Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Even though I heard that Russian TV managed to live-broadcast the latest Eurovision so that Conchita didn't appear, or almost.

Eh eh, brilliant... it surely drives mad our pro gay/transsexual/whatever friends.

Women are inexorably different from men and childbirth is a miracle. You can’t buy womanhood from a surgeon. It can’t be acquired. You can be an incredibly feminine homosexual. You can even wear a dress. If you think you’re anything but a gay man in a dress, you’re a mentally ill gay man in a dress. Men are different. They have evolved to be better providers. They’re physically stronger. You can be a butch lesbian. You can even wear a strap-on, but you’ll never be a man. To deny these basic natural truths isn’t progressive. It’s “a state of mind that prevents normal perception,” which is the very definition of insane.
(source)

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-06-12, 23:03:14

Eh eh, brilliant... it surely drives mad our pro gay/transsexual/whatever friends.

I am not hearing this here, I am tired and must be dreaming.  Belfrager....never mind.    

Edit: You go for this Eric?

If a large Kardashian slammed into the Earth...

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-13, 14:56:29

If a large Kardashian slammed into the Earth...

She has.  People here find it too icky to talk about reasonably.    

I have a fairly clear stance about LGBT-etc.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-13, 06:39:56

I have a fairly clear stance about LGBT-etc.

In 100 words or less, what is your stance...just curious.    

[…] while trying to explain that no statistical model or test is necessary when looking at time series to discover whether there was a “trend”, I hit upon the following simplification.

I don’t have the facilities [here], so draw for yourself a standard x-y plot, with x the time and y the measure of interest, say temperature. At some early time point, place a dot for the first “temperature”. And at some later point, place a second dot higher than the first.

Now I ask you: was there a trend in the data?

This question causes distress in anybody who has had classical statistic training. They want to answer, but feel—and I do mean feel, not think—they cannot. The objections will be “There’s not enough data to tell” or “I can’t fit a model to that” and the like.

It is very difficult, almost impossible, for people with training in classical statistics to look at data without reflexively wondering what model “best explains” the data. This is why classical statistics, especially hypothesis testing, has to go. [a comment that reading the whole post would make plain : Put it in the same place as the Hotel’s “art.”]

Firstly, the probability models in the classical quiver do not say word one about what caused the data. If we knew what caused the data, we would not need probability models. We would just point to the cause! Probability models are used in the absence of knowledge of cause. And they should never be used to say what happened.

Let me repeat that, and let me shout it: probability models should never be used to say what happened. We can simply look at the data and it can tell us what happened.

So why does everybody think “fitting” a, say, straight line to time series data think that straight line explains the data? Well, that’s what they’re taught. Sort of. The concept of causality is vague in probability and statistics. So vague that people are allowed to take away from any analysis whatever they want.

This is why hypothesis testing is so toxic. Once a wee p-value is spotted, “randomness” or “chance” are rejected as causes and whatever other idea the researcher had in mind is said to be the cause. This is wrong in every possible way. Randomness and chance are never causes, and to assume a cause is not a proof this was the sole correct cause.

Secondly, the answer to our question is: there is no way to tell because there is no definition of trend.

We’ve talked about this many times. Trend is analogical. My idea of the word might not match yours. Thus in order to say whether there is a “trend”, we need a definition. If that is “any increase” then, yes, unambiguously, there was a trend. If the definition is “at least three increased in a row”, then there was no trend.
(source)

With that info in mind, James, I'd say that sexual orientation is a concept in search of a justification… And that the "scientific" evidence offered (so far?) is just bad statistics.

Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes.  He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him.

It is quite plain that what you, ersi and others abhor--is change.  You fear it and even dread it.  Rather than try to understand what the make up of our society really is, so perhaps we can get along better through that understanding, you want to keep the status quo. 

Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes.  He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him.  As social beings we stink, bees do better than us. 

(Yes, ersi, I suspect our language differences makes us seem to disagree… But I could be wrong! )

It may surprise you that, given the statistics in my own country, I think it makes sense to do away with the concept of marriage here. When more than half of children are born outside marriage, it demonstrates that marriage is socially meaningless, and in my opinion it doesn't make sense to carry on with a meaningless concept in law.

I think those statistics are about the same all over the western world, here, there, everywhere. Is that a symptom of the meaningless of marriage or is that the demonstration of a clear and orchestrated campaign to void marriage from its social meaning?

Law must, in the first place, protect the unity of the People and to maintain the continuity of the Nation along generations,  beyond the limitedness and selfish views of the individuals.

I will defend him, because he speaks to sensible concerns about a society that you don't care about.

Change for change's sake is as pointless asr status quo's sake.

Anyway, all evidence about the LGBT movement points to the worst case scenario - annihilation of the concept of marriage[...]

I argue against any rights for gays, pedophiles, and whatever - such rights would at best be meaningless, but more directly they are a mockery of the concept of rights.

Moreover, some of those groups are better considered criminals, really, for corrupting the youth.

Some people indeed work hard to deserve hate, yes, and LGBT movement is among them, but still, I don't argue from hatred. I argue from the point of view of common sense and of social continuity.

I don't hate even criminals in the way you imply. It's objectively factual that correction facilities are the best place for them, and it's better for everybody else too when criminals are kept where they belong. Try to argue against this. Similarly, all marginal groups have their correct marginal places.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-14, 07:19:55

I argue against any rights for gays, pedophiles, and whatever - such rights would at best be meaningless, but more directly they are a mockery of the concept of rights.

Moreover, some of those groups are better considered criminals, really, for corrupting the youth.

Your contempt overfloweth in this ridiculous and hateful attempt to equate gays with pedophiles.  Homosexuality is not contagious, you are simply homophobic--not to worry--people have all kinds of phobias. 

LBGTs simply want recognition as human beings (instead of monsters), that's all--they don't want any part of you...especially you.

The perpetuation of this type of bigotry is what I see.

Whether you wish to call it intellectual analysis of our society or some other nicety, it is still hate.

you are simply homophobic--not to worry--people have all kinds of phobias. 

LBGTs simply want recognition as human beings (instead of monsters), that's all

You are blinded by your inability to see all human beings as equal on this earth.