Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Thank you Dr. Freud. I'm sorry I derailed your thoughtful discussion about whether it's safe to shower with gay men.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines and criticizing my demeanor why didn't you step in and politely inform Musuko et al. about how their understanding of statistics and logic is so completely wrong and that they shouldn't fear it.

I'm sorry, but the cost of making me repeat myself to people who aren't even trying to understand is a bit of sarcasm at their expense.


It doesn't bother me in the least that I appear to be an asshole. I have no agenda, and don't really care whether people are swayed to my point of view.

I put the facts out there, point out the flaws in others' reasoning (sometimes repeatedly) and if they (or others watching from the sidelines) learn something, then great. If not, too bad for them.

This illustrates my point. Do you really have no clue as to what I mean by that? Even after all these posts? More dangerous than wrestling a tiger? It's clear from this that it is not me who just wants to argue.


Relevant to what? Why does it have to be relevant to anything, can't we just discuss the proposition on its merits without analyzing what purpose that fact will be put to.


It's relevant because it was a response to someone in this thread who stated the opposite.


Say we were deciding on whether we should put up a sign or build a handrail or something. Don't you think it would be relevant to determine whether hills were more dangerous or should we just put handrails everywhere because all walking is "dangerous".

Many liberals (or non-conservatives) like to mock the right for not using reason to guide their decisions. Rewriting the ten commandments? That's crazy. But making policy decisions without even understanding the relationship between homosexuality and HIV in America is rational?

Right. You will bring up one thing someone says and then twist it to demean them and try to invalidate anything else they may say. You're one to talk about "Dr. Freud" - you're constantly attributing motive, and rattling on with analyses about other's states of minds.

Because I am not debating them at the moment. I may even AGREE with you, but that is not the point of my discertation. The point is that you like to scrutinize and deman people, push their buttons, and then complain about how they react. It's really not about who is wrong or right at this point to me, it's about your inability to be civil while disagreeing, which is compounded by your "Oh look at how you're reacting! See? I was right! You are not rational and logical!", after having just shot them with spitballs. Grow up.

No, you're not sorry - not by any stretch. Gratuitous ad hominem does not qualify as "a bit". A peerless statistician such as yourself should understand the difference.

It's quite obvious it doesn't bother you. Which is likely one reason you are using an alt.

I think you do have an agenda, and that is to make up for something you're lacking elsewhere in your life, by trying to build yourself up by tearing down faceless people on the intarweb, while hiding behind multiple layers of anonymity, whether you consciously realize it or not.


Blah blah blah. You sit there on your alt podium braying about the way people react to you, when your very nature evokes said reactions. I know you see yourself as some great purveyor of wisdom, but realize that most people are here to exchange opinions and ideas and to learn from each other, not to be lectured at by some self-aggrandizing and self-appointed wise man.

You have little more than ire and sarcasm for those who see things differently than you do. There are ways of disagreeing, refuting, and rebutting without lowering it to a personal level, and in the end, your own behavior will ensure that you will be naught but a cloudy memory, sooner than later.

Anyway, it's useless to try and point these things out to the self-enamoured, so enjoy your fleeting moment in the troll-light, and I hope someday you will find something to make you feel better about yourself, other than degrading people on the internet for personal amusement and ego-building.

I start with opinions and provide the facts. But after doing so and having people like yourself completely miss the point (seeming deliberately), it does get tiresome.


Tough decision here. Should I patiently explain to you the meaning of statistics yet again, or should I mock you. Hmm, what would Nolan do. Nolan, being the good citizen and all-around beloved guy, why don't you step in and clarify for Musuko how his personal circumstances are meaningless, except for him.


That's not so hard, is it? The fact that there is a correlation between homosexuals and HIV does not imply that we must discriminate against them. So it's okay to say that there is a correlation and stop denying the facts.


I'll answer this as you're not the only one who is confused.

There is no double standard. They don't exclude blacks for the same reason they don't exclude homosexuals per se. Yes, they are both in higher risk groups, but we can focus in on the risk using a more detailed questionairre, which includes their sexual activity among other things.

"I put the facts out there, point out the flaws in others' reasoning (sometimes repeatedly) and if they (or others watching from the sidelines) learn something, then great. If not, too bad for them."

I haven't seen you put any facts out at all. You have pointed flaws out in the reasoning of others, but not explained why they are wrong. You say we haven't been listening, but you haven't said anything.

I've seen no science in anything you've said, Groucho.

Musuko.

"I start with opinions and provide the facts. But after doing so and having people like yourself completely miss the point (seeming deliberately), it does get tiresome."

You seem willing to repeat your unhappiness with our "missing the point" over and over. So how about you repeat your phantom facts?

"Tough decision here. Should I patiently explain to you the meaning of statistics yet again, or should I mock you."

You never explained the "meaning" of statistics in the first place.

"That's not so hard, is it? The fact that there is a correlation between homosexuals and HIV does not imply that we must discriminate against them. So it's okay to say that there is a correlation and stop denying the facts."

There is also correlation between the number of icecreams sold and the number of cars stolen during the summer months compared to the winter months. Correlation does not mean causality.

"They don't exclude blacks for the same reason they don't exclude homosexuals per se."

Alright. To make it comparable: "Have you ever had sex (penetrative or non) with anyone of African descent?"

How would that be any different from "Are you a man who has ever had sex (anal or oral) with another man, with protection or without?"

Musuko.

There is a correlation between HIV and gay sex. There's also a correlaton between HIV and straight sex, HIV and lesbian sex, HIV and straight sex between white people, HIV and straight sex between black people, and on and on and on. I was wondering wat your point of tis was? Yes, it's a fact. Most old people also are slow, sluggis, and sicker than yung people. That's also a fact, but why would someone bring that up? HIV also started out on an epidemic level among gay people, but soon spread to straight people, and is now a much bigger problem among poor black people. All facts. I'm wondering what relevance they have. What is the purpose of you stating tem. What are you trying to imply? Or are you just stating the obvious for the sake of stating stuff some people might not be aware of?

Don't misquote the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say that Congress can't establish a religion, it says that Congress can't pass any law that might lead to such an establishment.

The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

"Shall make no law", not "shall not establish". It's very strict language. It isn't a general banning of an official religion; it is a complete ban on any law that would give any official approval to any religion.

You guys are ridiculous.

Rasah, you say old people are slow and poor black women have HIV. Musuko, explain those views are invalid because you are a gay man who doesn't partake in anal sex.

Once you guys have resolved your differences I'll deal with whoever is left.

You're absolutely right. I do pick out the threads where people are making emotional rather than rational arguments and I do try to find the simplest statement or analogy which demonstrates the point. I'm fine with calling that "pushing their buttons." However you see it as some sort of twisted game, I see it as shining a light on poor thinking. I give people a fair chance to straighten out their views, some choose to dig themselves into a deeper hole.

So "if" you agree with me, why not take pity on all of us and simply tell those people that they are wrong. If reasonable (and more patient) people stepped up, maybe the thread could get back to the important question of safe showering a little quicker. But the reasonable sit on the sidelines and implicitly support those who try to disprove a statistical argument by quoting their own personal situation, for example.

Everyone I've argued with here has made several provably wrong statements. So call them on it, rather than just encouraging them to fight me because I'm an asshole.


Yes, my nature is to point out bullshit when I see it and to call people on their superstitions. Yes, it is a very unpopular trait and does not win many friends among the illogical and unreasonable.


Right, you really think people in these sandbox threads are here to learn from each other? Which part of this thread do you think was free and open exchange of ideas?


Care to show me how this works then? Take my simple and factual assertion and get Musuko, Rasah, et al to agree to it. Again, here it is:

Gay men are statistically more likely to be HIV+ than straight men, and a gay man who is not HIV+ is statistically more likely to contract HIV in the future than a straight man

Show me how it's done, oh great mediator.

"Gay men are statistically more likely to be HIV+ than straight men, and a gay man who is not HIV+ is statistically more likely to contract HIV in the future than a straight man"

A gay man WHO PARTAKES IN UNPROTECTED SEX WITH OTHER GAY MEN is statistically more likely to contract HIV in the future than a straight man WHO DOES NOT PARTAKE IN UNPROTECTED SEX WITH OTHER GAY MEN.

This, after all the information and awareness campaigns out there, I should hope is the minority of gay men. The falling rate of infection in gay men and the rising rate of infection in straight people would seem to support this.

You're lumping people into inappropriate groups, Groucho. It is more fair and accurate to say "People who eat unheathily are more likely to be overweight than people who do not eat unheathily" than "Americans are more likely to be overweight than people from other countries," even though you would be statistically right in saying either.

Groucho, I repeat, is there anything wrong with adding this sentence to the American blood bank guidelines:

"Have you ever had sex (penetrative or non) with anyone of African descent?"

Given that Black Americans are statistically more likely to be HIV positive than other groups?

Musuko.

I address people and their ideas when I feel moved to do so, not when I am goaded by some self-styled forum headmaster.

If everytime someone said something on these forums that was incorrect, I felt it was my duty to mock them for it, I would unplug my cable and find another hobby. Maybe target practice at a shooting range to quell some of my frustration at the human condition.

Yes, yes headmaster, I am sure we will all thank you someday, for your corrective and guiding influence on a game forum.

Of course you won't take up the challenge, because it is an impossible and thankless task (as Musuko's latest post demonstrates).

Thankfully for you, I'm sure I'll quickly tire of being the only reasonable person to step up and I will fade away.

One final question. Tell me, who would you rather have protecting your blood supply? Groucho, Musuko, Rasah, Colette, Shyotl, Allana, Kendra, Kekhnev, or Kerrigan?

Jeeze, you guys are totally off-topic.

You peopleneed to start a HIV/Homosexual/Anal sex thread and leave this one to the issue of "Judge outlaws prison group's bible program".

Briana Dawson

Keep ignoring my questions Groucho...that's exactly how you prove you know what you're talking about.

Musuko.

It's gone so far off topic that I think there is no hope for it to return to the original topic Bri.

Its been off the original topic since about page 5. Falling behind on sandbox threads?

Why ya trolling?

Briana Dawson

Sorry, I thought you were trolling. Why else come in 20 pages after a thread went off topic complain about it?

This thread is now about rabid wombats!

That's your problem, you are too busy worrying about what I am doing.

Briana Dawson

I'm tired of attempting to educate you, Musuko. All the information you need to understand the topic has already been laid out for you. I've done my charity work for the week, find someone else.

But I'll make a special offer to you. Go off on a crusade against Rasah about how she is discriminating against old people by calling them all slow and sick and how she assumes every poor black woman she meets has HIV.

All the same arguments you made against me apply, so have fun and when you're done I'll teach you one more lesson in statistics at no extra discernible charge to you.

"I'm tired of attempting to educate you, Musuko."

I haven't seen you do any "educating". All I've heard from you is "I can prove you wrong, but it's not worth the effort. However, I'm fine with putting a lot of effort into saying this over and over".

"All the information you need to understand the topic has already been laid out for you. I've done my charity work for the week, find someone else."

I want to hear your response to the question I've posed, not "all the information I need to understand the topic".

"All the same arguments you made against me apply, so have fun and when you're done I'll teach you one more lesson in statistics at no extra discernible charge to you."

I agree. You have a really, really big penis.

Thank you Groucho. We've got a locked thread here.

Musuko.

I confess to not knowing too much about the British education system. Do they just tell you to look up the answers in the back of the book? Do the teachers just hand out the tests with all the answers.

Apparently so, and we can see how well that has worked out. Let's try something different. How about you try to puzzle it out on your own. Maybe find a few friends who are smarter than you who can nudge you in the right direction.

Of course, since you haven't even figured out the right questions to ask, it might be difficult. As someone else suggested, why not create a new thread, forumulate your question into a single concise post and I'm sure someone will help you. The sandbox is chock full of helpful people like Nolan.