Poll: What percentage of people are LGBT?

[Blow_Pop]

About how many of your friends and family do you know to be LGBT?

Friends- Let's just say my straight friends are outnumbered by a LOT and are more rare than not (Also, most of us including myself prefer it to be MOGAI - Marginalised Orientations Gender Alignments & Intersex at least in my friend circle because also a lot of us including myself don't identify as the gender we were assigned at birth)

Family- I wouldn't know because they're all superbly religious so in my extended family it's a "taboo" topic. I might be the only one.

How tolerant are people of LGBT people where you're from?

Fairly tolerant. The superbly religious people tend to be the least tolerant. My mum is super tolerant but I'm not fully out to my parents yet due to my own issues.

 

[Therumancer]

[

Your implication based on what you said is that homosexual couples are adopting kids to abuse the system. No one is stating that foster abuse doesn't happen, but considering that it has been an uphill battle for gay people to even have the ability to get the right to adopt for a long time, and in fact is still restricted in some states:

The legal status of LGBT adoption in the United States varies by jurisdiction. States and other jurisdictions may restrict adoption by sexual orientation or marital status. In some states, since adoptions are handled by local courts, practices may vary within a given jurisdiction.[1] A same-sex couple can adopt in most states. More states permit adoption by an individual who is gay or lesbian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

it's not unjustified to want to see your statistics on foster abuse happening from primarily from gay couples.

I've bolded the part of your statement that primarily I have issue with. You can't make a statement and then back away from said statement. You make a huge implication such as this, then state "well everyone knows this" is just a cop out.

I had a mother and a father, my father was a police officer and a wonderful man, my mother was a worthless drunk that tortured me for 14 years and left me literally physically broken. It didn't take a foster care home to do that. It didn't take a gay couple to do that. It took a worthless human being to do that. Those people exist, and that's why we have to fight for children's rights.

But there are plenty of people out there, gay, straight, single, trans, that would love to adopt/foster that aren't able to because of the ridiculous restrictions that are placed state by state, and that aren't regulated, while others are able to foster at an insane level, and sadly things like abuse happen. Yet I can't find one instance of a gay couple being the foster parents of one of those abused children's homes.

If you're going to make a wide accusation like that, then perhaps you should start backing it up with facts. Otherwise you just look like a fool, and anyone with the sense of using google can literally look at the very first link and prove you wrong.

Great, now actually do the research I gave you from the starting point I gave you. Follow links. Read the other side from those who oppose gay adoption and the cases they use. Then get back to me. I doubt you'll do it of course because you really don't want to see the pattern or information (like usual) as chances are you would have already noted it. In the end notice that you'll eventually wind up with specific cases and such in my case, as opposed to politically slanted statistics intended to support the idea of gay adoptions and such largely based around social philosophy.

It's sort of like how you'll have everyone, including liberals, afraid to let their kids out to play, multi-locking their doors, and talking about how crazy and unsafe things have gotten... without drawing the connection that at the same time they are making defenses of all the freaks, weirdoes, and trouble makers not being singled out by the police through things like profiling, and lining up to defend any minority group claiming to be "okay" and "misunderstood" from harassment and action. The police become purely reactive as a result, and you only hear about problems after they occur and in such a way where it's always presented as being entirely a lone individual at fault, with resistance to any kind of patterns being acted on no matter what the authorities try and tell you. The left wing tends to entirely ignore this and simply considers it a fluke with tons of excuses... oftentimes screaming about the evils of the US say reverting more back to a 1950s style of society like it's some kind of nightmare. The funny thing about that though is that during the days of most of our grandparents kids could at least walk the streets, the police actively kept things safe enough by keeping the weirdoes in check. It wasn't as utopian as a lot of people present (people did lock their doors) but it was far less paranoid. In short as time goes on I've basically come to realize that "The Greatest Generation" was pretty much right, and they warned us about a lot of things, granted they weren't right about everything, but the Baby Boomers were more wrong than right, and their dominance has largely lead to American society becoming a lot more dangerous for everyone.

Ignorance is bliss so to speak, the problem is few people will ever wind up in a position to see the truth for themselves, and at the end of the day liberal philosophy sounds really good. Heck, I'll even be blunt in saying that as an idea on paper outright Communism sounds wonderful too. In practice however the reality is quite different. What we're seeing is liberal philosophy causing decay in society as the realities set in, sort of like how when put into practice on a large scale communism largely turns nations in hellholes that actually wind up being a lot more oppressive. On some levels I think the young and idealistic have too much say in society, especially now, I disagreed with that when I was an idealistic kid out to save the world of course, but as I grew up and learned the things that I did, I came to realize how far out of touch I actually was...

 

[Rabbitboy]

I have never felt romanticlly or sexually attracted to the same sex so that would be no. My country was the first to legalize gay marriage so I geuss it's quite tolerant.

 

[Marter]

...as I was double moderated (twice for one offense) for being anti-gay men and expressing beliefs that are not socially liberal.

There is no history of double moderation on your account, so either your appeal was successful in bringing it down to one -- as it should be -- or you're posting false information.

 

[Maevine]

No, I'm not Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Trans.

But I am Pan~

 

[Therumancer]

...as I was double moderated (twice for one offense) for being anti-gay men and expressing beliefs that are not socially liberal.

There is no history of double moderation on your account, so either your appeal was successful in bringing it down to one -- as it should be -- or you're posting false information.

Incorrect, on July 31st I was moderated for posts written on the 30th twice in a row ten minutes apart. This was done in such a fashion as to guarantee a suspension, without any chance to respond to a "Warning" and correct behavior. Basically two day old messages on the same topic for the same offense. It IS a double moderation since I was basically "warned" twice (With marks on my record) for the same offense. I protested this both in terms that I am not a troll, but a serious social conservative representing an issue I have for years, and the fact that I was being punished twice for one offense. My appeals were more or less not seriously acknowledged and I was basically told what I think doesn't matter.

For the record this represents both changes to how long standing board policy has been enforced especially in regards to political and social discussion, and a grotesque abuse of moderator power. I still choose to post here within these new guidelines, but I am not going to defend your policies and fair enforcement the way I have in the past. What's more when it comes to discussions like this I am going to be very blunt about the fact that I was moderated for having my opinions, called a "troll" in the moderation notice despite having stood for the same things for a long time and have been very polite despite some less than gracious opposition (ie I do not file complaints when I know a discussion is going to be touchy). The mods made their choices, my suspension was noticed publically as well and thought of as pretty bogus (check my private mail on the site, there is at least one response there). I'm simply going to call you on it when appropriate. Free speech does not exist as a right on private forums, you are within your rights to do things like this, and I post here understanding that, but when it comes up I'm going to honestly talk about what the mods did, and if it makes you look bad, oh well... nobody seems to have given two craps about it at the time and I wound up with the marks and serving a suspension.

You have basically created an environment, where the way you enforce policy forces me to tell people there are limits to how I can represent now. You have defined socially conservative attitudes as being trolling. You can be vocally pro-gay on this site, but cannot express yourself if you are one of the millions who is not pro-gay. Hence my need to tip toe around certain issues and making strong statements because golly gee, someone might be offended during a disagreement over one of the major social issues of our day.

In short it's not false information, it is 100% true.

 

[Marter]

Incorrect, on July 31st I was moderated for posts written on the 30th twice in a row ten minutes apart. This was done in such a fashion as to guarantee a suspension, without any chance to respond to a "Warning" and correct behavior. Basically two day old messages on the same topic for the same offense. It IS a double moderation since I was basically "warned" twice (With marks on my record) for the same offense. I protested this both in terms that I am not a troll, but a serious social conservative representing an issue I have for years, and the fact that I was being punished twice for one offense. My appeals were more or less not seriously acknowledged and I was basically told what I think doesn't matter.

For the record this represents both changes to how long standing board policy has been enforced especially in regards to political and social discussion, and a grotesque abuse of moderator power. I still choose to post here within these new guidelines, but I am not going to defend your policies and fair enforcement the way I have in the past. What's more when it comes to discussions like this I am going to be very blunt about the fact that I was moderated for having my opinions, called a "troll" in the moderation notice despite having stood for the same things for a long time and have been very polite despite some less than gracious opposition (ie I do not file complaints when I know a discussion is going to be touchy). The mods made their choices, my suspension was noticed publically as well and thought of as pretty bogus (check my private mail on the site, there is at least one response there). I'm simply going to call you on it when appropriate. Free speech does not exist as a right on private forums, you are within your rights to do things like this, and I post here understanding that, but when it comes up I'm going to honestly talk about what the mods did, and if it makes you look bad, oh well... nobody seems to have given two craps about it at the time and I wound up with the marks and serving a suspension.

You have basically created an environment, where the way you enforce policy forces me to tell people there are limits to how I can represent now. You have defined socially conservative attitudes as being trolling. You can be vocally pro-gay on this site, but cannot express yourself if you are one of the millions who is not pro-gay. Hence my need to tip toe around certain issues and making strong statements because golly gee, someone might be offended during a disagreement over one of the major social issues of our day.

In short it's not false information, it is 100% true.

Okay, so you weren't "double moderated." You didn't have the same post moderated twice, which is what I thought you meant.

By the way, mods can't check PMs. We don't set the policy by which we moderate. And your comments were called "trolling"; you yourself were never called a "troll."

I guess I clarified what I wanted to. I thought you meant that a single post was moderated twice ("double moderated"), but your clarification helped that.

 

[Therumancer]

[
Okay, so you weren't "double moderated." You didn't have the same post moderated twice, which is what I thought you meant.

By the way, mods can't check PMs. We don't set the policy by which we moderate. And your comments were called "trolling"; you yourself were never called a "troll."

I guess I clarified what I wanted to. I thought you meant that a single post was moderated twice ("double moderated"), but your clarification helped that.

From my perspective it is a double moderation because there is no way I could have responded and changed behavior (or appealed) from the first moderation before the second one was filed. What's more it was two messages in the same thread. Still I see what you mean.

As far as policy goes, I'm going to say flat out that while mods might not set the policy, they are the ones that interpet that policy in the street (so to speak). It has only been very recently that mods have started taking action to moderate political discussion and accuse someone like me of trolling. I have been part of "The Escapist" and a member of the Pub. Club since almost the very beginning, and trust me, what I said there was nothing new, we've been going back and forth about gay rights on these forums periodically for years now, and I'm very much not in favor of gay men for reasons I have in the past articulated. What's more while not popular here, such sentiments are not exactly rare, and are even behind various real world political battles and such. In taking these actions, the mods suddenly started interpreting long standing policies and rules differently, and in doing so pretty much declaring this a liberal-politics only site. After all if you are against what some people consider to be "social justice" for whatever reason it could be interpreted as some kind of attack by the other side or the group being discussed (as happens IRL for that matter), if you choose to allow moderations like happened against me, the site is now formally involved in political censorship, whether it wants to accept that or not. I have no compunctions about calling you on it when it comes up, and I have to talk around certain subjects.

While The Escapist has been rather open in terms of specific issues like Gamersgate (more so than other sites) recently it has been engaged in rather one sided, and draconian moderation, something others have talked about, but I by and large defended you based on the principle that it was about how you said things and the context (since I remain polite). However now that I myself have been targeted I am not very much on the opposite side even if I choose to post here. While risky, I am actually hoping to see reforms in moderation so the site can get back on track to what it used to be.

Again as I pointed out, you might as well not have a religion and politics board, and simply declare it a liberal discussion center or something. Also when it comes to interpretation I will point out that you'll notice when people attack conservatives and the like there is not any action taken, nor is action taken when people say start threads talking about the foolishness of religion. Notice nobody has exactly been booted for say making jokes about The Flying Spaghetti monster which is a parody meant to mock those who have faith. One cannot drop the whole "we do not choose the policies we enforce" card when by definition mods are choosing how to interpret different things and picking and choosing when and where to enforce policy, which is of course is leading to bias, censorship, and bigotry above and beyond anything I've said. Indeed as I've said many times, if you can't take it, don't dish it out, and I live by that, I say my piece and take my lumps as a serious minority in the forums as it is. It seems I've been being moderated after years of activity because some people on the other side can't in turn take what they dish out back, even when I'm very polite in return.... and heck, in some of those discussions by literal definition of the policies half the site would be banned for some of the garbage that's been directed at me in public.

Ideally Off Topic and Religion and Politics (or even just the latter) would simply be declared "free fire" zones and mod authority removed from those sections and then you'd have to worry less about political bias on the part of mods influencing policy interpretations... but that hasn't happened yet.

... and let's be honest, moderating me twice minutes apart at 2am before I have a chance to respond, using day old messages no less, is kind of ridiculous and reeks of bias. I don't rail about it constantly, but when it's relevant I mention it. If the mods want to correct things and apologize, well they can. Until then, when the subject comes up I'm going to be quite vocal about what happened here. In part because it's important to warn anyone else that might be socially conservative that this is not a safe place for them to speak... which actually plays to the intent does it not? To silence opposition like me? In a way I'm giving back exactly what seems to be desired.

 

[Marter]

... and let's be honest, moderating me twice minutes apart at 2am before I have a chance to respond, using day old messages no less, is kind of ridiculous and reeks of bias. I don't rail about it constantly, but when it's relevant I mention it. If the mods want to correct things and apologize, well they can. Until then, when the subject comes up I'm going to be quite vocal about what happened here. In part because it's important to warn anyone else that might be socially conservative that this is not a safe place for them to speak... which actually plays to the intent does it not? To silence opposition like me? In a way I'm giving back exactly what seems to be desired.

I'll tell you how it probably happened. The mod queue wasn't dealt with for a day or two, and the mod going through it dealt with it, not looking at the usernames at all. AKA, it was as un-biased as possible. A post we see breaks a rule, and it gets wrathed. Who said it really doesn't come into play. Furthermore, the mod history doesn't update instantly, and therefore if the mod didn't look who it was one time, but for some reason looked the other -- or another mod was also dealing with the queue at the same time -- then the post wrathed two minutes earlier wouldn't have even appeared in your history.

By the way, we're allowed to wrath posts up to two weeks after they've been posted. One day late isn't ridiculous; in fact, it's probably more standard than anything. And if you did appeal, then the staff member who looked at your appeal agreed that both posts broke the rules and you should receive two separate warnings. Take it up with them. PM our community manager. Talking about "bias" that doesn't exist on the forums doesn't really help anything.

Oh, and if we remove the moderator's powers from Off-topic and R&P, good luck with all them spambots. Just saying.

 

[Therumancer]

...as I was double moderated (twice for one offense) for being anti-gay men and expressing beliefs that are not socially liberal.

There is no history of double moderation on your account, so either your appeal was successful in bringing it down to one -- as it should be -- or you're posting false information.

Incorrect, on July 31st I was moderated for posts written on the 30th twice in a row ten minutes apart. This was done in such a fashion as to guarantee a suspension, without any chance to respond to a "Warning" and correct behavior. Basically two day old messages on the same topic for the same offense. It IS a double moderation since I was basically "warned" twice (With marks on my record) for the same offense. I protested this both in terms that I am not a troll, but a serious social conservative representing an issue I have for years, and the fact that I was being punished twice for one offense. My appeals were more or less not seriously acknowledged and I was basically told what I think doesn't matter.

For the record this represents both changes to how long standing board policy has been enforced especially in regards to political and social discussion, and a grotesque abuse of moderator power. I still choose to post here within these new guidelines, but I am not going to defend your policies and fair enforcement the way I have in the past. What's more when it comes to discussions like this I am going to be very blunt about the fact that I was moderated for having my opinions, called a "troll" in the moderation notice despite having stood for the same things for a long time and have been very polite despite some less than gracious opposition (ie I do not file complaints when I know a discussion is going to be touchy). The mods made their choices, my suspension was noticed publically as well and thought of as pretty bogus (check my private mail on the site, there is at least one response there). I'm simply going to call you on it when appropriate. Free speech does not exist as a right on private forums, you are within your rights to do things like this, and I post here understanding that, but when it comes up I'm going to honestly talk about what the mods did, and if it makes you look bad, oh well... nobody seems to have given two craps about it at the time and I wound up with the marks and serving a suspension.

You have basically created an environment, where the way you enforce policy forces me to tell people there are limits to how I can represent now. You have defined socially conservative attitudes as being trolling. You can be vocally pro-gay on this site, but cannot express yourself if you are one of the millions who is not pro-gay. Hence my need to tip toe around certain issues and making strong statements because golly gee, someone might be offended during a disagreement over one of the major social issues of our day.

In short it's not false information, it is 100% true.

This chimes with me - I have no idea about the contents of your posts, Therumancer, they may have been horrific, and personally I honestly don't care whether someone is gay or not (it's the endless "activism" and attempts to demand representation in other people's art as a right that gets very dull).

However, in my experience, you are right - it's much, much easier to attract negative moderation if you don't espouse left wing views, preferably far left wing. Then again, as you say, it's a private forum so the owner/operator makes the rules and we can like it or lump it.

They weren't anything that bad, you might disagree with me, but it's nothing that hasn't been said or implied a lot of times before, and actually probably a lot lower key than some of the nasty things I had sent back to me in discussions in the past. Of course I can't say WHAT I said in the flow of a conversation, because you know... I might be moderated again. That said the posts might still be up, and I gave the date of the moderation warnings as well as mentioning the posts were a day before, so I'd imagine it shouldn't be hard to find out if the forums go back that far, if your really curious that is.

The odd thing in context is I've said the same basic thing many times over a period of years, I was even talked to (not moderated) by one of the admins once in private mail (sadly I don't have those anymore) and was told it was okay for me to post my sentiments on things like this since I wasn't doing it for no other reason than to upset people. Sadly I can't prove it, but even if one argues in favor of strict policy interpretations I could argue I received a long standing exemption from management.

That said though, it doesn't much matter, either things will change or they won't. Who knows, maybe those interpreting policy will go on a mod rampage in a few hours to try and prove me wrong and start moderating everyone who has said anything that could be considered offensive to someone who is religious, or attacked conservatives... even if the posts are tonally polite. If they decide to do it like they did with me, they will dig up old messages and moderate one after another with no chance to respond, and soon the forums will be a ghost town except for a few mods with bloody ban hammers....

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

I've always found it interesting that lesbian and Gay have their own letters, when lesbians are gay. Could anyone tell me why this is, I'm curious

for some reason gay seems to be the "guy" version whereas lesbian is very specific....why? *shrug* I don't know, some women prefer gay or even queer for whatever reason

I've always found it interesting that lesbian and Gay have their own letters, when lesbians are gay. Could anyone tell me why this is, I'm curious

While I don't really know all that much, I suspect that its due to the general differences in societal attitudes towards homosexuality between the genders and how rights activism for homosexual men and homosexual women require different things due to these differences in perception.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me You raise a good point Mars, I think that makes a lot of sense.

That's a really interesting question. If I had to guess, it involved as they are actually fairly distinct populations. Gay men and gay women tend to cluster amongst themselves.

My working hypothesis is similar to Mars; that gay women are historically doubly disenfranchised. There were times were men were permitted to pursue homosexual relationships, but this was somewhat less true for women.

I suppose we see a similar dichotomy in how men can refer to both men and women and people in the general sense. But more specifically, women means women always. Which is something I'm gonna be thinking about all day. Someone get me a linguist! Please! It's an emergency.

On-topic: I would guess that the lack of accuracy in the survey numbers depends on how you ask the questions. Kinsey was somewhat poor in this regard leading to, what I believe to be an overestimation. I like to imagine it as decreasingly small circles within each other. Many people, I'd imagine, would consider having a same-sex attraction. Less, have actually had one. Less still have had multiple prolonged same-sex relationships. Least consider themselves purely homosexual. Then there's the difference between desires and experiences. And confounding factors like societal pressures in identifying as such.

 

[Therumancer]

... and let's be honest, moderating me twice minutes apart at 2am before I have a chance to respond, using day old messages no less, is kind of ridiculous and reeks of bias. I don't rail about it constantly, but when it's relevant I mention it. If the mods want to correct things and apologize, well they can. Until then, when the subject comes up I'm going to be quite vocal about what happened here. In part because it's important to warn anyone else that might be socially conservative that this is not a safe place for them to speak... which actually plays to the intent does it not? To silence opposition like me? In a way I'm giving back exactly what seems to be desired.

I'll tell you how it probably happened. The mod queue wasn't dealt with for a day or two, and the mod going through it dealt with it, not looking at the usernames at all. AKA, it was as un-biased as possible. A post we see breaks a rule, and it gets wrathed. Who said it really doesn't come into play. Furthermore, the mod history doesn't update instantly, and therefore if the mod didn't look who it was one time, but for some reason looked the other -- or another mod was also dealing with the queue at the same time -- then the post wrathed two minutes earlier wouldn't have even appeared in your history.

By the way, we're allowed to wrath posts up to two weeks after they've been posted. One day late isn't ridiculous; in fact, it's probably more standard than anything. And if you did appeal, then the staff member who looked at your appeal agreed that both posts broke the rules and you should receive two separate warnings. Take it up with them. PM our community manager. Talking about "bias" that doesn't exist on the forums doesn't really help anything.

Oh, and if we remove the moderator's powers from Off-topic and R&P, good luck with all them spambots. Just saying.

Which, despite the attempted justification it is ridiculous and to be frank I'm the only one I've seen it happen to. What's more a policy allowing you to "wrath" posts up to 2 weeks old is kind of dumb. Of course then again it is a private site, and I do choose to post here. I also felt my appeal was not seriously considered as well.

At the end of the day the very fact that someone interpreted posts in a political discussion like this as being "offensive" after years represents a problem. No matter whether allowed by policy "chain moderating" someone is silly, especially when you issue it as a "warning". By definition the idea is to warn someone to change behavior, if your chain moderating how exactly is that warning idea supposed to work?

So yeah, unless told flat out to stop, when it's on topic I am going to talk about this. It hasn't come up before July because this is the first conversation I've been in where not being able to post due to the way policies are suddenly being interpreted has been a factor.

I talked to a community manager about a different issue, but while this one was mentioned (very briefly), I didn't push it because it was old, and hadn't really been much of a factor, plus I had already served the suspension. I'm just no longer speaking freely on your forums, and occasionally going to be saying "hey, I'm not allowed to express myself on this subject here, blame the mods, not me" when it comes to social politics. I'm closer than I'd like to being banned, but really I tend not to get into much trouble, after years here it seems like I'm recently being picked on. Most of the garbage on my health meter came from Susan Arendt (who is no longer here) freaking out years ago because I didn't agree with an article announcing that Dragon Age 2 was an Escapist *community* nominee for game of the year or something, when as a general rule the feedback on the forums was controversial at best, and even The Escapist was sort of slamming it before that (jokes in Critical Miss, coverage of a metacritic modification scheme, etc...). I got insta-banned, but it was quickly reversed with me 1 step away from ban for some reason, and then months and months went by, my meter healed, and now all of a sudden I'm getting kicked all over the place it seems.

If what I say bothers you, or anyone else, the gesture of removing that from my meter would be nice. I don't expect it though, and really when it comes to discussions like this I have to say something. When it comes to someone like "Vault101" who I've been at odds with on politics for well... a long time, it does take some explanation as to why I'm not going to duel quite to the extent I usually do before deciding things have gone far enough without anything being resolved (hey it's the internet) and withdraw (it's not like I expect to win in this climate, I'm mostly just representing, and despite being accused of evasions by the opposition, I've been told I do it well by third parties who claim to think similarly but don't want to get involved in the same things).

 

[Something Amyss]

I know of those studies but that 'gay gene' would only explain male homosexuality, and is at best a partial explanation.
It's likely (as with almost any traits) that sexual orientation is determined by several genes, in part prenatal hormones, and in part upbringing.

I was seguing into the more important part, the heritability of those traits.

Last I checked, trans is independent of sexual orientation. And "other" or "none" is a perfectly valid answer that doesn't invalidate the question.

But it is part of "LGBT" the group asked about. And "other" or "none" doesn't particularly give a useful picture.

A statement which falls under common knowledge so I don't have to.

Ah yes, like the WMD in Iraq, or Columbus proving the earth to be round by setting sail for America.

Common knowledge is convenient to write off a claim you can't back up, but it's rarely actually useful.

 

[Therumancer]

There is no good time[/i] It's all nostalgia. Seriously. There is no time when everything was sunshine and lollipops because things were always bad for someone. You can keep pushing back and pushing back and the fact is, we are at the best time we have ever been at. Kids are smarter, they're graduating at higher rates. Children are safer. The world seems scarier because it's smaller and all we do is focus on the bad. And I have no idea what this has to do with LGBT rights, because your post made no sense to me, but seriously, shit was bad back in the 20s and 30s. It was bad in the 1890s and 80s, it was bad in the 1770s and 1760s. I can keep going.

Also, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about communism for. And I'm not some young idealistic person, I'm 31 years old, with a lifetime of experiences behind me. I'm not for communism, I think it's shit idea, even on paper. So... yeah not even going to acknowledge that because I think you just wander off on your comments to avoid any sort of argument anyone makes.

I've also studied history, and this is why I myself pointed out that things were never utopian. That said they have been better in certain respects at different times. For example while the 1950s were not a utopia, being less socially liberal meant that the weirdoes were kept in line and things were a lot safer in terms of people letting their kids roam the neighborhoods and such. In some places now that's even a crime due to how dangerous society has become. Now granted as you point out every time period was not ideal for some people, the 1950s were not a great time to be a weirdo, more proactive policing and what we'd call profiling now kept things a lot safer. Current left wing morality has lead to more reactive attitudes in law enforcement, rather than pro active ones, and bizzare rulings have crippled even a lot of basic police powers and made it increasingly difficult to keep the streets safe. The point about communism was not so much about communism, it's more about the idea of a philosophy that seems workable on paper, but does far more harm than good when put into practice in reality. The extent to which the left wing takes civil liberties is a wonderful, idealistic, idea, but in reality it leads to a more dangerous society and increased paranoia, not a more tolerant and peaceful society. Would regressing a lot of things back to the 1950s level make things utopian? Of course it wouldn't. But it would make the streets and people a lot safer without exactly creating a police state.

As far as my arguments go, this is not a debate club meeting, though I have used similar arguments in the past myself. Though to be fair, when it comes to that kind of debate, which I have done a few times, typically each side is presented with the gist of the other's argument beforehand as part of preparation. Not having done the appropriate research here is akin to not having prepared to face your opponent there. What's more we're talking about what amounts to political philosophy, one of the reasons why I do what I do in these discussions is because of something called "Cognitive Dissonance" which is to say that most of the people I want up talking to have become so wrapped up in a specific idea of reality that they have actively avoided, or selectively forgotten, anything the other side has to say. At the end of the day if someone won't do their own research here, it doesn't much matter, because they are just as likely to ignore anything I put up if I actually DID go through the time and trouble (which would be effort far beyond what I want to put into a forum discussion that won't matter 15 minutes after it's over).

Furthermore, a big part of my basic argument comes down to personal experience, meaning I am basically a "source" that other people would quote, rather than simply someone stating an opinion. I have actually experience with the subject at hand that goes beyond what most people do, and have seen and dealt with it personally. Someone speaking in terms of philosophy, or someone else's second hand research, is kind of meaningless when I an refuting it with things I have actually seen and dealt with and a perspective which the general public does not have. This makes me a sort of "expert". In a lot of these discussions your pretty much in the position of either accepting what I have to say, or calling me a liar. If you do the latter, there is no further point in the discussion. Basically if we all lived underground and I was one of the few people who spent any time on the surface, I'd be more qualified to tell you the sky is blue, and even if 10 universities with people that had never been outside all produce research that says the sky is orange, they are still wrong. Your only real option in such a case is to deny that I had ever been to the surface if you want to insist the sky is orange. One point I bring up is that you'll notice in years here, there hasn't even really been one person who has spoken with similar kinds of experience (or claiming to have it) in refuting me. That's because most people in a position to know, overwhelmingly tend to agree with me. Not surprising as I'm pretty typical among a lot of my former co-workers when it comes to a lot of these things, and I'm as socially conservative as a lot of my old instructors were despite believing I never would be, basically I never went into Forensics like I planned, but I did some very specialized work for a couple of world class resort/casinos in their golden age. That experience made me very similar
as well. If you actually went out, did the training, and then pretty much started looking behind the curtain (as opposed to say nothing but checking IDs at a floor entrance, which I also did) after 10 years you probably wouldn't be socially liberal any more either. As arrogant as it is, part of my perspective is that I do not think a lot of people I talk to are even qualified to have an opinion, because there is no way for most people to know what they are talking about. I dismiss a lot of research out of hand because basically a university can't spy on people randomly when they aren't around. Say Yale or whatever didn't have a bunch of professors breaking into people's rooms and going through their stuff, or shadowing them, or even searching their bags. Anyone they deal with is on a voluntary basis, and simply put anyone coming in voluntarily is not going to share or allow the use of information that does not benefit them, or might work against their interests. Sort of like the previous bit about the girl who identifies as straight, but has had sex with other girls for fun numerous times, how does she get recorded? The response was pretty much "meh, labels" but it sort of proved part of my point, how can the "research" of anyone not holding some kind of investigative authority be considered remotely credible. The overt and voluntary nature of social research means it by definition cannot be accurate. It's also why one person like me, with actual experience, is worth a hundred politicians, universities, or activism groups. See, whatever someone says to me here, I'm not likely to be convinced otherwise, because I know what I've seen and experienced. To get me to change yet again is possible, but it goes generally beyond what is going to happen on the internet. This is why I represent, and discuss, more than I debate and try to "win" which is something
a lot of people seem to miss.

Also as I've pointed out before, I've been on both sides of a lot of social issues despite some of my more negative early experiences. That's a big part of my perspective, I've already sat where a lot of people I'm talking to are and held similar positions, before they were shattered by actually seeing the real world.

 

[Therumancer]

[.

A statement which falls under common knowledge so I don't have to.

Ah yes, like the WMD in Iraq, or Columbus proving the earth to be round by setting sail for America.

Common knowledge is convenient to write off a claim you can't back up, but it's rarely actually useful.

Well in cases like this a big part of my point comes down to cognitive dissonance, which is in this case people I'm dealing with having such vehemently held beliefs, that nothing I say or present is going to matter. Typically I point to common knowledge when it goes back to a variety of sources that have been all over the news and throughout society for a long time, but people tend to overlook or selectively forget about when it does not match their own world view or a point they want to make. Basically if people aren't going to realize it on their own when I point this out, or do research, nothing I tell them is going to matter anyway under these circumstances because they are intentionally shutting out anything other than what they want to hear. Including oftentimes sidestepping points where I speak from first hand experience. This is something I recognize in part because I've been on both sides of a lot of these issues.

Case in point, let's say there is a closed room. I go inside that room and tell you there is a dog in there. You then say, without going into the room that there is a cat in there, and reinforce your statements with a bunch of other statements and "research" from people that agree there is a cat in the room, yet neither you or they ever go into the room to verify what is in there, either because you can't, or won't because your sure of yourself and feel no need. At the end of the day what you say doesn't much matter to me, because I've been there and I've seen the dog myself, which actually makes me an expert on source on "what's in that room" beyond anything else you can produce unless you find someone else who has actually been there who disagrees with me. Cognitive dissonance would be if later on you decide to go and discuss the cat in the room, with a bunch of other people who agree with you, and selectively only speak to people who believe in and support the cat, totally ignoring anything out there and argueing against the veracity of any source covering the "brave room explorer Therumancer discovers dog in room" because it's obviously false, since your invested in it being a cat, and so are a lot of other people, so thus it MUST be a cat.

While I point to research people can do, at the end of the day a lot of what I say comes from personal experience, and having received training and done a job which has put me in a position few people can do. To really refute me you have to call me a liar (at which point we have nothing to talk about), or find someone else we both believe has the same types of experience as me to refute my claims. Something which isn't likely to happen, because most people who do the type of things I've done tend to wind up thinking much the same way (such as my instructors, and various co-workers).

 

[Something Amyss]

Typically I point to common knowledge when it goes back to a variety of sources that have been all over the news and throughout society for a long time, but people tend to overlook or selectively forget about when it does not match their own world view or a point they want to make.

I think you may be projecting that "vehemently held beliefs" thing.

People tend to point to common knowledge because they don't have actual foundations for their "vehemently held" beliefs.

To that end, you did give me something to search for, but when I looked it up, I got...Well, I got numbers from the Department of Health and Human services that would suggest a significantly lower rate of abuse/neglect in foster homes. That would...that would actually be the opposite of your claim to "common knowledge." I mean, I suppose you could accuse me of a "vehemently held" belief, but I did what you told me to when you couldn't back up your own claim and the numbers come from the feds, not some gay adoption site or similar (Or, for that matter, the child molesters you attempted to conflate in the prior thread).

Based on HHS numbers, foster child neglect is a virtual non-issue compared to child neglect in other households (by both rate and volume). Additionally, all abuse/neglect has been on decline for decades now.

And I have to side with reality. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence that it happens, but to pretend that it's a substantial enough concern here and as it pertains to gay couples adopting is dishonest and looks like you're working backward from the conclusion of "gays bad."

Maybe you should try some self-reflection. Maybe the reason you don't change minds is that what you're saying isn't true. Maybe you're the one who needs to give up their "vehemently held beliefs."

But yeah. Common knowledge. Commonly wrong.

 

[Therumancer]

Typically I point to common knowledge when it goes back to a variety of sources that have been all over the news and throughout society for a long time, but people tend to overlook or selectively forget about when it does not match their own world view or a point they want to make.

I think you may be projecting that "vehemently held beliefs" thing.

People tend to point to common knowledge because they don't have actual foundations for their "vehemently held" beliefs.

To that end, you did give me something to search for, but when I looked it up, I got...Well, I got numbers from the Department of Health and Human services that would suggest a significantly lower rate of abuse/neglect in foster homes. That would...that would actually be the opposite of your claim to "common knowledge." I mean, I suppose you could accuse me of a "vehemently held" belief, but I did what you told me to when you couldn't back up your own claim and the numbers come from the feds, not some gay adoption site or similar (Or, for that matter, the child molesters you attempted to conflate in the prior thread).

Based on HHS numbers, foster child neglect is a virtual non-issue compared to child neglect in other households (by both rate and volume). Additionally, all abuse/neglect has been on decline for decades now.

And I have to side with reality. I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence that it happens, but to pretend that it's a substantial enough concern here and as it pertains to gay couples adopting is dishonest and looks like you're working backward from the conclusion of "gays bad."

Maybe you should try some self-reflection. Maybe the reason you don't change minds is that what you're saying isn't true. Maybe you're the one who needs to give up their "vehemently held beliefs."

But yeah. Common knowledge. Commonly wrong.

Cute, but now the big question is how deep did you actually go here? How many articles did you find and read written by those who oppose gay adoption for example? See, I've actually checked things in the past. This is what I talk about with cognitive dissonance, your pretty much taking a pool of information and selectively gravitating towards only things that reinforce what you already think. True, you could try and use the same logic in reverse, but at the same time I actually have read a lot of the stuff you are mentioning and want to use, and indeed pretty much everything that reinforces your position since I used to hold to similar ideas myself. Thus I know when you research properly, what your results are going to be. But at the same time I don't actually expect many people to do the research, for similar reasons to why I won't do it for you, it's too much effort for something as trivial as an internet discussion. The point remains however than when done correctly, I know what the results will be, and can predict entirely based on that.

Here is a hint though, I just provided a starting point, knowing you'd actually have to look for statements by the other side which you set out to avoid. At the end of the day you wound up going towards one of the safest sources you could find as the DHHS, like DCF (Division Of Child And Family) or DCYS, or whatever they wind up calling themselves nowadays all have a vested interest in producing statistics that show how safe and wonderful the foster care system is, after all if it wasn't, this would mean bad things for the government, social workers and the like not doing their jobs (which is an infamous problem in general), etc... Now think, the available PR stats for groups like this say pretty much what you'd expect them to. What about people who oh... vocally have a problem with social services? What's the other side?

Don't worry too much about it, I don't expect you to actually do much (I never do) I'm mostly making a point due to having been where you are now. In all likelihood if you DID go back to doing research you would simply come back not having found anything, or only sources that happen to support what you say. That's cognitive dissonance. Chances are your results would show the foster care system and social services departments to be absolutely utopian. Only if you had a vested interest in proving otherwise would you start looking into things that said otherwise. What's more in looking at people who are against gay adoptions and such, if you ever did look you'd probably only "find" the people who are most easy to demonize like say religious fanatics.

See, in a general sense it's already been agreed that "yeah there is a lot of foster child abuse" as that was never being denied, just the gay angle. Yet even with that point conceded now someone saying that there isn't much abuse in the foster care system (a government agency no less) is now considered to be reliable and on the side of angels?

But as I said, don't worry too much about it. Like usual I'll be accused of being evasive on the facts, and like usual I'll simply say they are all there if you want to find them and I see no point in doing the homework for someone who is going to refute anything I provide making it a meaningless effort. Just like it took with me, the truth is something people need to be lead to on their own, in a case like this it can't just be plopped down by the opposition, that just turns it into another battlefront and amounts to a lot of wasted effort. I have put a lot of thought into how I do things, largely based on what it's taken to convince me. Of course the biggest part of what made me who I am today is pretty much impossible for many people to achieve, since it requires spending years in very specific kinds of positions to observe things first hand and see which side of major issues is closer to what is really going on out there.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

No is at the top and yes at the bottom, that's weird. Anyway, yes I'm LGBT and I have one friend who I know is LGBT, I might have more for all I know.

You know whenever somebody says they don't know any LGBT people, you probably do you just don't know they are.