Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1127 Nov 11 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Excluded middle among other things. You're under the impression that each supporter is countered by each critic.

In reality, many "supporters" of SSM aren't especially passionate about it or care enough to cast a ballot exclusively on that issue. They just feel that it's no big deal and not a concern for them if two men or two women get married. Many people against SSM do care enough to only vote for a politician if they're explicit about keeping SSM from happening. More importantly, these people care enough to vote in primaries, thus winnowing the field to those who are either stridently against SSM or agnostic with sympathies against it.

As I said, you just have no understanding of politics.

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 1:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1128 Nov 11 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As I said, you just have no understanding of politics.
Or the military. Or people. Or comedy. Or ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1129Almalieque, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 2:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.
#1130 Nov 11 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.


Mmmm...weren't you the one who couldn't wrap his brain around random sampling, one of the most fundamental, underlying concepts of the study of statistics?

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 3:21pm by Eske
#1131 Nov 11 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Likewise. If you want to include the unknown, you just can't assume that it's in your favor. You either exclude the unknown and go off what you see or you include them and remain in the "gray area". You can't just somehow end up in the "majority".

It's not the unknown. You think there's never been polling about button issues or something?

Quote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.

It would help to know enough politics to understand the numbers you're fucking up the math on. Since you keep insisting that you don't and yet you don't need to in order to draw conclusions based on a field you know nothing about...

...oh, hi, Gbaji!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1132 Nov 11 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
No, it's the same situation. There aren't many people arguing against evolution, only religious groups. Same thing with the homosexuals.

I've already explained to you why there is opposition. it's due to the nature of politics. You're really fucking stupid, aren't you? In case you can't tell, that was rhetorical.


That was an error on my part, I meant

"Yes, but that scenario would only be valid if there WERE many people arguing against evolution. On this thread, statistics were shown to persuade that MOST of the US supports x,y and z. If that is the case, then there would be little to no opposition regardless of who is opposing it. Since there are only a hand full of states that support SSM, that isn't the case. There is obviously enough opposition to prevent SSM being in all 50 states. Therefore, you can not pretend that MOST of the US is in favor."

The point is that there aren't that many people arguing against evolution to make a difference on which population supports what. If MOST people supported homosexuality, then it wouldn't be enough people to oppose SSM. Given that there is enough opposition to fight it, then majority of the groups who typically oppose it (Religious people) can't support SSM.

The only other mathematical way that would be possible is if there were multiple small groups that, when added together, gave enough people to oppose SSM. Even then, that wouldn't represent "majority of the nation", which contradicts the argument of "removing DADT because most of the US supports homosexuality"

That's great and all but what I said is still valid. It's exactly the same argument. Smiley: grin


Someone tell me what post number it was so I can just refer back to it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1133 Nov 11 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Post 323, man.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1134 Nov 11 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Alma is pretty much a walking example of "grasping at straws".
#1135 Nov 11 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
Alma was trying to be funny and failed.


Orrrrrr. you failed to pick up on a famous reference. Pretty sure it's the latter.

No, you failed. Again.
#1136 Nov 11 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
so what is the verdict? Is alma a puffer or is he severely homophobic that afraid of some guy storming the rear breach.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1137 Nov 11 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
so what is the verdict? Is alma a puffer or is he severely homophobic that afraid of some guy storming the rear breach.


Neither, I think. He's just a resentful, bitter man-child who couples poor self-awareness with deep-seeded coping mechanisms.

He's also, simply put, just kind of dumb. He's poorly educated, but his stubbornness keeps him from from recognizing it, which in turn keeps him from learning. A vicious cycle.

His stance against homosexuality is probably as simple as a fear of something he doesn't understand.
#1138 Nov 12 2011 at 6:41 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.


Mmmm...weren't you the one who couldn't wrap his brain around random sampling, one of the most fundamental, underlying concepts of the study of statistics?

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 3:21pm by Eske


You should probably reread that thread. Pretty sure I was right.

Jophiel wrote:

It's not the unknown. You think there's never been polling about button issues or something?


You act like everyone participates in polls. The people that are participating in these polls are more than likely the same people participating in the votes.

Jophiel wrote:
It would help to know enough politics to understand the numbers you're @#%^ing up the math on. Since you keep insisting that you don't and yet you don't need to in order to draw conclusions based on a field you know nothing about...


Uh no, because we're talking about two different concepts. In politics, a person is worth more than 1 person, i.e. losing the popular vote but winning the overall election.

In this conversation, we're just talking about straight numbers. You can't show numbers that represent the majority of the nation supporting homosexuality and yet consistently have enough opposition against homosexuality to prevent gains.

It doesn't take a genius of politics or math to understand that concept. The only scenario that I can think of that would counter it is if a large percentage of the people who support it, doesn't actually "support it", but are indifferent.


Edited, Nov 12th 2011 2:42pm by Almalieque
#1139 Nov 12 2011 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
As I said, you just have no understanding of politics.
Or the military. Or people. Or comedy. Or Vaginas.

____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#1140 Nov 12 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.


Mmmm...weren't you the one who couldn't wrap his brain around random sampling, one of the most fundamental, underlying concepts of the study of statistics?

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 3:21pm by Eske


You should probably reread that thread. Pretty sure I was right.


Of course you are. Smiley: rolleyes
#1141 Nov 12 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Can we lock this shit now?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1142 Nov 12 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You act like everyone participates in polls. The people that are participating in these polls are more than likely the same people participating in the votes.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you. Look, go read up on how polling works and then come back to thread when you can speak like a grown-up about it.

Quote:
It doesn't take a genius of politics or math to understand that concept.

In that case I guess it takes a ****** of math and politics to not understand it and here we are with you saying "uh duh?" over and over.

Well, you convinced me!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1143 Nov 12 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Alma wrote:
It is mathematically impossible for the minority of a small subset group to numerically outweigh the remaining set. There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority.

There are 1000 people. 750 people are religious and 250 are not. Of those 750 religious people, 400 support homosexuality and 350 do not. All 250 non-religious people support homosexuality.

Therefore, 650 people support homosexuality and 350 people do not. While the support for homosexuality is a mixture of religious and non-religious, the opposition to homosexuality is entirely religious.

Therefore both of the following are true.
1. The majority of religious individuals support homosexuality.
2. All of the attacks on homosexuality come from religious people.
Alma wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.

Yes, but you do have to understand math to understand math, which you don't.
#1144 Nov 12 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
Alma wrote:
It is mathematically impossible for the MINORITY of a SMALL subset group to numerically outweigh the remaining set. There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority.

There are 1000 people. 750 people are religious and 250 are not. Of those 750 religious people, 400 support homosexuality and 350 do not. All 250 non-religious people support homosexuality.

Therefore, 650 people support homosexuality and 350 people do not. While the support for homosexuality is a mixture of religious and non-religious, the opposition to homosexuality is entirely religious.

Therefore both of the following are true.
1. The majority of religious individuals support homosexuality.
2. All of the attacks on homosexuality come from religious people.


If your two subsets are 750 and 250, which one of those two subsets would be considered the "small subset"? Now now take a minority group from that subset and redo your math.

Quote:
Alma wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.

Yes, but you do have to understand math to understand math, which you don't.


That's under the assumption that my opponent knows how to read.

Edited, Nov 13th 2011 7:33am by Almalieque
#1145 Nov 12 2011 at 11:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
You have argued against "comfort" in the most basic and general interpretation as a weak argument, while supporting it in reference to separating heterosexuals.


"Comfort" was a reason for DADT implementation but is no longer a justification (And a weak argument for DADT)since the majority are comfortable with gays. It was a logical reason pre DADT-repeal, but now it isn't.

Alma wrote:
WRONG!


Ok, why was it then?

Alma wrote:
You're implying that a person who supports DADT doesn't want gays in the military. Those are two completely different topics, hence another reason why those polls were biased.


So, you want gays in the military but don't want DADT repealed? Why?
Omega wrote:

If, the desegregation of the military by gender would ALSO result in a similar situation- then by all means integrate by gender too! But, ya know, the woman would have to actually WANT to room with the guys first. Your false equivalent is invalid, again.


Alma wrote:
That doesn't make sense. If there is a barracks room and a shower/bathroom that can support 40/100 people, why would you create an additional barracks room and shower/bathroom to support 5 of those 40?


Hey, this is a DADT thread. If you want your gender & racial examples to be equivalent then you have to be able to apply them to DADT. So, if you can poll the womans & get them to show that they don't want segregated showers, it's equivalent to the repeal of DADT.

Alma wrote:
WTFRU talking about..Smiley: dubious Just read post 206... Thank you for proving my point on why I can never summarize anything. I gave you a snippet of an argument to counter a claim. You took that snippet and made it into a stupid argument.


If only you could clearly communicate what your argument WAS as opposed to going off on tangents about race & gender...

Alma wrote:
You haven't explained how hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin IS NOT racial discrimination. How is hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin under Affirmative Action different than hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin not under affirmative action?


I'll get right on that right after you give me a reason why it's ok to discriminate against a guy in the military who likes to suck dick. Promise.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1146 Nov 12 2011 at 11:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Alma wrote:
It is mathematically impossible for the MINORITY of a SMALL subset group to numerically outweigh the remaining set. There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority.

There are 1000 people. 750 people are religious and 250 are not. Of those 750 religious people, 400 support homosexuality and 350 do not. All 250 non-religious people support homosexuality.

Therefore, 650 people support homosexuality and 350 people do not. While the support for homosexuality is a mixture of religious and non-religious, the opposition to homosexuality is entirely religious.

Therefore both of the following are true.
1. The majority of religious individuals support homosexuality.
2. All of the attacks on homosexuality come from religious people.


If your two subsets are 750 and 250, which one of those two subsets would be considered the "small subset"? Now now take a minority group from that subset and redo your math.

Quote:
Alma wrote:
I don't have to be an expert in Politics to understand math.

Yes, but you do have to understand math to understand math, which you don't.


That's under the assumption that my opponent knows how to read.

Edited, Nov 13th 2011 7:33am by Almalieque


Hint: your opponent know not only how to read, but how to do basic math.

You don't. Nor do you appear to 'get' hard concepts like logic or the fundamentals of language.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1147 Nov 13 2011 at 12:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If your two subsets are 750 and 250, which one of those two subsets would be considered the "small subset"? Now now take a minority group from that subset and redo your math.

Look, I know you won't believe me when I say this, but you're stupid.

Your critique isn't even intelligible. There is no such thing as a "small subset," I doubt anyone anywhere has any idea what you think you mean by saying this. You say "There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority," but that doesn't make sense at all. Dividing sets further doesn't change anything about the set it is an element of. You ask me do do something with the minority of the set containing 250 non-religious people, but there is no minority. The set of 250 non-religious people is entirely homogenous.

At first I though you were just really awkward in trying to make your point. I thought you just didn't know the right terms for things, but you had a vague idea of how it all worked out. But you just have no idea what you're saying.
#1148 Nov 13 2011 at 12:39 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
"Comfort" was a reason for DADT implementation but is no longer a justification (And a weak argument for DADT)since the majority are comfortable with gays. It was a logical reason pre DADT-repeal, but now it isn't.


If you say "comfort" is A reason, then you are implying that there exist multiple reasons. Therefore, it does not make sense to end a process on just one reason unless that one reason is the main reason.


Vageta wrote:

Ok, why was it then?


I did, in the very next sentence.

Vageta wrote:
So, you want gays in the military but don't want DADT repealed? Why?



Being "comfortable" working with gays isn't the same thing as living and showering with gays. The acceptance of homosexuality did not change society's sexual conservativeness. You're purposely avoiding the difference.

Vageta wrote:
Hey, this is a DADT thread. If you want your gender & racial examples to be equivalent then you have to be able to apply them to DADT. So, if you can poll the womans & get them to show that they don't want segregated showers, it's equivalent to the repeal of DADT.


Nice try. You said that the only two human traits that can not be logically discriminated against were skin color and sexuality. I got you to admit that we do accept racial discrimination. So, that means that you believe it's ok to discriminate against every human trait except for sexuality.

As for the women, that only goes to show that you really didn't read post 206.

Vageta wrote:


If only you could clearly communicate what your argument WAS as opposed to going off on tangents about race & gender...


Further evidence that you did not read post 206. Life isn't just circles and squares and in black and white. Not everything can be explained in two sentences. Some issues and problems are just complex by nature. Post 206 touches on every aspect that is involved with the decision to support DADT. I'm sorry if you were expecting "gays are icky".

Vageta wrote:


I'll get right on that right after you give me a reason why it's ok to discriminate against a guy in the military who likes to suck ****. Promise.


Post 206. Ok, now answer the question. By that little tactic, I think it's safe to say that you don't see a difference between the two. I don't need your admittance, your actions spoke it for you.
#1149 Nov 13 2011 at 12:53 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
Look, I know you won't believe me when I say this, but you're stupid.

Your critique isn't even intelligible. There is no such thing as a "small subset," I doubt anyone anywhere has any idea what you think you mean by saying this.


You can very well quantify the size of a subset. I'm sorry if you think otherwise.

Allegory wrote:
You say "There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority," but that doesn't make sense at all. Dividing sets further doesn't change anything about the set it is an element of.


That was kind of the point......

We were specifically talking about religious people as a subset. The claim was that the majority of the religious people subset, favor homosexuality. As a result, that would mean only a minority of them oppose it. If that subset is as small as you claim it to be, then it wouldn't ever hold enough opposition against homosexuality.

HOWEVER! That subset was of religious people only. There could exist other subsets of people who do not favor homosexuality. If they were taken in consideration, it would be possible to have enough opposition. BUT, as you said, they are all under the same set. So, therefore, at that point "opposition of homosexuality" isn't the minority. Just because you move them around in various subsets, it doesn't change the set itself.

Allegory wrote:
You ask me do do something with the minority of the set containing 250 non-religious people, but there is no minority. The set of 250 non-religious people is entirely homogenous.


Obviously, your example was no longer valid after you based it off a misinterpretation.
There's nothing wrong with the numbers you used, just the application.

Allegory wrote:
At first I though you were just really awkward in trying to make your point. I thought you just didn't know the right terms for things, but you had a vague idea of how it all worked out. But you just have no idea what you're saying.


How ironic.
#1150 Nov 13 2011 at 1:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
You're mistaken, because religious status and opinion on homosexuality are two different dimensions. They overlap, but neither is a subset of the other. The set of people who are religious contains those who favor and oppose homosexuality. The set of people who oppose homosexuality contains those who are religious and non-religious.

Therefore, it is possible for favoring to be the majority in the set of religious people and religious people to be the majority in the set of those opposing.

Therefore, the majority of religious people can favor homosexuality and the majority of homosexual opposition can be from religious people.
#1151 Nov 13 2011 at 2:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Therefore, it does not make sense to end a process on just one reason unless that one reason is the main reason.


Whelp, reading the actual text of DADT, it certainly appears to be the "main"reason.
Alma wrote:

Being "comfortable" working with gays isn't the same thing as living and showering with gays. The acceptance of homosexuality did not change society's sexual conservativeness. You're purposely avoiding the difference.


You're purposefully making a useless false equivalent.

Alma wrote:
You said that the only two human traits that can not be logically discriminated against were skin color and sexuality. I got you to admit that we do accept racial discrimination.


Only Alma's definition of discrimination, not the "unjust prejudice" one.

Alma wrote:
So, that means that you believe it's ok to discriminate against every human trait except for sexuality.


Nope, since I don't find affirmative action discrimination (unjust prejudice) I still very much believe skin color & sexual orientation can't logically be discriminated against. The onus is on you, as always, to try & convince me using Alma logic that there's a situation where it's cool to discriminate against guys who like to suck ****.

But you're a coward, so...

Alma wrote:
Further evidence that you did not read post 206. Life isn't just circles and squares and in black and white. Not everything can be explained in two sentences. Some issues and problems are just complex by nature. Post 206 touches on every aspect that is involved with the decision to support DADT. I'm sorry if you were expecting "gays are icky".


Post #385.

Post #206 includes gays are icky (SHOWERS!), but that remains an illogical reason to discriminate.

Alma wrote:
Post 206. Ok, now answer the question. By that little tactic, I think it's safe to say that you don't see a difference between the two. I don't need your admittance, your actions spoke it for you.


Bzzzt. Wrong.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)