…or perhaps more to the point, how many people would have to tell you that you were carrying on like a complete fuckwad before you would engage in some self examination?
I don’t know why you assume I haven’t engaged in self-examination. If anything, it seems like I examine myself in an obsessive sort of way. Since none of you are as yet capable of coming up with a reason why I should doubt my opinions – and understand that every complaint on you folks’ part that is obvious bullshit helps me be more certain that I’m right – why should I be doubting myself?
Why do you think that my self-examination ought to lead to agreement with the SDMB’s examination of me? It doesn’t, obviously, but beyond that – there’s no plausible reason why it should. Even before you examine the bizarro attitudes on display here (which certainly go to reinforce my opinions of this community.)
Omphaloskepsis at its finest.
:rolleyes: It’s hardly omphaloskepsis to respond to specific, stupid things others said.
. . . you used a word whose meaning you don’t know, obviously.
Well, you would have found that lump and told your doctor.
And he’d’ve said “That’s your FACE!” -zing!-
That’s not because we’re soft on gay rights. That’s because nobody likes you.
Have you figured out where you are going wrong with your “6154 years” number yet?
Hah! I’m sorry, that’s just funny to me.
Oh, dude, I get that people here hate me. And it’s obvious that a big part of the reason is that I’m not wrapped up in trying to be liked by people like you, Miller. (Seriously, it’s sort of hard to believe anyone you’ve ever known has been worried about whether you liked them. I mean, jeez, who the hell would care?)
At any rate, that has nothing to do with what I said, though. You didn’t step up because you don’t give a crap about the facts. Which, well, is clearly the norm around here. If you gave a shit about facts, it wouldn’t be dependent on whether or not you liked me, would it?
IDK why. My opinions change when subjected to actual arguments. The SDMB hasn’t changed them for the obvious reason.
FTR, Una cited stats from the FBI hate crimes database and mentioned weaknesses in the same. Nyx made some plausible criticisms, without pulling any relevant stats on his own. From there forward it was all table pounding.
Substantively, male homosexuals were about 5 times more likely to be targeted in a male homosexual hate crime than female homosexuals were likely to suffer from the analogous misfortune, according to the FBI report, assuming approximate equal numbers of male and female gay/bisexuals, as backed by the Indiana study.
By way of comparison, “…males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent victimization during 2010,” according to Crime Victimization, 2010, a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics utilizing the National Crime Victimization Survey. But can they be trusted? After all mister nyx insists otherwise, wholly without factual substantiation.
So you think the stats are slanted by the convictions of the researchers. Coming from nyx, that’s pretty rich. After all it’s pretty clear that nyx is all conviction.
I’m going to need a cite for that.
Well, I also explained before such statistics were cited the reason such numbers, were they offered, wouldn’t actually support the claim made (which is that people are super-duper scared of gay dudes but are, comparatively, fine with gay ladies).
Una Persson cited these numbers anyway, after I’d pointed out that they didn’t actually get at the point of the thread, with no explanation at all for why they should be treated as in any way dispositive, much less any argument against the point I’d made earlier.
And, yet again, despite the fact that I raised this point in the original thread and no one there was able to argue it either, no claim about this ration is relevant if you can’t somehow explain away the fact that violent crimes against men are, in general, vastly more common than violent crimes against women.
So, again, if you actually gave half a shit about the question under discussion – are people more homophobic against gay (/bi) men than gay (/bi) women – well, if you don’t control for how men in general are more likely to be subject to violent crimes, you haven’t proven anything.
But, of course, actual facts mean shit here at the SDMB. Which is why I’m trying to explain the basic concept of eliminating other variables in the data for about the tenth time, with just as little luck as the 9 previous times.
How is it inaccurate to conclude that Dopers aren’t, on average, really fucking stupid, if it takes this many attempts to explain the basic concept of multiple variables and trying to analyze them and separate their contributions to the data? But, then, as your moderator indicated, it doesn’t matter in the slightest what I argue. No one likes me, so obviously Dopers won’t address any of this incomprehensible numbery shit, right? Numbers don’t count, it’s Dopers and all their delicate feewings that we should be talking about. Unless, and this is a long shot, unless someone at the Dope actually values data over feewings. So far, no one has shown up.
Aww, stupid little Doper can’t understand even the simplest argument about actual data. You’re too stupid to understand how useless the data cited in the original thread were, and you’re too stupid to understand the notion of multiple, confounding variables. What a dumb little Doper you are. I bet you’re so dumb that you’re going to have to resort to telling me that no one likes me in order to try to pretend you “won” an argument.
Heh. Winning the argument. Self awareness isn’t one of nyx’s strong points.
So, in the real world, there’s still no evidence that violent assholes are somehow more likely to target gay men than gay women by any ratio that can’t be totally explained by how men are more likely to be targeted with violence than women.
Meaning, obviously, that I’m still right, and you Dopers are still trying to pretend otherwise, even though you can’t even come up with a counterargument for the points I made prior to any of the fake citations were offered.
:rolleyes: Arguing with a Doper is like arguing with Charlie Sheen. Congratulations! You’re WINNING.
And yet you offer no cites. Show me one post where you cite anything. Just one.
Any post where I cite anything? How about the posts where I cited the fact that “fag” and “nigger” are slurs?
Of course, I am the only Doper who actually gives a crap about citations, so they got roundly ignored, because those citations didn’t reinforce the existing Dope opinion. Regardless of the fact that it was absurd to expect me to cite something that obvious. When I did, I got zero credit, obviously. Because this is the Dope. Citations that don’t reinforce the prevailing groupthink automatically don’t count.
Do you even know what “cite” means?
Show me a single link you have posted to an outside source. I don’t care about the subject matter - it’s your debating style. Show me where you have cited somebody besides yourself. Just give me one example of you citing (with a link) off the board facts and I will shut up.
