h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Sigh. What can I say in response to such invincible ignorance? Try doing what I did, and googling. You'll find literally hundreds of thousands of references to many studies.
http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.asp?id=1368
and
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=650
extract: "· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]"
http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/288/
(Australian site).
http://socialjusticereview.org/articles/after_vows.php
(Sadly, many on this thread will ignore 90% of these articles cos they come from 'religious' sources. But the double standard means I am not allowed to 'ignore' studies from sources with just as strong a 'bias' the other way... As the Americans say 'go figure')




<< Della is an unreconstructed bigot. It is demonstrably pointless to try to change that. Her unpleasant right-wing views are a result of determined, wilful ignorance. >>

You *know* I am not a right-winger, but you, with your determined opposition to workers' rights are.

"You *know* I am not a right-winger"

I'm constantly entertained by this.

If you're not a right-winger, Della, can you explain why you hold right-wing views? Do you even understand why I call you right-wing? (I'm reminded of the old Harry Enfield/Martin Clunes gag: "I'm more of a conservative with a small 'c'." "You're certainly something with a small c..."

SoRB

"What can I say in response to such invincible ignorance? Try doing what I did, and googling."

I'm sorry, but this is so staggeringly out of character I'm going to have to pause for a moment to savour it. So very often in the past I've mentioned facts, referred to news stories, or named famous people, and you have stated that you know nothing about the subject mentioned. I have usually responded that since you are by definition sitting in front of the fastest, easiest to use and most complete repository of knowledge in history, claiming ignorance merely makes you look stupid. Your answer has always been that you mysteriously "haven't the time" to spend twenty seconds doing google searches. Yet now, suddenly, you have seen the light. Pardon me for being slightly surprised.

"Sadly, many on this thread will ignore 90% of these articles"

Not sure how it's possible to ignore 90% of a list consisting of four objects... but hey, why should Della's maths be any stronger than her English, chemistry, history, geography, biology, logic, etc. etc. etc.?

"cos they come from 'religious' sources. But the double standard means I am not allowed to 'ignore' studies from sources with just as strong a 'bias' the other way"

Hmm. This is the fallacy of the false dichotomy, I think.

Della, we are justified in treating your sources sceptically because they ADMIT that they are biased. They are PROUD of being biased. Their very raison d'etre is their bias, it's where they start from. They come from a position that homosexuality is deviant and wrong, and they select data that supports their view.

Your fallacy is to try to suggest that people who disagree with you start from the *opposite* view - that homosexuality is normal and Right, and then select only data which supports that view.

But when you suggest that, you're lying (again, surprise...). The people who disagree with you start instead from a neutral point of view, considering homosexuality as something societally and morally neutral, and simply report ALL the data and then try to draw objective conclusions from it.

This approach is, it seems, not merely irritating to people like - it appears to be completely incomprehensible. You and those like you seem unable to comprehend the concept of simply collecting data and only deciding what conclusion it points to AFTERWARDS. Your entire mindset is focussed on KNOWING what is right *first*, then pointing out when the universe agrees with you. The problem with that approach is that when, sooner or later, you inevitably get something wrong, your whole system comes crashing down unless you simply refuse to accept the evidence and proceed on the basis of self-delusion.

And it's that that makes you so funny!

SoRB

Choosing your fights again SoRB?

ie. one you've got a good chance of winning?


alex

Well, it does seem a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.


az

Not at all. A "win" in this context would be coaxing Della into engaging her brain. I don't anticipate myself or anyone else EVER winning.

SoRB

<< A "win" in this context would be coaxing Della into engaging her brain>>

You'd have to engage yours first! (No chance of that happening any time soon...)

Yeah. I have a well established reputation on h2g2 for being of low intelligence, having an extremely restricted range of knowledge, and no desire at all to learn anything new, and generally not a person who engages their brain.

SoRB

Wow, what an admission! I hear you, and I respect your sudden burst of honesty...

"They don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse, and Ford rarely noticed it unless he was concentrating."

Douglas Adams, 1981.

SoRB

My old mother used to say sarcasm was the lowest form of wit - and why does your tagline commemorate Hitler's birthday? Something you want to tell us, Hoo?

" why does your tagline commemorate Hitler's birthday? "

For information, my tagline at the time of writing is "protecting the sensibilities of the illiterate since 20 April 2006". Note the inclusion in the date of the year. This year.

My intention was to "commemorate" the day I was prevented from using the word "flick" in my username, apparently in case people who couldn't read properly mistook it for a naughty word.

So, Della, it is your contention that Hitler was born on Thursday of last week? How interesting.

(I'm also pondering precisely what sort of person has Hitler's birthday memorised...)

SoRB

<<(I'm also pondering precisely what sort of person has Hitler's birthday memorised...)>>

One who has studied German history and culture, naturally...

I also have Humphrey Bogart's, Vincent D'Onofrio's and Grace Lee Whitney's birthdays memorised. Want to make something of it?

Hey, you brought Hitler up, not me. And therefore, invoking Godwin's Rule... I win!

SoRB

Ignoring the amusing Della and SoRB catfight for a moment

>>But you never know, just maybe at some point *something* will get through to her, make her realise that her opinions are not the last word on the subject<< - azahar

Yep, that's why I started this thread in the first place and why, despite occasional rants, I try to keep trying to get her to think

Della, I told you exactly why I wouldn't accept anything said or claimed by a religious source (and I've already given a definition of what such a source is) and it isn't a bias to disregard such sources when trying to have a factual argument. Religions aren't factual, simple as that. You cannot have a factual argument that relies upon religious data. Not bias, just truth.

<>

The sites I linked to, contain facts. Not bias, but truth, and the studies Hoo accused me of inventing.