I Just Want To Say I Told You So. RE: LGBT

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
It's not anecdotal..observation is not anecdotal.

It is if the observations you are making aren't objective which none of yours are. You observing a study complete with data that you could link me wouldn't be anecdotal though.

Me relating it to you, then from your perspective it's anecdotal.

But from my perspective it's observation...are you claiming I'm seeing things that are not there?

No I'm saying you aren't objective and therefore aren't qualified to make rational opinions about the gay community.

Perhaps I'm imagining it.

When Edison saw a filament glow as current passed through it...was that anecdotal?

No. That was a science experiment. Something you haven't provided me.

Presumably everything is anecdotal until you confirm it, personally?

The best evidence in the world...from my own personal persoective, is that which I witness, personally.

Perhaps you don't trust yourself...we're not all as insecure as you.

Your entire life experience is, based on your own skewed perceptions...anecdotal.

You miss the point. Your memory is untrustworthy. This is a proven scientific fact. Humans misremember things all the time.
Your brain lies to you

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

Go you!

I don't care what you think as much as you seem to care what I think.

I don't give a damn what you think. I'm just talking to you. Check your ego, mate. You aren't that special to me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
I don't know if it is harming society, nor do you.

We don't know if it isn't, either.

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't give you reason to believe it is the case. You have to actually prove it with evidence. Otherwise Occam's Razor says your idea is a bunch of BS.

As far as I know...it's relatively new. Not homosexuality or trans, that's not new - but it's prevalence is, and the media that propagates it, in historical terms...also is.

You should look up Ancient Greece. Oh and modern Thailand.

Unless you can show me a period of history that mirrors what we're seeing now...a wide and far reaching social media propagating this...it being as common as it is.

Again... Ancient Greece....

So I'll give you that...there is no proof that it's harming society...and no proof that it isn't.

Is there? So we should just take your word for it?

No, but it isn't on me to prove a negative. That isn't how you prove things. If you want to say it is true or believe it then you need to provide evidence of it being true. Otherwise you are just talking out your ass.

If that person says it then it must be true!

We won't know if it's doing any harm probably until it's too late.

Well if you think that is the case then put on a lab coat, devise a study/experiment, and test your hypothesis. It's called Science. It's how we identify and understand the world and society.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...I hope you're right. But, unfortunately...I'm not as certain as you. You must be privvy to evidence and facts that nobody else is. Aren't you the enlightened one?

Nope. Just Occam's Razor. The idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the truth.

It's not an idea.

The notion that it isn't harmful is as credible and valid as the notion that it is.

There is no evidence either way...it's anecdotal.

Or does that only work sometimes...like when you decide?

I'm guessing so.

You win!

a reply to: LungFuMoShi

I have a feeling you don't know what it means for something to be anecdotal. You should really just stop pretending like you know everything and read the link I posted in the previous post.

PS: No evidence either way points to me being right since you are the one making the claim that more gays is bad for society.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
It's not anecdotal..observation is not anecdotal.

It is if the observations you are making aren't objective which none of yours are. You observing a study complete with data that you could link me wouldn't be anecdotal though.

Me relating it to you, then from your perspective it's anecdotal.

But from my perspective it's observation...are you claiming I'm seeing things that are not there?

No I'm saying you aren't objective and therefore aren't qualified to make rational opinions about the gay community.

Perhaps I'm imagining it.

When Edison saw a filament glow as current passed through it...was that anecdotal?

No. That was a science experiment. Something you haven't provided me.

Presumably everything is anecdotal until you confirm it, personally?

The best evidence in the world...from my own personal persoective, is that which I witness, personally.

Perhaps you don't trust yourself...we're not all as insecure as you.

Your entire life experience is, based on your own skewed perceptions...anecdotal.

You miss the point. Your memory is untrustworthy. This is a proven scientific fact. Humans misremember things all the time.
Your brain lies to you

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

Go you!

I don't care what you think as much as you seem to care what I think.

I don't give a damn what you think. I'm just talking to you. Check your ego, mate. You aren't that special to me.

Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

a reply to: LungFuMoShi

It's not anecdotal..observation is not anecdotal. Me relating it to you, then from your perspective it's anecdotal.

Ummm, here are the definitions of anecdote.

Merriam-Webster's definition:

a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

Oxford Dictionaries.com's definition

1 A short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

1.1 An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

1.2 The depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.

Dictionary.com's definition

1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Just for the record, anecdotes can be great for conversations & for persuasion. But they hold no weight in debates because there's no proof attached to them. After all, anyone can say "I saw a transgender guy transform into a werewolf and eat some kids! We must ban LGBTs to protect our kids!". But without proof, it's just words and would hold no weight in a debate.

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

So when I see girls out the town holding hands...more than one couple...something I never used to see, then like half an hour I later see two girls kissing on the bus...

And I look out the bus window ans see a rainbow flag, thn another one...and I go home and see more gay and trans stuff on tv than I used to.

...it's anecdotal.

My brain lied to me...my brain must be obsessed with gay stuff.

Which makes me the gayest person ever...I'm guessing now that I've come out of the closet that all of my opinions are now valid and no longer anecdotal.

Back of the net.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

No problem...so the stats posted in the OP are anecdotal then?

Got ya.

Cheers, mate.

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
So when I see girls out the town holding hands...more than one couple...something I never used to see, then like half an hour I later see two girls kissing on the bus...

And I look out the bus window ans see a rainbow flag, thn another one...and I go home and see more gay and trans stuff on tv than I used to.

...it's anecdotal.

YES! That is an anecdote. For one, your brain may be pushing other times where you saw too women holding hands out of your head while this one remains distinct in your head. That is how your brain lies to you. Especially in regards to confirmation bias. It is easy to forget the inconvenient things that make us wrong, but the supporting information is always easy to remember.

My brain lied to me...my brain must be obsessed with gay stuff.

Which makes me the gayest person ever...I'm guessing now that I've come out of the closet that all of my opinions are now valid and no longer anecdotal.

Back of the net.

This is called hyperbole.

So I can't trust my own observations?

Got ya....if I see something, it's not a personal experience that I'm pretty sure of, it's me telling myself an anecdote about what I personally observed.

In short...take what you see with a pinch of salt...it might not be true.

Your eyes play tricks on you. And unless I can prove to others' that I saw what I saw, it's invalid.

But you neglect to realise one very important thing...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anyting...I don't care who believes me when I tell them what I saw.

I only care about me in this regard. You can go about doubting your own eyes if you like...I've more self confidence than that, thanks.

This is a new one on me...don't believe what you see...no matter how uninteresting and mundane it is, it's an hallucination.

It's a whole 'nother level of manipulation and control...wondering execatly just how far people will go to convince people that they are wrong about something.

It is kinda funny...thanks.

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

No problem...so the stats posted in the OP are anecdotal then?

Got ya.

Cheers, mate.

Holy #! Do you just pick and choose your own arguments? This is a post from page 13 I wrote:

Why? Our problem isn't with the OP's statistics. Our problem is with the ignorant conclusion he reached USING those statistics. None of us care if the gay or trans population is increasing and we don't think that it doing so will destroy the country. That is a slippery slope fallacy, and a terrible one at that.

The OP's statistics do not support the conclusion he has reached that more gay people are bad for society. All it says is that there are more gay people in society and millennials are more tolerant of them than other age groups. OP's conclusion is a HUGE jump in logic.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

No problem...so the stats posted in the OP are anecdotal then?

Got ya.

Cheers, mate.

Holy #! Do you just pick and choose your own arguments? This is a post from page 13 I wrote:

Why? Our problem isn't with the OP's statistics. Our problem is with the ignorant conclusion he reached USING those statistics. None of us care if the gay or trans population is increasing and we don't think that it doing so will destroy the country. That is a slippery slope fallacy, and a terrible one at that.

The OP's statistics do not support the conclusion he has reached that more gay people are bad for society. All it says is that there are more gay people in society and millennials are more tolerant of them than other age groups. OP's conclusion is a HUGE jump in logic.

I never really sided with the OP completely, all I really wanted was for someone to admit that there was a clear agenda being pushed.

Over-representation was the best I got.

And it's meaningless...as that opinion is anecdotal at best.

Nobody can possibly win this debate.

I'm barely skimming this thread now, since it's the usual case of trying to get a gallon of insight into a pint-pot mentality. But before I unsubscribe, I have to say that the assertion that the OP is being "oppressed" is one of the most jaw-droppingly manipulative statements on this entire thread. The claims in the OP are garbage, and are being called out accordingly.

And the bit that his fellow-travellers haven't noticed is that the claims in the OP call for the oppression of LGBT identities. Because, well, because of just about any idea that one might care to think of. I wonder how many fellow Americans would unhesitatingly describe their own personal identities as the intrinsic foundation of their individual freedoms?

Anyways. Enough of this for now.

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

No problem...so the stats posted in the OP are anecdotal then?

Got ya.

Cheers, mate.

Holy #! Do you just pick and choose your own arguments? This is a post from page 13 I wrote:

Why? Our problem isn't with the OP's statistics. Our problem is with the ignorant conclusion he reached USING those statistics. None of us care if the gay or trans population is increasing and we don't think that it doing so will destroy the country. That is a slippery slope fallacy, and a terrible one at that.

The OP's statistics do not support the conclusion he has reached that more gay people are bad for society. All it says is that there are more gay people in society and millennials are more tolerant of them than other age groups. OP's conclusion is a HUGE jump in logic.

I never really sided with the OP completely, all I really wanted was for someone to admit that there was a clear agenda being pushed.

Why should we do that if you don't provide any evidence of such outside of your own personal anecdotes? At least the OP provided statistics even if it wasn't enough evidence to prove his point.

Over-representation was the best I got.

And it's meaningless...as that opinion is anecdotal at best.

Nobody can possibly win this debate.

Null Hypothesis

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise

It's not about winning. Hell, it's impossible to "win" a debate because our understanding of the universe is always changing and updating with new information. It's about overcoming the null hypothesis and until you do so no one is required to believe you. Nor should they.

originally posted by: audubon
I'm barely skimming this thread now, since it's the usual case of trying to get a gallon of insight into a pint-pot mentality. But before I unsubscribe, I have to say that the assertion that the OP is being "oppressed" is one of the most jaw-droppingly manipulative statements on this entire thread. The claims in the OP are garbage, and are being called out accordingly.

And the bit that his fellow-travellers haven't noticed is that the claims in the OP call for the oppression of LGBT identities. Because, well, because of just about any idea that one might care to think of. I wonder how many fellow Americans would unhesitatingly describe their own personal identities as the intrinsic foundation of their individual freedoms?

Anyways. Enough of this for now.

Brilliant.

The OP has been oppressed, or should I say suppressed...hasn't responded to his/her own thread for pages now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Your brain lies to you, too.

We're both wrong and unreliable.

Yes! Which is why you try not to base your opinions solely on anecdotes and personal observations. You base it on objective data and scientific experimentation that is the same no matter how many times you look at it or perform the experiment.

No problem...so the stats posted in the OP are anecdotal then?

Got ya.

Cheers, mate.

Holy #! Do you just pick and choose your own arguments? This is a post from page 13 I wrote:

Why? Our problem isn't with the OP's statistics. Our problem is with the ignorant conclusion he reached USING those statistics. None of us care if the gay or trans population is increasing and we don't think that it doing so will destroy the country. That is a slippery slope fallacy, and a terrible one at that.

The OP's statistics do not support the conclusion he has reached that more gay people are bad for society. All it says is that there are more gay people in society and millennials are more tolerant of them than other age groups. OP's conclusion is a HUGE jump in logic.

I never really sided with the OP completely, all I really wanted was for someone to admit that there was a clear agenda being pushed.

Why should we do that if you don't provide any evidence of such outside of your own personal anecdotes? At least the OP provided statistics even if it wasn't enough evidence to prove his point.

Over-representation was the best I got.

And it's meaningless...as that opinion is anecdotal at best.

Nobody can possibly win this debate.

Null Hypothesis

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise

It's not about being right. It's about overcoming the null hypothesis and until you do so no one is required to believe you. Nor should they.

I know...I don't necessarily want anyone to believe me. I've already said this...I only care about me when it comes to who believes what I personally witness.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Like if I watch a movie...and tell someone - hey, i saw that movie and it was great. And they say...no you didn't!

I still saw it.

Then not believing me doesn't detract from that fact, it never will.

You're still trying to argue with me in spite of it all.

Even though I stated quite clearly...I just like arguing.

Maybe you're imagining this thread and it never happened.

OP left a message on page 10 saying he'll be on later tonight

Later folks. I'll check back tonight.

He isn't being "suppressed".

a reply to: Dfairlite

lol, what's your point? You're looking at numbers but these numbers are people. I'm sure you talk to a lot of millennial youth.

Obviously being more oppressed, and having less personal choice and options, would be better for peoples' self actualization and wellbeing....

"Rock and roll is the devil's music".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
OP left a message on page 10 saying he'll be on later tonight

Later folks. I'll check back tonight.

He isn't being "suppressed".

Yeah, it's only temporary suppression.

maybe the numbers went up because we in the lgbtq community finally felt that society has progressed enough for us to express ourselves better...more openly.

but most likely not due to your amazing skills of prediction.