Will liberals admit the default sexual orientation for humans =heterosexual?

[tonymctones]

The numbers speak for themselves. How the numbers are used is up to people.

One nitwit friend just jumped the broom, for the 5th time...... to a chick on her 4th. What do you think their chances are?

you didnt read my post correctly...The number is way off...

do you know how the calculate that number?

they take the number of divorces in a year and divided by the number of marriages performed.

it doesnt take into account marriages from previous years that dont end in divorce in the current years calculation only the divorces. You can imagine how overtime this stat can become completely useless and incorrect.

[drkaje]

you didnt read my post correctly...The number is way off...

do you know how the calculate that number?

they take the number of divorces in a year and divided by the number of marriages performed.

it doesnt take into account marriages from previous years that dont end in divorce in the current years calculation only the divorces. You can imagine how overtime this stat can become completely useless and incorrect.

I did read your post and do know how it's calculated. I also freely admit it can't possibly reflect situations when people divorce for financial reasons.

That's why they call it a divorce rate.

Last reasonable stats I looked at (when bored silly) had the rate at about 54%.

[tonymctones]

I did read your post and do know how it's calculated. I also freely admit it can't possibly reflect situations when people divorce for financial reasons.

That's why they call it a divorce rate.

Last reasonable stats I looked at (when bored silly) had the rate at about 54%.

still way high last time i checked the real divorce rate was high 30's

[drkaje]

still way high last time i checked the real divorce rate was high 30's

I understand why some take exception to how the rate is calculated. Honestly, it was you who showed us the link several years ago.

I still believe using the population is valid for determining the rate but agree that it doesn't actually reflect chances individual couples have for marital success.

[Skip8282]

So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?

[Soul Crusher]

So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?

Correct - and should stsy out of the toilet, the kitchen cubard, the bedroom, the gas tank, the light bulb socket, the gun safe, etc

[Skip8282]

Correct - and should stsy out of the toilet, the kitchen cubard, the bedroom, the gas tank, the light bulb socket, the gun safe, etc

I'd agree with the gun safe...don't think most libs will.

Couldn't help but notice that Al Doggity is in disappearance mode now that Obama is out actively campaigning for gun control.

[avxo]

So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?

Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?

[tonymctones]

Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?

do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?

[Skip8282]

Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?

100% stay out of the uterus.

Used to be 100% legalize all drugs.  Never been able to think of a practical way to do it.  I'm very concerned about drug company marketing and quality.  I get the libertarian 'market will correct itself'...but that's often too late for some people.  So, I guess I have reservations about it.

[Skip8282]

do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?

I get your fairness argument, but don't you think your remedy really hurts the kid?

[tonymctones]

I get your fairness argument, but don't you think your remedy really hurts the kid?

absolutely it does, does abortion not hurt them?

if we are worried about hurting them lets be consistent shall we

[avxo]

do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?

I don't follow? But generally speaking, I don't believe that the government should coerce people to do anything against their will.

[LurkerNoMore]

In addition to homo related obsessiveness, Tony's second pet argument relates to men having to pay child support for children they don't want as relative to a woman having an abortion.  Though he tries to mask it in a thinly veiled ploy of acting like he is concerned for the men losing a child when a female has an abortion without their consent.

[Al Doggity]

Couldn't help but notice that Al Doggity is in disappearance mode now that Obama is out actively campaigning for gun control.

Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.


And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:

LOL so you dont see homosexualality as deviating from the norm of sexual orientation?

you do understand statistics right?

you do know what it means to be 2 standard deviations away from the mean on a bell curve right?

Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.

[Skip8282]

Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.


And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:

Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.

Then I stand corrected.  I thought your position was that Barry wouldn't campaign for this or give it serious consideration.

[Straw Man]

Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.


And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:

Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.

LOL

[tonymctones]

I don't follow? But generally speaking, I don't believe that the government should coerce people to do anything against their will.

you feel the govt should stay out of womens reproduction rights, do you also feel the govt should stay out of mens reproduction rights?

like refusing to pay child support if they dont want the child? women can walk away, why not men?

[LurkerNoMore]

Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.


And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:

Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.

LOL  ask him to post links to the source of these "standard deviations" and "bell curves"  evidence (if they exist).

[Al Doggity]

LOL  ask him to post links to the source of these "standard deviations" and "bell curves"  evidence (if they exist).

I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.

[Straw Man]

I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.

LOL again

[Necrosis]

I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.

yes he soon will be discussion distribution about the mean, quote the word mode and then say linear regression.

it's funny because if plotted on a bell curve like tony suggests he is actually supporting kinsey and is gradient of gayness/hetero.

[LurkerNoMore]

worth repeating again

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that.  He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.

Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him.  Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. 

[whork]

I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.

Nice

[LurkerNoMore]

"Goodness Gracious".  You would think a (so called) psych major would not have tripped himself up so badly here.   

Once he removes all those arrows from his knees he can come back and try to explain it to us.