Dumb****s who compare Homosexuality to Pedophilia or Bestiality.

[Bad Dragonite]

[quote=" TIME article]The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS)"]

I hope I don't have to point the problem with this...

[quote=" TIME artcle]Children in the families were interviewed by researchers
at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire"]

They were interviewed by researchers only once during the study, and the second time there wasn't even a proffesional in the room, they simply answered an online questionare that is missing from the article. What were the specific questions? What answers did the children give? All in all, I'd say that this would lead to flawed results.

[quote=" TIME article]
These
findings were expected"]

This is very bad for any study, going into it with any expectations. It can have an influence on the end results.

It could be said that they possibly have these expectations because of separate studies, but it never mentioned what studies those were at all, so noone can tell whether those are flawed or not. And it could still influence the end result of the given experiment anyway.

[ZeldaGirl]

^Never completely trust journalists writing reports or articles on research. It's always best to just read the actual study itself, for the exact methodology they used.


And to be fair to the journalist, 'expectations' are usually synonymous with 'hypotheses.' Which, yes, you should have when you conduct a study, because it's part of the scientific method. Not to say that there can't be experimenter biases, but unless we read the actual study, we can't really know.


Also, there are pros/cons to conducting online questionnaires. One of the major pros is that, due to the absence of the researcher and the anonymity the questionnaire provides, one can yield fairly honest results. I would be interested in reading the exact study for the questionnaire, and to learn how many respondents there were. But, this longitudinal study is the exact kind of research that needs to be done on these issues, and it's good that there is finally a study like this that is out there and mentioned to the public.

[heh]

This is very bad for any study, going into it with any expectations. It can have an influence on the end results.

do you know what the definition of "hypothesis" is

its part of the scientific method, look it up

[Deepfake]

Yeah, Guild, it's okay to make a guess about something. You have to have a reason for conducting an experiment or study, and that reason is the hypothesis. It's a basic concept that you are testing to find out the validity of.

The reason why you hear so many opposed to things like "Christian Science" isn't so much that it uses pointed research, but that it disregards evidence to the contrary of its core belief set.

Quizzing parents on their opinion of their child's behavior isn't the sole source of input in this study, it's just made to sound similar. It's amusing, that you should point out that as a flaw, however, because what are you attempting to enforce beside a mainstream parental opinion? It looks like you're trying to carry something context-relevant over into another context.

[Kil'jaeden]

It's almost like they want having homosexual parents screw up a child. Even if it doesn't.

[Deepfake]

^ Yeah, that's the gist of it. Don't register any information that means homosexual parents work A-okay or better, always register even the most far-fetched concepts as potential for truth when they register with your "side" of it.

Christian Science can be especially compromised in its validity, because its funding invariably comes from groups with a stake in the outcome, and its research is carried out by members of those groups.

[Metal Man]

Alright then, TG, if you're a judge on what is and what is not projection, then let me recap the argument, which you most likely did not have the time (or care) to read over.

I claim people like Guild and IRHP cannot be reasoned with.

AI says this is foolish.

I ask him why.

He says it is because I am just ignoring all other possibilities and projecting Metal Mario's behavior onto them.

I counter by saying that, what if I don't want to argue with anyone who has that viewpoint?

He says that is foolish too.

I suggest it is just an alternate viewpoint that has its uses, just as much as his viewpoint does.

This is not acceptable to him. He questions my ability to think and calls me rash.

I continue to try and figure out why these things offend him such, as no one else I talk to has these reactions to my statements.

He goes on into a long description of how his argument style is so useful and people like IRHP and Guildmaster are not linked to MMario. And that there is, apparently, no upside to keeping my ideas to myself.

I throw aside the projection of Metal Mario on them, then continue to ask where all these ideas of me as rash and foolish come from; since there's times and places where arguing is a waste of time.

The speeches become lengthier and deeper. I suggest AI may be projecting the part of him that is not intelligent onto me. He responds by claiming I have not said what he is projecting, then says I don't know what projecting is. (Is this beginning to look like a pattern to you, TG?)

I repeat myself again. He responds by saying I am so dull that I should be mocked. Then, yet again, he does not appear to even see that I am suggesting he may be projecting the part of him which is not intelligent onto me.

So, what do you think, TG? No matter what I try, my text about what he is projecting is lost on him, followed by him calling me, variously, rash, foolish, and someone to mock, and also some inept person who doesn't know what projection is.

[Deepfake]

Okay MM, if you'd tolerate my input this time, this should help.

I claim people like Guild and IRHP cannot be reasoned with.

AI says this is foolish.

Nope. I perhaps should have clarified more, but I meant it was foolish to try to justify trolling someone by saying you don't see the value in communicating with them, since it's your choice to assign the value. I also meant that it's just as easy to speak of your opinion without having them come to any realization.

You're excluding the part where you accuse me of attempting to convince everyone of my opinion, which is more or less irrelevant to my suggestion: That you could find it beneficial to make others aware that other opinions are present, because in many instances you will face intolerance.

People may regard your opinion as separate to mainstream, if they are ignorant of its presence, and hand-wave it every time you attempt to express yourself. You will in turn consider these people unworthy of reasoning with, as you cannot see the merit in wasting your time voicing yourself when someone will not be open to agreeing with you. This will lead to it repeating itself.

But more importantly, that's some bizarre extension of you suggesting that it is pointless to argue with people you can't convince of your own opinion. That you would accuse me of thinking the same thing, and then try to condemn my ideas for it, is what makes it so odd.

He says it is because I am just ignoring all other possibilities and projecting Metal Mario's behavior onto them.

Nope, that was an explanation of the type of behavior where I agree that nothing could be accomplished or no value could be gleaned by trying to reason with someone: He tells people what they are thinking, and misrepresents them. That's contradictory to the principle that expressing yourself can be beneficial through public familiarization.

I was comparing instances, and assumed you wouldn't apply some alternate context to it. IE: you're telling me what my purpose was, again. What you guessed wasn't correct, sorry bud. I don't know where you get off assuming the purpose of it and judging me based on that.

I counter by saying that, what if I don't want to argue with anyone who has that viewpoint?

Irrelevant, you didn't phrase it this way and we weren't speaking with the same context. You had the one where you made up some other point for me to be making, I had my original.

This is not acceptable to him. He questions my ability to think and calls me rash.

I questioned the integrity of your argument, because you were becoming obvious in attempting to make some other argument about how I think, when I clearly hadn't been talking about what you assumed I was.

I continue to try and figure out why these things offend him such, as no one else I talk to has these reactions to my statements.

The only two things I've found potentially offensive here are:

1.) That you started making baseless accusations.

2.) You're apparently suggesting that I'm mentally deficient, and I'm projecting my mental deficiency onto you.

I never once stated I was offended, which is some other thing you've convinced yourself of.

He goes on into a long description of how his argument style is so useful and people like IRHP and Guildmaster are not linked to MMario. And that there is, apparently, no upside to keeping my ideas to myself.

I was pointing out that you do not appreciate my view of the matter of discussing something with IRHP or Guild. It has nothing to do with style, and everything to do with expressing yourself so you don't shoot yourself in the foot by promoting ignorance of your opinion through with-holding it.

I throw aside the projection of Metal Mario on them, then continue to ask where all these ideas of me as rash and foolish come from; since there's times and places where arguing is a waste of time.

Yes, this was especially confusing, because I observed that you came to consider and agree with the point I was trying to make all along. That they are not identical in behavior, and do not usually create a strawman argument to assuage their own ego as MMario does.

The speeches become lengthier and deeper. I suggest AI may be projecting the part of him that is not intelligent onto me. He responds by claiming I have not said what he is projecting, then says I don't know what projecting is. (Is this beginning to look like a pattern to you, TG?)

You asserted that I was projecting something in terms I found unclear, I required clearer terms because all ideas I would allege are based on my own experience. All of my knowledge is based on my experience.

If you thought that I were making some statement about your intelligence, based on my own inability to perceive a person with such magnificent understanding as yourself, any statement would have to be based on that. The nature of my having said it would explain so. I did not say it, however.

I repeat myself again. He responds by saying I am so dull that I should be mocked. Then, yet again, he does not appear to even see that I am suggesting he may be projecting the part of him which is not intelligent onto me.

I responded by saying that you are so full of yourself as to tell me what and how I think, that there's little hope in talking to you to explain myself because you keep telling me that I am wrong and I think something else. The very same thing I just explained about how I would deal with MMario. This has nothing to do with dullness, unintelligence, and drollness. Your behavior has been tantamount to belligerence.

[ZeldaGirl]

Alright then, TG, if you're a judge on what is and what is not projection, then let me recap the argument, which you most likely did not have the time (or care) to read over.

I claim people like Guild and IRHP cannot be reasoned with.

AI says this is foolish.

I ask him why.

He says it is because I am just ignoring all other possibilities and projecting Metal Mario's behavior onto them.

I counter by saying that, what if I don't want to argue with anyone who has that viewpoint?

He says that is foolish too.

I suggest it is just an alternate viewpoint that has its uses, just as much as his viewpoint does.

This is not acceptable to him. He questions my ability to think and calls me rash.

I continue to try and figure out why these things offend him such, as no one else I talk to has these reactions to my statements.

He goes on into a long description of how his argument style is so useful and people like IRHP and Guildmaster are not linked to MMario. And that there is, apparently, no upside to keeping my ideas to myself.

I throw aside the projection of Metal Mario on them, then continue to ask where all these ideas of me as rash and foolish come from; since there's times and places where arguing is a waste of time.

The speeches become lengthier and deeper. I suggest AI may be projecting the part of him that is not intelligent onto me. He responds by claiming I have not said what he is projecting, then says I don't know what projecting is. (Is this beginning to look like a pattern to you, TG?)

I repeat myself again. He responds by saying I am so dull that I should be mocked. Then, yet again, he does not appear to even see that I am suggesting he may be projecting the part of him which is not intelligent onto me.

So, what do you think, TG? No matter what I try, my text about what he is projecting is lost on him, followed by him calling me, variously, rash, foolish, and someone to mock, and also some inept person who doesn't know what projection is.

MM, from what it sounds, you don't even know what your conversation was about. And therein lies the problem - you seem to have completely missed nearly every point AI was trying to make, either misreading it, or trying to convince yourself that his words actually mean something else entirely. I'm sorry, bud, but I really think this is kind of ridiculous; I don't want to say anyone is entirely in the wrong here, but you aren't really reading and understanding what AI is saying.

[Metal Man]

Well then, I have the new conclusion, courtesy of ZG. *Clears throat*

I was wrong for projecting Metal Mario onto Guild and IRHP. I was also incorrectly projecting AI onto VGF.

Instead, it has come to my attention that absolutely nothing AI says when he becomes philosophical makes any sense whatsoever to me, since apparently every attempt I make to understand it is always wrong and I can never once be correct when speaking about it.

In light of this inviolable fact of nature, I will cease bothering to argue anything with him. Because THAT, above all the other things I've said as being pointless, is the very king of all things pointless, as the hundreds of minutes wasted on trying to get even one idea through... are apparently all for nothing.

Nobody wants to hear those ideas here, clearly. THAT is the difference between here and everywhere else; elsewhere my ideas are given some currency, even if I am not 100% accurate. Here, unless I am 100% accurate... I may as well have said nothing at all, apparently.

Well then, carry on; I guess I was mistaken for thinking anything AI said outside 'Zelda is cool' or 'Stop projecting MMario onto things' was intelligible to me.

[Bad Dragonite]

[quote="The Merriam-Webster Dictionary ]hypothesis \h-pa-the-ses\ n"]

Now everyone knows the meaning. Thanks, turntechGodhead. Though I already knew,(and the others most likely did as well) it'll be nice to have the reminder I'm sure.


I guess I just sort of forgot. Though I think that a hypothesis is at least somewhat different from just assuming that the results will be exactly as you think (what I assumed they meant). I tend to think of a hypothesis as more of a "might happen" while an expectation as a "Probably will happen" which can tend to lead to "why are we even here". That is the point of continued experimentation, to see if the results are constantly the same. I think it was mostly my fault for misreading though. ZG helped me clarify it. Thanks ZG.

On the case of where the data came from, it seemed to me to essentially be asking the parents of the children "Did you do good as a parent?" which I see as flawed. Also because the data came from NLLFS which could lead to some possible bias...

When it comes to the interviews/surveys, my main problem was that there was only one interview and only one questionare which isn't enough to make the results from them very reliable IMO. :/

[Rainbow Dash]

Well then, I have the new conclusion, courtesy of ZG. *Clears throat*

I was wrong for projecting Metal Mario onto Guild and IRHP. I was also incorrectly projecting AI onto VGF.

Instead, it has come to my attention that absolutely nothing AI says when he becomes philosophical makes any sense whatsoever to me, since apparently every attempt I make to understand it is always wrong and I can never once be correct when speaking about it.

In light of this inviolable fact of nature, I will cease bothering to argue anything with him. Because THAT, above all the other things I've said as being pointless, is the very king of all things pointless, as the hundreds of minutes wasted on trying to get even one idea through... are apparently all for nothing.

Nobody wants to hear those ideas here, clearly. THAT is the difference between here and everywhere else; elsewhere my ideas are given some currency, even if I am not 100% accurate. Here, unless I am 100% accurate... I may as well have said nothing at all, apparently.

Well then, carry on; I guess I was mistaken for thinking anything AI said outside 'Zelda is cool' or 'Stop projecting MMario onto things' was intelligible to me.

[Metal Man]

[heh]

uh metal man i'm not a "judge" of anything, you don't know what the word projection means (in this context)

projection

11. Psychology . a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

so unless you are indirectly trying to say AI is "mentally ill for not understanding you." you are using the word wrong


TL;DR try to know what words mean before you use them over and over again as the crux of your inane ranting (and then write big posts about irrelevant **** and pretend i am insulting you because i pointed this out (this specifically, as you have no doubt noticed that i have insulted you elsewhere (deal with it)))

e: hahahahh you keep using that word even though you don't know what it means

[Metal Man]

If you want to pretend words have only one degree of meaning (and no possibility to define their intensity), go ahead. I'm done debating semantics with you.

On a side note, dogpiling on me won't make me change my mind, so you can stop that cute tactic right now. A bunch of people in the same community following the popularly held belief doesn't change the validity of what I say, no matter how many ways you can beat the dead horse of "Metal Man used big words! HE USED THOSE BIG WORDS WRONGGGGG." That old horse has been decaying since 2007, you can let it sit already.

[heh]

yes, clearly the fact that you keep using dumb words incorrectly is evidence of the fact that i am an uncreative loser who does not understand poetic license instead of a guy who knows you can't just arbitrarily invent new meanings for words in the middle of an argument and expect to not be called dumb for misusing words

[Metal Man]

Because making up a summary about an argument you want to win makes you right.

It didn't work when I stupidly tried it, and it won't work for you, either.

[ZeldaGirl]

TG, Chunky, drop it. AI seems to be done talking about this, MM is done talking about this, so we are all done with this topic, capiche?

[Bad Dragonite]

TG, Chunky, drop it. AI seems to be done talking about this, MM is done talking about this, so we are all done with this topic, capiche?

Nu-uh!

[/redundant yet obligitory sarcasm]

[Rainbow Dash]

hey whoa im making my usual low effort antagonistic posts not arguing