Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SERVEFollow

#127 Apr 17 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
So, a recap, that's number one at women, money, music, movies, military, sports, universities and #3 at cars (production only). I know things such as life styles, laws, weather, location, etc. are all subjective and those alone can make a country "better or worse" than another, but you can't deny that objectively, the U.S. is at the top.


How is Miss Universe objective? How do most of those objctively measure what you say they do?

Son, I'm very dissapointed in you.
#128 Apr 17 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, a recap, that's number one at women, money, music, movies, military, sports, universities and #3 at cars (production only). I know things such as life styles, laws, weather, location, etc. are all subjective and those alone can make a country "better or worse" than another, but you can't deny that objectively, the U.S. is at the top.


How is Miss Universe objective? How do most of those objctively measure what you say they do?

Son, I'm very dissapointed in you.


Objective in that there is a tally consisting of numbers. Having four seasons isn't necessarily better or worse than having 2 seasons, but having 900 gold medals IS better than having 4 gold medals. Likewise, having the most Miss Universe wins is better than having less Miss Universe wins. The measurement is merely a measurement of wins vs losses, something you can objectively measure. Of course that doesn't say the women are "better", hence why I stressed "production" in "car production". Just because you pushed out a lot of cars, doesn't necessarily mean that those cars have any value in comparison to other cars.
#129 Apr 17 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
So you're not actually 'first in women' WHATEVER THE FUCK THAT MEANS AHHHHH AHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH after all, then, chap? or, at least, you admit that more Miss Universe medals doesn't prove that you are, objectively speaking?

ALTERNATE RESPONSE:

Quote:
Likewise, having the most Miss Universe wins is better than having less Miss Universe wins.


Is it? Is it really? Really, is it? Really, is it really?
#130 Apr 17 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
So thats Beauty Pageant entrants and education dealt with...And no doubt Joph would point out that New Zealand has all the orcs....music? err /lol mostly.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#131 Apr 17 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Glad to see you skipped over basic education, national debt, life expectancy. All things which define a strong country and all things that the US is not so good with. Last I checked they were ranked 6th overall for education (math/science/language) and 4th or 5th in life expectancy, also currently they hold the most debt (in a monetary language) than any other nation, at 60%(rougly) of their GDP which you so nicely provided us @ 14 trillion dollars, which means the US has more debt than most every other nation on that list does in GDP. (which means I guess they are tops in that department too.)

Best At Debt, Best at War. Lacking in everything else guess that means you are the best....
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#132 Apr 17 2011 at 10:58 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Explain how a poll of 1000 people does not represent the opinions of the US at large.

Go.
I was going to explain to you how you completely missed the point, but then I realized that it was obvious that you didn't reread my post (or the subsequent ones) or you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

So, how about rereading the post in question and THEN if you still don't understand my argument, I'll break it down for you. I mean, sheesh, the very first freakin sentence demonstrates my understanding of statics and Belkira even re-quoted it again. So, while I could derail the argument and go into Statistics, I would rather for you just reread the post and stay on topic.
Any point you'd try to make would be wrong because that premise itself is wrong. Swing and a miss again.

Almalieque wrote:
Maybe in your world, 1000 is relatively close to 300,000,000, but not by any logical stand point.
Once again, that doesn't matter when you're talking about opinion polling. 1000 is in fact a sufficient number. By the way, went back to check at what Belkira quoted/responded with, turns out she was just laughing at you. Real convincing:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
In other words, you know I'm right, but you've got an emotional argument to pretend that the numbers don't really say what you want them to say. A page right out of gbaji's book.

Talking to you is pointless. You ignore blatant evidence and make sh*t up. That, coupled with assumptions on what people really meant when answering a poll, is all you'll use to make up your mind. Heaven forbid you be shown actual numbers, because they don't matter.


It's very ironic and hilarious that you have the audacity to call anyone "emotional", you are by far the most emotional argumentative person on this forum. Like I said, I took the DoD survey and you're right, I don't know what people really meant, but guess what that means, neither do you. If you have a poorly worded option to include "positive, neutral or mixed", how can you claim anything?

Nice try, but I've been arguing against Internet sources for months now. First off, Most people don't search unbiasedly. Instead of searching "Same sex marriage U.S opinion", you would search "Majority of Americans Favor/support Same sex marriage", so of course you will receive sources supporting your claim. That doesn't make it the most accurate. All I can do is just google the opposite.

Secondly, examine the poll itself, who all was included? Did it include "majority of the U.S"? I doubt it as I don't recall ever participating in any such poll. That's why I said to look it at from a LOGICAL stand point.

Answer me this, do you or do you not agree with the logic that I presented about Republicans and Democrats? If not, tell me EXACTLY which part don't you believe in? Do you not believe that country is roughly divided into two parties? Do you not believe that MOST Republicans are AGAINST SSM? Do you not believe that not all Democrats support SSM? Do you not believe that there are some Democrats who only politically support SSM? Tell me which ones you disagree with?

It appears to me that you are the one ignoring the facts to stick to some random statistic based on emotion. Since you want numbers though, let me source you why your source is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States wrote:
Public opinion on same-sex marriage in the United States has been tracked by polling data for well over a decade. As of the year 2010, polls provide differing answers to the question of how the majority of Americans view same-sex marriage, although it is clear that support for same-sex marriage has increased over the past decade.

When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, although other U.S. polls taken that year did not reflect majority support.[1]

Opposition to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest.[2][3] Support for same-sex marriage correlates with lack of religious affiliation, young age,[4] Democratic Party affiliation, and residence in the Northeast and on the West Coast.[3]

.......

POLLS in 2011

Public support for gay marriage continues to edge upward. A national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted 2/22/11 – 3/1/11 among 1,504 adults, finds about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In a Pew Research survey conducted in 2009, just 37% backed same-sex marriage while 54% were opposed. Opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor. As has been the case since 1996, there is a wide partisan division on the question of same-sex marriage. Currently 57% of Democrats favor making it legal, while only 23% of Republicans agree. Independents (at 51% in favor) are more similar to Democrats than to Republicans, in part because 46% of Republican-leaning independents are supportive of same-sex marriage, along with 58% of independents who lean Democratic.[7]

A March 2011 telephone-survey of 1005 adults by ABC News and the Washington Post found that, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage. 53 percent of those polled supported same-sex marriage while 44 percent remained opposed; support was highest among younger Americans and lower among conservatives, Republicans, and evangelicals. Pollster Gary Langster describes this as a "milestone result that caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes". From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey. [8][9]

In March 2011, Democracy Corps conducted a survey of 1,000 likely 2012 election voters in 50 congressional districts considered political battlegrounds. It asked respondents to rate their feelings on the gay marriage issue on a 0-100 scale, with 100 being "very warm" or favorable feelings, and 0 being "very cold" or unfavorable feelings. 42% were on the "cool" or unfavorable side, and 35% were on the "warm" or favorable side.



1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation. There are high schools with more people than that.

Are you ready to do this from a logical point now and not some random poll?

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:09pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 12:11pm by Almalieque


lol

You're like the ******* child of gbaji and Varus. It's hilarious.

And more than a little scary.


Somehow calling the US military the best in the world isn't very convincing when it consists of people like you.



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 12:21am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#133 Apr 17 2011 at 11:22 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
The U.S. performs pretty pitifully on things that really matter like health, education, and monetary equity, which are probably the most important indicators of a nation's quality.

Quote:
Even during the riots of the '60s, the Supreme Court consistently ruled that people have the right to dissent.

We can go around and around about this*, but if you restrict the right of the WBC to protest at funerals, no matter how distasteful most of us find their actions, you have opened the door to shutting down political dissent of all types.


People have the right to dissent, and the Supreme Court, even in this case, is not looking at taking away that right. What it is looking at restricting is the time, place, and manner of the speech/assembly (beyond what is already restricted). The fact is that these assemblies are already restricted, and this is not unconstitutional, so fundamentally, you can't really argue that this is such a slippery slope, ESPECIALLY considering how much discretion the Supreme Court uses in exercising these restrictions.

You should really read up on fighting words and time, place, and manner, as understanding these helps to delineate the distinctions between banning vs. restricting offensive speech and what powers the Supreme Court actually has.
#134 Apr 18 2011 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Just a small thing, but I find it crazy that the US has a GDP that is higher than the top combined nations, and ranks so bad in the real signs of a strong stable nation. Stop spending so much on the military. Just a hint.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#135 Apr 18 2011 at 1:25 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
bsphil wrote:


Somehow calling the US military the best in the world isn't very convincing when it consists of people like you.



I dont think its a prerequisite to be smart to get into the military.

Part of me wants to say that its probably a handicap in most cases. But that would be mean....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#136 Apr 18 2011 at 4:12 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
paulsol wrote:
bsphil wrote:


Somehow calling the US military the best in the world isn't very convincing when it consists of people like you.



I dont think its a prerequisite to be smart to get into the military.

Part of me wants to say that its probably a handicap in most cases. But that would be mean....


Don't worry, most of the people in the military are not authorized to think...
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#137 Apr 18 2011 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
paulsol wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Somehow calling the US military the best in the world isn't very convincing when it consists of people like you.
I dont think its a prerequisite to be smart to get into the military.

Part of me wants to say that its probably a handicap in most cases. But that would be mean....
Don't worry, most of the people in the military are not authorized to think...
Smiley: glare

All of you.

Smiley: mad

Edited, Apr 18th 2011 8:47am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Apr 18 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
paulsol wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Somehow calling the US military the best in the world isn't very convincing when it consists of people like you.
I dont think its a prerequisite to be smart to get into the military.

Part of me wants to say that its probably a handicap in most cases. But that would be mean....
Don't worry, most of the people in the military are not authorized to think...
Smiley: glare

All of you.

Smiley: mad

Edited, Apr 18th 2011 8:47am by lolgaxe


Hey, that's just what they told me when I was in. They said that 96B was the only MOS authorized to think.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#139Almalieque, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 6:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yea, there's no thinking involved in leading hundreds of people.... just hit the green button.. You also, are an idiot.
#140 Apr 18 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
So you're not actually 'first in women' WHATEVER THE @#%^ THAT MEANS AHHHHH AHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH after all, then, chap? or, at least, you admit that more Miss Universe medals doesn't prove that you are, objectively speaking?

ALTERNATE RESPONSE:


Dude, I admitted that I was just joking about U.S. being number one. That comment was borderline trolling. The U.S. is cocky and it pisses people off. That's the only reason why I mentioned it. Now I'm just having fun arguing that, partially trolling. I've actually said it a couple of times in the past few weeks. I'm surprised it wasn't until now someone said something.

What winning Miss Universe proves is that we are better at winning Miss Universe than other countries. Nothing more and nothing less.

Kavekk wrote:
Is it? Is it really? Really, is it? Really, is it really?


Yes, because that means that other countries tried and failed, which makes them a failure. If you have a fundamental thought against the pageant, where winning would be bad, then you wouldn't participate.

RDD wrote:
Glad to see you skipped over basic education, national debt, life expectancy. All things which define a strong country and all things that the US is not so good with. Last I checked they were ranked 6th overall for education (math/science/language) and 4th or 5th in life expectancy, also currently they hold the most debt (in a monetary language) than any other nation, at 60%(rougly) of their GDP which you so nicely provided us @ 14 trillion dollars, which means the US has more debt than most every other nation on that list does in GDP. (which means I guess they are tops in that department too.)



Don't blame your personal inability to read on me. I'm pretty sure I mentioned at least ONE of those TWICE.

Secondly, I've argued against our k-12 education for quite some time, still don't believe it's where it should be, but have been corrected in the past on how the comparisons are done. The U.S. education is free and open to everyone, actually mandated by law. That's not the case in other countries that perform much better (on average) than us. Not only do they have to pay for school, it's competitive to get in some schools, so only the best of the best get in. So, it's like comparing nation X's best students vs all of the U.S. students to include the handicap.

It's not a coincidence that when you place those same conditions (competitive, tuition, etc) on the U.S schools(universities, private schools), we excel. Putting all of that in context, I don't think being ranked 4-6 is that bad. If so, what about the rest of the world? If the top countries aren't close, the rest of the world completely sucks.

RDD wrote:
Best At Debt, Best at War. Lacking in everything else guess that means you are the best....


Since when is "Best at War" a bad thing? How exactly are we "lacking in everything else"? No country is perfect and I was never arguing that the U.S. is perfect. Crap, I was just arguing how it doesn't have an identity.

Paulsol wrote:
I dont think its a prerequisite to be smart to get into the military.

Part of me wants to say that its probably a handicap in most cases. But that would be mean....


Funny how you say that yet is required to posses a bachelors to be commissioned and a masters to be competitive to get beyond an O5. Wait, not interesting at all.. you're just ignorant.

Aili wrote:
Don't worry, most of the people in the military are not authorized to think...


Yea, there's no thinking involved in leading hundreds of people.... just hit the green button.. You also, are an idiot.


Jeez, settle down...I don't call you an idiot when you make jokes and troll.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#141 Apr 18 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Bsphil wrote:
Any point you'd try to make would be wrong because that premise itself is wrong. Swing and a miss again.


Did you stop and think for a second that maybe me telling you that isn't my premise and that you should reread it be a dead give away that isn't my premise and that you should reread it?

Bsphil wrote:
Once again, that doesn't matter when you're talking about opinion polling. 1000 is in fact a sufficient number. By the way, went back to check at what Belkira quoted/responded with, turns out she was just laughing at you. Real convincing:


Wrong quote... How do you fail so hard? Oh, never mind, because you were never part of the conversation... I get it..
#142 Apr 18 2011 at 7:08 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Aili wrote:


Jeez, settle down...I don't call you an idiot when you make jokes and troll.


I apologize.. Now you make me feel bad :( . My rule is that I never insult anyone until they insult me first. I questioned myself to see if that was "technically" an insult. If you were just joking, my bad
#143 Apr 18 2011 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aili wrote:


Jeez, settle down...I don't call you an idiot when you make jokes and troll.


I apologize.. Now you make me feel bad :( . My rule is that I never insult anyone until they insult me first. I questioned myself to see if that was "technically" an insult. If you were just joking, my bad


I forgive you. I can see how you would take offense to it. It was just a joke I heard 100s of times in the army, bit I guess that doenst mean it was a universal joke.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#144 Apr 18 2011 at 7:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Aili wrote:


Jeez, settle down...I don't call you an idiot when you make jokes and troll.


I apologize.. Now you make me feel bad :( . My rule is that I never insult anyone until they insult me first. I questioned myself to see if that was "technically" an insult. If you were just joking, my bad


I forgive you. I can see how you would take offense to it. It was just a joke I heard 100s of times in the army, bit I guess that doenst mean it was a universal joke.


Cool.. Well others say the same thing on this forum, but they say it in a very demeaning way. I'm not familiar with you, so I wasn't sure how you meant it. Either way, I'll follow my rule again and stick with insulting without insults.. :)
#145 Apr 18 2011 at 12:00 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Any point you'd try to make would be wrong because that premise itself is wrong. Swing and a miss again.
Did you stop and think for a second that maybe me telling you that isn't my premise and that you should reread it be a dead give away that isn't my premise and that you should reread it?

bsphil wrote:
Once again, that doesn't matter when you're talking about opinion polling. 1000 is in fact a sufficient number. By the way, went back to check at what Belkira quoted/responded with, turns out she was just laughing at you. Real convincing:
Wrong quote... How do you fail so hard? Oh, never mind, because you were never part of the conversation... I get it..
Fine, let's look at the only other quote:

Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Don't worry, that's the norm here. You disagree with someone, then you're automatically labeled as stupid, idiotic, etc. with nothing to back it up other than "You don't agree with me". Then that is often followed with flawed logic on how certain people aren't labeled as such, so therefore it must be true for you, even though nothing additional has yet been provided.
Except for, you know, when we back it up with actual numbers and you frantically try to make some argument as to why those numbers aren't real or don't exist.
Looks like she's making fun of you. You copied a segment out of wikipedia then said "THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE POLLS DON'T WORK THAT WAY". So, again, care to explain? I'm sure you don't because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about when it comes to how random sampling works and why 1000 people out of 300+ million is a valid indicator of public opinion within a small margin of error. How many people would you need? Enlighten me.

By the by, would you say that presidential opinion polls are fairly accurate? Most of those tend to use around 1000 people to generate a sampling. Some can go upwards of nearly 2000, the highest being about ~2400, some even less, the lowest been about ~800. So do you think all of those polls are completely wrong because they're only sampling 0.0008% of the population at best?

Provide the necessary statistical calculations, please.



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 1:01pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#146 Apr 18 2011 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
bsphil wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Don't worry, that's the norm here. You disagree with someone, then you're automatically labeled as stupid, idiotic, etc. with nothing to back it up other than "You don't agree with me". Then that is often followed with flawed logic on how certain people aren't labeled as such, so therefore it must be true for you, even though nothing additional has yet been provided.
Except for, you know, when we back it up with actual numbers and you frantically try to make some argument as to why those numbers aren't real or don't exist.
Looks like she's making fun of you.


That'll work. Mostly I just don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who has to forcibly remove themselves from reality in order to justify their emotional argument. But "making fun" works, too.
#147 Apr 18 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Bsphil wrote:
Fine, let's look at the only other quote:


Failure... Wrong quote again.. man, you're looking real sad right about now. Instead of quoting random quotes, why don't you source the quote which actually pertains to the discussion at hand? It's really not that hard.

Hint: The quote is only like 4 words....

Bsphil wrote:
Looks like she's making fun of you. You copied a segment out of wikipedia then said "THIS IS WRONG BECAUSE POLLS DON'T WORK THAT WAY". So, again, care to explain? I'm sure you don't because you have no ******* clue what you're talking about when it comes to how random sampling works and why 1000 people out of 300+ million is a valid indicator of public opinion within a small margin of error. How many people would you need? Enlighten me.

By the by, would you say that presidential opinion polls are fairly accurate? Most of those tend to use around 1000 people to generate a sampling. Some can go upwards of nearly 2000, the highest being about ~2400, some even less, the lowest been about ~800. So do you think all of those polls are completely wrong because they're only sampling 0.0008% of the population at best?

Provide the necessary statistical calculations, please.


Before I make you look even sillier than you already look now, I'm focusing on one thing at a time. Once you are able to determine my premise against her source, then we can argue statistics.


Belkira wrote:
That'll work. Mostly I just don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who has to forcibly remove themselves from reality in order to justify their emotional argument. But "making fun" works, too.


Emotional? I asked you questions. If you're soooooo certain that I'm operating off of emotion and not logic, then answer the questions. You know you can't, because you know I'm right. Now, go make up some dumb excuse on why you wont answer them because of blah blah blah...
#148 Apr 18 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Emotional? I asked you questions. If you're soooooo certain that I'm operating off of emotion and not logic, then answer the questions. You know you can't, because you know I'm right. Now, go make up some dumb excuse on why you wont answer them because of blah blah blah...


You assumed that I googled a certain string of words (which I didn't, but you won't believe me) then asked if I believed some made up grouping of how many Republicans there are and how many Democrats there are and this many of that beleive this and so on and so forth and no, I don't buy any of that tripe. I gave you actual polls showing support for something, and you brushed it off. Why should I give you any more effort than you've given me?
#149 Apr 18 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Emotional? I asked you questions. If you're soooooo certain that I'm operating off of emotion and not logic, then answer the questions. You know you can't, because you know I'm right. Now, go make up some dumb excuse on why you wont answer them because of blah blah blah...


You assumed that I googled a certain string of words (which I didn't, but you won't believe me) then asked if I believed some made up grouping of how many Republicans there are and how many Democrats there are and this many of that beleive this and so on and so forth and no, I don't buy any of that tripe. I gave you actual polls showing support for something, and you brushed it off. Why should I give you any more effort than you've given me?


I didn't brush you off, did you not see my source? I guess you didn't read it all. It included how the polls are done and TWO polls on the SAME topic in the SAME month in the SAME year with totally different outcomes.. So which one is right? You can't just pick and choose which ever one supports your argument. That's why I said your source was irrelevant. I can continually poll 1000 different people and continually come up with different answers. Well, guess what? There is only ONE real answer. So you can play these games with 1000 people OR you can logically examine the population as a whole. I choose to do the latter. If you prefer to choose which ever poll supports your stance, then so be it, but that's not reality no matter how much you believe it is.
#150 Apr 18 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't brush you off, did you not see my source? I guess you didn't read it all. It included how the polls are done and TWO polls on the SAME topic in the SAME month in the SAME year with totally different outcomes.. So which one is right? You can't just pick and choose which ever one supports your argument. That's why I said your source was irrelevant. I can continually poll 1000 different people and continually come up with different answers. Well, guess what? There is only ONE real answer. So you can play these games with 1000 people OR you can logically examine the population as a whole. I choose to do the latter. If you prefer to choose which ever poll supports your stance, then so be it, but that's not reality no matter how much you believe it is.


But your "logic" isn't grounded in fact. It's grounded in assumption and emotional attachment to your own personal position on the issue. You want it to be one way, so you rationalize why it should be whether that's the truth or not. The fact is, the only way we have to figure out what the public wants is through polls. Because I can take your rationale and turn it around so that it sonds like my position is right. It's hilarious to me that you call polling "playing games," but instead want to come up with some weird rationale as to why you're right and the people who know what they're doing are wrong.

The only difference is, I have the poll numbers on my side.

Oh, and lolwiki as your source...? Hm. Interesting.

And, of course, the whole thing is moot in my opinion. Mob rule is idiotic. There are certain basic things that shouldn't be decided on the whim of the majority. One of those is the rights of the minority.

And before you or gbaji want to go on and on about rights and "equal versus fair," I don't intend to go 'round and 'round on that again. That will be ignored.
#151 Apr 18 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
Fine, let's look at the only other quote:
Failure... Wrong quote again.. man, you're looking real sad right about now. Instead of quoting random quotes, why don't you source the quote which actually pertains to the discussion at hand? It's really not that hard.

Hint: The quote is only like 4 words....
It doesn't exist. Sorry, not sure what conversation is going through your head but it's not here on the forum.

Almalieque wrote:
Here's the thing about polls and statistics, you can make them reveal whatever you want. Let's look at this from a logical prospective. Roughly half of the U.S is either a Republican or a Democrat. Majority of all Republicans do NOT support changing the definition of marriage from a "man and a woman". Not every Democrat supports that change and MANY of the ones who do support it, openly admits of not personally supporting it, but only so for some political reasons. Unless you can deny those facts, then it is evident that most of the country supports marriage being between a man and a woman.
Hell, your original premise isn't even fully supported, as blatantly biased as you've written it to be. When considering opposition of SSM from Republicans it's a "majority", but when considering support from nearly an identical percentage of Democrats it's "not every Democrat". Don't forget that a majority of independents lean in favor of SSM, though by not as wide of a margin as Democrats. Kinda contrary to your entire biased argument. Statistical data aside, your choice of words is just semantics anyway, right? So what if you go out of your way to make opposition sound bigger than it is while marginalizing support, you're just being a Republican.

Edited, Apr 18th 2011 3:38pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 371 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (371)