you what, wilbur - since you delight in being the One Trick Pony, and seize all opportunity possible to express your love and admiration for the fudgepacking community, let's just agree to disagree on this, mmm-kay?

Because this back-and-forth is getting rather boring and I do have more important things to do - like shine my shoes, for instance.

Have at it, m'boy!   :-)
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.